Thursday, September 08, 2005
Bush is Really a Democrat You Know
1) Foreign Policy - core is spread of Democracy to Protect the Homeland -- in the 20th Century, the forebears of this policy were Woodrow Wilson ("Making the World Safe for Democracy") and FDR. This is a classical liberal internationalist agenda. This used to be the territory of the Democrats, even through JFK, until LBJ's presidency destroyed the Democratic hegemony over the liberal international agenda. Today, many (most?) vocal Democrats lurch towards pacifism and isolationism.
2) Economic Policy - in response first to the massive decline in equity values wrought by the internet/telecom stock market bubble bursting, and then to the subsequent recession and 9/11 assault, the Bush Administration passed through Congress massive fiscal stimulus -- known also as a tax cut -- to every single taxpayer in this country. This type of policy is classic Keynesian economics, heretofore again the domain of Democrats, not Republicans. This fiscal accomodation was subsequently also assisted with massive monetary stimulus (lower rates from Greenspan), to help the US economy recover from the massive multiple shocks of a market crash, a recession and an attack on the homeland. The result has been nothing short of fantastic, with a very shallow recession, unprecedentedly low unemployment (in the context of a recession) and now a powerful multiyear re-expansion. The Republicans of 1929 failed to follow this prescription and the rest is history. In this case, Bush administered massive stimulus (more like JFK and then Reagan) to push the economy.
3) Social policy - Bush has appointed not one but two African Americans to the highest cabinet post yet achieved, Secretary of State. He has appointed a Hispanic American as Attorney General, again unprecedented. He has passed the most unbelievable entitlement expansion since the 1960's in the form of Medicare Part D, the Prescription Drug Plan. Congress, with the President's support, is spending like mad, and government is growing rapidly -- again, the historical province of Democrats, not Republicans. The growth of Medicaid spending, Education Spending -- again all higher than ever...the list goes on and on.
4) And then there is Immigration Policy - well this can only be described as Open Door, especially in light of 9/11. So much so that many people on both sides of the aisle are screaming about it. Yet the Open Door was historically again the province of Democrats, not Fortress America Republicans.
Now there are those that will argue that on the appointment of judges, Bush will be far more conservative than a Democratic Party President would be, and that is likely to be true. He is afterall a Born Again Christian. On the other hand, so is Jimmy Carter, and he seems to be a favorite of the current Democratic Party and MSM, notwithstanding what an atrocious President he was.
One of the problems with today's MSM, among many, seems to be the rampant stereotyping that goes on about what a Republican or Democrat stands for -- as opposed to evaluating actual policies, positions and their effectiveness. What do you think?
14 Comments:
By 
TigerHawk, at
Thu Sep 08, 11:33:00 AM:
Both Bush 43 and Clinton are substantially closer to the political center than one would suppose given the intensity of opposition. Indeed, both inspire such opposition perhaps because they have embraced key elements of the other side's policies. So why the intensity of the opposition to both Clinton and Bush. Because none of the media, most "public intellectuals" or political "activists" are sincere. People who make their living from publicity have a vested interest in generating controversy and passion. The media needs audience, public intellectuals need to sell their books and collect their speaking fees, and political activists need to raise money. Nothing inspires controversy and passion better than manufactured hatred. And it is manufactured. It was manufactured when the right got so agitated about Clinton -- sure, he was annoying and laughable, but hardly worth wasting hatred over -- and it is manufactured today over George Bush. Many (even perhaps most) Americans like both of them as personalities, a concept that is lost on the publicity vampires in media and politics.
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Sep 08, 11:52:00 AM:
I agree with you with my brain, but when I actually meet some of the media clowns, they actually believe it. They feel love for Clinton, they feel real hate for Bush. That's why it's hilarious to see Bill Clinton and GHWB together on TV all the time. I bet they play golf together now. I suspect Clinton wouldn't be caught dead with stiffs like Dean and Kerry. I just don't get the hate is all. And the Krugman crap. And the recent Friedman crap. Just nuts.
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Sep 08, 12:01:00 PM:
Well, if you advocate for something long enough, you begin to believe it. And even sensible people can become victims of "Stockholm Syndrome." It must be hard to be a Republican in most big media organizations.
By cakreiz, at
Thu Sep 08, 12:07:00 PM:
Agree 100% with that first comment, Hawk. Clinton and GWB were/are closer to the center than most people believe. I've grown weary of the venom on both sides. It's so tedious.
By 
, at
Thu Sep 08, 12:30:00 PM:
trying living and working among new york "liberals." their hatred is not manufactured. it's exhausting to be around them.
By callmemickey, at
Thu Sep 08, 12:48:00 PM:
anonymous. i work in academia.. try that hehe
but honestly i think you have hit it dead center that both clinto and dubya have been victims of the media frenzy that revolves around activists and ratings. they are on opposite sides of center, but they do stray from alot of the 'core' values of each of their parties.
By cakreiz, at
Thu Sep 08, 01:00:00 PM:
mickey: seriously, what IS it like to be in academia on the GWB issue? Is it as bad as it's made out to be?
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Sep 08, 01:03:00 PM:
I do live around New York liberals...in the heart of the Upper West Side. Fortunately I am indefatigable and willing to make my wife suffer embarrassment at cocktail parties.
The supply side concept is slightly orthogonal to the Keynesian concept. By supply, exponents of this theory meant that if you tax something more you get less of it, tax it less you get more of it (hence supply). Reduce taxes and you motivate more work, production, income and therefore, praradoxically...more tax revenues.
Keynes instead focused on the notion that GNP is the sum of a bunch of things, most notably private consumption and government expenditure. If private consumption declined, in order to offset the impact on GNP, you needed of force to ramp up government expenditure to replace private consumption. And furthermore, you wouldn't raise taxes in an environment of reduced consumption (hence recession) to finance the increased government expenditure; therefore invariably you would run deficits to fiscally stimulate the economy out of recession (until consumption returned).
That is my macroeconomics lecture for today...I hope it has been helpful and not pedantic.
By Josh, at
Thu Sep 08, 04:45:00 PM:
mickey, I work in academia in California - ha!
I wish I had paid more attention in Econ classes...most of that I got, but some of it goes over my head...
By , at
Fri Sep 09, 12:29:00 AM:
Excellent work, TigerHawk.
If a neoconservative is a liberal who got mugged by reality, then W is a neocon. That is: there is very little Goldwater conservatism in W. He has strong resemblances to the last president from Texas: LBJ, who combined civil rights, a dramatic rise in domestic spending with a controversial war. But the polarizing nature of the last five years has kept many on both sides of the aisle from getting a clear vision of W: he's mostly an LBJ-style New Dealer who can't find a home in a Democratic party controlled by the McGovernite/Michael Moore Left.
By Cardinalpark, at
Fri Sep 09, 08:54:00 AM:
Grenfellhunt:
One major difference between W and LBJ - commitment and conviction. LBJ chickened out and so did his aides, McNamara in particular. Tet looked like a loss, even though it was in fact a big win, because LBJ bagged in 1968. Under duress, W. hung in there and won the election.
I never understood how vital LBJ's dropout in 1968 was. Today, I think it changed the course of history, for the worse for the US and the Democratic Party.
I think another vital difference is economic context. W was handed a market and liquidity collapse, a recession, and an attack on NY and DC. That is a much more challenging scenario than LBJ in 1963/4.
The big advantage W enjoys, however, is that there is virtually no split in his party, as there is in the Democratic Party, on matters of national security and war. That split sank LBJ, Humphrey and Kerry. Absent a third party candidate, it will continue to sink the credible Democrat on national security who seeks to run.
By , at
Fri Sep 09, 01:10:00 PM:
Cardinalpark said...
The supply side concept is slightly orthogonal to the Keynesian concept.
It is embarrassing for your wife, i am sure, having to suffer your casual abuse of terms you do not understand. BTW, you should move to Greenwich. UWS Manhattan "sucks," as the kids would say.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&oi=defmore&q=define:Orthogonal
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Sep 09, 02:31:00 PM:
RockefellerRepublican obviously has a thing for denotations. "Orthogonal" means "at right angles to." While "supply side" economics theory and Keynesian economics cannot literally be at right angles to each other since neither occupies physical space, conceptually they point in different directions, sufficiently so that they might well be said to be "orthogonal" to each other.
In any case, we at TigerHawk appreciate attempts at rhetorical flourish, whether or not they stand up to small-minded scrutiny. Keeps it interesting.
By Cardinalpark, at
Sat Sep 10, 04:13:00 PM:
RockefellerRepublican:
This is the comment you took the effort to make?
Perhaps your posterior is orthogonal to a signpost. Draw that picture.
Perhaps you might have a thought in your head on the economics discussion? Or Bush's policies?
Unlikely...
