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.21 responses total.
Are you done ranting?
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.
This response has been erased.
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.
It is good to see the US economy picking up. Hope the same happens to the European economy. The job claims are going down in the US but what I was wondering was that are people getting the same kind of jobs they were doing earlier? More importantly, at the same wage level? An estimated 500,000 jobs in the tech sector have been lost in the US in 2002. Did these people find jobs again in the tech sector or elsewhere? Where can I find such statistics?
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.
re: "(janc) on Fri Dec 5 : . . . Traditional liberals want government to play a larger role, providing more services" Adam Smith was a "Traditional liberal." "The liberal hero is the man involved in his community. The conservative hero is the man who stands on his own two feet." How does your local Chamber of Commerce fit in here? And the entire argument spirals downward after that. Most politicians will spend whatever they can get their hands on as a means of buying votes. Reduce taxes. Starve the beast.
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)
Yeah, those darn Democratic programs.
Both the items I mentioned were inserted by Republicans.
re1: are you through being socially autistic, stink-o?
This response has been erased.
Jan, you describe Bush the way Garry Trudeau draws him in Doonsbury. He draws Bush as being invisible, lacking substance, not a liberal, not a conservative, but a NOTHING. Trudeau also drew Bush's father the same way for years, as being a nothing, invisible. The only real difference is Bush wears a cowboy hat but you see nothing underneath the hat. Someone once asked Bush's press secretary when Garry Trudeau would be invited to the White House, and the answer given was "not in this lifetime" :) Well maybe he will if Howard Dean is elected. Trudeau and Dean were good friends at Yale
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.
Chambers of Commerce exist to help the local businessmen to make money, not to improve the lot of citizens generally by lobbying the city council for cleaner strets, etc. And before anyone says that if people make more money, it means more wealth for the general population, it is a well-known fact that when business-friendly administrationsget elected, the rich get richer, yes. It is also a wel-known fact that in the same circunstances the poor get poorer.
Now I get it! You get all your political opinions from the liberal left cartoon lobby.
I think some Chambers of Commerce are genuinely community oriented.
liberal left yes, cartoon lobby no. Most political cartoon i see is Road Runner.
re: "#15 (twenex): . . . It is also a wel-known (sic) fact that in the same circunstances (sic) the poor get poorer." And when the rich get poorer, the poor get richer???? Which explains why the poor have thrived under the recent recession! (Mr. tweenex comes up with some wonderful explanations! Is he related to Yogi Berra?)
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.
(Are we supposed to say thanks?)
You have several choices: