Analyzing the Politics of George W. Bush: Key Takeaways (Part 3)

Surrendering on the Political Battlefield

President Bush made a significant error by stepping back from addressing vital issues after 2005. This laid the groundwork for the Democrats and mainstream media to launch continuous attacks against him. Among these attacks was the false accusation that he misled the public about weapons of mass destruction to justify the Iraq War. The lack of robust defense from the conservative side, with minimal support aside from Fox News and a few GOP politicians, eventually led to a decline in Bush’s popularity.

President Trump, on the other hand, is unlikely to face a similar predicament. Trump’s success in the 2016 primaries was largely attributed to his unwavering commitment to engaging in battles on all fronts, reminiscent of the approach adopted by Bill Clinton on the Democratic side. Over the past nine years, there’s been no sign of Trump losing his vigor in defending himself and challenging his adversaries.

Nevertheless, Trump should exercise caution in choosing his battles and opponents more wisely. Engaging in conflicts that yield little to no benefit can be detrimental. Is it worth responding to every critique, including those from figures like Taylor Swift? While Trump did gain some degree of immunity from political fallout due to the exaggerated reactions to his statements by Democrats and Never Trumpers during the 2024 election, swing voters are more concerned about significant issues like the economy and stability rather than his controversial tweets. It might be wise for Trump to conserve his energy and resources by refraining from unnecessary skirmishes that could exhaust even his base in the coming years.

Interestingly, Bill Clinton had this problem, too.  As some may remember, Clinton felt the need to push back against even the semi-serious criticism that he was too enamored with McDonald’s, by parsing his words to say that he didn’t “visit” the fast-food restaurant; while this was technically true, he had the food brought into the White House. 

Falling for the Sweet Nothings of the MSM and the Democrat Establishment

It is a well-established rule that for most people, the longer they live in the Beltway, the more they (usually) hope to be invited to and flattered at the ‘Georgetown dinner parties.’ (I was always too introverted and too ornery to be part of this crew.) The easiest way to do this is to embrace the policies, and the people, who make up this elite, which largely lean Democrat.  

As I have already written, for a Republican president, this is a dangerous trap.  A Republican senator or congressman can make a career out of “going Washington” and “growing in office,” as the Democrats/MSM will give him/her plenty of positive attention in their media, which (in some areas of the country) will make reelection easier.  But for a Republican president, this is not a possibility, as the Democrats/MSM need to run against him or her, and nothing he or she says or does will ever be celebrated by them. So, all that president will accomplish by “going Washington” and “growing in office” is showing a weakness, which will inspire any opponents to redouble their attacks, and dispirit POTUS’ base.

Of course, in this case, it is hard for the Democrats/MSM to woo Donald Trump, when they are constantly screaming obscenities at him and calling him Hitler. Recently, during the Joint Address to Congress, the Democrats refused to clap for any individual singled out for praise by Trump, including a small boy stricken by cancer who wanted to be a police officer (and who was made an honorary Secret Service Agent by the president). And these Democrat members well represent their party – according to one poll, 64 percent of registered Democrats want their party to “oppose everything” that President Trump is doing.(The Democrats, as I have said before, are still falling down their Doom Loop.)  

WATCH: Dems’ Excuses for Why They Didn’t Stand During Trump’s Address Show Just How Lost They Are

Falling for the Sweet Nothings of the GOP Establishment (and the Liberal Republicans)

The portion of those attending the Georgetown dinner parties that are not Democrats are, of course, Republicans (there are no real independents in this town). They have similar, but not identical, political beliefs. The key word for them is always “moderation,” which often means to act Democrat-lite on the issues, to slow down on a controversial action, or to avoid certain impolite issues. One issue of crucial importance to them has always been illegal immigration, which they believe requires “compassion” and “a path out of the shadows” to legalization for illegal immigrants.  

Once again, as I said above, a Republican president should be very careful of such people. The establishment GOP has their uses – they know how the federal government works – but it is important to realize their biases and not fall prey to them. Caving to them only slows or stops a president’s accomplishments and never leads to any new respect from non-allied independents or the Democrats.(If Trump wants that new respect, he will have to wait until he is retired or dead, so that the new and more dangerous, Hitleresque Republican president can be compared, unfavorably, to him.)

So far, there is little evidence of Trump falling for the usual sweet nothings of the GOP establishment. He seems unlikely to retreat on deporting illegal immigrants, which is his signature issue. He has stood firm on government spending cuts and firings. He has not catered to their International First Foreign Policy Agenda.

And now, what about the independent Trump supporters?