An Interesting Look at the Politics of Domestic Surveillance

Yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee's interview of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales afforded an interesting look at the politics of the Bush Administration's domestic surveillance program. As an account in today's New York Times points out:

Four Republican members of the Judiciary Committee — Senators Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the chairman; Lindsey Graham of South Carolina; Sam Brownback of Kansas; and Mike DeWine of Ohio — raised pointed questions about the eavesdropping program.

Mr. DeWine, who is facing a tough re-election battle, was particularly reproachful, telling Mr. Gonzales, "Presidents are always stronger in the conduct of foreign affairs when Congress is on board."

Mr. Graham, a former military lawyer who has been critical of the way the Bush administration has handled military detainees, said that the administration had taken a position that "seems to have no boundaries when it comes to executive decisions in a time of war."

Of particular interest to me was the position taken by one of my senators, Mike DeWine. The senator told Gonzales that the President's support would have been enhanced had the Administration sought statutory authorization for the surveillance program. (This is not that different from conservative pundit Hugh Hewitt's call for a straight up or down vote from Congress on the program.) For DeWine to take such a position in a year in which he stands for re-election tells me this:

He's decided that the principle involved, or the benefits of challenging the White House on this program, or a combination of these two factors are substantial enough to outweigh the risks of incurring any opposition from questioning the program.

This in turn, probably says as much about the President's position with the electorate, at least in Ohio and probably in the country, as it does about DeWine's political status here. In comments appearing in newspapers yesterday, newly-elected House majority leader (and Ohioan) John Boehner intimated that Republicans, because of the war in Iraq, are concerned about the 2006 midterm elections, fearful that opposition will so crystallize as to threaten Republican majority status in the Congress.

Because of those fears, I think it's likely that Republicans will separate themselves somewhat from the President in 2006, particularly on the war in Iraq and the surveillance program.

Others will probably separate from the White House on the budget presented yesterday. Not only does it have the deficits Republicans hate, it underestimates those shortfalls by not including spending plans for the war in Iraq. Those apparently will continue to be covered in extra-budgetary emergency spending proposals offered from time to time. That's already causing many Republicans to see red, in more way than one.

This entire phenomenon will be familiar to anyone who's looked at presidential history. The midterm elections in the second terms of presidents are notorious for displaying frayed coalitions and repudiations, gentle or seismic, of the chief executives in power. People grow weary of the President whose every move is chronicled and satirized on TV every day. Such weariness is increased by the pressures of war. (President Bush's father, after enjoying an 89% approval rating during the Persian Gulf War was tossed out of office in the next election. Woodrow Wilson led the US into decisively ending World War One and was wildly popular for it. But in 1920, Democratic nominee for President, Ohio governor James Cox, was decisively defeated by fellow Ohioan Warren Harding, when the former advanced Wilson's international vision as the latter called for a "return to normalcy.")

President Bush's State of the Union address last week signaled that he and his operatives understand their historical situation. The President's tone was unapologetic when it came to the Administration's policies on the war on terror, the war in Iraq, and the surveillance program, but conciliatory and chastened on domestic programs. (On this latter point, the President proposed a study commission to look at Social Security.)

But it would be a mistake to bet against the President at this juncture. In 2002, Republicans, employing the strategy envisioned by the President's chief political operative, Karl Rove, bucked the usual midterm trend of losses for the presidential party in power and secured Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate. You can be sure that in November, 2006, this White House intends to buck history one more time.