December 22, 2008On the Mootness of LegislatorsBlog friend T. Greer sends a link to George Will's column Making Congress Moot. The column is unsurprisingly well crafted and reminds me why I appreciate Will in spite of his Conventional Wisdomness. Will rubs salt in the wounds opened by Gene Healy's book. If TARP funds can be put to any use the executive branch fancies because TARP actually is a blank check for that branch, then the only reason no rules are being broken is that there are no rules. In spite of the dubious merit of bailing out the Detroit Buggy Whip industry and its deeply flawed business model, Will is dead on that the arrogation of power to the Executive is complete. Purse strings for policy are clearly to be controlled by the House of Representatives. Yet, when Congress demurred, the Bush Administration took the money out its AIG Widow's and Orphan's fund. TG sends the link, an excerpt, an incendiary quote form his CNN interview, and a link to my I [Heart] W post, asking "Why was it again, that you can love this guy?" Well, the post linked was about personal virtue, which I feel our current President has in spades. I would say the same about President GHW Bush, with whom I had even more policy disagreements. President (GW) Bush's capacity to take the heat and do the right thing are worthy of admiration. And, as my post said, I think will be sorely missed. Will's point of Executive power expansion is a fair cop. Unlike Healy, and Reason Magazine, I have a difficult time blaming President Bush for this. This is a structural, systemic flaw in the Constitution as we practice it. I don't know how to fix it, but don't expect Bush to be the guy fighting clean on Pro Wrestling. The game is fixed and Rove/Bush had a way to play it. I'll provide one example. My hero, President Coolidge’s response to the 1927 flood of Louisiana earned him a line in a Randy Newman song. That was Coolidge's Katrina. President Bush went in with an army of FEMA agents and, well an Army, and -- because he was two days late -- his administration was deemed incompetent. I say that he never recovered. War is always unpopular and he was destined to lose support in Iraq. But Katrina removed the perception of competence and left all policy subject to criticism. What would Kanye West have thought if Bush had pulled a Coolidge? He would have been impeached! It's well and good for Healy and Will and Reason and even my great friend TG to complain about The Imperial Bush Presidency, but the people demand it. They gave a landslide victory to a successor who promised even more involvement in the markets. I'm enjoying Jon Meacham's "American Lion" biography of President Jackson. Though we recovered from Jackson and Lincoln, it is interesting to watch early expansion of Executive Power -- and twice as interesting to see how it is considered heroic by the historians. Individual parts of Bush policy have been debated around here. And I come to the end of the second term less enthused than ever about "big government conservatism." Again, I won't call it treason. It was an experiment: give the people the government they want (look at the polls, they do want it) but build it on market mechanisms like HSAs and private Part D administration. I'll listen to intelligent criticism from the right or left, but I cannot look back and wish that we had elected President Gore or Kerry. As I type this, another blog friend sends me ammo. Ed Gillespie's Myths and Facts About the Real Bush Record. Well worth a read in full, though it targets typical left criticism, I find myself drowning in contempt from the right. I worked pretty hard to elect Governor Bush in 2000 and harder to re-elect President Bush in 2004. There have been disappointments, but I am not regretting those efforts. Yes, he has flaws. No, he does not represent all my beliefs. He was the best electable candidate in 2000 and 2004 and I will not abandon him at the end. |
JK, I just don't know if this convinces me.
For one, the problem is much larger than the expansion of the Executive Branch. I will repeat the quote I attached to the letter for those who did not receive it: "I HAVE ABADONED FREE MARKET PRINCIPLES IN ORDER TO SAVE THE FREE MARKET SYSTEM."
In my mind, nothing else needs to be said to consign Bush to the bowels of the "worst President ever" list historians like to make in their free time.
But, you do bring up an interesting point. Bush is just waltzing past congress by giving the TARP money to the Big Three. I guess this incident encapsulates all of my problems with Jr. Here we have an imperial Presidency, disregard for the rule of law, and faux capitalism all in one happy bundle! Other than the *idiotic* idea of a small-footprint warfare, what is missing?
~T. Greer, fed up with W.
Posted by: T. Greer at December 22, 2008 8:59 PMIt may have escaped your otherwise keen attention, tg, that President Bush is sometimes not the most articulate spokesperson for his beliefs and ideas. If you're going to take a single quote and dub dubya the "worst President ever" I suggest you buy one of the popular "Bushism" books and be done with it.
Many gripes against this President from the right are well founded. I cannot think of one that is likely to get any better under President Obama. I had some hope for less Jovertesque drug prosecutions, but with AG Holder, umm, not so much.
Okay, worst President ever. Who is great and would any of the greats have a chance of capturing a single delegate in a modern election? Brother JG said "worst" or "one of the worst" in a recent comment as well. I will admit to being stupefied at that. President Bush has not been a solid advocate of small government. Stack him up against Wilson, Nixon, LBJ, FDR, and *ahem* TR, I think he comes out pretty well. I'd have zero problem putting him ahead of Clinton, GHWB, Carter and Kennedy. Bubbling up close to the top of the 20th Century Presidents.
Lastly, to continue our orthogonal thought: small footprint warfare was an awesome idea; small footprint nation building failed.
Posted by: jk at December 23, 2008 11:58 AMTouche. (I probably should buy a Bushism book now that I think of it..)
However, my problem with the quote is that it is not just words -- it truly reflects our President's actions. He has given his whole-hearted approval to what the folks here at Three Source's call "outright socialism." And not only that, but he has trampled across the constitution to do it!
I have trouble accepting the "people of America demand it" argument. To put it lightly, Mr. Obama has received a heavy dose of criticism on these pages. Considerably less vitriol has been thrown at Mr. Bush -- despite the fact that they are doing the same things, for the same reasons. Your acknowledgement that Bush is expanding the executive branch far beyond its bounds and while suffocating the market for the sake of public demand seems at odds of your perception of Bush as a virtuous man. Would a man of virtue bow to the mob as you say he is?
You do hit head on the nail when you note that things will be no better under Obama. Policy wise, things will get quite a bit worse. But there will be a silver lining with the loss of Mr. Bush: the words, terms, and images surrounding free markets, limited governance, and the GOP might just be separated from the sitting President. For in truth, Bush has done more to damn conservative policies than all of the elocutions Obama could dream up. His faux conservatism has been deemed the real thing, and nothing short of a colossal screw up on the other side will bring about a change of heart.
As for the worst Presidents lists- honestly, I think the whole exercise is a bunch of crock. The challenges faced by Presidents, an individual President's power, and the metrics by which we can rate them vary so widely from Presidency to Presidency that drawing up little lists seems kind of childish. With that said, I can hardly call Bush's two terms a success. If we are looking at long term influence, Bush has very likely doomed any chance of true conservative policies to be implemented for quite a while. Either way, I would not say he was a "good" President in any true sense of the term.
Finally, I would suggest that the problem implicit with small foot-print warfare doctrine is that it assumes small foot-print nation building will be able to clean up the messes it makes.
~T. Greer, still not convinced.
Posted by: T. Greer at December 23, 2008 1:31 PMWhile it does not refute anything you say, read Bill McGurn's piece. When I speak of expecting to miss him, this monstrous amount of personal integrity and decency come to mind.
It is extremely frustrating to hear Bush's policies related as the apogee of small-government and lassiez-faire. I blame the media for that and not the President. They will find sins just as egregious when President Bush is back home in Texas.
I disagree with the President on the automotive bailout as I have disagreed with him many times. But I applaud the Justices he has appointed to SCOTUS, respect his veto of the SCHIP extension and his attempted veto of the farm bill. No he's not the lost love child of Ayn Rand and Lysander Spooner, but when Secretary Daschle is installed in HHS and the government moves to take over 17% of GDP, I'm going to miss the guy who vetoed SCHIP.
I provided a list of worse Presidents to ask you if you stood behind your statement that he was the worst. You don't have to rank Taft against Hayes. But I'd like to hear you say that you really think Bush worse than Wilson, Nixon, FDR, and LBJ.
Posted by: jk at December 23, 2008 7:19 PMYou ask a fair question. Is Bush worse than Wilson, Nixon, FDR, and LBJ? Well, I would say that depends on what metric you use.
If we judge our President's by their ability to accomplish what they have sent out to do, then the only one of those fellas worse than Bush is LBJ.
If the we judge our President's by how much better or worse off a country is after they have completed their terms (this is a completely arbitrary metric in my opinion, but it is used) then Bush gets beat out by FDR and Wilson.
If we judge our President's by the long term effect his Presidency has on the country, then it is pretty much impossible to make any accurate judgments for 20 years. Still, from the perspective of 2008, it looks like Mr. Bush has done more to hurt American democracy then anyone else since FDR.
At the same time, I have no trouble placing all of the President's you mentioned before (GHWB, Clinton, Kennedy) ahead of Bush on all three counts.
~T. Greer, wannabe Presidential Historian
And for the record: I think TR beats the snot out of Bush when it comes to a Presidential record. ^_~
Posted by: T. Greer at December 23, 2008 9:15 PMP.S. I should probably clarify this: I do not think 43 is the worst. I just think he belongs on the list of the worst.
Posted by: T. Greer at December 23, 2008 9:18 PM | What do you think? [6]