Ramesh Ponnuru
By Ramesh Ponnuru
Republican politicians and activists can barely contain their glee at the simultaneous eruption of three major controversies about the Obama administration.
Conservatives are at a low boil over the administration’s dissembling about its actions after the attacks on the US diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. The public is concerned about the targeting of conservative groups by the Internal Revenue Service. And even liberals are outraged by the administration’s heavy-handed investigations of leaks to the news media.
Finally, many Republicans think, the tide is turning against the Democrats. Republican strategists — and the few conservatives on Capitol Hill who were in Washington during the Clinton years — are less excited. They fear that the party is about to repeat the mistakes it made in 1998.
Early that year, it came to light that President Clinton had a sexual relationship with a White House intern and lied about it to the public, to a court in a civil suit and to a grand jury in a criminal case. Congressional Republicans tried to remove him from office. The public hated the idea, and Republicans lost seats in the fall elections.
Watch the way the Republicans are handling today’s controversies and it’s easy to see how their tactics could backfire again. You would expect that Sen Lindsey Graham, who helped to lead the impeachment proceedings against Clinton, had learned to be cautious in pursuing a scandal. Yet he decided to tie the Benghazi investigation explicitly to the 2016 presidential race, saying that the controversy would doom Hillary Clinton.
Republicans are trying to tie IRS misconduct to Obama, so far without much evidence. The Republican National Committee is demanding that the president apologise to targeted groups, apparently on the assumption that the public isn’t satisfied with his calling the IRS’ actions “intolerable and inexcusable.” Other Republicans are saying that the president created a “culture” that made the scandal possible by being a partisan Democrat.
These efforts are strained. If the evidence leads to the conclusion that the IRS bureaucracy acted on its own, that is scandal enough; it would serve to strengthen the public’s conservative instincts about the dangers of trusting the government, whoever happens to be in the Oval Office. Republicans shouldn’t be obsessed with Obama, who won’t be on the ballot again, and shouldn’t make a legitimate inquiry into potential abuses of power appear to be or, worse, actually be part of a personal vendetta.
The biggest danger for Republicans in giving themselves over to scandal mania is one that the conventional retelling of the Clinton impeachment neglects. Republicans didn’t lose seats simply because they overreached on Clinton’s perjury. It is true that his impeachment was unpopular, and public approval of the Republicans sank as they pursued it. Still, only 5 percent of voters in the 1998 election told exit pollsters that the scandal had played a role in their decision, and Republicans got a majority of those voters.
For the most part, Republicans didn’t campaign on impeachment in 1998: They didn’t say, “Vote for me and I’ll do my level best to oust Clinton.” Their strategy was more passive. They were counting on the scandal to motivate conservatives to vote while demoralizing liberals. So they didn’t try to devise a popular agenda, or to make their existing positions less unpopular. That’s what cost them — that, and the mistake of counting on statistics about sixth-year elections, which also bred complacency.
Republicans have similar vulnerabilities on the issues now. They have no real healthcare agenda. Voters don’t trust them to look out for middle-class economic interests. Republicans are confused and divided about how to solve the party’s problems. What they can do is unite in opposition to the Obama administration’s scandals and mistakes. So that’s what they’re doing. They’re trying to win news cycles when they need votes.
WP-Bloomberg
By Ramesh Ponnuru
Republican politicians and activists can barely contain their glee at the simultaneous eruption of three major controversies about the Obama administration.
Conservatives are at a low boil over the administration’s dissembling about its actions after the attacks on the US diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. The public is concerned about the targeting of conservative groups by the Internal Revenue Service. And even liberals are outraged by the administration’s heavy-handed investigations of leaks to the news media.
Finally, many Republicans think, the tide is turning against the Democrats. Republican strategists — and the few conservatives on Capitol Hill who were in Washington during the Clinton years — are less excited. They fear that the party is about to repeat the mistakes it made in 1998.
Early that year, it came to light that President Clinton had a sexual relationship with a White House intern and lied about it to the public, to a court in a civil suit and to a grand jury in a criminal case. Congressional Republicans tried to remove him from office. The public hated the idea, and Republicans lost seats in the fall elections.
Watch the way the Republicans are handling today’s controversies and it’s easy to see how their tactics could backfire again. You would expect that Sen Lindsey Graham, who helped to lead the impeachment proceedings against Clinton, had learned to be cautious in pursuing a scandal. Yet he decided to tie the Benghazi investigation explicitly to the 2016 presidential race, saying that the controversy would doom Hillary Clinton.
Republicans are trying to tie IRS misconduct to Obama, so far without much evidence. The Republican National Committee is demanding that the president apologise to targeted groups, apparently on the assumption that the public isn’t satisfied with his calling the IRS’ actions “intolerable and inexcusable.” Other Republicans are saying that the president created a “culture” that made the scandal possible by being a partisan Democrat.
These efforts are strained. If the evidence leads to the conclusion that the IRS bureaucracy acted on its own, that is scandal enough; it would serve to strengthen the public’s conservative instincts about the dangers of trusting the government, whoever happens to be in the Oval Office. Republicans shouldn’t be obsessed with Obama, who won’t be on the ballot again, and shouldn’t make a legitimate inquiry into potential abuses of power appear to be or, worse, actually be part of a personal vendetta.
The biggest danger for Republicans in giving themselves over to scandal mania is one that the conventional retelling of the Clinton impeachment neglects. Republicans didn’t lose seats simply because they overreached on Clinton’s perjury. It is true that his impeachment was unpopular, and public approval of the Republicans sank as they pursued it. Still, only 5 percent of voters in the 1998 election told exit pollsters that the scandal had played a role in their decision, and Republicans got a majority of those voters.
For the most part, Republicans didn’t campaign on impeachment in 1998: They didn’t say, “Vote for me and I’ll do my level best to oust Clinton.” Their strategy was more passive. They were counting on the scandal to motivate conservatives to vote while demoralizing liberals. So they didn’t try to devise a popular agenda, or to make their existing positions less unpopular. That’s what cost them — that, and the mistake of counting on statistics about sixth-year elections, which also bred complacency.
Republicans have similar vulnerabilities on the issues now. They have no real healthcare agenda. Voters don’t trust them to look out for middle-class economic interests. Republicans are confused and divided about how to solve the party’s problems. What they can do is unite in opposition to the Obama administration’s scandals and mistakes. So that’s what they’re doing. They’re trying to win news cycles when they need votes.
WP-Bloomberg
