05-26-2001
POLITICS: Perhaps Bush Should Crib From Carter's Homework
Mark Twain is said to have remarked that history never repeats itself, but
it often rhymes. Although the Carter years haven't returned to Washington,
Bush's headaches over job-approval ratings, energy, and the environment
have a familiar sound to those who recall the Georgia peanut farmer's
White House years. Every time a new President takes office,
prognosticators cite the historical pattern of midterm election losses for
the President's party. Just as predictably, the President's backers scoff
that theirs is a new President with a fresh start and a bright future.
Almost invariably, the President's party does go on to lose congressional
seats in the midterm election: Different years, different circumstances,
and different issues, but the outcome is usually the same.
Today, the twin issues of energy and the environment are looming large.
President Bush's job-approval ratings were in the 60s in late February and
early March, but they have been in the 50s for 12 consecutive national
polls. In two of three Gallup Polls taken this month, his support has been
running between 53 percent and 56 percent. In the most recent Gallup Poll,
Bush's job-disapproval rating hit 36 percent,
the highest of his young presidency.
Concerning energy, only about 12 percent of Americans polled by Gallup
last week said that there currently is a crisis, but a whopping 59 percent
say that the cost and availability of electricity, natural gas, and other
forms of energy constitute "major problems." Only 29 percent
called the energy situation a minor problem or had no opinion.
Overwhelmingly, Americans point the finger of blame at oil and electric
companies, as well as at other oil-producing countries.
The nation is evenly divided-44 percent in favor, 42 percent opposed,
according to a new Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll-on Bush's plan to address the
current energy problem. Fifty-five percent say that Bush is not doing
enough to solve it.
Although 65 percent think the Bush plan will help after several years,
only 8 percent say it will help immediately. The Administration readily
admits that its plan is a long-term approach that is not designed to help
alleviate energy shortages and price spikes this summer. Yet it's unclear
whether Americans will be patient with that approach.
Democratic pollster Mark Mellman argues that Bush has problems on a number
of levels. First, even Bush's best poll numbers show that the country is
evenly divided on his proposals and that the public's view of his handling
of the energy problem is consistently negative and is beginning to affect
his overall job-performance ratings.
Second, Mellman says, Bush is "raising expectations" about being
able to solve the energy problem without offering solutions that are
likely to meet those expectations.
Third, Mellman argues that Bush is "cementing the impression that he
is a tool of Big Business."
Fourth, the energy issues have "re-ignited" Bush's problems on
the environment, the pollster contends.
Finally, Mellman says that Americans are increasingly "viewing energy
as the prism through which they are seeing the economy." Americans
see rising energy prices and are equating that to tough economic times
ahead.
Understandably, Republicans see the energy issue quite differently. Hans
Kaiser, an Annapolis, Md.-based principal in the Republican firm of Moore
Information, argues that "November 2002 is a long way from the spring
and summer of 2001," and that public attitudes vary a great deal from
one part of the country to another.
Although the drought in the Northwest has raised anxieties because so much
of that region's power comes from hydroelectric plants, in the East people
don't think that California's problems will affect them.
Other Republicans see the environment and energy issues as not only
separate, but also as potentially having dramatically different
consequences for Bush. They suggest that the damage he has sustained on
environmental issues has been largely confined to voters on the left of
the political spectrum, who weren't his supporters and probably never will
be.
Although conceding that the GOP has badly articulated its argument that
more energy can be produced without horrible environmental consequences,
some Republican strategists contend that all but the most-liberal
Americans think that it is possible to both produce more energy and
protect the environment. Furthermore, these strategists say that the White
House can ultimately carry the day on that argument. The Administration
just needs to deliver its message better, GOP strategists argue.
On the energy issue itself, Americans, regardless of party, are angry
about gas and electric rates and want government to do something fast to
hold prices down. The Administration comes up short by conceding that
nothing it has proposed will have any immediate benefit. For that reason
alone, Republicans are vulnerable to Democratic attack, especially if this
summer turns out to be particularly hot and energy shortages grow
significantly worse.
The great risk for Bush, however, is the
"too-cozy-with-Big-Business" accusation already being heard. The
fact that Democrats are pounding him with it is ample evidence of just how
damaging it may become.
To a certain extent, this line of attack began during the campaign,
although it was mostly debated in liberal circles. In recent weeks,
however, that view has been growing among moderates and independents, the
voters whom Bush desperately needs. When Gallup pollsters asked, "Do
you think energy companies do or do not have too much influence over the
Bush Administration's energy policies?" 61 percent of adults said
yes, the companies have too much influence. Only 32 percent said no, the
companies don't.
When asked whether the Bush energy plan is designed to "further the
energy companies' interests" or to "further the country's
interest," 44 percent of those polled said the country's, 43 percent
said the energy companies'.
From a policy standpoint, many consultants for the energy industry and for
the Republicans agree with the Bush plan, but they question the
Administration's handling of the energy issue. Given that Bush and Vice
President Dick Cheney are both from energy-producing states and have
energy-industry backgrounds, they needed to be "purer than Caesar's
wife" in their handling of the issue by pushing conservation,
energy-efficiency standards, and alternative-fuel sources much more
aggressively than they did.
But as one Republican put it, "maybe they don't believe
[conservation] is good policy, so they're not going to do it." Good
policy or not, marketing and perception is the name of the game in
politics, certainly at the presidential level.
It seems that Bush and his advisers are going to great lengths to avoid
being seen as handling their energy crisis in the way that President
Carter handled his a quarter-century ago. Appearing by a fireplace in the
White House in his now-famous cardigan sweater, Carter implored Americans
to turn down their thermostats, combine automobile trips, and look for
other ways to cut down on energy consumption.
Carter's message of sacrifice and "eat your spinach" is the
antithesis of the Bush-Cheney approach. The question is whether Bush would
be better off with much of the Carter package of proposals. He could say
that his plan will help enormously in addressing the nation's supply and
price of energy in three to 10 years, but that for now, small conservation
measures would go a long way to getting us over the hump.
Bush's difficulty with the three E's-economy, energy, and environment-has
the potential to become a real test of his leadership. The White House's
unimpressive handling of those issues creates doubt that the
Administration will be able to keep them from evolving into a full-blown
crisis that could make or break Bush's presidency.
Thinking about the cost and availability of electricity, gasoline, natural
gas, and other forms of energy, would you say the country:
Is in a state of crisis 12%
Has major problems 59
Has minor problems 25
Overall, do you think President Bush is or is not doing enough to solve
the country's energy problems?
Doing enough 38%
Not enough 55
Doing too much 1
Do you think the Bush energy plan will help the country's energy problems
immediately; will help the country's energy problems, but only after
several years; or will not help the country's energy problems at
all?
Help immediately 8%
Help after several years 65
Will not help at all 19
Do you think the Bush energy plan would do too much, too little, or about
the right amount to conserve energy?
Too much 3%
Too little 49
About the right amount 38
Do you think the Bush energy plan would do too much, too little, or about
the right amount to produce more energy?
Too much 5%
Too little 43
About the right amount 42
Do you think the Bush energy plan is designed more to further the energy
companies' interests or further the country's interests?
Companies' interests 43%
Country's interests 44
Both/mixed 5
Do you favor or oppose President Bush's plan to deal with the country's
current energy problems?
Favor 44%
Oppose 42
(Gallup for CNN/USA Today; 5/18-20/01; 1,010 adults; margin of error plus
or minus 3%)
Charlie Cook
National Journal
