Presidency about Nothing

National Review Online ^ | 11 June 2003 | John Derbyshire

[Rummyfan]

Good take on things Clinton.....

[24Karet]

Good Read.... PING!

[Alissa]

Great article! The Dems claim Bush is devisive, which after Clinton is totally laughable!

[CatoRenasci]

Worthwhile article! Bump!

[Boxsford]

A good article. I'm sorry to say I've not heard of this author before but will look to read his stuff from now on. He's good. Not sure I totally buy into his thoughts on people not wanting the government to grow but also not wanting it to get smaller. Perhaps. For the most part I think people are pretty ignorant about government programs and where that money comes from exactly and gladly take when offered the opportunity.

[discostu]

I can see it. Having some allegiance with the Libertarians (who aren't just about sex, drugs, and rock and roll) I've seen people's reaction when you start naming the alphabet soup that's unconsitutional and should be disbanded. Once you tell folks the DOE, USDA, FDA, DOI, the other DOE and a host of others are all worthless departments that according to the constitution shouldn't even exist even hardcore conservatives start getting a little twitchy. The punchline really is that people want their tax bills smaller. Big government - little government most people don't care, keep more of their paycheck people are into that though not as overwhelmingly as you'd think (largely because the left has done a good job of selling to the little guy the idea that they always get screwed by tax cuts, one of the things GW is doing well is using the phased in approach to give the little guy the empirical evidence necessary to see otherwise).

[yoe]

They are still polarizing us as they pose as victims, not the perpetrators of sleazy politics they are. The Clintons want power and wealth as none others before them and will stop at nothing to gain it - no matter what it takes. I take heart that many former supporters of the tacky two are realizing this and moving away from them. A vote for a democrat is a vote for the Democratic Socialists of America and until the latter is removed, vote for some other party, A vote for a democrat is a vote for the Democratic Socialists of America and until the latter is removed, vote for some other party, preferably for a slow, plodding, totally American, Constitutional believer and adherer to justice and all laws, Republican. Less government is better government.

[Constitution Day]

Here's a link to the John Derbyshire archive on National Review Online:

LINK

[Boxsford]

hey, thanks!

[Cincinatus]

The trashing of tradition, the sneering at the armed services, the kowtowing to foreign despots like Castro and Assad, the moral relativism, the shady dealings and corrupt campaigns, the cavalier squandering, by people who never had a real job in their lives, of money wrenched from the pockets of hard-working citizens, the perjury and malfeasance, the cynical use of the military for "wag the dog" distractions

The perfect summation of the Clinton administration. Derbyshire hits a home run.

Next?

[kesg]

One of the best articles about the Clinton years (a/k/a the New Dark Ages) that I have read in a long time.

[Boxsford]

You said it! I don't know what it will take to get folks to see that their little entitlements are not good for this country. Probably the day human nature no longer has greed in it's character--which will be when hell freezes over.

[kesg]

Not sure I totally buy into his thoughts on people not wanting the government to grow but also not wanting it to get smaller.

I do, for the most part. How else does one explain the undeniable (and, for me, painful) fact that Bush's current high approval rating stems primarily from foreign policy and national security issues rather than so-called "domestic policy" issues?

[discostu]

I'm not even sure it's a matter of entitlements (though that plays in), I think people fail to understand that things haven't always been the way they are. Now that the fed has it's finger in the education pie people forget that we used to educate kids without the fed being involved. The usual question I hear when I list off departments that should get the axe is "what will replace them" and the squirming gets intense when I say "nothing". They can't comprehend a world without this alphabet. It's that lack of education in history. People get shocked when you tell them we got all the through the post Civil War depression and halfway through the Great Depression with no form of welfare system, they can't comprehend that problems can besolved any other way than they are now.

That's one of the interesting parts of the Bush presidency that I think will be his major legacy, he's done a very good job reframing the debate. The faith based initiative is great for how it reminds people that private organizations not only used to handle the social net, they still do handle much of it and do it better than the government. If this change in the language takes it'll be the first step in reversing the trend.

[Billthedrill]

They hated that stuff — the stuff about tradition, respect, formality, institutional dignity, values. Institutions, for them, existed only to be smashed up and remade in the image of New Class ideals. As did the nation — they hated that, too. Not just the U.S.A.: They hated the very idea of nation. The world, in their view, should be run by international bureaucracies, staffed by confident New Class-niks like themselves on limitless expense accounts.

This is spot-on. Part of the acrimony we receive from "old" Europe is explained by the peopling of the Brussels bureaucracy (and the governments of Belgium, France, and Germany at a minimum) by devotees of this "New Class" ideology. This is the reason they got along so well with the Clintons and felt betrayed and cheated at the accession of the decidedly non-New-Class Bush. (It is also the reason Bush is criticized for participating in a "family dynasty" of the Old Class and the New Class Al Gore, with a similar family political background, is not.) The UN, too, is populated by the New Class types, as are a number of NGO memberships.

It is also what that now-infamous little functionary meant when she looked on a flight of jet fighters and purred "those are ours now." As an American, of course, they always were, but as a member of the New Class they were not. When the Clintons left office that, too, turned to dust in their hands. For that they will NEVER forgive Bush and those voters who had clearly had enough of them.

[dead]

I think he presents a very accurate portrait of where are now (and have been since 1996), but to call it "the end of politics" is a bit much.

The end of the "end of politics" could happen at any time. I'm hoping (though not particularly expecting) that it could come in Bush's second term. If not then, perhaps a Republican successor with a solid mandate and vision could begin the rollback, and give the Democrats something to animate them once again. Then we're right back to the argument.

[LibertarianLiz]

I'm sorry to say I've not heard of this author before but will look to read his stuff from now on. He's good.

John Derbyshire is part of the regular writing staff over at National Review Online.

[dead]

It is also what that now-infamous little functionary meant when she looked on a flight of jet fighters and purred "those are ours now."

Actually, that was the former-liberal, former-actor, Ron Silver’s quote on Clinton’s inauguration day. In the ten years since, he seems to have experienced some sort of transformation, if not an outright body-snatching.

In other words, he’s “our Ron Silver” now.

[Boxsford]

People want to feel safe and Bush has done a good job. That doesn't mean that folks out there don't want what they think is their fair share at the government trough. I just moved from Maine and it is unbelieveable what Maniacs want from their pols. Susan Snowe could not get reelectd if she didn't bring home federal dollars. (political whore is what she is) Its this mentality that they're a small state (population wise) and they're entitled to federal dollars.

[Boxsford]

That's one of the interesting parts of the Bush presidency that I think will be his major legacy, he's done a very good job reframing the debate. The faith based initiative is great for how it reminds people that private organizations not only used to handle the social net, they still do handle much of it and do it better than the government. If this change in the language takes it'll be the first step in reversing the trend.

That is a really good point and I had not thought of it in this way. To be honest I've not been thrilled with the idea of the faith based initiatives but since you put it in this light it does move the debate to a different level and that is most definitly needed.