George Bush is NOT a Republican

Dec 5 14:41 UTC 2003

So I've been wondering, is George Bush a Republican?

During the last election he was playing at being a middle-of-the-road kind
of guy.  We all suspected that he was way more conservative than he pretended,
and for a while I thought he'd proven that that is true, but now I'm having
my doubts.  I don't think he's a conservative at all.

One of the defining differences between liberalism and conservatism has always
been the degree to which we want the government involved in the life of the
country.  Traditional liberals want government to play a larger role,
providing more services, regulating more activities.  To enable this, they
traditionally support higher taxes.  Conservatives, traditionally favor a
smaller government, less services, less regulation, less taxes.  The liberal
hero is the man involved in his community.  The conservative hero is the man
who stands on his own two feet.  It's kind of a choice between choosing to
give more so that you can get more, and choosing to receive less so you don't
need to give so much.

So where does Bush stand on that continuum?  Nowhere.  Bush promotes huge tax
cuts, and huge increases in government spending.  It's the best of both
worlds, play less taxes and get more benefits.  Pure greed without any need
for sacrifices.  As a short term economic stimulus plan, it's very effective.
Long term...well, figure it out for yourself.  Notice how the economy
generally is doing better, but there is no job growth.  Hiring new people is
what you do when you expect a longer term growth, rather than a short term
bubble.

You could claim that the increase in military spending wasn't part of the
plan, though a traditional conservative would have spent at least a little
time worrying about how to pay for the war, and might have been reluctant
to cut taxes if he couldn't find other programs to cut to make up the
difference.  But how do you explain this prescription drug plan?  It's
going to cost a huge amount of government money.  It's the kind of thing
liberals have been pushing for years, except they expected taxpayers would
pay for it, and didn't expect it to be formulated as a corporate welfare
plan instead of an individual welfare plan.  Bush is presumably doing it to
preempt the Democrats from using it as a campaign issue, and he doesn't
mind that it is detestable to both liberals and conservatives.

Since Vietnam, foreign policy has been mostly non-partisan.  Except for
trade policy, liberals and conservatives have been pretty much in agreement
about America's foreign policy stance.  A foreign policy based on building
strong international alliances and defusing conflicts has been common to
both parties, with Republican presidents making some of the most important
moves.  Nixon's rapprochement with China was a key step.  Reagan didn't
end the cold war, but he at least didn't bungle the job of keeping the world
in balance as the Eastern block disintegrated.  The senior Bush's handling
of the first Gulf War was the template for coordinated international action
in the post-cold-war world.

Does the younger Bush continue this tradition?  Heck no!  No more of all
that negotiating business.  You have to make compromises when you negotiate. 
You have to sacrifice one thing so you can get another.  Bush's America
doesn't do sacrifices.  We want something?  We grab!  No give and take,
just take and take.  And don't worry, there won't be any casualties, because
that would be a consequence and we don't believe actions have consequences
any more.

So what is this guy?  He ain't no conservative and he certainly ain't no
liberal.  I spent a lot of time last night trying to figure out what he is.
What kind of political philosophy is characterized by greedy grabbing for
sort term benefits without thought for long term consequences?

Maybe I've been reading to my kids too much, but I think Bush is a Once-ler.
Always wondered what the face of the Once-ler looked like.

Not that that's encouraging.  The Lorax's opposition to the the Once-ler
failed dismally.

response 2 of 21:

Dec 5 15:06 UTC 2003

Hmm...I would argue that your statement that conservatives want less
government, and liberals want more, is overly simplistic.  I think
that's where a lot of the confusion comes from.

Conservatives (as they're defined in this country; i.e, Republicans)
generally want less government spending and less government regulation
of business and the economy.  At the same time, however, they generally
want more government control over individual behavior.  (Restrictions on
who can get married, what substances you can put in your body, how you
can protest government actions, what medical procedures you can have,
etc.)  By this definition Bush pretty much fits.  The prescription drug
plan doesn't quite fit in, but I'll get to that later.

Liberals generally favor more government spending, and more regulation
of business and the economy.  However, they generally want less
government control over individuals' behavior.  (There are exceptions,
of course.  The California government is quite liberal, and is a bit out
of control when it comes to regulating social behavior.  But I think my
comments generally hold true on the federal level.  California is its
own little universe.)

Also, neither party is really interested anymore in reigning in federal
spending; that's not the way you get votes, after all.  So essentially
the choice is between "tax-and-spend" Democrats, and "borrow-and-spend"
Republicans.  Add in the "we're not really like that" effect, that
causes Republicans to go out of their way to not seem stingy and
Democrats to go out of their way to not seem like spendthrifts, and
there's a lot of truth to the old joke, "If you want more spending, vote
Republican.  If you want fiscal responsibility, vote Democratic."

I think the prescription drug plan is something the Republicans were
essentially forced into.  They knew it was going to happen; they knew
they'd lose votes if they blocked it.  So decided it was better to shape
it into something that would benefit the industries that support their
campaigns and then take credit for passing it than to let the Democrats
have the issue.

response 4 of 21:

Dec 5 16:36 UTC 2003

Bush is the Presager of the movement that will
destroy Republicanism (by co-opting its
right-wing members) in the next century. The
centrists will go with the Democrats. The name of
this new politicaql movement? Bigoted Damn
Foolism.

response 6 of 21:

Dec 5 17:28 UTC 2003

I think that is still very simplistic.  I think that while Republicans
generally want a smaller goovernment and Dmocrats want more government
spending, it is a gross generalization to claim that they are all conservative
or liberal, that they want more control of individuals or less involvment in
personal life.

It is far more convoluted and involved than that.

It is easier to talk about Conservatives adn Liberals, for both exist in all
political parties.

response 8 of 21:

Dec 5 20:44 UTC 2003

Re resp:7: I think the current situation shows that cutting government
revenues doesn't stem the spending any.  Even when it does, all too
often important nationwide programs get cut in favor of local pork. 
Some of the stuff in the current spending bill is, to say the least, eye
opening.  A huge budget deficit, and we're earmarking $3 million to
teach kids about golf?  $50 million to put a giant indoor rainforest in
Iowa?!?
(See http://www.freep.com/news/nw/cong5_20031205.htm)

response 10 of 21:

Dec 5 21:46 UTC 2003

Both the items I mentioned were inserted by Republicans.

response 14 of 21:

Dec 6 08:04 UTC 2003

  re #13:  pay a little more attention the next time you read Doonesbury,
  as you're wrong on two counts:

  1)  in the wake of the 2000 presidential election fiasco, Trudeau 
      started drawing Bush as an asterisk under the cowboy hat,
  2)  since the invasion of Iraq (possibly Afghanistan) Trudeau has
      switched the ten gallon hat for a roman helmet.

response 16 of 21:

Dec 6 12:58 UTC 2003

Now I get it!  You get all your political opinions from the liberal left
cartoon lobby.

response 18 of 21:

Dec 7 00:27 UTC 2003

liberal left yes, cartoon lobby no. Most political cartoon i see is Road
Runner.

response 20 of 21:

Dec 7 04:55 UTC 2003

Yes, through the legal distribution of wealth, or the provision of tax breaks
to the lowest-income and more deswerving members of society, rather than the
rich who can afford to pay higher taxes, or the provision of tax breaks across
the board.

When lower taxes are paid by the lower-income brackets of society, the only
impediment to the proper functioning of the system is corruption; but since
awarding tax breaks to the higher echelons of society in preference to the
lower ones is also corruption, the argument against uniform taxes, or against
tax breaks for therich but not the poor, is invalidated.

"When human rights conflict with property rights, human rights must prevail."
- Abraham Lincoln.