Why is Rumsfeld gone? Why yesterday? Why not a week or a month before?
There is a simple answer. When you want to figure out why politicians do what they do, remember the simplest of rules:
Politicians do what they do to stay in office.
Bruce Bueno de Mesquita explains it here. It’s so simple. It should be easy to remember. But we have so much romance about politics and ideology that it’s easy to forget.
The Republicans jettisoned Rumsfeld because they are getting ready for 2008. The voters don’t like how it’s going in Iraq. Once that became crystal clear as it did on Tuesday night, the Republicans acted on Wednesday morning in their eagerness to show that they are listening.
George Will explains how the Democrats, because they want to stay in office just like Republicans, chose their candidates and their issues differently this time around. It’s a superb analysis but my favorite part is this aside:
About $2.6 billion was spent on the 468 House and Senate races. (Scandalized? Don’t be. Americans spend that much on chocolate every two months .)
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 12 comments }
But chocolate has so many more benefits.
Hasn't Will missed the point. Most Americans buy chocolate; very few contribute to campaigns, and few of those contribute significant amounts. So the pols owe the few — it's not comparable to some innocent arm's-length commercial transaction. Makes me sad to think he came from downstate Illinois.
"Makes me sad to think he came from downstate Illinois."
Make him an offer to come back.
The move was lame.
I would have had a lot more respect for the Bush Administration if they had stuck with their man instead of kicking him to the curb less than twelve hours after losing the mid-terms, only to replace him with another stooge.
They could have at least given him a week before asking him to resign. This was a very, very bad move on their part.
Moreover, if his replacement doesn't have much to offer in terms of helping to fix our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan, then the move is completely pointless and adds insult to injury.
The White House's responsibility is to FIX the problem, not just shuffling people around and pretending that it will make a difference.
I've heard that some in the Republican camp are irritated that Bush didn't axe Rumsfeld *before* the election, when it might have helped win a close race somewhere. But then I suppose it might have lost votes too; hard to say.
Also true what Will says about the Dems getting more conservative. They played it pretty safe here in PA by nominating a pro-gun, pro-life candidate (Casey) to take on Santorum. I figure that's about 8-10% of the voters right there who no longer had a reason to automatically prefer Santorum. No wonder he got crushed.
And yes, I get a lot more satisfaction out of my chocolate budget than from my elected officials.
I'll agree that Rumsfeld's exit has everything to do with politics. It does not matter if Bush thinks Rumsfeld was doing a good job. With him still at the head of the DoD and the Dems in control of both houses of congress, Rumsfeld would be subpoenaed 8 days a week and used as a partisan whipping boy.
Becuase of this very real possibility, Rumsfeld had to go.
I think the Wednesday morning timing had way more to do with getting Gates confirmed by the lame duck Senate than anything else. And frankly, it was about losing the Senate, not the House or the whole election. Rumsfeld ruffled too many feathers in the Pentagon to have survived an investigative atmosphere. The last thing Bush wants is to have to fight with the Senate over a critical cabinet appointment in his final two years.
The president did announce Rumsfeld's leaving on Wednesday, but he had (according to the transcript of his first press conference that day) already interviewed Gates on the preceding Sunday, and held off on making the announcement until Wednesday so it wouldn't be seen as an attempt to manipulate the elections.
Bush's comment about not wanting to manipulate the election is one of the most ludicrous things this ludicrous man has ever said. He spent most of the prior month flying around the country trying to manipulate elections. If he (or Rove) had thought announcing Rumsfeld's resignation prior to the election would have gotten them votes, they would most certainly have done it.
Steven,
I think Bush is saying he doesn't want to hinder Gates by making it seem that his selection was only an attempt to affect the 2006 election.
Concern about the departure of Rumsfeld is not merited.
The guy is 72 or 73. How many people are doing their best in a thankless job at that age.
The military never likes a Secretary Of Defense who actually does things, no matter what it is he does.
The new Congress is going to pester him continuously next year, he wasn't going to get anything done anyway.
Out of office he will be sued here and plagued with international warrants from nation's that have laws allowing them to prosecute anyone anywhere for anything done anywhere.
Bush and Rumsfeld knew they are now screwed by the Democrat's control of the money. So I think Bush just let him go home. If the election had gone better he might have stayed a month or so for holiday visits to the troops.
Rumsfeld got taken out of office for one reason only the people are made up their minds with how things are going in Iraq so they decided to change parties. In order to prepare for the upcoming president elections and instead of a democrat president being elected Bush has to make the Republicans look good in order for the them to remain in power. Since the dems are now in control Bush took rumsfeld out of office in order to show that dems that he can compromise and lose someone from his team that hasn't been doing to good of a job because of the fact that the Dems haven't been too happy with the actions Rumsfeld has taken in Iraq.