The polarization puzzle

Today’s WashPost has an article by Dan Balz titled “For Bush, a deepening divide” that laments the lack of bipartisanship in Washington, esp. in Katrina’s aftermath:

To his critics, Bush is now reaping what he has sown. Their case against him goes as follows: Facing a divided nation, the president has eschewed unity in both his governing strategy and his political blueprint. These opponents argue that he has favored confrontation over conciliation with the Democrats while favoring a set of policies aimed at deepening support among his conservative base at the expense of ideas that might produce bipartisan consensus and broader approval among the voters. His allies and advisers, while acknowledging that polarization has worsened during the past five years, say the opposition party bears the brunt of responsibility. Democrats, by this reckoning, have rebuffed Bush's efforts at bipartisanship, put up a wall to ideas that once enjoyed some support on their side, and, even in the current crisis along the Gulf Coast, are seeking to score political points rather than joining hands with the president to speed the recovery and relief to the victims.

That sounds fair. But then Balz flops over into liberal bias territory with his esteemed expert on political affairs:

"Bush is the most partisan president in modern American history," said William Galston, a professor at the University of Maryland and previously a top domestic adviser to former President Bill Clinton.

Well there’s a neutral observer. Galston continues:

In Galston's view, Bush bears principal responsibility for that condition, saying that on three occasions he passed up opportunities to govern from the center and work more constructively with the Democrats and instead chose a path designed to mobilize conservatives. The first came after the disputed election of 2000, in the early days of Bush's new administration. The second came after the Sept. 11 attacks, when Bush's approval rating rose to 90 percent. The third came after the hard-fought and polarizing election last year.

Well, there you have it. Generalissimo George Bush, who made no secret about his conservative beliefs, won two elections and then (gasp!) proceeded to govern based on that very philosophy! The fiend! GOP chair Ken Mehlman gets the “uniter not a divider” argument right:

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman offered a vigorous rebuttal to that criticism yesterday. "They've got a one-way street of unity," he said. "It's 'Do what we want, or you're not a unifier.' "

Let’s take my favorite topic of Social Security reform. Here’s what Robert Samuelson had to say about preparing for disaster in the larger context of Katrina:

We do not plan, even when the case for planning seems overwhelming. Examples abound. We know that over the next few decades the number of retirees will double and that the costs of federal retirement programs will explode, requiring huge tax increases (at least a third), unsustainably large budget deficits or deep (and undesirable) cuts in other government programs -- or some combination of all three. All of this has been evident for years: indeed, it is the subject of countless government reports. But successive presidents and Congresses have done little to change matters, the current stalemated Social Security "debate" being a case in point.

Since the start of his second term, Bush has been trying to force Washington to admit what is mathematically undeniable: entitlement spending will overwhelm the government unless reforms are put in place now. Bear in mind that there is almost no short-term political gain for Bush; in fact, it would be much easier to cozy up to the AARP and shuffle off the debt to yet-to-be-born children. To a large extent, Bush was simply echoing the same warnings made by Bill Clinton when he was president.

No matter: the Democrats at first denied there was a problem (or couched it by saying “the system is solvent for X years”). When Bush proposed personal accounts as a better way for Americans to improve on the 2% yield on Social Security, the plan was criticized for doing nothing to fix the solvency problem. So the President further proposed Robert Pozen’s plan of progressive indexing where lower-income workers would keep 100% of their benefits while wealthier retirees would have their benefits indexed to inflation such that they would receive the exact same benefit indexed to current dollars. No dice, said the Democrats, because FDR designed the plan so that everybody that pays into the system will receive a promised benefit, even if it's way above the current benefit value.

As Social Security currently exists, the government will need to start paying off billions in Treasury bonds in 2017 and when they’re gone in 2041, the program can only pay 73% of promised benefits. Demographics are destiny and whatever problems I’ve outlined here for Social Security, the problems of Medicare are even worse.

On this matter – this crisis – President Bush has proposed solutions and asked that the Democrats admit what cannot be denied. In response, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have demagogued the issue and used it as a cudgel in a million fundraising letters. Yet it’s President Bush who’s the “divider” here. Right.

Extra – Additional comments from Ex-Donk and Ruffini.