Given that so much has been written about the UK party leaders over the last week and how their poll ratings determine their authority, I have been thinking about why the same is not the case in the US. After all, a quick look through the polls on pollingreport.com suggest about 30% of Americans think he is doing OK and more than twice as many, 65%, think he is doing a bad job!
Contrary to many views, the US President is not unlimited in his power. Congress, the Supreme Court and the federal system all conspire, deliberately, to provide boundaries to what the President may do. So, given that Bush Jnr’s popularity is so low, why is he able still to act with such authority in overseas diplomacy?
The answer is that the race to become the next President is more unusual and less able to predict than any other of the last 50 years. The leading Republican candidates are from the North-East, although no one matching that description has one the Presidency in modern times. The Democrats always need to be from the old-South to win and neither of the leaders match that requirement, either. Whatever happens, there will new rules after this election.
One article I read recently pointed out that Iran makes a habit of continually analysing US politics in more depth than any TV pundit as they attempt to foresee the political climate. The Iranians, like the other players in Iraq and beyond, monitor US politics and try and work out whether future expected changes, like who might be the next President, are good or bad for them. This explains why the Iranians are still willing to deal with the Bush administration over Iraq, in line with the deal announced two weeks ago. Like the rest of us, they have no idea of whether what comes next will be worse for them.
The fear of the unknown outweighs Bush’s current weakness.
I think you have answered the first question (Why are American Presidents with low approval ratings able to act with authority overseas?) with the question. You are right – there are many restraints on US Presidents actions, but most of these exist in the domestic sphere. American Presidents have always had much more flexibility in foreign policy (see Schlesinger, ‘The Imperial Presidency’). The fact that President Bush is unable to run again, also gives him a large freedom to act – opinion ratings matter less and less to a White House running toward the finish line. Iraq will define the Bush Administration and the President will use all of his power to try and turn this into something other than the presently- interpreted disaster. Foreign governments are aware of this and so accurately perceive that the Bush Adminstration is no longer constrained by direct electoral considerations.
Congressional democrats are not sure what action to take and certainly have no line. Do they turn off the money taps? If they do – they run the risk of being accused of undermining American troops in battle.
There is also the uneasy question of Iraq? Some, like the frontrunner Hillary Clinton, voted for the war and are unrependant. Others like Senator Edwards voted for the war but now apologise. Barack Obama has the advantage of not having been in Congress at the time. All the same, it is a difficult rope to walk. Karl Rove, has said that national security may save the Republicans and be the Democrat achilles heel. Certainly polls show that it is a high concern of voters.
“The Democrats always need to be from the old-South to win” – I’m a little confused by this – given that until Johnson – no democratic candidate from the South had ever won the Presidency. I think you must mean the southern belt strategy – the need perhaps for a Democrat from the South to be on the ticket (perhaps as a VP candidate). Edwards seems ideal for this…….
Comment by Tim Crockford — 27 August, 2007 @ 12:01 pm