Our Allegedly 'Far-Right-Wing' President Is Spending Money Like A Drunken Sailor

Toogood Reports ^ | January 31, 2002 | Nicholas Stix

[spectre]

You are correct. I stand corrected.

[mrustow]

No sweat.

[x]

Bush is a Cold War consensus President, after the pattern set by Eisenhower. You can also add the elder Bush, and Ford, and Kennedy to that category, and, with reservations, Nixon and Truman also. The reservations have to do with Truman's extreme partisanship. Truman was certainly a Cold War President and certainly trying to keep to a consensus, but he couldn't resist bashing his enemies more than was necessary. The reservation about Nixon has to do with the real divisions in the country during Nixon's era. He was trying to be that kind of Cold War consensus President, but it wasn't possible, and he was also caught up in bitter domestic political battles.

The exceptions were Johnson, who certainly prided himself on seeking a consensus but who was first carried away by his landslide and then carried off by the rise of radicalism, Carter, who was independent-minded and not so willingly a Cold War leader, and Reagan, who was certainly a Cold War President, but in a country where consensus no longer existed and couldn't be restored along the post-New Deal pattern. Reagan's "radicalism" is always exagerated, but it is true that he couldn't or wouldn't stay entirely and forever in the groove that Eisenhower established. He wanted to change the dimensions of American domestic policy, not radically, but in some areas significantly.

So Bush is nothing new. He's a lot like Nixon or Eisenhower. The same sort of Republican President sometimes carrying through liberal Democratic policies. Social liberalism is no longer the dominant ideology in the country, but it remains powerful in Washington.

Seen against the hopes of the Reagan era, Bush is in some ways a disappointment. But parties intend to govern. They want to form majorities and get reelected. Their finest hours come in opposition, when they stand for a given set of principles. But they can't remain the principled opposition forever without disappearing, and in office they have to be more practical. Once in office, political figures also have wider responsiblities than newspaper or magazine or e-zine ideologues. And beyond all this, Bush will be judged as a war President, and his chief responsibilities will lie in that sphere.

One question to think about is, how much control do parties have to have to make real changes? Controling the Presidency and having a small margin in one house may allow for some new departures, but not many. And what do you prioritize? Saying Bush is all wrong isn't so hard, but what do you cut first? What do you stake your seats on in the next election?

Even Reagan had to concentrate on a few big ideas and changes, rather than many small ones. And prioritizing does keep parties and nations out of too much trouble. When they get their way on everything, the possibility for mischief increases.

[mrustow]

Very interesting analysis, especially of the Eisenhower Model, and of how Nixon attempted to stick to it. That makes perfect sense, considering the influence Ike had on the Trickster.

Your first name wouldn't happen to be Stephen, would it?

[x]

No, but I will name my next child "Ambrose," especially if it's a girl.

If you think about it GWB is not only the child of a President, but his father's career puts him in two political "bloodlines": Eisenhower -> Nixon -> GHWB -> GWB and Reagan -> GHWB -> GWB. Reagan's impression on G.W. Bush and today's GOP is stronger, but that Eisenhower-Nixon lineage is always in the background, and was very important in shaping the previous Bush Presidency. Perhaps it will also be found to be the stronger influence on this Bush Presidency as well.

[Uncle Bill]

BTTT

[mrustow]

You're probably right. The Eisenhower-Nixon influence on the GOP was the longest in the 20th century, as opposed to Reagan's, which was brief, in comparison. That Nixon-Eisenhower influence would be a good thing in foreign affairs, but could be a handicap domestically.

[x]

Funny thing, I just saw a review of a new book by H.W. Brands, "The Strange Death of American Liberalism." Brands argues that the mid 20th century successes of liberalism were a result of the Cold War. With the Cold War over, in Brand's view liberalism will recede. On the last page of the book: "(Of course in the presence of a renewed security threat, the liberals will once again be called to power -- QED)."

I don't know if the first two propositions are valid, but the third may well come true. Maybe Brands inserted that last bit after 911, but this is a strange case of a book being both obsolete and exceptionally timely even before it's published.

If history is any guide, we may see not just new security measures, but more general social policies and social changes designed to win us support in other parts of the world in our current war.

[mrustow]

I have no idea what Brands means. The statement is much too vague. Besides, what kind of "liberalism" does he mean -- Rooseveltian socialism or multiculturalism's racial socialism? At this point, notwithstanding all the claims that "everything has changed" since 911, I don't see racial socialism's death grip on America weakening one bit, npot with "radical rightwing" presidents me-tooing us to death.

Aside from that, I think your last statement is -- unfortunately -- correct. We are going to spend much more than even before trying to buy friends abroad, who will ultimately either be fair-weather friends (see the government of Saudi Arabia) who stab us in the back, when we call in our markers, or our worst enemies, who murder our citizens (see the Saudi rulling class).

[Jefferson Adams]

Taking bets on how long it will take for this thread to be pulled.

Because we're not allowed to criticize wrongs in government? Hmmm....

[Jefferson Adams]

All due respect intended to the ostriches among us.

LOL - gotta remember that one :)

[mrustow]

I suspect the statement you quoted was meant in negative terms.