The White House’s demands for “monomaniacal” allegiance

David Frum wants Democrats to like President Bush. In fact, in an op-ed in today’s Los Angeles Times, Frum expresses bewilderment that Democrats strongly oppose the president and his agenda, saying that Democrats’ hostility to Bush “makes no sense at all” and that the president’s “symbolic and substantive bipartisanship” should make him at least palatable to the party’s leadership.

You read that right. Frum thinks Bush has been governing in a “bipartisan” fashion. What’s so terribly odd about this argument is its complete disassociation with reality. Of all the things Bush has been called since his inauguration, “bipartisan” has never been one of them. On the contrary, he has been more right-wing than any president in recent memory (and perhaps ever) and has eschewed any semblance of the centrist candidate who sought the GOP nomination with rhetoric about “bringing Democrats and Republicans together.” There isn’t an issue on the White House’s domestic or foreign agenda that has been approached in a “bipartisan,” or even “compassionate,” fashion.

Consider this must-read article from Saturday’s Washington Post. It highlights the Bush administration’s modus operandi for dealing with everyone — Congress, governors, lobbyists, heads of state, etc. — and explains nicely why Bush has earned a new label given to him by many here and around the world: Bully.

The Post notes that practically all of Washington’s conservative infrastructure — lawmakers, activists, interest groups — report intense pressure to “conform to Bush’s policy wishes.” In fact, Republican bigwigs said that “the tactics the Bush administration uses on friends and allies” are “uniquely fierce and vindictive,” and that the White House believes “it can overcome domestic adversaries if it tolerates no dissent from its friends.”

The article’s examples are illuminating:

* Administration officials have urged Republican governors “to oust the leadership of the National Governors Association to make the bipartisan group endorse Bush’s views.”

* Conservative interest groups and their financial backers, who are already inclined to support Bush agenda, report pressure from the White House to “conform to Bush’s policy views” and even fire employees who dissent.

* Conservative lobbyists feel forced to endorse ideas they don’t agree with because they believe the White House will retaliate against those who “oppose or question.”

* GOP lawmakers who express doubts about an administration policy feel pressured to reverse their position publicly, embarrassing themselves for the president’s benefit.

* Other Republican lawmakers considering running for higher office — House members seeking a Senate seat, for example — are told any opposition to Bush’s agenda will mean withheld political support in the future.

These tactics don’t always work. The White House, for example, thought it could strong-arm Sen. Jim Jeffords into submission. After Jeffords balked at Bush’s 2001 tax-cut plan, Bush tried to show him who was boss. The White House had a ceremony to honor the nation’s teacher of the year, who happened to be from Vermont, but they refused to invite Jeffords, even though he represents Vermont and chaired the Senate Education Committee at the time. Worse, after the vote on the tax cut, which passed without Jeffords’ support, the White House announced it would withhold support for a dairy compact important to Vermont farmers.

It didn’t work out the way Bush wanted. Instead of bullying Jeffords into acquiescence, it drove him away. Four months after Bush’s inauguration, Jeffords abandoned the Republican Party and gave Senate control to the Democrats. At the time, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said, “Republicans have to understand that they will drive people out of the party if they want to threaten vengeance or retaliation to people who don’t hew the party line.”

It was not a lesson the White House took to heart. As recent “diplomatic” efforts at the U.N. demonstrated, the Bush administration believes it can intimidate its way to success. When traditional allies resisted American arguments, and the White House had to deal with countries that were skeptical of war, administration officials did what came naturally to them — they harassed and harangued. Like Jeffords, former allies just walked away from the White House when pushed too hard.

Far from discovering a new found appreciation for bipartisanship and compromise, the Bush administration has became more rigid and less tolerant of anyone who has the audacity to disagree with the president.

Consider the perspective of Stephen Moore, president of a very conservative interest group called Club for Growth, who was berated by the White House’s Karl Rove after Moore privately criticized Bush’s intervention in some GOP primaries in 2002.

“I think this monomaniacal call for loyalty is unhealthy,” Moore said. “It’s dangerous to declare anybody who crosses you an enemy for life.” Another leader of a conservative group, who was too afraid to speak on the record, told the Post “They want sycophants rather than allies.”

Keep in mind, Moore couldn’t be more conservative if he tried. He’s a knee-jerk Republican, to the right of the country on just about every issue. But when asked about the White House, Moore said he thinks the administration’s approach is “unhealthy” and “dangerous.”

Yet, here’s David Frum, who seems genuinely confused about Democrats’ resentment of the president. As Frum sees it, no one works harder than Bush “to conciliate and befriend his opponents.” It almost gives naivete new meaning.