Posted on 04/28/2009 12:33:24 PM PDT by presidio9
Hey wingnut,
Why is it my conservative friends won't admit the truth: that George W. Bush "broke" the United States of America?
Sincerely,
Mitchell
Hello again. Judging by your response to my first three columns, this feature is proving quite popular. I appreciate all the letters that you have taken the time to send. I am sorry I am not able to answer each one of them personally.
This week I've been asked to explain why conservatives won't admit that George W. Bush "broke" the United States of America. It's an interesting question, so open-ended it's difficult to choose the way to answer it.
The short answer is they won't admit it because it's not true. George W. Bush did not break the country. Many conservatives believe history's judgment will be much kinder to him and his accomplishments than the current crop of historians and commentators allow and that he will eventually be seen in a much better light than he is today.
That is not to say he was near perfect. There are things that occurred on his watch that, whether Bush was directly responsible for them or not, are cause for legitimate conservative criticism. But this is far different from what I am sure many of you would point to as his failings as president, for example the idea -- really a canard -- that he "lied" us into war in Iraq.
It may be true that the decision to invade Iraq was partly based on faulty intelligence, that information the United States and other nations believed to be accurate regarding Saddam Hussein's intentions to develop chemical, biological and, particularly, nuclear weapons was not, in fact, accurate.
Bush may have been incorrect, but that is different by many degrees from engaging in a deliberate falsehood, as more than a few historians now believe occurred with President Lyndon Johnson following the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which led to a major increase in the U.S. commitment to the defense of South Vietnam.
Critics on the left blame Bush for a decline in America's global prestige and connect it to his foreign policy. I would like to point out that his clear-minded prosecution of the war on terror resulted in Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi's giving up his nation's nuclear weapons program, among other things. Barack Obama's make-nice approach got us a book accusing the United States of being a neo-colonial bully from Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez. I know which outcome I prefer.
On the right, the criticisms of Bush started during his 2000 race for the White House over his emphasis on "compassionate conservatism," which many feared was really just another way to talk about "big government" conservatism.
Events proved these concerns were, at least in part, justified. Fred Barnes, writing in the Weekly Standard in 2005, just about a year after Bush was reelected, cited six reasons they were, starting with the fact that Bush was not, in fact, a conventional conservative.
"He deviates on the role of the federal government, on domestic spending, on education, on the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, and on immigration," Barnes wrote. And by "deviates" Barnes meant favoring an expanded role for the federal government, counter to the limited-government philosophy of the Reaganite Republican Party.
But Bush gets credit for his pursuit of tax cuts that, rather than create the economic mess we are currently in, helped fuel economic growth. Under Bush, the economy and the stock market strengthened from 2003 to 2007 following the reduction in the capital gains tax from 20 to 15 percent and the tax on dividends was reduced from 35 percent to 15 percent.
Following the 2006 elections, when the Democrats regained control of Congress, it became clear that the House and Senate would not continue the lower rates. The response by investors to the promise of higher dividend and capital gains taxes started the decline in the stock market.
To those who understand the relationship between government and the economy it is no wonder that private investors, faced with these two near-certainties, changed their behavior. It's similar to the relationship between the realization that there were enough votes in Congress to pass the Smoot-Hawley tariff increase and the onset of the Great Depression. The stock market is a leading, not a lagging indicator.
If there are places where Bush's stewardship of the economy is to be faulted they are the way in which government, and government spending, expanded on his watch and the way in which the federal government violated basic free-market principles through its handling of the initial round of TARP bailouts.
Many conservatives opposed, as one wrote recently, "the idea that we would be able to bail out various financial institutions with taxpayer money, thereby stabilizing markets and mitigating losses while instilling confidence among investors and the general public."
As we now all know, it didn't work -- under Bush, who conceived it, or under Obama, who expanded it. And it opened the door for an unprecedented -- in my lifetime anyway -- level of intervention by the White House in American business.
Those who blame Bush for the bursting mortgage bubble overlook his efforts to bring greater regulation to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the way congressional leaders like Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., interposed themselves between the White House and efforts at reform. Could Bush have done more? Maybe, but he's also not solely to blame.
The "blame Bush" approach also ignores the way the Clinton-era revisions to the Community Reinvestment Act and pressure from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, again during the Clinton presidency especially, led to an increase in the number of people being given home mortgages who really never should have gotten them.
Before I close, there is one last point I want to make. It is fallacious to argue that George W. Bush or any other American president can or could "break" the United States. We are a strong country, full of amazing people who sometimes do incredible things. We are innovative, resilient, forward thinking, committed to liberty, and we remain, even for all our faults, a shining example to the rest of the world. The idea that any one man or woman, any president, could break the country runs counter to the true spirit of America.
I hope that helps.
-- By Glenallen Walken
for all the ****ty things you mentioned, you do realize that there has to be a buyer? nobody stuck a gun to their head
That's THEIR claim (liberals). (I don't think so)
But I'm making the point that both parties indulged in 'deregulation'. So if they want to blame the current situation on that, they have to take much of the blame themselves.
Yes, you are right. There were the sh*tty buyers of mortgages.
But I will say this, if people don’t have the money to buy a house and someone offers it to them and works it out where they won’t have to lay out any money — a lot of people will take it.
So, I don’t blame them quite as much - some people will do whatever they have to for their family and worry about the consequences later (not talking about the speculators).
BDS...
I absolutely HATE that talk. It is never a blessing in disguise to have one political party in power without any checks and balances (in the political sense - no Republican controlled branches of govern.) for at least two years.
Maybe then the American people will get a clear picture of the Democrats total incompetence.
Has it ever occurred to anyone, that maybe the American people will not get a clear picture. Has it occurred to anyone, that maybe the American people will keep giving the liberals numerous chances with the help of the MSM. I don't mean to sound pessimistic ... but ...
100 days and he still has his support thanks in part to the MSM. Even after numerous controversies so far. His poll numbers are still high ... The previous congress(Dem controlled) had the lowest approval ratings ever ... and were rewarded by having more liberals elected into office.
I do not have faith in the American Public when they receive their news and have their opinions influenced by the MSM.
Both. Bush should have vetoed so much more of the overspending.
It wasn’t Bush, it was Andrea Mitchell’s hubby, Alan Greedspan.
Fair argument.
The bulk of blame should always rest with Congress because the President is not consitutionally assigned this duty and has only one blunt instrument for trimming the budget. That blunt instrument can have devastating political effect for Republican President speaking to democratically controlled Media.
Agreed! But just as I wouldn’t let Clinton (and won’t let Obama) off the hook for “not vetoing,” I can’t let Bush off the hook for it either.
no problem.
I think your argument is fair.
Loaning massive amounts of money to under qualified borrowers is the problem. The government encouraged it, incentivised it, subsidized it, politicized it and in some cases required it. Socialist policy is breaking the back of capitalism.
The unpopularity of the Bush-Cheney administration did soften things up for Obama. But the economic downturn (and the media) helped the One hoodwink the voters. McCain did not do enough to sway opinion in the Fall.
Oh, I dunno. He convinced over half the country to vote for 0bama. I don't like 0bama, but the thought of President McCain staggering around the White House with Meghan doesn't warm the cockles of my heart, either. No matter who won this election, I knew I'd end up with cold cockles.
“How long did it take to capture Saddam Hussein? Should we have left and let him get back into power?”
Well I guess if we left the Iraqi army intact to keep the place under control like anyone with half a brain would of done ,Saddam would have been easer to find with their help.
Plaese tell me you left out a sarcasm tag...
We could structure a debate about how a milquetoast moderate President McCain would have continued the disaffection for the GOP that Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld really got going, but we’re stuck with Obama now until 2012. Some realistic appraisal of how we got here might be prudent. The media and the orchestrated Fabian dumbing down of the population by Deweyite education certainly had a fair share in that. But a presidential candidate (or president) has to be able to connect with and speak to the American people in competent English tht motivates them to cast their votes for him. How much it was from conservatives staying home or voting for third parties, OK, fair enough, maybe. There were the establishment types overly impressed with Obama’s alleged eloquence and suave hoodwinking.
Well said!
I am sick of the Bush bashing...especially from FReepers. Why do you think the left and the media always bring this subject up? Because they want us arguing among ourselves and making the argument for them to the whole country about ‘what is wrong with our party’!
There is nothing wrong with our party that a return to our conservative and Reagan roots cannot fix and we had better stop playing their game.
Yeah, you’re right! It seems that they are out in force today, for some reason. Well, I hope they are happy with what we have now, Pres. Obama and the whole Congress/Senate in Dem. (far left) leadership! I’m sick of it too!
I would’ve thought by now they would’ve been well, missing Bush a little. I guess not! They’d rather have what they have now. Well, we all are stuck with the left-wing now, even the crabs on here now, and it’s going to be reallllyyy hard to get the left-wing out now!
Maybe these Bush-haters will have their gut full of the left-wing soon. They have nothing but spite for Bush now. Maybe they’ll appreciate what we had when the left-wing regime we have now takes everything away from us all. I doubt it. Ten years from now, it will still be all Bush’s fault!
NO when it was left up to Bremer For some unfathomable reason!!he disbanded the lot of them! Now you have an unemployed Army..
Think about it and get back! That Puke Constitution was another work of Genius, they should have been handed one and told to use it..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.