|
Jewish World Review Dec. 17, 2001 / 2 Teves 5762
Bill Schneider
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com -- AS the noose tightens around the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, the question in Washington is, "What's next?'' There are two different answers to that question. President Bush gave his answer last month when he told a gathering of U.S. attorneys, "Afghanistan is the first overseas front in this war against terror.'' In other words, the war goes on until the U.S. eliminates terrorist networks worldwide. Congressional Republicans have a different answer. They want the White House to shift gears and focus on a different kind of threat -- the recession. Why? Because the recession is a threat to them. Republicans regard what happened in last month's New Jersey and Virginia elections as a warning. Despite President Bush's soaring popularity, Republican governors in both states were replaced by Democrats. Uh oh, congressional Republicans say. That could happen to us in next year's midterm elections. A poll last month by Public Opinion Strategies, a Republican firm, shows concern about the slowdown of the economy outweighing concern about the threat of terrorism in the U.S., 41 to 39 percent. Economic fears far outpaced concern about the war overseas (7 percent) and the anthrax threat (5 percent). There is a regional tilt to Americans' concerns. In the northeast, which was ground zero on September 11th, terrorism remains the top issue (by 49 to 31 percent). But in the rest of the country -- outside the major media centers of New York and Washington -- the economy ranks first (43-36 percent). Three quarters of the nation's voters live outside the northeast. In last month's Gallup poll, President Bush's job rating was still in the stratosphere. But the vote for Congress was a dead heat between Democrats and Republicans. Among people who approve the way President Bush is handling the war on terrorism, the vote for Congress is still a dead heat: no impact. But among those who approve the way President Bush is handling the economy, Republicans have a 15-point lead: impact! When people vote, it's still the economy, stupid. Just like it was for President Bush's father when he ran for re-election in 1992. The son is perfectly aware of what happened to his father. So he's trying to show he's engaged on the economy. More than that, he's packaging the war and the economy together. "The terrorist attacks of September 11th hit our economy hard,'' the President said in his Dec. 1 radio address. "They hurt our airlines and hotels and restaurants and undermined consumer and business confidence.'' The war argument was crucial in persuading the House of Representatives to give President Bush fast-track authority to negotiate new trade agreements on Dec. 6. At least it was among Republicans. House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) warned his colleagues they could vote to "support our President who is fighting a courageous war against terrorism,'' or "undercut the President at the worst possible time.'' In 1998, when the House voted not to grant President Clinton fast-track authority, the vote among Republicans was 151 to 71 yes. This month, the Republican vote was 194 to 23 yes. Opposition among Republican Representatives dropped from 32 to 11 percent. That's partly because of the change of Presidents from Clinton to Bush. But it had a lot to do with the war argument as well. What about Democrats? Would Democrats dare defy a popular President on an issue of international importance? The answer was yes. Because it was also an issue of domestic importance. "This debate is about trade, not about terrorism,'' Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) told his colleagues. In 1998, Democrats voted 171 to 29 against giving their own President fast-track authority. This month, the Democratic vote was 189 to 21 no. Opposition among Democrats intensified, from 85 to 90 percent. President Clinton worked hard to erase the Democrats' anti-trade image. He succeeded in one respect -- the Democrats' rhetoric changed. "I think free trade is a good thing,'' House minority leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) said during this year's debate. "The President ought to have that authority.'' But when it came time to vote on the issue, the momentum was in the opposite direction, with many self-described "pro-trade Democrats'' voting no on Dec. 6. The surprising thing about the trade vote isn't that the President won. It's that in a time of war, he had to work so hard to win -- by one vote. In the grand tradition of pork-barrel politics, House leaders had to buy votes by offering concessions and making deals. Including a last-minute promise to spend $20 billion more to help the unemployed. "It's clear that the Republican leadership was willing to offer other things that had nothing to do with the bill,'' Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) complained. That's called politics as usual. But it means something more than usual. It means the country is beginning to come out of the trauma of September 11th. Fear of terrorism is fading, while concern over the recession is growing.
The Persian Gulf war of 1991 has often been compared to a video game. It ended
quickly. "Game over. We won. On to the economy.'' Could the same thing happen the day
after the U.S. gets Osama bin Laden? President Bush hopes it doesn't. But Congressional
Republicans may be eager to change the agenda to the economy. It's the issue that means life
or death for
To comment on JWR contributor William Schneider's column, please click here.
|