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.

I'm at work so I can't get into it the way I would like to BUT I think you are right on most points and worng on a few others ... Thinking that the country would have been better off with Agore is way wrong in my humble opinion. I will be lurking but I can't post for a while

And we would not have done a thing about 9/11

Based on what? Clinton was quite a vicious guy and responded in kind when attacked. And Gore would have probably taken the opportunity to show his 'manly' side and re-unite the nation under him - same way Clinton did after OK City..

We're going to see a lot of this kind of psych stuff until the election because it's easy to panic conservatives. It worked like a charm with with Bush 41 and could easily work again with Bush 43. Conservatives will again think they did the right think as we watch the next Democrat inauguration.

I'm still giving Bush a break.

Deep in the bowels of the bureaucracy he's doing some good.

He bankrupted the land grabbing socialists at the US Fish & Wildlife Service who use the endangered species act to control private property. To me, this is huge because private property is the base of all liberty. More than 190 million acres of private property were seized and placed under government control by the feds under Clintoon. Let's see if this land grab is reversed.

He's looking to turn over 800,000 federal jobs to the private sector. If this means firing 800,000 burueacrats, that's good. And private contractors are much more accountable than bureaucrats.

Bush floated the trial balloon that he wants to eliminate the federal income tax. If he makes that part of his 2004 platform, that's good.

Yes, he's growing government way too much. The Dept. of Education disgusts me. But I'm still willing to stay aboard ship until I see the iceburg coming our way.

The war was necessary. The WMD excuse was meaningless. The war had to be fought because Iraq violated the ceasefire they signed in back in the George the Elder administration. The U.S. can’t allow defeated nations to violate ceasefire agreements and get away with it.

President Bush was stuck. He had to go back into Iraq, but to point out that it was because of the ceasefire violations would have made it clear that his father blew it by not finishing the job when Iraq first violated the ceasefire. It would remind people that his father was a failed president.

Nor could he mention that Clinton failed to do anything about the violations for 8 years, because the Democrats would have blistered his father for failing to act while he was still in office. They would have said he was blaming Clinton for his father's mess.

Bush took a chance that Iraq still had WMDs and used that as his excuse. It was a good political move and is still holding up. Bush keeps lowering the bar and the public isn’t even noticing it.

The war is Bush’s greatest accomplishment. Now, we have to see how he does with the occupation and nation building. It’s too early to tell how that will work out.

Clinton was quite a vicious guy and responded in kind when attacked

What a crock of Bigtime TOTAL Bravo Sierra ... he virtually did NOTHING about the first WTC the Cole, Osama ETC ... what the HELL are you talking about

I agree with you about putting all those jobs up for private bidding. This is a huge accomplishment.

Someone on this board said getting out of Kyoto was not a big deal. Absolutely, totally wrong. This was a great, conservative move and one done despite significant domestic and foreign opposition

Someone else said there would have been no difference under Gore. So clueless! We would be hook, line and sinker in Kyoto under Gore and would still be wondering whether we should attack Afganistan.

Get back to me when you stop the rants and can debate the modern politcal machinations of the US Senate.

How about, "Get back to me when you can stop the modern political machinations of the US Senate."? :-)

He's looking to turn over 800,000 federal jobs to the private sector. If this means firing 800,000 burueacrats, that's good.
###
He said he would put the work out for bids. What will happen is the burueacrats will just move into the new jobs that aren't going out for bids. They will just move into the agencies he is expanding. This is a trick to fool conservatives.

Which candidate, in particular, would you support in 2004 to replace George W. Bush?

Haven't you heard? On May 1, 2004 Todd will be support George Bush. During the campaign, Todd will be claiming victory at the many whistle-stops and town hall meetings. Come the November election (and subsequent landslide), Todd will claim that he, and he alone, was responsible for re-electing GWB. Because he held that socialist, ratty-rat, demorat, no-good stalinists "feet-to-the-fire" - but GOOD!

Progressives certainly don't seem to think that President Bush is advancing their agenda. From their webpage:

This is the time to be bold. The answer to "compassionate conservatism" is not timid progressivism. A majority of Americans support Progressive Majority's common sense agenda for Economic Justice, Civil Rights, Universal Health Care, Quality Education, Environmental Protection and Reproductive Freedom.

The problem is we can’t get a conservative to run against him. Anyone who did run against him in the primary would be demonized by the RINO machine that runs the party now.

There are plenty of good conservatives who would do a much better job. Phil Grahm, Tom DeLay, Ron Paul, Dick Armey, and Bob Barr are just a few that jump to mind.

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.