There was a memorable exchange in Aaron Sorkin’s “The American President” in which the idea of political capital is explored, albeit briefly.
Lewis Rothschild (Michael J. Fox): “Sir, we campaigned on [the handgun-control] issue. Now, I understand we took it out when we were in the low forties, but we can push it through now.”
President Andrew Shepherd (Michael Douglas): “After the elections.”
Rothschild: “Sir, we may never have an opportunity like this again. Let’s take this 63% [approval rating] out for a spin and see what it can do.”
Shepherd: “We can’t take it out for a spin, Lewis. We need it to get re-elected.”
Given this, “political capital” is the idea that a political figure has built up enough popularity that he or she can take on a controversial issue — which will almost certainly lessen that popularity — but maintain a strong political position. Fine.
But this example comes from a movie (what’s worse, it was a romantic comedy). Slate’s Chris Suellentrop recently explored the ubiquity of “political capital,” which he calls “the first buzzword of the second Bush administration,” in a more serious way. Bush, Suellentrop explained, appears to misunderstand the idea behind the phrase, which may have interesting consequences.
We’ve become accustomed to talking about all kinds of abstract capital in recent years — human capital, social capital, intellectual capital — but Bush’s definition of political capital makes the metaphor particularly inapt. For one, you don’t spend capital. You invest it. But Bush’s understanding of the idea dictates that it be spent rather than saved. As Karl Rove put it in 2001, “If you don’t spend it, it’s not like treasure stuck away at a storehouse someplace. It is perishable. It dwindles away.” What kind of economic message is that from a president who wants to encourage an ownership society?
The question the Post asked in 1993 — what in the world is political capital, anyway? — still hasn’t been answered satisfactorily. Why, for example, didn’t Bill Clinton have capital to spend on health care, in Bush’s view, but he had some to spend elsewhere, apparently? Does any other kind of capital have restrictions on where and how it can be used? Edward J. López, an economist at the University of North Texas, delineated two types of political capital in a 2002 paper for the Review of Austrian Economics: “reputational” capital, a politician’s “standing with voters and other unorganized interests,” and “representative” capital, which includes the powers that stem from a politician’s office. But Bush doesn’t mean anything that rigorous. In fact, he’d probably scoff at the idea. He just uses it as a substitute for the goodwill that an election gives an executive with the legislature, and he probably likes the way it paints him as a CEO-president.
I think this is largely right. Bush’s standing with the voters is not so strong that he can invest his reputation in an agenda that is fundamentally unpopular with the public. He still has his bully pulpit, of course, but that hasn’t helped any modern-day president succeed with an idea that voters inherently reject.
When Bush insisted he’d spend some of his capital on Social Security privatization, for example, I think he meant he’s use his alleged mandate to take the lead on the issue. He may have even meant that he’d be willing to suffer politically in the short term for a long-term goal. Using Sorkin’s example, Bush seemed to suggest he’d take his Election Day victory “out for a spin” to “see what it can do.”
But this president does not have what the fictional president did — broad support. The nation is still polarized, Bush’s election results offered the narrowest win for an incumbent since 1828, and his approval rating is an uninspiring 51%. If Bush is under the impression that he has “political capital” to spare, he’s in for some serious disappointment.