Did anyone mention that he fired Linda Tripp as soon as he got himself installed at his desk?
Does anyone believe that he would be Prez. today sans Linda?
Let me help you out--whether or not Bush loves big government is irrelevant. What is important is that the American people love big government. You may hate to admit it, but it's true. From Social Security, to Medicare, to subsidies, to "targeted tax cuts," to education spending, the American people are getting what they want. Do you think any of these programs could survive one session of Congress is the electorate were groaning under their oppressive burden. These are not programs foisted on us by nefarious legislators--these are programs the people want. As George Will is fond of saying, there is no constituency for smaller government.
What's more, the reason we can pay for these inefficient, unconstitutional programs is that we are so wealthy. Americans can generally afford to have a large chunk of their income taxed away and wasted, because we still have enough to put four T.V.'s in the house, three cars in the garage, and two kids through school. We are victims of our own success.
Combine this with the fact that Americans are generally compassionate people, and like the idea of someone looking out for the "little guy." We're usually too busy to investigate whether or not the programs work--symbolism over substance. But we don't like the idea of eliminating the symbol.
W. and Rove are perfectly aware of all of this. Because there is no constituency for smaller government, no one is going to win the White House on a platform of "fiscal responsibility." The GOP tried for years--and got whupped most of the time. Why should W. waste his time trying to give the American people what they obviously don't want? As Kennedy said, politics is the art of the possible. By giving in on spending which the public desires, W. gets a chance to steer the country in areas where there is less of a consensus--the environment, taxes, foreign policy, judicial appointments. All of these areas are open to conservative influence. Cutting spending is not--so long as the Americans like to see their government spend money. If you don't like W.'s approach, don't blame W.--blame the people he serves.
This is true. IF anyone had bothered to look at his Texas record they would have understood immediately that Bush likes to spend money. Lots of it. I live in Texas, and the budget growth under his administration was simply staggering.
But in Texas, no one cared, partially because state government just isn't a big concern, and partially because the economy was good and taxes never had to be raised.
Bush would never be able to get away with many of his policies as President were it not for the war. I have a pretty good sense of his supporters, and I can tell you that nothing matters more to them than national honor and security. I feel the same way. This trumps all else, and gives Bush a wide berth to massively increase spending, further federalize education, sign a viciously unconstitutional campaign "reform" bill, and so on.
Now having said all that, I will almost certainly vote for Bush in 2004, unless he neames a pro-choice running mate. I doubt it will be an issue.
I just caught your fine article, John, but must run back to the salt mines.
You really are on the mark and know how to make a splash after two months away from FR;^)