Bush Presidency is Advancing the Progressive Agenda

Sierra Times ^ | 6-17-03 | John Bender

[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.

[SUSSA]

Nothing changed except that people are starting to see Bush for what he is.

[ApesForEvolution]

OK. In reality, with the proof in the pudding already tasted, we now officially have two major choices in America:

Communistislamofascist (RAT) or Socialist Light (aka compassionate conservatism) (GOP)

[G.Mason]

Re:140 posted on 06/17/2003 11:10 AM EDT by TigerTale

Very well said!

[TLBSHOW]

Good try but as I said Rush should talk about the good Bush has done, why we don't ever want more rats elected because that good would not of been done and why socialism is not what America needs to become. Oh and that we should let Bush know we are not happy with the direction he is going over this issue.

Because no matter how many times he caves to the rats they will still bash us and Bush.

[SUSSA]

Bush's tax cuts were offset by his tax increases. You are right that state taxes have nothing to do with federal taxes and the two should be kept seperate.

My problem with his tax policy is, Bush's tax cuts are mostly future cuts but his tax increases are right now.

[Howlin]

Good try but as I said Rush should talk about the good Bush has done

Actually this is EXACTLY what you said:

Tune into Rush today he will talk about the good things Bush has done that no rat would of done

[deport]

Did anyone mention that he fired Linda Tripp as soon as he got himself installed at his desk?

---

The above is your words...... not mine.

So in effect they are incorrect. Clinton fired Ms. Tripp not President Bush. True he didn't rehire her as he didn't rehire others as normal in any Presidency.... False accusations from a so called right winger.... lol

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

Clinton fired Linda on Jan 19. W's no re-hiring her on Jan 20, the way he re-hired the State Dept's spokesman, for example, was as good as firing her.

I do admit that, technically, it is true that W's administration did not fire Linda Tripp. But, for all intents and purposes, they did and they know they did. It was in their power to 'reverse' Clinton's firing her and they didn't.

I give you another example, all cabinet resigns at the beginning of a president second term. The prez. then accepts some resignations and not others. Those whose resignations are accepted are in effect fired.

[No Dems 2004]

"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 can't agree with your assessment. Yes, President Bush definitely plays politics, and that isn't right, but he's not the personification of the caricature you are presenting here. Don't forget the brighter side of things: His personal life seems very clean (after Klinton, this is a must!), he frequently appoints (and re-appoints) staunch right-wingers like Charles Pickering, Priscilla Owen, Bill Pryor and Tymothy Tymkovich to the federal courts. He's done many things to express his opposition to abortion, both through legislation and judicial nominations. He vocally supports abstinence and marriage, in spite of having only slim support for it in Congress. He's the staunchest supporter of the death penalty we've probably ever had in the White House (the first 3 federal executions in 40 years have taken place under his watch - 2 of which were minorities. Bill Klinton stayed the execution of them, simply because he was Hispanic). He very courageously stood against global popular opinion during the Iraq war and was and still is demonised for it. The list goes on. Yes, his approach to homosexuality has been disappointing, for sure. Yet, how often do you hear him verbally promoting it like Klinton or Gore did? He refuses to sign 'Gay Pride Month' year after year. The White House endorsed the recent Texas DOM Act which banned both gay marriage and civil unions. The President also refused to reprove Senator Santorum, though he surely should have done more to support him, I know.

Yet, people accuse Bush of being no different from Klinton. I encourage those people to sit back and very calmly think back to what the Klinton presidency was really like. Do you know why the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is the most liberal Appeals Court in the country? Dig a little and have a look at the percentage of Clinton appointees that are on that court (I'll tell you that he didn't appoint very many Bill Pryors or Charles Pickerings). Have a look at his 2 US Supreme Court appointees, openly called moderates but with a radically liberal voting record. Think back to the "I have one thing to say to American people . . ." speech. Think to the Starr Report and the unsuccessful impeachment trial in the Senate. Think of that whole era that stripped America of its moorings like never before. And then ask you if President Bush has done the same. You'll be out of your poor minds if you think we're no better off now than before.

[TomServo]

Actually this is EXACTLY what you said:

Don't bother. He's always right. (/chortle)

[deport]

There is a balance here but no conservative in their right mind can support the socialist agenda and not slam bush over it.

---

But coreless people will support him for re-election come May 2004 while calling him a Socialist, UN Man, etc. Yep you have principle it seems....

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

Lowering taxes is never a bad thing!

Really? Let's start with the extreme. The taxes are cut to 0% and spending is doubled. Would that be a good thing?

[Ms. AntiFeminazi]

You and I both know there would be a revolt if there were across the board tax cuts right now. Think of this as a chess game. He gave up a pawn now for a queen down the road.

Follow the money.

[Howlin]

What part of "they didn't want to hire her" don't you understand?

[ApesForEvolution]

What if by some fluke the 'assault weapon' ban makes it to his desk and he signs it?

[Howlin]

That was pretty quick; only took 24 posts for a revesal.

[TLBSHOW]

do you support the Bush Agenda fully?

[Howlin]

Er.....reversal.

[SUSSA]

Conservatives in congress cut AmriCorps. Bush is trying to expand it. This from their web site:
Statement by Leslie Lenkowsky
CEO of the Corporation for National and Community Service
March 4, 2003
"We are grateful to the President for proposing this vital legislation. President Bush has again demonstrated his strong support for AmeriCorps by proposing legislation to give AmeriCorps the flexibility it needs to support at least 50,000 new AmeriCorps members in 2003.

"These no-cost changes would liquidate prior-year obligations for education awards in the National Service Trust, provide flexibility to allow the transfer of program funds to the Trust, and repeal the recently enacted cap that limits AmeriCorps enrollment in fiscal year 2003 to 50,000 members.

"The President strongly believes in AmeriCorps and the good it does in American communities. He proposed significant increases in both his 2003 and 2004 budgets to allow AmeriCorps to expand up to 75,000 members. At this time of great national need, the President has urged Americans to serve their nation, and that's what the legislation he is proposing today will help accomplish.

"President Bush has proposed a solution that will achieve what everyone wants—more opportunities for Americans to serve their communities and country through AmeriCorps. We greatly appreciate the support and close attention that Congress has given to AmeriCorps and urge Congress to act on the President's request and pass this legislation as soon as possible."


http://www.americorps.org/enrollmentupdate/statement030403ll.html

[deport]

Enough to support him for re-election... more than you are doing..... When and if you support him come May 2004 then you display a lack of core values... you scream about his actions them come to support him..... lol