The Danger that is George W. Bush

Washington Dispatch ^ | August 4, 2003 | R.J. Cogburn

[gcruse]

As more pundits point out that President George W. Bush has hardly governed as a"conservative", his defenders rally to his side. As more conservatives become dismayed with his big government, big spending, big program charge, his defenders explain. As more people who pay attention to these things complain that he has achieved little at home, tax cuts aside, that reduces or limits or even slows the power, size, and expense of government, that indeed he had done quite the opposite, his defenders compare.

His defenders compare him to Ronald Reagan.

Some comparisons are reasonable. Both Bush and Reagan are attractive, likeable men. Each a "man's man" with the plain spoken style, the brush-clearing, horseback-riding western personna. Both decent individuals, devoted to their wives. Both Presidents dealing forcefully with apparent conviction with the threats posed by foreign adversaries. Both, as men, markedly and refreshingly different than the Presidents they replaced, the dour and pessimstic Carter, the narcissistic criminal Clinton.

The comparison the Bush defenders make, however, is not one of personality but of performance. Reagan ran big deficits. Reagan could not rid us of the Departments of Education or of Energy. The government grew under Reagan. Reagan did the best he could with a Congress that he could not control. Bush has had a similar performance. Bush has not reduced the size of government nor been able to get all his programs and reforms through Democrat obstructionism in Congress. Just like President Reagan.

Wrong.

What was truly remarkable about Reagan was that he, as was said at the time, changed the nature of the debate. People thought Reagan really believed the things he said about the spirit and strength of the American people. People took notice when Reagan was bold enough to suggest that government, rather then being part of the solution, was a part of the problem. With the power of personality and genuine conviction, Reagan was able to persuade people to check their premises and thus changed the conversation and the questions.

For the previous fifty years, the premise had been that the government had a role and responsibility in just about everything. All problems, real or contrived, were appropriately within the scope of government action. The debate had been about what was the best way for government to address a problem. How large a role should the government have? How much should it cost? How should the program be structured? Was it better to have the problems addressed by the "efficient" Republicans or the "compassionate" Democrats? How would the government program be most effective so that we got "the biggest bang for the buck"?

Republican or Democrat, Ike or FDR, Nixon or Kennedy, Ford or Johnson, the details may have differed but the underlying debate was based upon the same premise....the government had a role and a responsibility.

Reagan changed that debate. The debate became about whether the federal government should be involved at all in addressing a problem. Perhaps the government did not have a role in every corner of life and economic activity. Perhaps by being involved, the government not only did not help, but made things worse. This was a dramatic change and if Reagan could not implement or enact all he wished, he had taken a very important first step, a step that had to be taken before action and accomplishment could follow.

Under George W. Bush, the debate has been returned entirely to that of the time before Reagan. The education bill, the farm bill, the faith-based initiative, the Medicare bill.....all advocate and encourage the need, all welcome the presence, of the government's role. We are told that the government has a responsibility to leave no child behind. We are told that it is the role of the government to support the agriculture industry, to shield it from the problems caused by weather and markets. It is a proper and necessary role of government, we are told, to support "services" provided by private religious organizations. It is a good thing for the government to take responsibility to provide medications for its older citizens. Things will be better due to the government's actions, for it is a part of the solution to problems.

Bush advocates a bigger, more expensive, more powerful government. He advocates it on the basis that it is proper, legitimate, and necessary. Government will help solve problems. Compassionate government demands that it be involved in many areas and if that increases the size, expense, and power of government that is acceptable. It is a good thing. George W. Bush has checked his premises and they reject the Reagan thinking and discard the Reagan accomplishment of changing the questions we ask.

George W. Bush has done more than merely increase the size, expense and power of government. In a way that neither GHW Bush nor Bill Clinton could, he rejected the Reagan idea. He has done so by presenting himself as a genuine conservative and his government growing measures as conservative. In so doing, he has severely damaged the premise of the idea of smaller, limited government. In defending his actions, in refusing to criticize those actions as being hardly conservative, in accepting the premise of the widespread role of government his supporters have augmented the damage.

George W. Bush has made the work of those who believe in smaller government far more difficult. He has overturned the foundation Reagan had built. This makes him dangerous.

Very dangerous.

[gcruse]

Fill your hand... ;)

[gore_sux]

Last time I checked, Reagan didn't exactly keep the budgets tight and tidy, and oh by the way didn't he grant amnesty to aliens?

Presidents can only fight so many battles; Reagan fought and finished the Cold War, Bush's sole purpose is to START the process of wiping out the militant Islamic threat to the U.S.

Everything else is negotiable.

[VxH]

" all advocate and encourage the need, all welcome the presence, of the government's role."

---

An apple tree does not produce oranges.


"You will know a tree by the fruit it produces."

[Dutchgirl]

The education bill, the farm bill, the faith-based initiative, the Medicare bill.....all advocate and encourage the need, all welcome the presence, of the government's role. We are told that the government has a responsibility to leave no child behind.

I think Ann Coulter got it right in her book when she said "Shrub" would choose his fights: abortion, the judiciary...maybe I am being played like a Henson Muppet, but these are the issues that will drive me back into the voting booth--and a strong national defense. I may ot 100% trust GWB, but I trust Rummy and Condi and even Snow...

I think GWB has a talent for putting the right people in the right spot. If there must be fanatics in government, let them be people who are fanatical about duty...

[Gracey]

THANK YOU, PRESIDENT BUSH

We LOVE YOU and appreciate you.

THANK YOU for all you've done for our country.

THANK YOU that Goron is not our president.

THANK YOU for caring enough about our country ...that you will go to any means to protect it and its citizens.

[kesg]

Under George W. Bush, the debate has been returned entirely to that of the time before Reagan.

Uh, wrong Bush. In fact, the debate began to return to its former state during Reagan's second term, around the Iran-Contra period.

More generally, the problem I have with editorials like this one is that it totally drops the relevant political context. Am I really supposed to believe that Dubya is more "dangerous" than, say, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Howard Dean, ad nauseum? Dangerous to whom, and for what reason?

[Gracey]

and DEAR PRESIDENT BUSH....

I'm sorry that we had 8 years of Clintonistas. That had Clinton cared about our country the way you do he would have pursued the Islamofacists in 1993 the first time they tried to bring down the WTC. Then there was our embassies, the Cole, Oklahoma City bombing. The Clintonistas did nothing except give you this huge problem that got out of hand simply because he didn't care about the USA, about her citizens.

THANK YOU President BUSH for caring for me, for future generations, for my children, for the USA.

[Texas Federalist]

I agree that Reagan's budgets were not best. But he was working with a Democratic Congress and used his veto power often. Bush has a Republican congress and has not used his veto power once to keep spending in check. In fact, he has exerted political pressure to increase spending when without his influence spending increases would have been defeated in the House (e.g. the Medicare bill).

[gcruse]

I'm with you in that mode of thinking. National security keeps me in the voting booth. All else is manna for kvetching.

[kaktuskid]

Not to mention the quotas on Japanese cars and motorcycles during the Reagan era

[TomB]

Didn't Reagan sign into being and entirely new cabinet postition?

[Marianne]

BTTT

[gcruse]

I was thinking maybe Dept of Energy, but googling gives that to Carter. Maybe someone else knows.

[SandRat]

Where's the BARF alert???

[Scenic Sounds]

Department of Veterans Affairs (1988)

[gcruse]

Ah, thanks.

[gcruse]

Where's the BARF alert???

Training wheels are on aisle four.

[beckett]

Under George W. Bush, the debate has been returned entirely to that of the time before Reagan...

Absurd. Just a poorly crafted argument all around.

[Scenic Sounds]

Do we have still another Freeper writing columns for Washington Dispatch? This is a very nicely written piece.

I acknowledge that President Reagan spent a lot of time talking about how government was more a problem than a solution, but I honestly don't think that, if he were President today, he would actually govern much differently than our current President, particularly in the realm of domestic issues.