Posted on 06/17/2003 5:07:22 AM PDT by SUSSA
Democrats may be worried that George Bush is unbeatable in 2004, but President Bush’s strength is good news for progressives. No president since LBJ has been as successful in expanding government and increasing the size and scope of social programs as this president. Presidents Carter and Clinton didn’t even come close to matching President Bush’s accomplishments in expanding government social programs. George Bush increased government size and spending more in his first two years than Bill Clinton did in his first six years. By the end of this year, he will have expanded government more than Bill Clinton did in his entire eight-year administration.
To be fair, Bill Clinton had to fight the conservatives in Congress who threw up every roadblock they could muster to thwart his progressive agenda. George Bush has not only silenced the conservative wing of the Republican Party, he has ground them into pulp and made them toothless tigers.
There is no longer any serious talk about making government smaller or eliminating government departments or programs. Smaller government used to be the bedrock principal of the Republican Party. President Bush changed that and is pushing Republicans in Congress not just to accept bigger government, but to embrace it.
Instead of eliminating the Education Department, George Bush almost doubled its size and pushed through the largest increase in funding the department ever enjoyed. He and Ted Kennedy worked closely together to make sure that the federal government also has more power over local schools than ever before.
The testing mandated by the education bill, and the mandate that schools meet minimum standards is a brilliant maneuver that will demand the standards and the tests be controlled centrally from Washington. No one will be able to oppose national standards and a national testing system. Without national standards, testing is subjective and worthless. National standards and a standardized national test will require local schools teach to the test. That means Washington will be dictating the curriculum in every school in America. Bill Clinton and Al Gore couldn’t even dream of accomplishing this much progress.
In other areas President Bush also out performed President Clinton. He expanded other programs the Contract With America targeted for elimination. He expanded Americorps, the Peace Corps, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and Head Start.
Working closely with progressive Republicans and Democrats, George Bush passed the farm bill that dismantled the Freedom to Farm Act that conservative Republicans pushed through Congress, and President Clinton signed, in 1996. This new legislation boosts farm spending to record levels. President Bush’s farm bill not only increased old subsidies, it created new subsidies our farmers never had before. No Democrat president could have pushed this legislation through a Republican controlled Congress. The conservative wing of the party still holds some powerful positions in Congress, especially in the House. They were proud of the Freedom to Farm Act and would have fought tooth and nail with a Democrat president to keep it in place. They caved in to President Bush without even a hint of a fight. President Bush effectively cut the conservatives in Congress off at the knees on this legislation and on most of their domestic agenda. He rules the Republican Party with an iron fist and conservatives are unable to out maneuver him.
President Bush signed the Campaign Finance Reform bill into law. Conservative Republicans in Congress are still quietly seething about how he steamrollered them on this. President Bush is also leading the fight to expand Medicare, add prescription drug coverage and mandate mental health coverage. Conservatives kept Presidents Carter and Clinton from adding these entitlements to Medicare. With President Bush pushing the agenda, they aren’t even pretending to oppose these additions.
The president is also leading the fight to extend the child tax credit to low income families excluded from the latest tax cut. He figuratively bitch-slapped Tom Delay and his conservative cohorts who threatened to derail the expanded credit, urging the Republicans to pass the bill quickly and send it to him for his signature. While progressive Republicans like to claim President Bush is following President Reagan’s vision for America, he is actually following President Nixon’s agenda to the letter. President Nixon never tried to eliminate any government program or agency. He expanded government as much as he could. Few people remember that it was President Nixon who created the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the National Endowment for the Arts. Fewer still remember that it was President Nixon who tied Social Security benefits to the cost of living. President Bush is surpassing President Nixon in advancing progressive social policy.
President Bush is also making talk radio safe for progressives. Hosts who would have railed against President Clinton, or any Democrat, for pushing the progressive agenda President Bush is implementing, excuse this president for it. Many of them attack any conservative who calls to point out that President Bush is a progressive. Even Rush Limbaugh is leery of taking on this president. While he occasionally offers some mild criticism of the president, he always follows that criticism by offering excuses for the president’s actions and progressive domestic agenda. This is partially due to the attacks that come from the Bush cultists any time anyone is anything but worshipful of their guy. Like Democrats who refused to believe that President Clinton was capable of doing any wrong, there is a group of Republicans who would support President Bush no matter how far left he governs. They attack anyone and any group who points out that President Bush is not conservative. Many of these people are domestic progressives who like big government and benefit from government programs. They call themselves conservatives; many of them really think they are conservatives. In fact, they support progressive social programs and most benefit from them. They are critical of the poor who receive government help, but enjoy generous government subsidies of their own lifestyles. Many talk show hosts fall into this category themselves.
The other reason even real conservatives are leery of voicing anything except the mildest criticism of President Bush is they fear retaliation from the administration. They fear being cut off from the information loop. They fear being dropped from the administration’s fax and E-mail grapevine. Their professional status is greatly enhanced by access to administration sources and President Bush is not shy about diminishing or eliminating that access for anyone who puts their principals ahead of support for his agenda.
All things considered, progressives are much better off with President Bush in office than they would be with any of his Democrat challengers. No Democrat on the scene today can come close to matching President Bush’s ability to advance the progressive agenda and marginalize the conservatives in the Republican Party. Four more years of a Bush administration will produce progressive gains that are only matched by FDR’s accomplishments. Rather than being disappointed that they don’t have a Democrat in the presidency, progressives should be thankful they have an ideological soul mate in office. For progressives the cry should be “FOUR MORE YEARS!”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Bender is a freelance writer from Dallas, Texas. His columns have appeared in The Dallas Morning News, Ether Zone, Right Magazine, The Sierra Times, USA Daily and other print and online publications. Your feedback is welcome.
Good people, all, but none are "presidentially-electable" IMO. Unfortunately for all of us, the election of a president has been turned into a trip to the Mad Hatter's table, a maniacal game of gotcha, a lunch of lunatics, but I suppose that's what makes Polly Tick.
If you really think you can win for conservatism by joining the bash, I can't stop you, but it seems we will have a repeat of 1992's Perot-Gets-Clinton-Elected fiasco as a result. I imagine you'll all be content with that, right?
This board SKEWERED Clinton daily (rightfully so!) for the same kind of policymaking. Now, because Bush has an (R) after his name, he can do no wrong. It's sad to realize that the ideologs on the right are no different in principle from those on the left: If it's "our guy," find a way to justify whatever he does.
I'll vote for Bush because he is better than having a Democrat back in the White House, but he is on a daily basis turning broken-glass Republicans into who-cares Republicans and is probably going to be a one-termer for it.
MM
Oh really. That is the ONLY way? And Freeping the White House will cause the current administration to do what? Put you in charge?
By the way, does Rush know how you feel about him? And how do you afford all those candles you light at his shrine in your living room?
Plenty of folks here who will be on board the Bush Train if the President signs that one.
Read what you are writing! We are fighting the same nations over and over. The US has been at war practically non-stop over the last twelve years. We have now come full circle and attacked Iraq again. We haven't removed our troops from our second war with Iraq in the last dozen years and we are already eyeing Iran and North Korea.
Under your theory, when will it end?
Keep laughing. There is a significant faction of people in this country who believe that Republicans are mean-spirited, racist, and only interested in the rich and corporate America.
Until they are convinced otherwise, they will never vote for a conservative candidate.
Of the ones I personally know, some of them are union people, some are older people who believe Roosevelt saved them during the Great Depression, some of them say the Democrats have a better record on Civil Rights, and some of them are Southerners who were raised on stories of the Republicans and Reconstruction.
But they all believe that Republicans are bigoted, selfish, and against their interests.
its too late deport,,, the truth is finally out......
no thanks to the bushbots who have covered for Bush and slammed those that told the truth....
Bush is a big time govt socialist........
indicates some slobber or froth at his mouth and a slight uncontrollable rolling of his glee-glistened eyes, so I no longer feel obligated as a compassionate conservative to give him that.
Hogwash!
Anyone who followed Free Republic knows I supported Bush in the General election and in the primaries when it was down to McCain vs Bush. I supported gWB because in 2000 there was no other candidate who could defest Gore. however with the stances GWB has taken on a number of issues and his continuation of Clinton apointees in a number of roles including Tennet as director of the CIA he has diappointed me and a large number of others who supported him then.
Lately my personal issues have been trying to influence policy from the administration to get rid of OPIC which is a government agency that provides assistance to companies investing outside the USA (can anyone say outsourcing or maybe balance of trade) and to enforce the immigration laws including the limits on H1B visas and L1 visas. I have been attacked by ardent Bush supporters who make it sound like I am advocating socialism by complaining about the full faith and credit of the US government being used to insure against political and currency risk for companies locating facilities overseas (if it is sound business proposition to provide this insurance why not private sector insurance?).
Now some people think GWB is a shoo in for the 2004 election. i think they are being overly optimistic. His base may sit out the election. gun owners are not very happy about his affiration that he would sign an extension of the AWB. Other conservatives have other issues with hs administration.
The highlight from a conservative standpoint has been the conduct of the war on terror and the judicial appointments most of which are stalled in teh Senate. I think some political calculations have caused GWB to appear to govern from the center but in point of fact that center is very far left. The details as to why I will leave others to speculate about. Suffice to say GWB is walking a tightrope to get re-elected and evry conservative he alienates may be a vote lost without an undecisded or leftist vote to make up for it.
Let me help you out--whether or not Bush loves big government is irrelevant. What is important is that the American people love big government. You may hate to admit it, but it's true. From Social Security, to Medicare, to subsidies, to "targeted tax cuts," to education spending, the American people are getting what they want. Do you think any of these programs could survive one session of Congress is the electorate were groaning under their oppressive burden. These are not programs foisted on us by nefarious legislators--these are programs the people want. As George Will is fond of saying, there is no constituency for smaller government.
What's more, the reason we can pay for these inefficient, unconstitutional programs is that we are so wealthy. Americans can generally afford to have a large chunk of their income taxed away and wasted, because we still have enough to put four T.V.'s in the house, three cars in the garage, and two kids through school. We are victims of our own success.
Combine this with the fact that Americans are generally compassionate people, and like the idea of someone looking out for the "little guy." We're usually too busy to investigate whether or not the programs work--symbolism over substance. But we don't like the idea of eliminating the symbol.
W. and Rove are perfectly aware of all of this. Because there is no constituency for smaller government, no one is going to win the White House on a platform of "fiscal responsibility." The GOP tried for years--and got whupped most of the time. Why should W. waste his time trying to give the American people what they obviously don't want? As Kennedy said, politics is the art of the possible. By giving in on spending which the public desires, W. gets a chance to steer the country in areas where there is less of a consensus--the environment, taxes, foreign policy, judicial appointments. All of these areas are open to conservative influence. Cutting spending is not--so long as the Americans like to see their government spend money. If you don't like W.'s approach, don't blame W.--blame the people he serves.
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.