Bush Presidency is Advancing the Progressive Agenda

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.

are you really really sure Rush said that?

I heard Rush say that...it was a woman caller named Tina, in the last hour of the show.

She said she was so mad at Bush, she was NEVER going to vote for him again.

Rush said, Never? Isn't that a bit drastic?

She said, I'm just so angry!

And Rush said, Who are you going to vote for? Howard Dean?

He then added that he (Rush) was probably part of the reason the woman was so mad at Bush.

Then there was a male caller, possibly the last caller of the day (I was driving through traffic in a thunderstorm, so I may be a bit off), who said he was not voting for Bush again, that he would vote Libertarian "to send a message" - and Rush said, "Well, then you KNOW you're voting for a loser!"

Wrong, Trace. I was active in the Conservative Party of New York State when Rockefeller was still around so I do know what a "Rockefeller Republican" is. Obviously you're the one who's been away. What planet were you on?

So, after reading the replies on this therad, and then reading your account of the remarks that Rush made today, I feel like it's safe to assume that Rush is supporting President Bush.

Who would have EVER thought Rush Limbaugh would support a socialist.

Was he bragging?

When he asked the woman if she was going to vote for Howard Dean, I thought he sounded incredulous or sarcastic....

And when he said that he was probably part of the reason she was so mad at Bush, IMO he had a "perhaps I screwed up?" tone of voice.

Are you saying that Jim Robinson is also selling you BUSH/socialism, Todd?

Don't bother waiting for an original response. Give him time to cut-n-paste his answer.

Did you catch the rest where Rush said she is a virgin voter and she would come back and vote with us anyways. Because that is what we do just take it, or something close to that.

If Howard Phillips runs again, I will vote for him again (as I did in 1996 and 2000).

I am not about to water down my principles.

If I believed that W. really cared about private property rights and acted on it, then I would have voted for him. I knew he doesn't and have been proven (unfortunately) correct time and time again. Ask AAABEST about the 8 1/2 square mile folks in Fla. Jeb is his brother and W. can have quite a bit of influence here should he choose to do so. He chooses not to.

I have been active in politics for a long time and I have seen races decided by a campaign workers rudeness to three voters who after the fact said they had decided against voting for the candidate because of teh rudsde young person who tried to get them to vote for one person when they kept saying they did not wish to discuss the issue. Now quite frankly I am probaly going to vote for GWB in '04 but I am unwilling to make that a commitment on my part yet. If by saying this I attract rude outbursts that might factor into my decision. If I get reasonable discussion back then that might factor into the decision. however, most of my decision will be based upon future stands of GWB and his past action.

..if I make an honest evaluation that continuing with GWB would be counter productive then am I supposed to vote for him just to keep a Dim out of office...

Yes, just in case your honest evaluation failed to take some thing into account or it was based on faulty data or someone lied to you or you were having an off day or you have French blood in your family tree.....you know what I mean. Besides, how can "enabling a Liberal" and "honesty" possibly go together.

I would state unequivocally that the measure of your commitment of how much you actually value GWB...

GWB is just the current occupant. It's not about personalities.

Did you catch the rest where Rush said she is a virgin voter and she would come back and vote with us anyways. Because that is what we do just take it, or something close to that.

Yeah, he was being sarcastic. He then made the point that only people with no experience with politics think they are going to get what they want 100% of the time, or think that if they don't get what they want on one particular issue they'll "take their ball and go home" - i.e., either never vote again or never vote for that person again.

So you don't care that the person you vote for is NOT ELECTABLE, and you essentially are voting for a Democrat by NOT voting for the GOP candidate? I just want to make sure I understand.

My question was: Who is an ELECTABLE candidate you will support in 2004?

I say Rush was uplifting because he is going to open lots of eyes to the truth. Like say 20 to 30 million people.

Again, he did exactly that in '92. That was the election where we threw out Bush 41 and enabled the Clintons.

If taxes are cut to 0%, spending would not be possible. You cannot have one without the other. This is exactly what Bush is doing. DEFUNDING THE MONSTER!

Which monster?
President Bush is out Democrating the Dems.

I do not recall calling anyone "socialist" on this thread.

Look, there is nothing more I would like than to be able to support W. and the GOP. I no longer can. They have gone too far over to the left.

I may be tilting at windmills, but that is my right.

If Howard Phillips runs again, I will vote for him again (as I did in 1996 and 2000).

You know, 'Pod, I understand where you're coming from as far as principles go, and it's kind of a hard decision sometimes (it was for me in 2000), but what it came down to for me, in the last election, is do I vote the way that make ME feel best, or do I vote the way that's best for the country (i.e., keep Al Gore out of office)?

I really had to choose the good of my country over what made me personally happy.

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.