George W. Bush and what he believes
I don't follow American politics all that closely, I used to until 2004, but now I only have a passing interest in what goes on down south.
Back in 2004, I remember reading the articles of Peggy Noonan, who seemed like such an ardent Bush supporter, even leaving her job as a columnist to help the President get re-elected, and that is why it is so odd to read this article from her today. Apparently Noonan had a significant change of heart about the President immediately after his 2005 inaugural address, after he pledged (naively in her view) to spread freedom around the world. Ever since then, she seems to be a bit of a Bush critic. Her skepticism is not rare, it spreads far and wide among many conservative intellectuals in the states. Today she asks what it is that the President believes - what his governing philosophy is. So since her and many others seem to have a hard time listening to their President, I thought I'd articulate his governing philosophy for them.
On the war/terrorism: I almost get the feeling that a lot of conservatives now regret the absolute focus that the President puts on this issue. And why wouldn't they? It's a bit depressing and frustrating sometimes, and still, the President focuses on this issue far more than on any other. It's almost certain that the policies of his administration have stopped at least some attacks since 9/11, saving the lives of possibly thousands of people, and yet he receives little credit on this front. When the President constantly believes that he must protect his citizens from attack, attack that he deems very much possible to come at any time, domestic policy often gets put off the immediate agenda. As for his long term agenda on this file, who can argue that a world of peaceful, liberal and secular societies is the only way to generally defeat extremism? Any President who considers religious extremism a threat to the world would hold this view quite strongly. And again, some are surprised at how strongly President Bush holds this view.
On the economy: President Bush inherited an economy in recession, a pretty shaky situation for any president to inherit. And since that recession passed, how exactly has the President been performing on the economy? He cut taxes measurably, and has generally, except for when it has been incredibly politically difficult (Steel tariffs for sometime in the first term and Softwood lumber), stuck to a free trade and open economy agenda. It's frustrating that he hasn't been an absolute free trader, but who can blame him on this front? Winning is important in politics too, and given the mood in the United States, it's surprising that he hasn't been even more protectionist. And how has the economy responded to his policies? Incredibly well actually. The US economy is performing strongly, and has been since 2003. It's important to stress that the President is strongly pro-growth in his economic views and that he has definitely delivered on this front. He was probably shaken by the immediate recession, but he has acted in ways that will prevent another recession from coming anytime soon, hopefully.
On spending: Some conservatives point to Medicare reform from the first term as the perfect sign of how President Bush isn't a real conservative, how he's a spendaholic and so on. The central piece of that Medicare bill was a provision that included a prescription drug benefit for seniors. The bill also included provisions for health savings accounts which may make healthcare costs a lot easier to handle for many Americans. Now leaving aside that the President would have lost the 2004 election if not for this bill, even doing a little bit of research, it is easy to find out how the President at least approached the Medicare bill, philosophically. Now in the President's eyes, Medicare (at least in how it related to seniors) was incoherent and inconsistent in how it paid for many medical procedures but how it absolutely did not cover the prescription drugs that could have prevented the need for those medical procedures (surgery and so on). The President even believes that his Medicare reform bill will thus quite possibly REDUCE the cost of Medicare on the federal treasury. Is that not at least a coherent explanation for why the President proceeded with the Medicare reform bill? Is it completely at odds with being a conservative? On another entitlement program, social security, the President tried to fix a broken system but was stopped in doing so by congressional Democrats that would have rather seen the President fail before he fixed an obvious problem, a problem that will now cost the American treasury hundreds of billions of dollars more. Also, fixing social security is much more of a conservative-minded goal, in the sense that social security is a program that makes little sense in how it's little more than a Ponzi scheme that by its very nature is unsustainable and unrealistic in the long term, especially since it applies to all citizens, not just the poor or anything like that. Medicare on the other hand is impossible to cut significantly in any way, because it would be politically untenable to be (rightly) seen to be cutting services to poor people and seniors and therefore impossible to put through congress. On other spending matters, the President's budgets have actually always included cuts in discretionary spending programs. On appropriations bills, it is silly to suggest that he should veto some of them. When President Reagan tried that in the mid 80s in response to a ridiculous highway appropriations bill, he was overriden immediately by the Senate and it was largely a move that showed no real purpose. President Bush, in my view, is above such useless maneuvers.
On immigration: Most of conservative grief with the President is over this file and some of it may be merited, it all just depends on how people view the immigration issue. Now it is clear that the President is absolutely not a restrictionist on the immigration file, but for those who are somewhat restrictionist, it's important to at least acknowledge the good faith reasons that the President has for holding the views that he holds. Largely, it seems to me that his view that illegal immigrants should be offered a pathway to citizenship derives from his Christian faith, in his belief that even illegals should be treated humanely and that it would also be impossible to deport them. His brother's wife is also a Mexican immigrant and this seems to have weighed on his thinking in some way. The President has also stayed away from useless fear mongering when it comes to immigrants and other ethnic minorities and the prime example of this was when he was opposed to a mean-spirited and baseless effort to strip ownership of some US ports from an Arab country (simply because the country was Arab), even though that country was very obviously an American ally.
On social issues: On stem cell research, the President took a courageous stand in not BANNING stem cell research, but at least limiting federal dollars to funding that in many people's views destroy human life. Conservatives generally applaud this. On the Supreme Court, the President made a bit of an error in nominating his personal lawyer to the highest court in the land, but this error can be justified in that when it came to issues related to terrorism and what not, he wanted to be absolutely confident that the Supreme Court sided with his administration's efforts. Also, he genuinely did seem to believe that she'd be a conservative jurist. Notwithstanding that nomination, it does seem that with one more Supreme Court appointment, something the President should get within the next year or so, the Supreme Court will be on its way to reversing fully legal abortion-on-demand throughout the country. On stem cell research and probably even on judicial appointments, the President will almost certainly be stronger on the pro-life side than even a potential Republican President in 2009.
It's also important to note that on the major issues of conservative discontent (immigration, spending), the President's position has generally been identical in 2000, 2004 and now. And it's important to recall that conservative support for the President in 2004 especially was rock solid, even including the lady that prompted this post, Peggy Noonan.
Back in 2004, I remember reading the articles of Peggy Noonan, who seemed like such an ardent Bush supporter, even leaving her job as a columnist to help the President get re-elected, and that is why it is so odd to read this article from her today. Apparently Noonan had a significant change of heart about the President immediately after his 2005 inaugural address, after he pledged (naively in her view) to spread freedom around the world. Ever since then, she seems to be a bit of a Bush critic. Her skepticism is not rare, it spreads far and wide among many conservative intellectuals in the states. Today she asks what it is that the President believes - what his governing philosophy is. So since her and many others seem to have a hard time listening to their President, I thought I'd articulate his governing philosophy for them.
On the war/terrorism: I almost get the feeling that a lot of conservatives now regret the absolute focus that the President puts on this issue. And why wouldn't they? It's a bit depressing and frustrating sometimes, and still, the President focuses on this issue far more than on any other. It's almost certain that the policies of his administration have stopped at least some attacks since 9/11, saving the lives of possibly thousands of people, and yet he receives little credit on this front. When the President constantly believes that he must protect his citizens from attack, attack that he deems very much possible to come at any time, domestic policy often gets put off the immediate agenda. As for his long term agenda on this file, who can argue that a world of peaceful, liberal and secular societies is the only way to generally defeat extremism? Any President who considers religious extremism a threat to the world would hold this view quite strongly. And again, some are surprised at how strongly President Bush holds this view.
On the economy: President Bush inherited an economy in recession, a pretty shaky situation for any president to inherit. And since that recession passed, how exactly has the President been performing on the economy? He cut taxes measurably, and has generally, except for when it has been incredibly politically difficult (Steel tariffs for sometime in the first term and Softwood lumber), stuck to a free trade and open economy agenda. It's frustrating that he hasn't been an absolute free trader, but who can blame him on this front? Winning is important in politics too, and given the mood in the United States, it's surprising that he hasn't been even more protectionist. And how has the economy responded to his policies? Incredibly well actually. The US economy is performing strongly, and has been since 2003. It's important to stress that the President is strongly pro-growth in his economic views and that he has definitely delivered on this front. He was probably shaken by the immediate recession, but he has acted in ways that will prevent another recession from coming anytime soon, hopefully.
On spending: Some conservatives point to Medicare reform from the first term as the perfect sign of how President Bush isn't a real conservative, how he's a spendaholic and so on. The central piece of that Medicare bill was a provision that included a prescription drug benefit for seniors. The bill also included provisions for health savings accounts which may make healthcare costs a lot easier to handle for many Americans. Now leaving aside that the President would have lost the 2004 election if not for this bill, even doing a little bit of research, it is easy to find out how the President at least approached the Medicare bill, philosophically. Now in the President's eyes, Medicare (at least in how it related to seniors) was incoherent and inconsistent in how it paid for many medical procedures but how it absolutely did not cover the prescription drugs that could have prevented the need for those medical procedures (surgery and so on). The President even believes that his Medicare reform bill will thus quite possibly REDUCE the cost of Medicare on the federal treasury. Is that not at least a coherent explanation for why the President proceeded with the Medicare reform bill? Is it completely at odds with being a conservative? On another entitlement program, social security, the President tried to fix a broken system but was stopped in doing so by congressional Democrats that would have rather seen the President fail before he fixed an obvious problem, a problem that will now cost the American treasury hundreds of billions of dollars more. Also, fixing social security is much more of a conservative-minded goal, in the sense that social security is a program that makes little sense in how it's little more than a Ponzi scheme that by its very nature is unsustainable and unrealistic in the long term, especially since it applies to all citizens, not just the poor or anything like that. Medicare on the other hand is impossible to cut significantly in any way, because it would be politically untenable to be (rightly) seen to be cutting services to poor people and seniors and therefore impossible to put through congress. On other spending matters, the President's budgets have actually always included cuts in discretionary spending programs. On appropriations bills, it is silly to suggest that he should veto some of them. When President Reagan tried that in the mid 80s in response to a ridiculous highway appropriations bill, he was overriden immediately by the Senate and it was largely a move that showed no real purpose. President Bush, in my view, is above such useless maneuvers.
On immigration: Most of conservative grief with the President is over this file and some of it may be merited, it all just depends on how people view the immigration issue. Now it is clear that the President is absolutely not a restrictionist on the immigration file, but for those who are somewhat restrictionist, it's important to at least acknowledge the good faith reasons that the President has for holding the views that he holds. Largely, it seems to me that his view that illegal immigrants should be offered a pathway to citizenship derives from his Christian faith, in his belief that even illegals should be treated humanely and that it would also be impossible to deport them. His brother's wife is also a Mexican immigrant and this seems to have weighed on his thinking in some way. The President has also stayed away from useless fear mongering when it comes to immigrants and other ethnic minorities and the prime example of this was when he was opposed to a mean-spirited and baseless effort to strip ownership of some US ports from an Arab country (simply because the country was Arab), even though that country was very obviously an American ally.
On social issues: On stem cell research, the President took a courageous stand in not BANNING stem cell research, but at least limiting federal dollars to funding that in many people's views destroy human life. Conservatives generally applaud this. On the Supreme Court, the President made a bit of an error in nominating his personal lawyer to the highest court in the land, but this error can be justified in that when it came to issues related to terrorism and what not, he wanted to be absolutely confident that the Supreme Court sided with his administration's efforts. Also, he genuinely did seem to believe that she'd be a conservative jurist. Notwithstanding that nomination, it does seem that with one more Supreme Court appointment, something the President should get within the next year or so, the Supreme Court will be on its way to reversing fully legal abortion-on-demand throughout the country. On stem cell research and probably even on judicial appointments, the President will almost certainly be stronger on the pro-life side than even a potential Republican President in 2009.
It's also important to note that on the major issues of conservative discontent (immigration, spending), the President's position has generally been identical in 2000, 2004 and now. And it's important to recall that conservative support for the President in 2004 especially was rock solid, even including the lady that prompted this post, Peggy Noonan.
posted by Japnaam Singh at
7:25 AM
0 Comments
