The UK’s Telegraph has been running an interesting conversation piece lately, ranking the top 100 most influential liberals and conservatives in U.S. politics. Each day, the British paper unveils another grouping of 20 on the left and 20 on the right, in ascending order.
Today, for example, we find a grouping on the right that includes self-promoter David Horowitz (#34), nutty talk-show host Mark Levin (#31), sleazy strategist Dick Morris (#28), moralist James Dobson (#26), uber-lobbyist Grover Norquist (#24), and President George W. Bush coming in at an unimpressive 21st place.
And why is it that a sitting, conservative, two-term president, during a war, isn’t even among the top 20 most influential American conservatives? The Telegraph’s Toby Harnden explains that Bush is yesterday’s news, and the right really no longer has any use for him. He will, the paper said, “fade into relative obscurity after 2009.”
The announcement of the departure of Karen Hughes from the Bush administration yesterday was laden with symbolism. She and Karl Rove represented a collective alter ego for Bush before 2000 and in the early days of his presidency. Now they are gone, along with Dan Bartlett, Don Evans, Alberto Gonzales, Joe Allbaugh and the rest of the Texas posse that rode into town. Bush is alone and isolated.
Defeated on immigration reform – and badly out of touch with his base on the issue – he has lost control of the agenda in Washington. […]
In just over three months, Republicans will choose a presidential nominee who will become the de facto leader of the party and, by extension, of US conservatism. In a bid to attract centrist voters, he – whether it be Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain or Fred Thompson – will rush to distance himself from Bush.
By this time next year, many American conservatives may be asking: “George W. who?”
I think that’s right. Bush is struggling for relevance now, but it’s going to get worse.
Can anyone seriously imagine congressional Republican candidates in 2010 seeking out Bush’s help on the campaign trail? Does anyone think Bush will stop by Davos and draw a crowd discussing his thoughts on macro-econmics?
Can anyone think of any reason why Bush’s opinion on anything will matter even a little the moment after he leaves office in 445 days?
Of course, Kevin Drum raises a really good point about Bush’s political legacy.
[D]on’t let conservatives get away with “distancing” themselves from Bush. They all loved him when he was riding high, and they’d love him still if he weren’t polling in Richard Nixon territory. But his lousy numbers are mostly because he’s stuck with policies that conservatives all hailed as visionary a mere couple of years ago. So here’s the new Pottery Barn rule: they broke him, they bought him. Like it or not, he’s your baby.
Well said. I think the Telegraph has it right, and the right will quickly embrace a “George W. who?” attitude, but that’s why it’ll be all the more important to answer the question — “George W. Bush, the one you guys backed, one fiasco after another.”
They’ll want to wash the stench of failure from their hands as quickly as possible. Conservatives shouldn’t get off that easy.