A Mandate for What?

Yes, Bush "has his mandate" in the sense that there is more legitimacy to his election as president, and there is a general sense of majority approval of his actions so far. But the term "mandate" to me means something a little more than just being indisputably entitled to be president. I think it generally means that in the election, the candidate put forward a fairly clear agenda and made the election a referendum on that agenda. The last two reelections, Reagan in 1984 and Clinton in 1996, have featured that sort of affirmation.

In this case, I believe that Bush's choice to run a campaign that was essentially 100% negative has to, in some sense, limit the mandate. Many of the things he probably wants to try to achieve, such as privatizing Social Security, he explicitly denied. And many of the things he did talk about, such as banning gay marriage, he probably doesn't want to deal with. Does he have a mandate for a particular approach to Iraq? Only to not be inconsistent. Does he have a mandate on taxes? Only to not raise them 9,400 times. Does he have a mandate on Supreme Court nominations? Only that he would not appoint anyone who would uphold Dred Scott. Does he have a mandate on terrorism? Only "to take an offensive posture" and not let the wolves eat us.

In a sense, Bush had more of a mandate in his first term: to be "a uniter not a divider," for "humility" in foreign policy, for K-12 education reform similar to No Child Left Behind, and for a tax cut that would benefit "a waitress with two kids earning $20,000." We're 1 for 4 on that mandate. Maybe we should get that mandate finished first.

There are reasons that presidents seeking reelection would not normally undertake such a relentlessly negative and other-focused campaign. One is the risk of backlash, although that risk is mitigated if, like Bush, you have no option but to destroy your opponent. The other reason is that it squanders the great opportunity of a second term, which is to put forward "second term issues." If you are perceived as a successful president, you can put forward some ambitious ideas and, if ratified, move forward on them without worrying about reelection. That's the privilege of a second term.

And perhaps its a privilege that Bush will feel he has the right to exercise, with further massive tax cuts, privatization of Social Security and perhaps further foreign policy adventurism, although I actually suspect that he is the one who will lose interest in Iraq and pull back abruptly and destructively.

That Bush can do almost whatever he wants is inarguable. His presidency has been endorsed. But I can't bring myself to call it a mandate because he did not do the honest work of presenting an agenda and asking for a mandate.