Posted on 05/25/2006 2:09:49 PM PDT by KC Burke
We all know the simple phrase, "Keep it Simple, Stupid" and its usefulness in telling us where we go astray.
IMHO, this is what Bush failed to understand on the immigration issue from his initial election, all the way through 9/11 and its impact on the issue, and on up to today.
George Will very precisely pointed out (Restoration published 1996)that in the first 120 years of our history the office of the President was clearly understood to be similar to a Chief magistrate and not a Prime Minister setting a policy agenda for all branches. In his analysis, he pointed out that all Presidents together, in that first 120 years, had only given about 280 political speeches, while in the twentieth century almost all Presidents had taken that broad policy role and often gave 280 political speeches in their terms alone.
Two Presidents at the start of the second century, one from each party, changed that role -- Wilson and TR.
This change, gradual and subtle, Will postulates, weakened the role of Congress, while government in general grew more prevasive. Since it occured, the Congress has let the President set the broad agenda, both on the Party level and on the national level.
The broad revolutionary reforms of FDR are only a large example, they have all overstepped in this manner.
The political term "conservative" didn't exist before the time of Burke. It was coined by the French in speaking in opposition to his analysis of their faulty revolution.
Burke constantly pointed out that careful reform was the preservation mechanism for the valuable heritage we held and that without that careful reform as needed, revolution was the terrible substitute.
Roe v. Wade is the problem it is because it wasn't done constitutionally. It wasn't worked though by the representives of the people, thereby giving it legitamacy. It was done by the wrong branch.
Bush missed the clear opportunity to get the variety of reform he wanted by proposing it himself and doing so late in the game.
If he would have simply, and early, started enforcing the laws on the books, albeit with any "compassion" he wanted to temper it with, and then gone hat in hand to the Congress stating, "I don't have the money and the people and the laws don't fit the circumstances" then Congress would have been saddled with the reform needed and rather than insurrection, they would be coming to him for political clout for making a good legislative compromise that was legetiment.
By trying to fill that Prime Minister role instead of the Presidential role of executive alone, he bought the problem as all his own, rather than being in the winning position of being part of the solution.
you first
Boy, from the title I though Paul Stanley and Gene Simmons were in trouble! Whew!
Heck, with the {Vanity} note you were right to be ready for anything.
Ola, KC Burke. I couldn't agree more with your assessment.
Thanks kiddo!
I guess I should have also learned to spell "legitimate".
I think the reason why he does so is strategic. I know people hate to hear it, but GWB is not all that sharp. Hence, he leans extra heavily on the notion of the executive as someone who doesn't know jack about anything, but somehow has the ability to "make decisions" based on advice. How someone without expertise is supposed to process complicated advice is beyond me, but it's a strategy that enables GW, and those in similar situations, to take on leadership roles.
I can't really comment on the historical aspect of your post, because I just don't know that much about it. It's quite possible in the very early days, much was left up to Congress. Perhaps that's as it should be. I recall in the 1990s the term bandied about was "activist president", so perhaps even to this day there is this idea of the president as a magistrate only.
Finally, on the immigration issue, I think the president is basically doing what you are suggesting. His problem is that his poll numbers are very low. I think to the extent he's attempted, late in the game, to get out front of this issue, it's because he needs to politically, or thinks he does. He needs to appear to be engaged in the issue. But as with CFR, I fully expect him to sign absolutely ANYTHING that hits his desk, and so far, that's been the case 100% of the time.
Great to "hear" from you, though. Reminds me of the fun times we used to have, pre 9-11.
I read quite a few thread where the exchanges are way-too "food-fight" for my thoughts to contribute much.
I don't generally disagree with your observations in your first paragraph. However they don't negate the fact that he stated a wish for reform on this issue prior to his first election and immediately thereafter and then in the wake of 9/11 neither took action on the issue by execution in any forceful manner or by introducing a program.
Instead, he let it twist in the wind until it became a media "crisis" that he couldn't avoid.
I guess I need your observations next.
I know people hate to hear it, but GWB is not all that sharp. Hence, he leans extra heavily on the notion of the executive as someone who doesn't know jack about anything, but somehow has the ability to "make decisions" based on advice.
We ought to be over this notion by now, that Bush is a dummy. You don't get to be President, twice, win two wars, and get a good deal of your agenda through Congress by being stupid.
However they don't negate the fact that he stated a wish for reform on this issue prior to his first election and immediately thereafter and then in the wake of 9/11 neither took action on the issue by execution in any forceful manner or by introducing a program.
Instead, he let it twist in the wind until it became a media "crisis" that he couldn't avoid.
I also disagree with your last statement. Bush talked about his immigration plan in early 2004, then again in early 2005. It was Bush who drove the issue in the House, and he made a statement in early 2006 that he wanted the Senate to act.
I don't think the Congress would have taken this up at all had it not been for Bush pushing the issue. He wants an immigration bill, but I don't think he would sign HR 4437 without at least a guest worker program.
IOW, the Pence proposal stands a good chance of being the basis for negotiations in conference.
Like Huck, I believe the Congress has overwhelmed the executive branch in recent decades. Clinton was a very weak executive who was kicked around by his own party and, after 1995, the Republicans. Bush was determined to take back some of that executive authority, and he has done it, by putting documents off limits, and his willingness to go the courts to resolve disputes with the legislative branch.
Long time, no see. It's good to see your name back up on the forum.
That he did. But that may have to do with his other problems. I believe his administration oversold the Iraq war so badly that he's really crippled at this point, and he's doubly hurt by that because at the same time, he asserted executive power to Jacksonian proportions, so now, completely neutered, here comes the Congress to give him his due. I've said before, none of the branches care very much about encroaching on the people's rights, but they are very jealous of their own prerogatives, and will fight hard against encroachment by the other branches. Constitutional battles rarely center on the gubmint vs. the people. It's usually one branch vs. another, and I think this is no exception. Arlen Specter, for example, is an absolute tiger when it comes to protecting the rights of the Senate.
PS-- i didn't think anyone read my stupid posts anymore. i feel like i'm sort of all over the map. depends on mood, and whether or not i've had my meds :-P
I was going to put a footnote on my comment re: GW's intellect. It's relative, of course. But I do believe his chosen style of leading is based in part on his situation. He has attained high level positions, but then again, with his dad, and his connections, you have to take it with a grain of salt. In fact, his deferential style means you have to take it with an even bigger grain of salt. If all he does is defer to Tommy Franks, then who deserves the credit? You can credit him for staying out of Franks' way, I suppose. And I'm not falling for the old "Republican presidents are stupid" saw, in case you're wondering. Ronald Reagan was brilliant, as his speeches and letters now confirm beyond any reasonable doubt (I've read several biographies of Reagan, and his autobiography.) But I still don't think GWB has a lot of knowledge. He has some basic principles, and some core values and strengths, but he's been entirely reliant on the expertise of those reporting to him, with mixed results. That's my view on it, anyway. So when I say he's not sharp, that's not compared to the grocery clerk who can't make change in her head. It's compared to other people in leadership/policy roles. Tony Blair, for instance, runs circles around GWB.
Sorry, just a quick second reply. I disagree that Congress is responding to the president's push on this issue. I believe they are responding to the massive street protests of the House bill, and the media attention those multi-city protests garnered. Say what you will about them, filling the streets of several major cities with protesters definitely works, and that's what sent this into crisis mode, in my view. regards, h.
Yes, Blair is sharp and he may be smarter than Bush.
But Bush has gigantic balls, much bigger than Blair's, or anybody else's in world leadership.
In fact, I don't think it matters to him one bit what his polls say. He's going to do, or at least try to do, what he wants to do over the next two years, and dare the Congress to stop him.
I may be wrong, but I believe the Senate calendar scheduled debate on immigration for March, and that calendar was set in January. So the marches were timed to coincide with Senate consideration of the issue.
You both commented as though I have been totally off the forum which isn't the case. There is probably few weeks in the past two years I haven't posted some comment if not 15 times. But it isn't like the old days.
The last year and a half however there is so little exchange of ideas and reasonable debate that it keeps those of us that don't have the time on-line that some do to participate in the food-fight thread format we get on big issues now.
However, I imagine for every one of the long time members, like me, that still lurks and reads, there are four that have just ceased visiting on a regular basis.
You're mighty welcome, and sorely missed!
I don't disagree. Bush has resolve and the courage of his convictions. Those are good traits, and they highlighted them in 04 and contrasted them against the flip-flopper successfully.
I just don't remember seeing you or interacting on a thread with you in a while. Times have changed. First after FLA 2000, then again after 9-11. A lot of the old libertarian crowd left and went to libertyforum. I couldn't abide by that place and stayed here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.