Monday, August 01, 2005
The triumph of the machine
Paul Krugman's column this morning is more interesting than usual, although not because it is any less deceptive than usual. Krugman's thesis is that the Bush Administration has become an old-style political machine, far more interested in "consolidating one-party rule, and rewarding its friends" than in public policy. This is why Bush has failed (according to Krugman) in passing the critical elements of his domestic agenda -- he doesn't really care about the policy as much as power.
Krugman, I think, is implicitly making a point that he does not want to acknowledge, or -- more probably -- does not comprehend. If we accept for an addled moment his argument that Bush is an old-style machine politician driven primarily by ambition for limitless power, does that not imply that Bush is pushing policies strictly designed to win votes, come hell or high water? If that is true, one of two statements must be true about Bush administration policies. It may be that they are, in fact, popular in the main and abandoned when proved not to be. Tax cuts are an example of a popular policy, and Social Security reform is an example of an abandoned policy. Second, it may be that Paul Krugman's preferred policies are just not popular. If they were, wouldn't the unprincipled Bush administration advocate for them in the spirit of "consolidating one-party rule"?
In fact, when Krugman's policies are popular, it turns out that the Bush administration does advocate for them.
So Bush is apparently doing some things that Krugman wants, although presumably not because Krugman wants them. When Bush does something that he supports, Krugman, unsurpassed churl that he is, can only complain that Bush is a hypocrite. If several hundred previous columns had not already established that Krugman's criticism of Bush is based on ad hominem hatred rather than substantive policy, today's column would do the job.
Most of Krugman's other evidence -- the energy bill, the highway bill, and CAFTA -- does not stand for Krugman's basic proposition. The energy bill probably is a mess -- I certainly don't know enough to defend it -- but the highway bill passed the House 412-8. All the eight naysayers were Republican, by the way. If the purpose of the bill were to "consolidate one-party rule," you have to be impressed that Bush managed to subvert 194 Democrats. (Nobody, by the way, is going to defend the Alaska bridges, but that's what happens when a powerful chairman stands between big legislation and its enactment.)
As for CAFTA, Krugman deplores the legislative compromise that Bush had to make to get it through the House:
First, the Bush administration promised only "renewed efforts" to limit China textile imports, a "pie crust" promise so easily and likely to be broken that only one North Carolina Congressman switched his vote to pass the bill, 217-215. But suppose that Bush actually succeeds in limiting textile imports from China. Would that not hurt WalMart and other reviled "big box" retailers the most? Krugman does not say this because it undercuts his thesis that everything Bush does is to cater to corporate donors.
In any case, no such concession would have been required if even one of the 187 Democrats who voted against CAFTA had decided otherwise.
Second, Krugman slyly avoids calling the pharmaceutical "monopoly rights" what they actually are: patents. Krugman apparently thinks that CAFTA subverts free trade because it protects intellectual property. One is almost forced to wonder what the United States would export -- other than food -- if, as Krugman advocates, "monopoly rights" in intellectual property disappeared.
If the Bush administration is a triumphant political machine, it has become so by dint of legislative compromise. This is hardly one-party rule. For Krugman to claim that it doesn't "have anything to do with governing" absurdly misapprehends the process of governing a country with 300 million people. Compromise, and a lamentable but inevitable amount of pork, are the essence of governing.
The campaign for Social Security privatization has degenerated into farce. The "global war on terrorism" has been downgraded to the "global struggle against violent extremism" (pronounced gee-save), which is just embarrassing. Baghdad is a nightmare, Basra is a militia-run theocracy, and officials are talking about withdrawing troops from Iraq next year (just in time for the U.S. midterm elections).
On the other hand, the administration is crowing about its success in passing the long-stalled energy bill, the highway bill and Cafta, the free-trade agreement with Central America. So is the Bush agenda stalled, or is it progressing?
The answer is that the administration is getting nowhere on its grand policy agenda. But it never took policy, as opposed to politics, very seriously anyway. The agenda it has always taken with utmost seriousness - consolidating one-party rule, and rewarding its friends - is moving forward quite nicely.
One of President Bush's great political talents is his ability to convince people who do care passionately about policy that he is one of them. Foreign-policy neoconservatives believe he shares their vision of a world transformed by American power. Economic conservatives believe he shares their dedication to dismantling the welfare state.
But a serious effort either to transform the world or to dismantle the welfare state would require sacrifices Mr. Bush hasn't been willing to make.
Krugman, I think, is implicitly making a point that he does not want to acknowledge, or -- more probably -- does not comprehend. If we accept for an addled moment his argument that Bush is an old-style machine politician driven primarily by ambition for limitless power, does that not imply that Bush is pushing policies strictly designed to win votes, come hell or high water? If that is true, one of two statements must be true about Bush administration policies. It may be that they are, in fact, popular in the main and abandoned when proved not to be. Tax cuts are an example of a popular policy, and Social Security reform is an example of an abandoned policy. Second, it may be that Paul Krugman's preferred policies are just not popular. If they were, wouldn't the unprincipled Bush administration advocate for them in the spirit of "consolidating one-party rule"?
In fact, when Krugman's policies are popular, it turns out that the Bush administration does advocate for them.
On the domestic policy front, talk of an "ownership society" appealed to conservatives who dreamed of rolling back the New Deal. But Mr. Bush has expanded, not reduced, middle-class entitlements. Only the poor and powerless have faced cuts. (I don't think those middle-class entitlements should be cut. But Mr. Bush claims to be against big government.)
So Bush is apparently doing some things that Krugman wants, although presumably not because Krugman wants them. When Bush does something that he supports, Krugman, unsurpassed churl that he is, can only complain that Bush is a hypocrite. If several hundred previous columns had not already established that Krugman's criticism of Bush is based on ad hominem hatred rather than substantive policy, today's column would do the job.
Most of Krugman's other evidence -- the energy bill, the highway bill, and CAFTA -- does not stand for Krugman's basic proposition. The energy bill probably is a mess -- I certainly don't know enough to defend it -- but the highway bill passed the House 412-8. All the eight naysayers were Republican, by the way. If the purpose of the bill were to "consolidate one-party rule," you have to be impressed that Bush managed to subvert 194 Democrats. (Nobody, by the way, is going to defend the Alaska bridges, but that's what happens when a powerful chairman stands between big legislation and its enactment.)
As for CAFTA, Krugman deplores the legislative compromise that Bush had to make to get it through the House:
Finally, Cafta contains "free trade" in its title, but that's misleading. The administration rammed the bill through the House by, among other things, promising to limit imports of clothing from China; over all, the effect may well be to reduce, not increase, international trade. But pharmaceutical companies got measures that protect and extend their monopoly rights in Central America.
First, the Bush administration promised only "renewed efforts" to limit China textile imports, a "pie crust" promise so easily and likely to be broken that only one North Carolina Congressman switched his vote to pass the bill, 217-215. But suppose that Bush actually succeeds in limiting textile imports from China. Would that not hurt WalMart and other reviled "big box" retailers the most? Krugman does not say this because it undercuts his thesis that everything Bush does is to cater to corporate donors.
In any case, no such concession would have been required if even one of the 187 Democrats who voted against CAFTA had decided otherwise.
Second, Krugman slyly avoids calling the pharmaceutical "monopoly rights" what they actually are: patents. Krugman apparently thinks that CAFTA subverts free trade because it protects intellectual property. One is almost forced to wonder what the United States would export -- other than food -- if, as Krugman advocates, "monopoly rights" in intellectual property disappeared.
If the Bush administration is a triumphant political machine, it has become so by dint of legislative compromise. This is hardly one-party rule. For Krugman to claim that it doesn't "have anything to do with governing" absurdly misapprehends the process of governing a country with 300 million people. Compromise, and a lamentable but inevitable amount of pork, are the essence of governing.
0 Comments:
