Posted on 02/09/2002 12:28:38 PM PST by Pokey78
Most of the reaction to George W. Bush's audacious State of the Union message has focused on his virtual declaration of war against the "axis of terror"North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. And rightly so. The first stage of the war against terrorism, Afghanistan, is not over, and the second stagethe "low-hanging fruit" of Somalia, Yemen, and the Philippineshas only quietly begun, but Bush proclaimed a third stage, which seems likely to include an invasion of Iraq. The president was just as audacious on domestic policy. "Toujours l'audace!" proclaims a French military sloganalways boldness! Bush has heeded that advice, to the astonishment of our foreign enemies and the surprise of his domestic critics.
Bush started off by admitting the budget will be in deficit but saying it "will be small and short term, so long as Congress restrains spending and acts in a fiscally responsible manner." That means Bush will use his veto threat to hold the line on nondefense spending. That leaves Democrats and ap-propriators of both parties seething. But they know they can't win a public battle with a president with an 80 percent positive job rating.
Bush also threatened to confront Majority Leader Tom Daschle if he prevents the Senate from acting on energy and trade promotion authority bills. Ditto with the stimulus package, which Daschle has blocked in the hope that Democrats would score in November if voters focus on economic issues. But voters give Bush high job ratings on the economy and do not blame him for budget deficits; the January bipartisan Battleground poll shows them favoring Bush over congressional Democrats on improving the economy (46 percent to 35 percent) and balancing the federal budget (43 percent to 36 percent). Consequently, blocking action on the trade, energy, and stimulus bills is more likely to lose than gain votes for Democrats.
On Democrats' turf. In another show of boldness, Bush made mention of issues that Democrats have long claimedthe so-called patients' bill of rights, tax credits for health insurance for the uninsured, and prescription drugs as part of Medicare. Bush has a position on each that significantly differs from the Democrats', and he has shown he will press for his version. The outcome Bush seeks: new laws that Democrats won't like and that will deprive them of campaign issues. In the meantime, he moved quickly to deny them another potential campaign issueEnronby calling for 401(k) reform, stricter accounting standards, and tougher disclosure requirements for corporations.
Bush was similarly bold in repeating his call for "personal retirement accounts for younger workers who choose them" as part of Social Security. This is an issue Republican House members would like to avoid and one that Democrats will latch onto as alleged evidence that Republicans would deprive retirees of benefits. But large majorities agree with Bush when the issue is framed his waymore choices for youngsters, guaranteed benefits for oldsters. He seems determined to use his political capital to avoid damage among the elderly and make gains among the young.
Bush's boldness comes as evidence mounts that the Republican Party has gained strength since September 11. For about three months, polls showed relatively little change in the close divide between the two parties, evident since 1995. But polls in December and January show a shift toward Republicans. Ipsos-Reid bimonthly polls before September 11 showed 46 percent of voters identifying as Democrats and 37 percent as Republicans. After September 11, it has been 43 percent Democrats, 42 percent Republicans. Eight national polls in January showed Republicans ahead in generic vote (which party's candidate you would vote for in the House) by 42 percent to 40 percent. Most pre-September 11 polls had Democrats ahead. And that question has been less favorable to Republicans since 1995 than the eventual vote. Democratic pollster Peter Hart prefers to ask which party voters would like to control Congress; an NBC News/Wall Street Journal January poll indicated Republicans by 44 percent to 40 percent.
Bush strategist Karl Rove looks back to William McKinley, who was elected with 51 percent of the vote in 1896 but whose successful war and domestic policies built that up to a solid Republican majority for years ahead. In a politics with an even partisan split, Rove says, "Small, permanent changes are critical." George W. Bush has shown a boldness that neither enemies nor critics expected. Now we will see whether it makes this small partisan change permanent.
As usual.
Also, under Napoleon, the Russians would have had the rule of law, the Napoleonic code being unquestionably more just than what was practiced as law in Russia which was slavery for the peansants.
Of course, President Bush spoke of the "axis of evil", so Michael Barone can't even get the premise correct, let alone the conclusion!
It's true. Irony is dead. I mourn it's passing....
Your record of military effectiveness can be shown once... Napolean and then nothing. After world war II you have been running and hiding. If not for your historical buildings and art, you would have a 25% unemployment and a military that could not beat a south Los Angeles street gang.
On top of this you have the nerve to suggest that you have a better way of doing everything. If the whole world had your health care system more people would die of disease than of war.
q_an_a The retail republican
On second thought, Father......
I recall reading recently, perhaps in one of Peter Drucker's books, that the economic position of Russia in 1913 was comparable to America's at the same time. Unfortunately, Soviet Agitprop has been functioning effectively in the U.S. for many decades. Even among conservatives.
But to portray the Russian peasantry as living in a life of incessant horror and violence is simply not borne out by their conduct with respect to the forces of so-called enlightenment as embodied in the Grande Armée. Were the Russians as downtrodden and miserable as you (and the Soviet historians) suggest, then why was there no massive insurrection on behalf of Mr. Buonaparte? Why, in fact, did volunteer organisations spring up to fight the French?
Your view of Russia prior to Communism has been clearly influenced by Soviet Agitprop. I suggest you go read some Solzhenitsyn. Or Tolstoy.
Actually, this is demonstrably untrue. (Although any long-lasting system can be so characterized by interestedparties. Observe the treament our Founding Fathers are getting on campus.) However, Lenin's urban/proletarian vanguard believed it to be true and they went out into the countryside to raise the consciousness of the former serfs and peasants of just how horrible the system had been.
They returned a while later to the safe confines of the city--worn down by the stubborness of the rural hayseeds; their block-headed refusal to abandon their ways. Lenin, being an eminently practical progressive, determined that the "Forces of History" required these bumpkins to be gotten out of the way. And they were.
Something the nasty Tsarist system never managed to figure out how to do. It just wasn't progressive enough--as you point out......
It is certainly hoped that should any American accidentally stumble into this obscure "wisdom", that they have the wisdom and experience to give due attention to the context of the difference in time and level of world conditions in terms of travel, technology, communications.
Context is the great illuminator.
Dear Lord. No. Just common sense that Russia was a miserable country for those peasants.
The hope is that our war will make a better life for the Afghans. We're freeing them from oppressive rulers but we had to go to war and drop bombs and kill civilians by accident to do it. But we're not doing it for their interests. The Afghan peasants didn't revolt against the Taliban or join us in fighting the Taliban except when given money to do so. But if we stay there too long, they'll mobilize to drive us out.
But they likely would have been better off if he'd succeeded, "conquered," Russia and united Russia with the rest of Europe. Then the Russians would have overthrown French rule. Ideas of Revolution made their way to Russia throughout the 19th century.
Well, whadyaknow? We agree upon something. Context.
And given the difference in time and level of world conditions in terms of travel, technology, communications combined with the spooky similarites in the tidepools of history--which will outlast planes, toys and amplifiers--I am correct to be apalled by the dangerous delight in loose, lazy historical citations. They know not what they do because they know not what was done. (or, more horrifying--they approve of what was done)
And probably they care not. They're rolling, you know........
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.