Ten Miles Square

Blog

May 24, 2013 8:48 AM ‘Obama Scandals’ Could Actually Hurt Republicans

By Ramesh Ponnuru

Republican politicians and activists can barely contain their glee at the simultaneous eruption of three major controversies about the Obama administration.

Conservatives are at a low boil over the administration’s dissembling about its actions after the attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. The public is concerned about the targeting of conservative groups by the Internal Revenue Service. And even liberals are outraged by the administration’s heavy-handed investigations of leaks to the news media.

Finally, many Republicans think, the tide is turning against the Democrats. Republican strategists — and the few conservatives on Capitol Hill who were in Washington during the Clinton years — are less excited. They fear that the party is about to repeat the mistakes it made in 1998.

Early that year, it came to light that President Bill Clinton had had a sexual relationship with a White House intern and lied about it to the public, to a court in a civil suit and to a grand jury in a criminal case. Congressional Republicans tried to remove him from office. The public hated the idea, and Republicans lost seats in the fall elections. They had been expected to make significant gains because the opposition party usually did in the sixth year of a presidency. House Speaker Newt Gingrich lost his job largely as a result.

History Repeating

Watch the way the Republicans are handling today’s controversies and it’s easy to see how their tactics could backfire again. You would expect that Senator Lindsey Graham, who helped to lead the impeachment proceedings against Clinton, had learned to be cautious in pursuing a scandal. Yet he decided to tie the Benghazi investigation explicitly to the 2016 presidential race, saying that the controversy would doom Hillary Clinton. If Graham were a Democratic plant trying to make the investigation look like a merely partisan exercise, he couldn’t have done better.

Republicans are trying to tie IRS misconduct to President Barack Obama, so far without much evidence. The Republican National Committee is demanding that the president apologize to targeted groups, apparently on the assumption that the public isn’t satisfied with his calling the IRS’s actions “intolerable and inexcusable.” Other Republicans are saying that the president created a “culture” that made the scandal possible by being a partisan Democrat.

These efforts are strained. If the evidence leads to the conclusion that the IRS bureaucracy acted on its own, that is scandal enough; it would serve to strengthen the public’s conservative instincts about the dangers of trusting the government, whoever happens to be in the Oval Office. Republicans shouldn’t be obsessed with Obama, who won’t be on the ballot again, and shouldn’t make a legitimate inquiry into potential abuses of power appear to be — or, worse, actually be — part of a personal vendetta.

The biggest danger for Republicans in giving themselves over to scandal mania is one that the conventional retelling of the Clinton impeachment neglects. Republicans didn’t lose seats simply because they overreached on Clinton’s perjury. It is true that his impeachment was unpopular, and public approval of the Republicans sank as they pursued it. Still, only 5 percent of voters in the 1998 election told exit pollsters that the scandal had played a role in their decision, and Republicans got a majority of those voters.

Social Security was the top issue for more than twice as many voters, and Republicans lost that issue by 18 percentage points. Even more voters cared about education, which Republicans lost by 34 points. They lost on health care and the economy by similar margins.

Passive Strategy

For the most part, Republicans didn’t campaign on impeachment in 1998: They didn’t say, “Vote for me and I’ll do my level best to oust Clinton.” Their strategy was more passive. They were counting on the scandal to motivate conservatives to vote while demoralizing liberals. So they didn’t try to devise a popular agenda, or to make their existing positions less unpopular. That’s what cost them — that, and the mistake of counting on statistics about sixth-year elections, which also bred complacency.

Republicans have similar vulnerabilities on the issues now. They have no real health-care agenda. Voters don’t trust them to look out for middle-class economic interests. Republicans are confused and divided about how to solve the party’s problems. What they can do is unite in opposition to the Obama administration’s scandals and mistakes. So that’s what they’re doing. They’re trying to win news cycles when they need votes.

Congressional Republicans were right to press for hearings on all of these issues. But investigations of the administration won’t supply them with ideas. They won’t make the public trust Republicans. They won’t save them from themselves.

Back to Home page

Ramesh Ponnuru is a columnist for Bloomberg View and a senior editor at the National Review.

Comments

  • Milt on May 25, 2013 10:42 AM:

    You refer to the recent events as "major controversies". This is an exaggeration. The three events were the results of poor decisions by lower level bureaucrats. The media and the Republicans have tried, without success, to assign the responsibility for the events to the White House. In fact, many people have equated these events with those occurring in past administrations without noting the principal difference. While these events were the result of mid-level departmental decisions, those of the Nixon, Reagan and Bush administrations were the results of decisions made by West Wing administrators and even the Oval Office itself.

    The general public is not stupid. They can tell when something has substance and when something is being generated because the summer news cycle is slow and one party is floundering for attention.

  • clarence swinney on May 25, 2013 1:09 PM:

    SUPPLY SIDE TAX CUTS
    The surplus Bush inherited from Clinton was largely due to the Social Security Trust Fund.
    Bush argued it would be better to give the projected surplus to the private sector via tax cuts.
    It was not better. The income of the wealthy grew but workers got stagnant wages. Working class households were hit hardest and Republicans began intense promotions to cut important social programs. Republicans should have known Supply Side did not work. The failed promises about growth and revenue have damaged the health, education and retirement programs that the working Class depends upon. The debt burden came with Supply Side promises. Since 1980, it was increased
    $1900B by Reagan; $1500B by Bush I; $1400 by Clinton; $6100B by Bush II; $5100B by Obama.
    One half of Obama debt add on belong to Bush Tax Cuts, two wars and Part D Medicare.

  • Mike on June 07, 2013 11:50 PM:

    There's a huge difference between Obama's abuses of power and Clinton diddling a woman's pooter in the office. It's true that they over-reacted pushing for an impeachment of Clinton-in my opinion it just made him seem more like a normal person-but these numerous scandals are revealing what type of a person Obama really is.

  • Sean T on June 11, 2013 5:04 PM:

    republican governance

    hilarious.