The Post-Modern President

Sep 4 23:00 UTC 2003

Here's an interesting article I ran across today:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0309.marshall.html
It's too long to post, and my comments here won't really do the argument
justice, so I suggest reading it yourself.

It starts by talking a little about the nature of Presidential
deception, and how Bush's particular style is the "confidently
expressed, but currently undisprovable assertion."  It goes on to
explain why Bush finds it necessary to engage in deception to achieve
his agenda.

The reference to post-modernism refers to one of the traits I've found
most distinctive about the Bush administration -- deciding on policy
goals first, and then coming up with a rationalization for them, instead
of vice versa.  Several examples of this are given in the article, the
most obvious being how drilling in ANWR is suggested as part of the
solution to every problem that comes along.

Another interesting section talks about the Bush tax cut.  I'm going to
quote part of that one directly:

'...cutting taxes was a fundamental goal of his agenda. Politically, it
was a policy on which each part of the once-fractious conservative base
could agree on. It also rewarded the party's biggest donors. But most
importantly, tax cuts would help shift the very premises of American
governance. Republicans had come to view progressive federal taxation as
the linchpin of Democrat strength. As Rep. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), an
up-and-coming conservative, told The New Yorker's Nicholas Lemann during
the 2001 tax debate, "[t]oday fewer and fewer people pay taxes, and more
and more are dependent on government, so the politician who promises the
most from government is likely to win. Every day, the Republican Party
is losing constituents, because every day more people can vote
themselves more benefits without paying for it." By this theory, the
more the tax burden shifted from upper-middle-class and wealthy voters
to those of the middle class, the more average voters would feel the
sting of each new government program, and the less likely they would be
to support the Democrats who call for such programs. To put it another
way, it was a policy designed to turn more voters into Republicans,
particularly the middle class. Without massive upper-bracket tax cuts,
DeMint worried, "The Reagan message"--smaller government--"won't work
anymore."

'But telling the majority of voters that your tax policies are designed
to shift more of the burden of paying for federal government onto them
is not a very effective way of eliciting their support. So, instead,
Bush pitched his tax cuts as the solution to whatever problems were most
in the news at the time.'

Finally, the article discusses the Bush administration's habit of
dismissing any facts that disagree with their pre-conceived agenda, and
how this has often cut them off from the very experts whose knowledge
they needed to give their plans any chance of success.

response 2 of 36:

Sep 5 17:46 UTC 2003

I like the "Like orthodox Marxists....." observation. Bush and Co have a
fixed ideologie and pick and choose - and distort - their facts to suit
their preconceived passions. I think they are getting stuck deeper and
deeper into a swamp of their own making.

"O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." (Sir
Walter Scott) 

response 4 of 36:

Sep 5 19:51 UTC 2003

Frankly, I care a lot more about what America is doing in Iraq than
about what Bill did with Monica.  However, if you want to compare
mendacity levels for recent presidents, this page (referenced in the
article above) is helpful:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0309.mendacity-index.html

response 8 of 36:

Sep 6 08:33 UTC 2003

tautology - quoting an article that says what you want it to say and
then refering to it as it proves your point.

response 10 of 36:

Sep 7 20:00 UTC 2003

No we didn't.

We only had a "surplus" because Social Security payments and taxes are not
considered to be a part of the "budget". When added in, government dollars
spent still exceeded dollars collected.

The signs of it are evident at the supermarket, the gas pump, the housing
market, etc.

response 12 of 36:

Sep 8 15:09 UTC 2003

So, wait...they're admitting they lied to everyone about their earnings,
and now they're expecting to get back the taxes they overpaid because of
those lies?  Hell, no.  They should have to pay for their deception.

response 14 of 36:

Sep 8 16:02 UTC 2003

We need to have a likely Democrat candidate before the poll means much.
I recall the polls also show hardly anyone knows who the potential
Democrat candidates are.

response 16 of 36:

Sep 8 16:49 UTC 2003

Okay, let's do those things.

I hereby order, within the next year, that the Democrats produce a 
likely presidential candidate, and further direct all media sources to 
subject that person to close scrutiny.

But in order that we not be trend-followers here, let's go ahead and 
discuss the president and his opposition as it suits us here on Grex.

response 18 of 36:

Sep 8 17:15 UTC 2003

No, he's protected by "executive privilage", apparently.

response 20 of 36:

Sep 8 19:54 UTC 2003

It's pretty funny to hear Republicans talking about possible Vietnam problems
from Dean and/or Kerry's past.  Yup, they bring that up, maybe the press can
bother to address how Bush not only didn't serve in the war, but couldn't even
bother to finish his National Guard hitch?

response 22 of 36:

Sep 8 21:41 UTC 2003

even the dude that lost his kicker?  ;)

response 24 of 36:

Sep 9 02:32 UTC 2003

Bob Kerry is the one who lost his leg, and who ran for President a few
primaries ago.  John Kerry is the current candidate, but I don't know what
his military record is.

I suspect military records will become less and less of a political issue,
if they haven't already.  For my generation, joining the military just wasn't
something people from upper middle class backgrounds did.