June 19, 2007
On Pragmatism
Perry Eidelbus has provided many thoughtful comments at ThreeSources, and I consider his Eidelblog a must read. But I once accused him of "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good" in one of his comments and I must reprise that theme today. It may be more fun to be the purist than the pragmatist but I think pragmatism is going to be in demand through November 2008.
Today, he uses the occasion of a Bush veto threat to post a litany of this administration's departures from limited government: Katrina, the energy bill, the transportation bill, &c. Now I wish that President Bush had found his inner Grover Cleveland and vetoed 413 bills in his first term, but I find Perry's post to be counterproductive.
George Wallace said "there isn't a dime's difference" between the two parties. Pat Buchanan was more colorful when he called them "two wings of the same bird of prey." Thinking of Nixon-Humphrey, Wallace may have had a point. Likewise, in 2000, the election was more partisan than ideological though I'd ask Perry if he thought that VP Al Gore would have been a better steward of our national largesse.
The next presidential election is shaping up to be a clear choice. Democrats are pitching universal preschool (because the government so excels at educating older students), all-day kindergarten, college for all, and the only health care argument seems to be whether there will be any place for private enterprise after the government takeover.
Whacking the current administration when it's down emboldens Democrats, depresses Republicans, and suggests to moderates that perhaps it's time to give the other party a try. Does this mean you cannot criticize President Bush? Certainly not. But both Perry and Captain Ed choose a moment when he is standing up to berate him for years of going along with the GOP Congress. (Didn't either of them ever train a dog?)
I thought that was odd too. Captain Ed states:
"Bush refused to veto a single appropriation bill sent to him by the Republican-controlled Congresses during the first six years of his term." As if it were a bad thing.
Bush is the head of the Republican Party I would think if the Republican controlled Congress send him a bill to sign, he should be able to assume they've discussed it's merits and want it signed.
Posted by: Terri at June 19, 2007 2:45 PMNow that Congress is Democratic controlled - now is exactly when he should be pulling out his veto pen.
Actually, I've never refrained from criticizing Bush, or any politician who talks a good line but is only talk. So I didn't really "choose" this time any more than I blog sporadically, and it happened to be a rather big claim by Bush that smells like BS. When Bush promises to veto "runaway spending," what does he think his job has been for the last 7 years, and can we believe he'll start now?
Now, don't get me wrong: I recognize the danger that the American people think, "Well, if one party starts going wrong, we must give the other a chance." They did that in 2006, and it could be a sign of the end-times if a Dem wins the White House in 2006. That's not to say the U.S. will be on the right track if Giuliani, McCain or Romney wins. But ultimately, there isn't a dime's worth, because both want to subject us to tyranny, just in different forms, and make us pay for it besides. We'll never get the perfect candidate, but we could at least vote for someone who's half-assed competent and gives two figs about the Constitution. Bush just isn't either, but don't think I'm singling him out: I won't give *anyone* a pass on such a thing to say. (Don't miss my upcoming entry on Byron Dorgan, perhaps the most economics-ignorant politician of all time.)
Just because the Democrats are bad doesn't mean we must knee-jerk support the GOP. Republicans talked good lines in the 1994 campaign, but once they realized they could slide a bit from stated principles because voters didn't want Democrats back in power, the GOP let its big-government colors shine through.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 19, 2007 3:20 PMBTW, I've never had to train a dog. My only dog was already a year old and very well-behaved by whoever owned him. However, there is a difference. A pet does not have power over you, at least, no more than you choose to give it. A pet does not continually take money out of each paycheck, seize more as a bogus promise for your retirement, and borrow money (on what is ultimately your credit). If a pet should become less than pleasing to you, should you just not want it anymore, your neighbors cannot band together and overrule your decision (because, after all, they benefit from the money your pet takes from you).
If politicians were dogs, the entire federal government should have had their noses rubbed in it long ago.
Terri, why do you think it's a *good* thing for Republicans to have Bush sign everything they want? The President is not some rubber stamp for anything his party wants to pass in Congress. Haven't you ever heard of the Constitution and the limits it placed on the federal government? Bluntly, I'm not even sure you understand American federalism, and how the federal government was supposed to be one of *limited* powers.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 19, 2007 3:28 PMI'm not saying that you have suddenly turned, but I do stand behind the dog analogy -- reward good behavior.
On Terri’s point, as we're coming to the twilight of the Bush Administration, I am thinking that he was more often on the side of limited government than was the GOP Congress. No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Drug Benefit were questionable, but they did contain some market mechanisms and the President believed in finessing a compromise. Whether you agree or not, they were good faced efforts.
The GOP Congress, by contrast, just turned into incumbents. They showed no courage or leadership, they just enjoyed the perquisites when it was their time in the sun. Now Bush is leaving but Reps Duncan Hunter and Jerry Lewis, and Senators Trent Lott and Chuck Grassley are staying. Maybe the 22nd Amendment was backwards.
Posted by: jk at June 19, 2007 3:39 PMI'm reading and re-reading and I don't see where I said it was "good" thing to have the president sign everything that was sent to him.
I believe, what I said was if the GOP wants X and they cleaerly want X, then why is it odd that the head of the GOP says, "OK."? He, Bush is getting flack because now, of all times, he has his veto pen out. That doesn't seem odd to me at all. But then again, maybe in my "ignorance" of federalism (?) it's just another thing I don't get. huh?+
Posted by: Terri at June 20, 2007 10:55 AMjk, politicians shouldn't have to be "rewarded," or accoladed for doing the right thing. It's part of their job. Besides, what has Bush done to deserve accolades? Tax cuts, excellent. Private health savings accounts, good. Pushing for Social Security reform, fine. But the rest of his administration has been raping the Constitution, whether it's out-Hitlering Giuliani with the "Patriot" Act, or out-Demming the Democrats with everything from NCLB to the prescription drug bill. Bruce Bartlett calls the latter the worst legislation ever passed, and he could be right.
Bush could have been a great president, but he destroyed any possibility of that by trying to keep his party in power by supporting massive government and thereby buy votes. He spoke of limited government in the 2000 campaign so he could show some traditional conservative credentials and beat McCain. Come 2004 with no challengers in his own party, he could formally come out as a fan of big government. Contrary to what one of my liberal friends says, Medicare Part D wasn't so much a giveaway to pharmaceuticals as it was garnering senior support -- especially in Florida.
Terri, this is what you wrote: "Bush is the head of the Republican Party I would think if the Republican controlled Congress send him a bill to sign, he should be able to assume they've discussed it's merits and want it signed."
If you think this is the way to do things, do you not also think it is "good"?
The President is a check on *Congress*, whether or not his party is in power. The President took an oath to the Constitution and American people, not his party or its interests. His party can discuss a bill all they want, but is it in *their* interests, or the interests of those who will ultimately pay for the legislation?
The only thing worse than Republicans controlling the White House and Congress is the Democrats controlling both.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 20, 2007 2:01 PMVirtue is its own reward, I'm sure. I was just questioning the timing of complaining when somebody has done something right.
On the Bush Presidency in general, your comments have sparked a surprisingly fulsome defense of our 43rd prez -- scroll up to June 20, 2007
Posted by: jk at June 20, 2007 4:29 PMIt's expected. The good part is not the point. The bill signing without veto would be expected because the bill originated amongst party members of which the president is the head.
Posted by: Terri at June 20, 2007 5:47 PMTerri, rubber-stamping your party's own bill shouldn't even be "expected." Two of the things Clinton did right were NAFTA and welfare reform, completely bucking his party. But it's like the Bruces in "Braveheart": one side of the same coin supports what's good, and the other side opposes. Thus Clinton did what was in fact good for the economy, but his party remained officially against it and so retained support from labor unions and minorities.
I expect the President to follow his oath to the Constitution and American people, not call it a "goddamn piece of paper." If you look through the Constitution, there's nothing about parties. It's about each branch of the federal government acting against the other two, not two branches working together.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 22, 2007 3:10 PM | What do you think? [9]