The Bush Paradox

The Wall Street Journal ^ | February 18, 2004 | PETE DU PONT

[neverdem]

Wasn't the era of big government supposed to be over?

"We know big government does not have all the answers. We know there's not a program for every problem. We have worked to give the American people a smaller, less bureaucratic government in Washington. And we have to give the American people one that lives within its means. The era of big government is over."

[Texasforever]

I had to laugh when I read this since it is very close to the words about Reagan 25 years ago:

The Reagan Enigma
How then can one explain Ronald Reagan, the man on whom so many Americans placed such great hope? All we can say is that there are several theories to choose from, all of which fall in the realm of speculation.

One theory holds that he is a good man with fine instincts and excellent intentions, but is such a hater of confrontation that he has effectively been steamrolled by the non-conservatives who surround him.

Another theory holds that he was never a real conservative in the first place, but i8 a very capable orator who can read a good speech and produce a convincing image. The United Republicans of California published such a view in 1975, after having experienced all of the years that Ronald Reagan governed their state.(37)

One individual who shares the view that Mr. Reagan's political effect has never been conservative is Thomas Gale Moore of Stanford University's Hoover Institution. In a syndicated column appearing in May 1981, (38) he discussed the much-publicized Reagan plans to cut spending and reduce bureaucratic regulation. But Mr. Moore then cautioned:
Skeptics find President Reagan's record as governor, often alluded to during the campaign, far from reassuring, especially since he used much the same rhetoric during his gubernatorial campaigns as appeared later during his campaign for the presidency.

While in Sacramento, he converted the state income tax into one of the most progressive in the nation, introduced withholding taxes, raised sales taxes, and sharply increased taxes on business.

While he was in office, California government expenditures increased faster than was typical of other states. Notwithstanding his campaign rhetoric, welfare expenditures alone escalated 61 percent in real terms during his two terms as governor.

That is hardly a record that should merit the label "conservative."

A third theory would excuse the President by holding that government is out of control in the fiscal sense, and that previously arranged international entanglements are so binding that not even a President can reverse runaway spending or call a halt to the increasingly obvious pro-communist stance taken by Washington. Happily, there are not too many who believe that this theory has any validity.
Finally, another theory, which is not inconsistent with certain aspects of the first two given above, is that, while Ronald Reagan is indeed the President, he is not the boss. Nor have a number of his predecessors really been in charge. Instead, the Insiders who really run America select a man whom they then permit to occupy the White House. But it is they who still run the government through like-minded individuals with whom they surround the President.

When Ronald Reagan announced that CFR member Donald Regan was to be his Secretary of the Treasury, an aide pointed out that Mr. Regan had donated $1,000, the maximum personal contribution allowed by law, to Jimmy Carter's reelection campaign. And that, in 1980, Donald Regan had also contributed to and raised money for left-wing congressmen who were engaged in tight races with conservative, Reagan-backed challengers. When an aide asked then President-elect Reagan why he would choose a man with such a background, Mr. Reagan is reported to have said: "Why didn't anyone tell me?" (39)

Why indeed did Ronald Reagan place Donald Regan in his cabinet? We suggest that he did not make the selection, but that the Insiders made it and have made many others, and that such a practice has been the rule rather than the exception for years.

In late 1960, when John Kennedy formed his cabinet, his selections included Robert McNamara for Secretary of Defense. At a gathering prior to their taking office, Mr. Kennedy had to be introduced to Mr. McNamara. Could he logically have picked a man to be Secretary of Defense whom he had never met? Or. is it not more reasonable to assume that the selection had been made for him? As Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara did a great deal to destroy our nation's then-unchallenged military advantage.

Time magazine reported that Richard Nixon selected Henry Kissinger for the White House post of Director of National Security based on having once met him at a cocktail party, and having read one of his books. Yet, CFR member Henry Kissinger was widely reported to have wept publicly when his patron Nelson Rockefeller lost the 1968 Republican nomination to Richard Nixon. Did Nixon choose Kissinger? Or, were the reports in U.S. News & World Report and elsewhere correct when they openly stated the Rockefellers placed Kissinger in the Nixon Administration's inner circle?

[The G Man]

Remember when George Bush the senior inadvertantly referred to DuPont as "Pierre" effectively ending his run for the Presidency?

(think he still holds a grudge? nyuck, nyuck)