Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Presidency is Advancing the Progressive Agenda
Sierra Times ^ | 6-17-03 | John Bender

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush; bushdoctrine; politics
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 641-655 next last
To: sauropod
~~~W. is better than Gore only in a matter of degree. That difference is getting smaller and smaller.~~~


What would Gore have done with many of these items, listed by another Freeper?

Bush killed the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty. That's hardly a liberal position to take.

Bush killed U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court. Gee, it's only that *every* liberal on this planet supports that court.

Bush killed the U.S. - CCCP ABM Treaty that was preventing the U.S. from deploying our ABM defenses, an act of courage that was opposed by every Leftist with a microphone.

Bush reversed Clinton's move to strike Reagan's anti-abortion Mexico Policy.

Bush killed Clinton's CO2 rules that were choking off all of the electricity surplus to California.

Bush killed Clinton's "ergonomic" rules that OSHA was about to impliment; rules that would have shut down every home business in America.

Bush passed the largest tax-Dollar value tax cut in the history of the world, hardly an anti-Conservative move.

Bush has pushed through TWO raises for our military.

Bush has signed TWO bills into law that arm our pilots with handguns in the cockpit, hardly an anti-gun position.

Bush is currently pushing for full immunity from lawsuits for our national gun manufacturers, something that the Democrats have vowed to filibuster and oppose at every step.

Bush ordered Attorney-General Ashcroft to formally notify the Supreme Court that the OFFICIAL U.S. government position on the 2nd Amendment is that it supports INDIVIDUAL rights to own firearms, NOT a leftist-imagined "collective" right.
321 posted on 06/17/2003 11:09:08 AM PDT by justshe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: MississippiMan
Yeah, you bet. LOL. Again, had Clinton used EXACTLY the same wording and EXACTLY the same course of action, everyone here would've deemed it a cave.

Speak for yourself. Personally, I cannot stand Bill Clinton, but I think that it's counterproductive to jump on every thing that he ever says or does. I believe in giving credit where credit is due and in being honest. If Clinton had expressed regret over the deaths of the pilots, I would have reacted in exactly the same way that I reacted when Bush said it. If anyone would have tried to call that an apology, I would have pointed out that to regret a death is not to apologize for it and it is not to take responsibility for it.

I regret the death of Gregory Peck. Now did I just apologize? Of course not.

Frankly, too many people around here attack Clinton too much. By that I mean that by jumping on his every word and every deed, it only increases his popularity with people who feel that he's being unfairly maligned. My opinion about Clinton in that regard has always been that he's done and said enough that's worthy of the harshest criticism without having to try to buttress it with exagerated or embellished claims.

322 posted on 06/17/2003 11:14:47 AM PDT by alnick ("Never have so many been so wrong about so much." - Rummy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
"...and they will not allow them to create a Hilter BROWNSHIRT "Committe To Determine Who Is Really Conservative."

Thanks. Very appropriate. :-)

323 posted on 06/17/2003 11:16:58 AM PDT by alnick ("Never have so many been so wrong about so much." - Rummy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
The country is going down the crapper and as you can see, the majority are ok with that, and the majority of freepers are ok with that. The center has been redefined further left. But hey, at least we get our free drugs when we turn 65.
324 posted on 06/17/2003 11:17:45 AM PDT by Sir Gawain (Mongo only pawn in game of life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
((((LOUD CLAPPING))))

Great article. Thanks so much for it! Bush, a socialist Democrats best friend. The Constitution's worst enemy.

325 posted on 06/17/2003 11:24:35 AM PDT by Uncle Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
Okay. My view: free trade is fine to the extent that there is one, fully unified market (global government) and that humans fully lose their human nature (stop behaving irrationally). Neither is likely to happen. To most of us, life is a lot more than producing something and than exchanging some of the goods we made for other we need. This will not change.

To the extent that we continue to live in nation-states and have some attachment to our nation, history, culture, it is more important to us that our nation is prosperous than knowing that the global economic output is maximized. We would rather see our co-nationals fully employed and engaged in activities that are interesting and well-paid even if this is done at the price of delaying or preventing people of other countries or nations from achieving the same.

From time to time, we even have to make important decisions that may appear not to make economic sense. For example, we may refuse to sell weapons to our enemies, even at a good profit and even knowing that our enemy could buy the exact same weapons or better from someone else. This may be irrational but it's what our nature dictates we should do. We may also insist that certain critical goods and products that are critical for our survival are produced by our nation, even though they could be obtained at a better price from elsewhere. It makes no economic sense but it allowed Israel and South Africa survive at a time when most of the rest of the world was against them - I am talking about their synthetic oil and weapons industries.

Therefore... I do not blame George W Bush for imposing tariffs on certain goods, especially if he found that we were victims of other governments' dumping - dumping's aim is to eliminate our national industry by selling us goods at below cost prices until our own ability to make those goods is eliminated.
326 posted on 06/17/2003 11:27:41 AM PDT by A Vast RightWing Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill; Sir Gawain; SUSSA
((((LOUD CLAPPING))))(SUSSA)

Great article. Thanks so much for it! Bush, a socialist Democrats best friend. The Constitution's worst enemy.

Huh, Bill your reply #325 is directed to reply #324, which was made by Sir Gawain, and SUSSA is nowhere to be seen.

Whew you guys(malcontents) are getting very sloppy, IMO.

327 posted on 06/17/2003 11:31:05 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: Dane; alnick; arasina; Consort; clamper1797; dsutah; G.Mason; Neets; Destructor; OREALLY; ...
Interesting caller on Rush; woman/lady calls in and says she's SO mad and disappointed in Bush that she's never going to vote for him again.

So Rush says "So, who are you going to vote for, Howard Dean?"

Sounds like Rush may just be planning on voting for a socialist!!!!!!
328 posted on 06/17/2003 11:48:02 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: Dane
That's a dumb reply. At least you could've tied it to the drug war somehow like you always do.
329 posted on 06/17/2003 11:49:33 AM PDT by Sir Gawain (Mongo only pawn in game of life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
Re trying to turn him. in my own small way I am on an issue that I think could be decisive for him. link
330 posted on 06/17/2003 11:52:00 AM PDT by harpseal (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: A Vast RightWing Conspirator
This is a first...I actually agree with you...about the tariffs.
331 posted on 06/17/2003 11:52:35 AM PDT by Ms. AntiFeminazi (three rights make a LEFT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill; Jim Robinson

Darn that no one voted for you in 2000, Uncle Bill, undoubtedly the Constitution's best friend!

332 posted on 06/17/2003 11:53:02 AM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: clamper1797
Well said!
333 posted on 06/17/2003 11:53:35 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (Iran Mullahs will feel the heat from our Iraq victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Howlin; TLBSHOW
So Rush says "So, who are you going to vote for, Howard Dean?"

Sounds like Rush may just be planning on voting for a socialist!!!!!!

Hey if Rush said so, TLBSHHOW, would be a Rushbot and pull the Dean lever.

TLB's future rant, IMO,

"Rush told me to vote against the Bushy bat bat".

334 posted on 06/17/2003 11:54:19 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: justshe
Thanks for posting your note!
335 posted on 06/17/2003 11:56:09 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (Iran Mullahs will feel the heat from our Iraq victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: No Dems 2004
To clarify my position: I am NOT saying Bush is no better than Clinton, not by a long shot. Yes, there is definitely a huge improvement in the White House, a bright side, if you will. On the whole, the difference is daylight and dark.

The thing I'm trying to point out is the hypocrisy involved in supporting, or at least quietly ignoring, Bush on any given individual issue, when Clinton would've (rightfully) been roasted daily for it. I'm not equating their presidencies by any stretch of the imagination; I'm simply of the belief that we conservatives should stand on principle and character, not just for the officeholder of the day. Remember all the flak Clinton took--again, deservedly so!--over the Hormel appointment? Where's that same universal outrage from Freepers regarding Bush's appointment of a Romanian ambassador who takes his boyfriend on his arm to United States Marine Corps events? That's one example that perfectly sums up my point concerning the hypocrisy.

Nor does this mean I'm not going to vote for him in 2004. Of course I am. But there are lots who won't. They won't vote for a Dem. They just won't vote at all. He's killing the enthusiasm among many in his base.

Finally, thank YOU for engaging in an intelligent discussion even though we may disagree on some of this. Beats the heck out of the darts of "whiner" and "tantrum" and the other silliness.

MM

336 posted on 06/17/2003 11:59:25 AM PDT by MississippiMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: alnick
My only point in bringing up Clinton at all is to point out the hypocrisy. Not saying you're personally guilty of it, but many here are.

MM

337 posted on 06/17/2003 12:00:52 PM PDT by MississippiMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
Nice insightful analogy. The growth of the government seems to be unavoidable in the near future if you are correct.

And just how will my children pay the bill? Will they have to swim to the side and have my grandchildren also work to pay the bills.
338 posted on 06/17/2003 12:01:52 PM PDT by gathersnomoss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: justshe
Ooh a list.

Do Republicans really support smaller government? Here are some interesting facts:

WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION PROGRAMS & POLITICAL BOONDOGGLES


339 posted on 06/17/2003 12:04:09 PM PDT by Sir Gawain (Mongo only pawn in game of life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: justshe; AAABEST; harpseal; Carry_Okie; Noumenon; Jeff Head; Squantos; sasquatch; kitchen; ...
Bush refuses to reform the regulations promulgated from the Endangered Species Act.

Bush's Justice Department unlawfully detains people without charging them and without allowing communication with lawyers or family.

Bush signed CFR.

Bush signed the huge Farm Bill.

Bush just about doubled the funding for the Department of Education.

Bush refuses to do anything with respect to closing our borders. They leak worse than a sieve.

Under Bush's watch, an out of control Transportation Security Agency promulgates regulations that exist for two purposes: 1) to convince airline passengers that the Gubbermint is "doing something," and 2) for annoying passengers (exhibiting a greater and greater degree of control).

Under Bush's watch, little old grannies have to take their shoes off at the airport, but don't you DARE "racially profile" an Arab.

Under Bush's watch, the Gubbermint has had to raise the debt ceiling (yet again).

Sorry, honey, I'm not buying this crap!

340 posted on 06/17/2003 12:11:29 PM PDT by sauropod (Don't drink the RINO Kool-Aid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 641-655 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson