Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Addicted to Bush
The truth, however, is that the only problem Republicans ever had with George W. Bush was his low approval rating. They always loved his policies and his governing style - and they want them back. In recent weeks, G.O.P. leaders have come out for a complete return to the Bush agenda, including tax breaks for the rich and financial deregulation. They've even resurrected the plan to cut future Social Security benefits.
But they have a problem: how can they embrace President Bush's policies, given his record? After all, Mr. Bush's two signature initiatives were tax cuts and the invasion of Iraq; both, in the eyes of the public, were abject failures. Tax cuts never yielded the promised prosperity, but along with other policies - especially the unfunded war in Iraq - they converted a budget surplus into a persistent deficit. Meanwhile, the W.M.D. we invaded Iraq to eliminate turned out not to exist, and by 2008 a majority of the public believed not just that the invasion was a mistake but that the Bush administration deliberately misled the nation into war. What's a Republican to do?
You know the answer. There's now a concerted effort under way to rehabilitate Mr. Bush's image on at least three fronts: the economy, the deficit and the war.
On the economy: Last week Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, declared that "there's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy." So now the word is that the Bush-era economy was characterized by "vibrancy."
I guess it depends on the meaning of the word "vibrant." The actual record of the Bush years was (i) two and half years of declining employment, followed by (ii) four and a half years of modest job growth, at a pace significantly below the eight-year average under Bill Clinton, followed by (iii) a year of economic catastrophe. In 2007, at the height of the "Bush boom," such as it was, median household income, adjusted for inflation, was still lower than it had been in 2000.
But the Bush apologists hope that you won't remember all that. And they also have a theory, which I've been hearing more and more - namely, that President Obama, though not yet in office or even elected, caused the 2008 slump. You see, people were worried in advance about his future policies, and that's what caused the economy to tank. Seriously.
On the deficit: Republicans are now claiming that the Bush administration was actually a paragon of fiscal responsibility, and that the deficit is Mr. Obama's fault. "The last year of the Bush administration," said Mr. McConnell recently, "the deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product was 3.2 percent, well within the range of what most economists think is manageable. A year and a half later, it's almost 10 percent."
But that 3.2 percent figure, it turns out, is for fiscal 2008 - which wasn't the last year of the Bush administration, because it ended in September of 2008. In other words, it ended just as the failure of Lehman Brothers - on Mr. Bush's watch - was triggering a broad financial and economic collapse. This collapse caused the deficit to soar: By the first quarter of 2009 - with only a trickle of stimulus funds flowing - federal borrowing had already reached almost 9 percent of G.D.P. To some of us, this says that the economic crisis that began under Mr. Bush is responsible for the great bulk of our current deficit. But the Republican Party is having none of it.
Finally, on the war: For most Americans, the whole debate about the war is old if painful news - but not for those obsessed with refurbishing the Bush image. Karl Rove now claims that his biggest mistake was letting Democrats get away with the "shameful" claim that the Bush administration hyped the case for invading Iraq. Let the whitewashing begin!
Again, Republicans aren't trying to rescue George W. Bush's reputation for sentimental reasons; they're trying to clear the way for a return to Bush policies. And this carries a message for anyone hoping that the next time Republicans are in power, they'll behave differently. If you believe that they've learned something - say, about fiscal prudence or the importance of effective regulation - you're kidding yourself. You might as well face it: they're addicted to Bush.
- Posted in
192 Comments so far
Show AllSurely there are clinics for that.
You're assuming that clinicians would not be ignorant themselves. Not bloody likely!
peace.
Does the word 'satire' sound familiar?
Indeed. Guess what i was doing?????
Recognition of it is as important as creating it.
I am a 'clinician' myself. Thus, the added 'satire'.
I was going to say pretty much the same thing, but you beat me to the punch line in what could only be described as a "close shave".
Addicted to ignorance.
No, they're addicted to power and $$ and work for those that have all of it out here. BV$H symbolized all that and more , he was the perfect projection of the Goper party still is.
Alas, down the memory hole it goes, again. In all fairness, the MSM will devote one Sunday to Krugman's assertions and facts, decide they are irrelevent and move on. The Bush lovers will make snide remarks about Krugman not deserving the Nobel Prize and question his patriotism. The talking heads will say Obama is a, you guessed it, a socialist! Meanwhile, off-camera, they'll high-five each other and their advertising sponsors for putting more money in each other's pockets. They'll say condescending things about the " sheeple " deserving to be sheared by the rich for being so stupid. They'll, most importantly, keep their jobs as PR hacks for another year by lieing to their viewers. It will all be so polite and mannerly, like drowning " spring kittens " in warm bath water, don't cha know. Remember this: " It's all good! "
a. We aren't 'returning' to Bush policies - they were never abandoned.
b. Certain people (like McConnell) lie, a lot, so why listen to them?
C. It's a waste of time to keep re-refuting known lies.
Shouldn't a responsible economist be explaining where we stand right now, and more importantly, suggest scenarios for how to get where we want to be?
For instance, jobs and a healthy economy are not proper goals in and of themselves but will be the welcome by-products of doing the right things by healing the nation with serious development of green technology, repair of infrastructure, revamping and improving access to quality education and medical services, supporting public transport and local businesses, etc. which could be funded by cutting 'defense' and 'security' spending as well as taxing the elite and non-productive financial sector transactions.
Those who still believe in Bush policies are not going to read Krugman, and we already know (I assume) what's going on so who is he writing for?
The USan people have changed. They used to gulp petro-opiates and let the elites choose everything for them from their careers to the candy their children eat, and with full confidence that it was the right thing to do.
Now Usans know the status quo is not so kosher anymore, but they're still guzzling the petro-opiates - so the addiction, gluttony, plunder has become more mindless, robotic, passionless.
Extremely well stated.
I am surrounded by people who live in a partisan fantasy world...the Republicans have total faith in Dubya, Palin and FOX, and the Democrats have total faith in Obama. Neither group demands any evidence or accountability from the party they support.
"Neither group demands any evidence or accountability from the party they support."
And that's exactly why any effort to change things will fail.
Correct. We're not in the midst of a real right-left struggle, we're in a seemingly never-ending class war. The Powers that Be (PtB), those 1%er's, are slowly tightening their grip on the middle class, here in the US and in other countries as well, in order to claim their final prize - the New World Order that GHWB spoke about.
The NWO is in actuality neo-feudalism - we're going back to the royals and the serfs, and Obama is pretty much a 'serf' doing the bidding of the PtB who allowed him to ascend to the Presidency in the first place.
Molly Ivins, rest her soul, said " It is never about left or right, it is always about up or down. " The rest of what you posted is too true, unfortunately.
Your point is well stated as is usually the case. However, are you painting your house this summer? Just curious. You seem to be two coating everything with a pretty big brush when you use the lingo of " embraced, all, keeping/exceeded " in describing Democrats. 128 members of the Progressive caucus are co-sponsoring a strong public option. Claims of windowdressing aside; at my age I'd rather have someone hold up a sheet than have to take a physical in front of the whole world. I mean all of them.
which you just saw with the idiotic finance bill. if they need all of those votes to run the empire, than all those votes they'll get. Remember even the professional gadfly Kucinich caved on health insurance, because they needed his vote. He gave it to them pronto.
nailed again, Rich.
Rich- I thought I gave you the lead in with " windowdressing aside ". Dang I 'll get some new curtains, sheets and a robe. This is gettin' expensive.
The Republican party is completely cohesive and have always, in recent memory, voted as a block. Note that if you vote for any Republican for federal office he will vote with this block regardless of what he sold you during the campaign.
The Democrats, on the other hand, are very fragmented and represent many different power cores such as minorities and unions, to name a couple. ...and these cores may have conflicting objectives which make them sometimes vote against what the president is trying to push.
It was very easy for the GOP to break off a couple Democrats to stop legislation during the Obama administration and to add a few Democratic votes during the Bush administration.
The party cohesion is the key factor, but the ideal of each Senator voting their conscience is a complete myth and has probably never existed.
Guess you forgot about the former powerbroker Tom Delay, and why he was called "the whip?" It's not very difficult to line up sheep, fundamentalists, or natural-born authoritarians. Our centers of power count many from those ranks.
Just as many writers recognize the limits of discourse their paymasters/editors will allow, and pen their columns accordingly; it's not much different with today's political representatives. Molly Ivins called it "dancing with those that brought ya." Unless and until the money is taken out of politics (cost of campaigns, TV ads, and so forth), there's very little chance that any majority of elected parties will actually vote for items that support "the greater good." A sell-out has been in progress for some time. And apart from the "it's all OK/let the system correct itself" apologists on this thread, the entire operation has been moving to the right for several decades. In the process, it has decimated lives, liberties, and livelihoods. It will continue to do so unless it's check-mated by a more powerful force.
I can't recall the poster who eloquently pointed out why the task came to Obama to begin to liberate the people (working class) from their social security allotments. This was a transition that only could come under the guise of leadership from the party that promotes its regard for THE people.
A powerful metaphor can be seen in BP using a worse toxin to cover up its spill/sin. That form of strategy says a lot about business practices in the USA today. And since the Supreme Court stops at nothing to grant big business greater and greater liberties, the possibility of altering this tide of profitable disregard is slim to none.
What is needed--and essential--is an entire paradigm shift. One that will alter not just politics or economics, but the value systems people use to navigate their lives. I believe that shift is coming... it will prove a necessity after THE collapse, a phenomenon with many aspects that is clearly underway.
I recommend George Orwell's "Animal Farm". The liberals and Obama are to Napoleon the Pig what the conservatives and Bush are to Farmer Jones.
Jill July: “What I don't understand is how Krugman misses that Obama, a Democrat, and other members of Congress who call themselves Democrats are up to their neck in keeping/exceeding Bush's policies.”
Nice post, Jill. Krugman misses that little detail in all his articles because his continued employment by the MSM depends on it.
JILL: Exceptionally well-stated. I applaud your clarity and concise expression.
Jill said "How can this not be clear to liberals?".
Jill I believe your use of the word Liberals is incorrect here. Liberals clearly do not support Obam'as adoption of many of Bush's policies. Hardcore Democratic party groupies, on the other hand, will take any small victory even if it sells out their core's values.
The splintering you are hearing is that of the party that has realized that Obama is not going to deliver what they expected, but they know it's still better than what the GOP has to offer. In other words they are very disappointed.
And Krugman is addicted to counterfeit money, is a warmonger and capitalist pig for Wall Street & the NYT. Go away!
I don't know who flagged this post, but whoever you are, you're a complete a-hole.
Maybe flag this one, too, since your first response to anything threatening your harmonious illusion is to ban, ban, ban.
Sorry, moonie, for getting in the way. I despise these cowards for doing this.
That's nothing. Go to HuffPo and see how easy it is to have comments deleted because some of the morons there don't want to hear different opinions. Everyone believes in free speech ... until they hear something they don't agree with.
Not a chance I'd ever go to HuffPo...:) I'm aware that the mainstream Dem party sites are as censorious as the right wing ones. And if you're agitating them both, that's kinda futile!
I guess in the end, the bulk of the responsibility lies with those that yank every flagged post, isn't it. Kinda like the Sherrod case.
Republicans and Bush conservatives have never let truth deter them.
It is said reality is three things: what you think it is, what I think it is, and what it really is. The absolute truth does exist, but it necessarily includes each twist of reality.
In this article Paul K. attempts to expose conservative spin but is it enough? The conservatives I know clearly have a distorted "Fox News" version of the facts, because their propensity for seeing and hearing what they want trumps their desire for objectivity, and their tendency to blame and criticize far exceeds their ability to see forward and consider outcomes.
The problem is not that "they" are in love with Bush. The problem is that not near enough citizens of this country are capable of critical thinking and discerning the difference between opinion and informed empirical reasoned thought; to consider and to own the consequences of their own mistakes, or to emotionally and spiritually accommodate the truth of others . For those folks, the absolute truth will always be their own personal preferred version of reality, and everybody else's version will thus be fallacious and unfounded.
The true problem is too few seek the absolute truth, too few are humble, too busy already knowing and rationalizing their egocentric perceptions.
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears" 2 Timothy 4:3
Jill, i like "conservative liberals". I think you have just defined a phenomenon here!
The article was about Republican revisionism. I welcome and encourage you to write or refer to an article respecting Democrat revisionism. The rest of my comment applies to that as well.
Please note there is a difference between "the truth" as a normative term refering to some specific perceived truth versus the use of the term "truth" not prefaced with the term "the" posing truth as something rather dynamic and not so obvious, which is what I was getting at with the rest of my comment.
My comment was intended to separate the subjective versioning of truth (which is prevalent and pervasive) from the quest for truth as an empirical objective (which is rarer and more exceptional).
Thank God that Obama isn't Bush -
he's actually worse.
I think this is why the far left isn't taken more seriously - because of statements/positions like this. Sure, there is reason to be critical of Obama but worse than Bush? You actually believe that? I know you're frustrated with the Obama administration but worse than Bush?? I don't really believe you think that.
Tramker, how is he better than Bush? Seriously. I just had this discussion the other day with the director of a Peace and Justice organization, after listening to Ann Wright's talk about her flotilla experience.
The woman i was talking to, who i've debated with for two years about obama, still holds that he is better than Mccain would have been. In what way? I don't know. Maybe we would have invaded Iran by now? And maybe the Arizona illegal alien laws would be universal?
I just think he co-opted everything and america feels real open minded now. Even though he isn't.
a couple of thoughts...
2) Obama hasn't started 2 new wars
5) I think Obama is enough of a realist to know the votes aren't there for anything substantive
6) Obama is at least making a good effort to have BP pay financially for their sins as compared to the republican idea of our government "extorting" money from such a fine and venerable corporation
Also with Obama we may at some point eliminate the ridiculous Bush tax cuts and the end of the estate tax. I'm offended by the republicans overt racist tendencies. I'm offended by republican lack of concern for the poor and downtrodden, and their obstructionism which is very responsible for a lack of even small progress in so many areas. Politics are not all just a game where both sides are rigged. There are many real differences and much fine progressive legislation has occurred over the years.
Obama is a disappointment. Things could be a great deal worse.
Feel free to pretend your 3 examples are anything like Iraq or Afghanistan. Only time will tell how much BP ultimately pays, but they'll pay a lot more with dems in control than they would have with repubs. Things well might work out better if you or I or Jesus was President too, so what?
Yeah, sure... let's pretend instead that Obama is better than Bush.
Obama did not start 3 wars. The two were started by Bush and he's trying to wind it down. It takes time. Pakistan isn't in the news much. Where did you get Somalia and Yemen from? Iran and N. Korea hasn't started yet. You're being too pessimistic.
Politics are not all just a game where both sides are rigged.
Politics in this country (as in probably all other countries) is designed to be controlled by sociopaths. That's right - Obama is a sociopath by anyone's defintion. And when did a sociopath, anywhere in the world, ever give a damn if you lived or died? Politically, the United States is a medieval country. A recent poll stated that 55% of "likely voters" think Obama is a socialist. What a joke!
Yes, a very sad joke.
You are being unfair. It's not nice to ask a liberal to compare and critique the specific actions and policies of Bush and Obama. What we really want to talk about is how cool it is to have a young athletic black dude (it proves how liberal we are) as president. Especially one who can spell and construct entire sentences (unlike his predecessor).
It doesn't matter if the white house does anything to improve democracy or the lives of Americans and foreigners. It doesn't even matter if he makes things worse. What's important is to (a) get on a stage and make really nice sounding speeches, and (b) enact laws that do the opposite of what their really nice sounding titles imply they will do.
So please stop being one of those fact obsessed people who ignore the value of images that make us feel good.
I have provided a partial list of things Obama has done that Bush never would have done at the top of the comments section.
And that list sux. Go away.
Right. Heil, tiredaftrolls. I want to live in my little progressive fantasyland.
A bit too harsh on the word progressive. Make that "progressive purist" fantasyland.
It sucks because it proves you wrong. Why not meet halfway? Why not say "Okay, Obama has done some good things but I want to see more and I'm disappointed in his administration". Now, that's someone you can have a conversation with. You guys are so extreme that there's no entry point for reasonable dialogue or even reasonable disagreement.
I see the same things on right wing websites. You have way more in common with the right than you do with the moderate left.
Facts are often annoying, but worthwhile, I think.
Hi Rich:
First off, let's establish that the premise of the previous poster was that Obama was *worse* than Bush. So, as a preface, even if I agreed with all of the above, you would have to show me how Obama is worse than Bush on all these issues, not the same.
But anyway...to your points above:
1)I think the legal case on whether Bush administration officials can be prosecuted for the things you list above is tenuous. For example, the Iraq war. Can you prove they lied? I mean in a court of law. Do you understand politically why the Obama Administration/Democratic party might not have pursued this? Either way, does this make Obama *worse* than Bush?
2)Obama hasn't started any new wars, last I checked. One of the reasons I voted for him was not because I was naive enough to believe there would be some radical shift in U.S. military policy but that I was fairly confident he wouldn't do dumb things like invade Iraq. I stand by that.
3)I don't think the Obama administration has been any better than Bush in this area. Agreed. But I don't think he's been any worse.
4)I've actually made this argument with Jewish friends - that Obama's policy towards Israel is virtually identical with Bush except a little bit in rhetoric/tone. So, I agree with you here BUT try convincing pro-Israel people of this. They think Obama is Noam Chomsky. More to the point of our discussion, you can't say his policy towards Israel is worse than Bush, from a progressive point of view and I would note that at least bringing the settlement issue into the mainstream discussion is a very, very, very small step in the right direction.
5)Disagree with you here. More on this in a moment.
6)I don't get your argument here:
a)Is all the evidence on the BP situation in yet?
b)It's quite difficult to evaluate what Bush would have done because there was no BP oil spill during his terms. But given Bush's history and connections to the oil industry, is your argument really that Bush would have handled this better??
c)Obama is not going to jump too hard on BP NOW in the middle of them trying to contain the spill? ie. They need to stay in business long enough to earn the money to pay the damages that Obama has insisted they pay.
Okay, so you've had your fun picking some pet issues of yours - almost all of which are foreign policy related I might add - and outlining where you don't think there has been much difference from Bush, yet you've done nothing to show where Obama has been worse, I reiterate.
Now in a separate post at the top of the comments section (because there's a word limit to responses), I will list several things below that Obama has done that Bush never would have done.
I would say that Obama is worse than Bush, because in addition to following the same basic policies, the Obama administration has weakened the Left. For example, you are using the Obama administration as an excuse to attack the Left.
There is a premise upon which you are basing your arguments that you have not supported or defended. You say - paraphrasing here - that we must settle for what the Obama administration is doing because of the "political realities" and that until and unless we convert the public over to new belief systems this is the best we can do. The voting public already has been converted, they have already rejected Reaganomics and the religious Right. Had they not, the Democrats would not control Congress and the White House. The Obama administration is opening the door for a revival of the Religious Right and Reaganomics, the very things the general public just thoroughly repudiated.
At some point those who are so viciously attacking the Left need to stop making excuses for not moving to the Left and be honest - admit that they do not want the party nor the administration to move to the Left. There is some sort of fear-based mas-media driven idea that many people harbor that moving to the Left would cause some right wing backlash or Republican victories and that we would then be worse of then we were before. That reasoning is so patently and obviously illogical that it is hard to know how to counter it. The notion that we get to the Left by moving to the right is absurd, on its face, yet we have many party loyalists advocating just that.
The way to move to the Left is to move to the Left, and that starts with speaking out strongly from the Left. The way to move to the right is to advocate and support compromise with the right and to attack the Left.
Speaking out is a powerful and essential ingredient, it is absolutely necessary if there is ever to be any social change. It is not "purist" or "whining" or "pouting" and it is not meaningless "ranting." If it were, the apologists for the party and the conservatives-in-liberal-clothing among us would not be trying so frantically to shut it down.
You are asking critics from the Left to reverse course, to stop saying the same things they have been saying all along, merely because the Democratic party is in power. That won't happen, nor should it. RichM and others are taking the same positions today that they took during the previous administration. Do you seriously expect or desire that they change what they are saying or the positions they are taking?
First off, I appreciate the reasoned and rational response. It's a refreshing change from many of the posters out here.
To be clear, of course I think it's completely fair game and completely necessary to criticize from the left but in a constructive way which starts with a fair assessment of policies being enacted. It doesn't start with lines like "Obama is worse than Bush" or "Obama is a war criminal" or any of that over the top rhetoric we see out here. I mean, who is going to find that type of argument persuasive.
I'm not talking about Reaganomics or the Religious Right. My premise is that the majority of the country is moderate and in order to move them to the left, progressives need to make better arguments. For example, most Americans were in favor of health care reform but there's a vast spectrum of opinions on what that means. Out here on the CD forum, it's presented as a completely united country demanding single payer immediately and being rejected by Obama and Congress. This is nonsense.
In general, I am arguing that members of Congress often vote the way their constituents want them to vote. If they don't, they're usually out of a job. You don't find people like Bernie Sanders voting for Bush's tax cuts and Tom Coburn would never vote for Obamacare. Okay, so those two Senators are at extreme ends of the spectrum but the legislation we get usually comes down to the moderate members of Congress who represent moderate districts. There is where the work of progressives should be focused in my opinion. Move the moderates to the left with persuasive arguments and they will in turn give us elected officials who reflect those left-leaning views.