Myths and Realities of the George Bush Presidency

[Tigermike 3,053]

Myths and Realities of the George Bush Presidency

By Arnold Kling

17 Jul 2007

"conservatives are unhappy because the president allied himself with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) over an immigration deal that leaned too far toward amnesty for illegal immigrants. They're unhappy because Bush has shown little interest in fiscal responsibility and limited government. And they're unhappy, above all, because he hasn't won the war in Iraq."

--Byron York

Near the end of his shows, humorist Mort Sahl used to ask, "Is there anyone I haven't offended yet?" These days, I find myself asking the same question about President Bush. Economic libertarians gripe about high government spending. The "base" was offended by his handling of the immigration issue. The left is offended by every step he takes and every move he makes.

As I listen to people discuss the Presidency of George Bush, I find myself hearing the same things over and over. He has been too ideological, too closed-minded, too partisan, and too incompetent, resulting in a disastrous Presidency. I am not sure that this analysis will survive a more sober, detached perspective. Later in this essay, I will spell out what I see as the myths embedded in the conventional wisdom.

George Bush and Me

I have never felt comfortable with George Bush. I voted for Al Gore--although I never felt comfortable with him, either. I felt even less comfortable with John Kerry, so that I voted for Bush in 2004.

Neoconservatism is not my ideology. As I pointed out four years ago, the economic ideology of neoconservatism is willing to accept a large and ever-growing government, whereas I am not. Neoconservatives are comfortable turning religious values into hot-button political causes, while I prefer to keep my conservative moral values in the background. Finally, neoconservatives are somewhat more grandiose and moralistic than I am on foreign policy.

I think that President Bush has got one thing very much right, which is that Arab-Islamic terrorism is a symptom that something is rotten in the Middle East. If anything, his failures in Iraq and Palestine are due to underestimating the degree of rot. For all the allegations of his lack of intellect, George Bush is a brainiac compared to people who want to see terrorism as a symptom of something rotten in the United States or Israel.

Myth 1: Bush lost in 2000

It is a myth that George Bush lost the election in 2000. He lost the popular vote, but that is not how elections are decided. Both George Bush and Al Gore based their electoral strategies on the rules in place at the time, which determines the winner on the basis of electoral votes. Saying after the fact that the Presidency should go to the winner of the popular vote is like saying that the 1964 World Series Championship belongs to the Yankees because they scored more total runs, although the Cardinals took four games out of seven.

It is a myth that George Bush stole the vote in Florida. Every recount has given the victory there to Bush. There is no doubt in my mind that the real villain of 2000 is Al Gore. His challenge of the electoral results was blatantly unfair (recall, he wanted to recount only in certain precincts where he hoped to gain votes) and served only to transform a close election into an illegitimate one. Instead of working to unite the country, Gore set an example of deep partisan bitterness that maximized the long-term damage of the 2000 election for American politics.

Myth 2: Bush economic policies were disastrous

It is a myth that the economy performed poorly under President Bush. In my view, Presidents have much less control than we think, President Bush's policies were mainstream given the economic conditions that he inherited, and the key economic indicator of productivity growth performed well.

Claims that ordinary workers fared poorly under President Bush are suspect. Data on the "distribution of income" are often abused by people making the claim that only the rich are getting ahead. Even the abusers, however, see the trends as pre-dating the Bush Administration. Moreover, I contend that the escalation of income is more meaningful than the distribution of income.

Myth 3: Bush was too right-wing

Another myth is that President Bush followed a partisan, right-wing agenda on education and entitlements. Instead, he attempted centrist reforms, and even on those he was often rebuffed.

On education, President Bush compromised in order to pass the No Child Left Behind act. In order to obtain Democratic support, he increased Federal spending. In order to claim a conservative victory, he established nationwide testing. In my view, this was lose-lose for believers in individual liberty and educational quality. As I wrote here, nationwide testing is a step backward, not a step forward.

On Social Security, President Bush took a very cautious approach to implementing personal retirement accounts. The Democrats refused to compromise, which means that we will have to bite our nails and hope that productivity growth is high enough to overcome the system's actuarial unsoundness.

On health care, President Bush added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, hastening the pace at which the growth government spending on health care exceeds growth in the economy. The drug benefit's mechanical operation was the sort of managed competition beloved by Democratic wonks. However, the Democrats still gripe because the drug industry was left standing.

President Bush has made proposals to decrease the tax advantage of super-generous health care plans that are more likely to be enjoyed by the well-off and to offer tax cuts for individuals to obtain health insurance. These sensible, progressive proposals were shot down, because the Democrats want to make sure that nothing good happens on President Bush's watch.

Myth 4: Bush was too partisan

Another myth is that President Bush was relentlessly partisan and never willing to compromise. Instead, he caved in on a number of occasions when I wish that he hadn't. One occasion was the post-Enron panic, when he signed into law the ill-considered Sarbanes-Oxley Act. This redistributed income to CP-Yays, but harmed economic growth at least a little and perhaps a lot (my money is on "a lot").

Another occasion was his creation of the Department of Homeland Security. The notion that the way to improve big, clumsy bureaucracies is to combine them into a bigger, clumsier bureaucracy is an idea that would only occur to someone as out of touch with reality as a U.S. Congressman. Anyone else would know better.

Myth 5: Iraq reflects Bush's personality

Another myth is that the reason we remain in Iraq is that President Bush is personally stubborn. In fact, as Bruce Bueno de Mesquita points out, leaders of democracies always have a hard time extricating themselves from wars. A dictator can afford to lose a war, but a democratic leader will be very unpopular if a war has a negative or ambiguous outcome. Therefore, democratic leaders will tend to fight to the bitter end.

It is reasonable to argue that a different political leader would not have gotten us in to the war in Iraq. But once we were in, no politician in his right mind would have been willing to exit under conditions that fall short of victory. Even the Democrats are wary of being labeled as the party of defeat, and so they are reluctant to cut funding for the war.

The Era of Bitterness

I think that many people are tired of the bitterness and partisanship of the Bush era. My main point, however, is that people over-estimate the extent to which this bitterness and partisanship is due to George Bush himself. My prediction is that we will see further bitterness in the years ahead, as the sore losers of 2000 and 2004 become the sore winners of 2008. In 2012, there will still be Islamic terrorism, millions of Americans will lack health insurance and America's health care bill will still be unusually high, the rich will still be getting richer (unless the economy tanks), and the trend will be for more people to join the Long Tail that identifies with neither political party. Which is why both parties are becoming more shrill every year.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=071207B

[AURaptor 1,126]

*bump*

Needs to be read by all

[TDAuburn 2]

Well said. And this quote... "more people to join the Long Tail that identifies with neither political party. Which is why both parties are becoming more shrill every year." nails my feelings exactly.

[DKW 86 7,440]

Well said. And this quote... "more people to join the Long Tail that identifies with neither political party. Which is why both parties are becoming more shrill every year." nails my feelings exactly.

Count me in that group as well.

I was born a Democrat.

Carter made me a Republican.

Bush 43 made me an Independent.

[FootballFanatic 4]

I read that, its a fluff piece to the extreme.

It would be like me saying that I am an auburn fan but...

Alabama has had a rich history and a huge 12 national championship run that has to be respected. THey have the best facilities and best recruits in the nation and they now have the best coach anywhere that has proven beyond a doubt he is a football genius.

Sorry, that piece is full of more holes than swiss cheese. Bush has been the worst president to grace the halls of our esteemed White house and has done more to destroy the foundations this government was founded on than any other presidential candidate.

He is an embaressment to the represenative governmental system. Representative government where our government is supposed to actually perform the will of the masses. Not waht he himself thinks is right against overwhelming public disagreement.

[AURaptor 1,126]

I read that, its a fluff piece to the extreme.

Sorry, that piece is full of more holes than swiss cheese. Bush has been the worst president to grace the halls of our esteemed White house and has done more to destroy the foundations this government was founded on than any other presidential candidate.

He is an embaressment to the represenative governmental system. Representative government where our government is supposed to actually perform the will of the masses. Not waht he himself thinks is right against overwhelming public disagreement.

How is it a 'fluff' piece ? I noticed you failed to take on even ONE of the points listed. Not a single one.

We choose our leaders and trust them to do what is right. If they don't measure up, we vote them out. Enough liked Bush over what ever Kerry would have given to the office to keep Bush in power. We don't have a Democracy, where the will of the mob rules the day on every issue. We have a Republic, where leaders are voted by the public to represent our views and act accordingly. The founders knew that the passions of the general public could and does often change on a whim, which is exactly WHY we don't live in a strict Democracy. Nor should we ever. Every 4 years, we get our chance at a new President. We chose. If you're going to impeach anyone, it should be yourself.

[FootballFanatic 4]

By law a president takes an oath to enforce and follow the constitution to the letter. To protect and serve the PEOPLE of America. To exert the will of the population.

On several occasions he has absolutely violated the constitution, perverted civil liberties, and absolutely ignored the checks and balances of the nation many have given their lives to protect. These people didn't sacrafice their lives to keep a republican dictator in power, its was to protect the freedoms that Bush has subverted at every turn.

Illegal wire taps

Patriot Act

Refusing to testify to congress on illegal activites

Usurping the Judicial Branches efforts to bring people to justice

The list is long and sinister.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

By law a president takes an oath to enforce and follow the constitution to the letter. To protect and serve the PEOPLE of America. To exert the will of the population.

On several occasions he has absolutely violated the constitution, perverted civil liberties, and absolutely ignored the checks and balances of the nation many have given their lives to protect. These people didn't sacrafice their lives to keep a republican dictator in power, its was to protect the freedoms that Bush has subverted at every turn.

Illegal wire taps

Patriot Act

Refusing to testify to congress on illegal activites

Usurping the Judicial Branches efforts to bring people to justice

The list is long and sinister.

......and none of them are violations of the constitution. As a matter of fact, those scatterbrains that are filling your head full of garbage are the ones that oppose the constitution. Why else would they want to diminish the president's constitutionally given power?

[Tigermike 3,053]

Why else would they want to diminish the president's constitutionally given power?

Because he is Bush?

[WAR EAGLE!!! 0]

Why else would they want to diminish the president's constitutionally given power?

Because he is Bush?

No...it's because they are not in power. You give them the White House and Congress and it will take a freaking act of riot to try and diminish the power given to them...

[japantiger 4,051]

By law a president takes an oath to enforce and follow the constitution to the letter. To protect and serve the PEOPLE of America. To exert the will of the population.

On several occasions he has absolutely violated the constitution, perverted civil liberties, and absolutely ignored the checks and balances of the nation many have given their lives to protect. These people didn't sacrafice their lives to keep a republican dictator in power, its was to protect the freedoms that Bush has subverted at every turn.

Illegal wire taps

Patriot Act

Refusing to testify to congress on illegal activites

Usurping the Judicial Branches efforts to bring people to justice

The list is long and sinister.

Wow...I'm speechless...it seems every branch of the government is violating the constitution...

Suggest you read some analysis of the separate but equal provisions...and read a little about Lincoln, Washington and Roosevelts use of presidential power both during and outside of war-time....

[AURaptor 1,126]

By law a president takes an oath to enforce and follow the constitution to the letter. To protect and serve the PEOPLE of America. To exert the will of the population. ( Not so on this last part. The President is elected by the States, and HIS decissions are made based on what he feels is best. He does not act as a barometer to the ever changing will of the people. He is elected to the office of the President as a LEADER. By the mere fact that he won the election, the people have entrusted their faith in HIM to do the right thing. HE won. He is the decider. )

On several occasions he has absolutely violated the constitution, perverted civil liberties, and absolutely ignored the checks and balances of the nation many have given their lives to protect. These people didn't sacrafice their lives to keep a republican dictator in power, its was to protect the freedoms that Bush has subverted at every turn.

Illegal wire taps

Patriot Act

Refusing to testify to congress on illegal activites

Usurping the Judicial Branches efforts to bring people to justice

The list is long and sinister.

Actually, the list is silly and imagined.

There have been no illegal wire tappings. The Patriot Act, which Bush initially opposed, was voted on and passed by Congress. The President has no obligation to testify to Congress on bogus, kangroo court charges. There's been no 'usurping' of any efforts to bring people to justice. Quite the contrary, the W.H. has had to deal w/ a CIA which leaks national security secrets like a siv, while trying to fight a war on Islamic Terrorism that that the Left wing simply wants to pretends isn't there.