Doubts About Mandate for Bush, GOP

History suggests the possibility of major losses next year is not beyond imagination. The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll showed support for Bush's handling of Social Security at just 31 percent. That is several points lower than support for Clinton's handling of health care in the summer of 1994 -- just before the failure of what was widely perceived as an over-ambitious plan helped fuel the GOP takeover of Congress that fall.

A recent analysis by Democracy Corps, which offers polling and strategy to Democrats, concluded, "Voters have not yet turned to the Democrats as an instrument of change, but when they do, there can be electoral changes on a very large scale."

If Bush has misjudged the public appetite for an ambitious conservative agenda, he is not the only one. On election night 2004, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) boasted: "The Republican Party is a permanent majority for the future of this country. . . . We are going to be able to lead this country in the direction we've been dreaming of for years."

One thing Republicans apparently did not bargain for was that, as their majority grew, so would the difficulties of holding together the different wings of the party.

One important split has emerged on Social Security. Bush was forced last week to insert himself into one of the most contentious fights: between those who think large private investment accounts alone can save Social Security and those who argue that benefits must be trimmed in tandem with creating smaller accounts. With his statement that future benefits must be reduced for middle- and upper-income beneficiaries, Bush weighed in against the private-accounts-only purists. This group includes conservative lawmakers such as Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and activists such as Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

One prominent Republican, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), applauded Bush's willingness to take a stand in the intraparty argument. The president "dramatically shaped the debate within the Republican world by embracing index changes and rescheduling benefits," Graham said. "He chose a path different from the one many Republicans have embraced."

This dynamic has played out to a lesser extent in the debate over whether Republicans should move to end the Senate filibuster for judges, which would make it significantly easier to approve the president's most controversial nominees. Social conservatives are demanding Republicans move to eliminate the filibuster, while corporate conservatives worry the move will derail their pro-business agenda in Congress.

If Republicans force a confrontation on Senate rules, and Democrats respond by effectively shutting down the chamber, "then you get to stalling the movement of any and all legislation," said R. Bruce Josten, the top lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Josten said the business community is sitting out the fight over filibusters because it has no role in internal Senate matters. "We are not social groups, we are business groups," he said.

Although politicians may be prone to over-interpreting their election mandates, some skeptics warn that political analysts are prone to over-interpreting short-term controversies. The factors causing problems for Bush, for instance, are less about political strategy than something largely out of his control -- the high price of gasoline.

William Kristol, the editor of the Weekly Standard and a conservative analyst, said that Bush's problems with Social Security will look small in retrospect next to a large achievement: last winter's Iraqi elections. "We are all missing the forest through the trees: January 30, 2005, was the most important thing that happened in the first 100 days," he said.

Nicole Devenish, the White House communications director, struck a similar theme. "There have been accomplishments that admittedly no one pays attention to," she said, "because the biggest thing we bit off [Social Security], something that has not been done in 20 years, has dominated the debate."