The Bush Effect

I have a new article in Presidential Studies Quarterly that looks at the impact of foreign policy in the 2004 election. One of my findings is that attitudes toward President Bush seem to have had a greater impact on opinions of the Iraq War than general opinions about foreign policy. In this sense, rather than opinions of Iraq influencing opinions about Bush, opinions about Bush were influencing opinions about Iraq. This got me thinking that any policy or program specifically associate with Bush would tend to polarize opinions, regardless of the underlying thoughts about such a policy or program.

The most recent CBS/NYT poll provides some evidence for this conclusion. The survey conducted an interesting experiment. Half the sample was asked the following question:

I'd like you to compare the way things are going in the United States today to the way they were going six years ago. Generally, would you say things are going better today, worse today, or about the same as they were going six years ago?

The other half was asked a slightly different question:

I'd like you to compare the way things are going in the United States today to the way they were going six years ago before George W. Bush became president. Generally, would you say things are going better today, worse today, or about the same as they were going before George W. Bush became president?

The latter question specifically mentiions President Bush, thus triggering attitudes towards him among respondents. The two questions elicted different responses

Question 1: No Bush Reference

	Total	Rep	Dem	Ind
	%	%	%	%
Better	16	31	10	10
Worse	62	42	75	66
About the same	19	24	14	20
DK/NA	3	3	1	4

Question 2: Bush Reference

	Total	Rep	Dem	Ind
	%	%	%	%
Better	14	31	2	15
Worse	68	27	94	66
About the same	16	35	3	17
DK/NA	2	7	1	2

Overall, responses to the question that mentioned Bush were slightly more negative, but this difference is probably not statistically significant. Among Republicans, however, the mention of Bush elicited led to fewer responses claiming that conditions are worse now than six years ago (42 versus 27 percent) and more claiming that they are about the same (24 to 35). Among Democrats, mentioning Bush led to a decline in responses saying that conditions are better (10 versus 2 percent) or about the same (14 to 3 percent), and an increase in those saying conditions are worse (75 to 94 percent). Among independents, there doesn't seem to be a significant difference in the responses to the two questions.

The difference in the responses to these questions by Democrats and Republicans shows how the very mention of Bush's name influences assessments of the last six years. Mentioning Bush makes Republicans more positive and Democrats more negative. Despite his desire to be "a uniter, not a divider," Bush seems to be a uniquely divisive president.