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 ... 581-600601-620621-640641-655 next last
To: Consort
If you grow the party by bribing people with handouts making more people dependent on government, what do you have? You have a copy of the democrat party and a bunch of people you will only keep in the party by ever expanding social programs.

Bill Buckley wrote an editorial when Nixon was president. He warned Nixon that he couldn’t out Democrat the Democrats for long. That's still true today. You can do it for a short time but they will always out Democrat you in the end.

In the column he warned against expanding government for short term political gain. He was right. Expanding the party by making more people dependent on the government is throwing away the whole system that made this country the envy of the world.

Growing the party by making more people dependent on government is running away. Fighting to stop the leftward slide is working for the good of the country.
621 posted on 06/18/2003 10:53:34 PM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 620 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
If you grow the party...

One of the major parties will run the government. It sounds like you don't like the Democrats. If that's true, then do what you can to defeat them and you will have accomplished something for yourself and for the rest of us that feel the same way.

622 posted on 06/18/2003 11:04:40 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 621 | View Replies]

To: Consort
Right now too many Republicans are acting like Democrats including President Bush. I'll keep working to turn him around but if he keeps going the way he's going I'll vote third party.

I can't see enabling someone who is narrowing the difference between the parties.
623 posted on 06/18/2003 11:14:30 PM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 622 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
I'll keep working to turn him around but if he keeps going the way he's going I'll vote third party.

Oh yeah. That worked like a charm in '92 with Perot. We sure taught Bush 41 a lesson. He won't mess with us any more, no way. Conservatives kicked his butt out of our White House and replaced him for 8 divisive years with.......I forget...who did we replace Bush 41 with? Were you one of the one who replace him?

I can't see enabling someone who is narrowing the difference between the parties.

But you don't mind enabling Liberals again. Said like a true Conservative.

624 posted on 06/18/2003 11:25:10 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 623 | View Replies]

To: Consort
No I held my nose and voted for Bush the Elder. I did vote for Howard Phillips in 96 because Dole is just Clinton who never raped anyone we know of so it made no difference which one was elected.

In 2000 I voted for George the Younger against my better judgement. After I did it I was sorry because Texas was going for Bush no matter what. I knew what he was, but voted for him anyway. I felt real bad afterward when I realized that it was another free chance to vote conservative and I missed it.

I've voted for the lesser of two evils too often. Now I've had enough. Unless he turns around, I'll vote third party or leave the president space blank.

It's up to Bush. If he turns into a conservative I'll work my butt off for him. If not, I figure he in't interested in my vote any way. That's the bottom line.

In the mean time, I'll keep working to try to bring him around and working to encourage DeLay and the other conservatves to buck him when he goes left.

It's all up to Bush. He may think he can keep governing to the left and keep all his base, but at least with me, he's wrong.
625 posted on 06/18/2003 11:48:04 PM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
No wonder you're so confused. You overcomplicate things. Keep it simple. Don't let the Democrats implement any more of their agenda. Put everything else aside. And if you have to bash someone, pick a Leftist.
626 posted on 06/19/2003 12:02:14 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies]

To: Deb; TLBSHOW
Deb I normally have to Freep solo no big deal. At least we know you support socialism if you support the Bush agenda on the socail issues.
Stand and be counted as one of the duped.
616 -TLBSHOW-



What social issues, you fruit loop?

You wouldn't know a "Socialist" if one peed on your shoe.

And the more you and your fellow brain donors throw that word around, the more ignorant you sound.
619 -deb-


Shoe peeing? Great line Deb. [once upon a time, long long ago]

-- But I think we're now seeing a golden socialist shower on his one man freep parade.. Gollywood 'writer' style.

627 posted on 06/19/2003 12:17:05 AM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 619 | View Replies]

To: Consort
I'm not confused. You are confusing the word Republican with the word conservative.

The Democrats are getting 80% of their agenda now. That's better than they did under Clinton or Carter. That might change, but as of now that is the fact we all have to live with.

Enabling Bush to continue on the path he is on makes no sense. I don't plan to continue to enable him in his rush to the left.
628 posted on 06/19/2003 12:19:22 AM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
You're spending way too much time worrying about politics. Try raising chinchillas for fun and profit. And when election day comes along, look at who is on the Democrat ticket and everything will fall in place for you.
629 posted on 06/19/2003 12:29:56 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 628 | View Replies]

To: Consort
I can't just run away and pretend this is not happening. I have to fight it as hard as I can.
630 posted on 06/19/2003 12:34:21 AM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 629 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
This can become a health problem for you. You might try listening to recordings by the Throat Singers of Tuva or Alpine Yodeling to calm your nerves. Stay away from pictures of Helen Thomas, especially nude ones.
631 posted on 06/19/2003 12:43:36 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Because I possess this knowledge, the possession of same requires a higher standard. If i know that my vote will help to further the Socialist Nanny State we are sliding into, how can I (in good conscience) vote for the person that does that, just at a slower pace than the other guy?

In an election, you have 3 choices:
You also know the practical results of those choices:
Your vote is going to help "further the Socialist Nanny state we are sliding into" no matter how you vote, unless it's one of those extremely rare situations (i.e. Jesse Ventura) where the third party candidate actually stands a chance of winning.
 
Therefore, is it better to vote for a fast slide into socialism, or a slower slide into socialism?  I'd say, to keep the country as Constitutional as possible, we have to go with slower.
 
We may not like it, but in actually right now the only two choices we have are faster and slower, and in my opinion, voting for faster, even 'inadvertently' (by voting for the third party candidate), is irresponsible.

You notice I put 'inadvertently' in quotes - that's because, since we FReepers are "much more informed than most folks on either side", we KNOW that the practical result of voting third party is to help the liberals.

   

632 posted on 06/19/2003 5:45:11 AM PDT by Amelia (It's better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 584 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
Actually, there is a fourth choice, but the country is not ready for it yet.
633 posted on 06/19/2003 5:46:55 AM PDT by sauropod (Watch out for low flying brooms! The Witch has left the Wal-Mart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 632 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
Therefore, is it better to vote for a fast slide into socialism, or a slower slide into socialism?

Good question and the answer is not so obvious as it might at first glance appear.

634 posted on 06/19/2003 5:51:32 AM PDT by RJCogburn (He's a short, feisty fellow with a messed up lower lip.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 632 | View Replies]

To: Mulder; TigerTale
So when are our Republican leaders going to actually start acting like Republicans?

Our Republican leaders will start "acting like Republicans" when they think they can win elections that way.

You might also see TigerTale's post #140, which is a good assessment of the political realities.

635 posted on 06/19/2003 5:54:48 AM PDT by Amelia (It's better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
Our Republican leaders will start "acting like Republicans" when they think they can win elections that way

You mean landslides in 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1994 weren't enough to convince you that this is generally a conservative country?

Show me the last time a liberal or a moderate won a national election in a landslide.

The line about "we can't be conservative because the country is liberal" is a lie propagated by the RINOs and their apologists here.

Most people want illegal immigration stopped (75% of Californians voted as such several years ago).

Even a majority of democrats believe in an individual Right to keep and bear arms. At the same time Bush is supporting the AWB, many democrats are opposing it. Other democrats have even signed CCW bills into law.

I could list more examples, but you get the point. Most Americans just want to be left alone by their government. The elections in 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1994 prove this.

I still believe as Reagan did that Americans will generally do the right thing when presented with all the facts.

636 posted on 06/19/2003 6:07:33 AM PDT by Mulder (Live Free or die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 635 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Actually, there is a fourth choice, but the country is not ready for it yet.

No, I don't think civil war would get many takers -- and right now, I can't see it being any more successful than the last one.

637 posted on 06/19/2003 6:12:21 AM PDT by Amelia (It's better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 633 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
as well you shouldn't give up you're principals just beause Bush and his crew have.
638 posted on 06/19/2003 6:15:45 AM PDT by TLBSHOW (the gift is to see the truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
You mean landslides in 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1994 weren't enough to convince you that this is generally a conservative country?
 
Frankly, it looks to me like this is generally a divided country, but maybe that's just my opinion.

639 posted on 06/19/2003 6:29:51 AM PDT by Amelia (It's better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 636 | View Replies]

To: Amelia; Noumenon
Its just a question of what will bring America to a flash point.
640 posted on 06/19/2003 6:52:58 AM PDT by sauropod (Watch out for low flying brooms! The Witch has left the Wal-Mart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 637 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640641-655 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