The truth of the Bush administration: All Politics, No Policy

[cainxinth]

Say what you will about Matt Drudge, he breaks more than his fair share of news stories. This particular item is a letter (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm) written by a W. Bush presidential aide and accomplished right-wing policy scholar, John DiIulio to ESQUIRE Magazine that Drudge somehow got his hands on.

Here are some very disconcerting excerpts:

Clinton was “the natural,” a leader with a genuine interest in the policy process who encouraged information-rich decision-making. Clinton was the policy-wonk-in-chief. The Clinton administration drowned in policy intellectuals and teemed with knowledgeable people interested in making government work. Every domestic issue drew multiple policy analyses that certainly weighted politics, media messages, legislative strategy, et cetera, but also strongly weighted policy-relevant information, stimulated substantive policy debate, and put a premium on policy knowledge. That is simply not Bush’s style. It fits not at all with his personal cum presidential character. The Bush West Wing is very nearly at the other end of this Clinton policy-making continuum.

…what [Bush] needed, I thought then and still do now, was more policy-relevant information, discussion, and deliberation. In eight months, I heard many, many staff discussions, but not three meaningful, substantive policy discussions. There were no actual policy white papers on domestic issues. There were, truth be told, only a couple of people in the West Wing who worried at all about policy substance and analysis, and they were even more overworked than the stereotypical, non-stop, 20-hour-a-day White House staff. Every modern presidency moves on the fly, but, on social policy and related issues, the lack of even basic policy knowledge, and the only casual interest in knowing more, was somewhat breathtaking-discussions by fairly senior people who meant Medicaid but were talking Medicare; near-instant shifts from discussing any actual policy pros and cons to discussing political communications, media strategy, et cetera. Even quite junior staff would sometimes hear quite senior staff pooh-pooh any need to dig deeper for pertinent information on a given issue.

This gave rise to what you might call Mayberry Machiavellis-staff, senior and junior, who consistently talked and acted as if the height of political sophistication consisted in reducing every issue to its simplest, black-and-white terms for public consumption, then steering legislative initiatives or policy proposals as far right as possible. These folks have their predecessors in previous administrations (left and right, Democrat and Republican), but, in the Bush administration, they were particularly unfettered.

The “faith bill” saga also illustrates the relative lack of substantive concern for policy and administration. I had to beg to get a provision written into the executive orders that would require us to conduct an actual information-gathering effort related to the president’s interest in the policy. With the exception of some folks at OMB, nobody cared a fig about the five-agency performance audit, and we got less staff help on it than went into any two PR events or such. Now, of course, the document the effort produced (Unlevel Playing Field) is cited all the time, and frames the administrative reform agenda that-or so the Mayberry Machiavellis had insisted-had no value.

Karl [Rove] is enormously powerful, maybe the single most powerful person in the modern, post-Hoover era ever to occupy a political advisor post near the Oval Office. The Republican base constituencies, including beltway libertarian policy elites and religious right leaders, trust him to keep Bush “43” from behaving like Bush “41” and moving too far to the center or inching at all center-left. Their shared fiction, supported by zero empirical electoral studies, is that “41” lost in ’92 because he lost these right-wing fans. There are not ten House districts in America where either the libertarian litany or the right-wing religious policy creed would draw majority popular approval, and, most studies suggest, Bush “43” could have done better versus Gore had he stayed more centrist, but, anyway, the fiction is enshrined as fact. Little happens on any issue without Karl’s okay, and, often, he supplies such policy substance as the administration puts out.

…a year after 9/11 and with a White House that can find time enough to raise $140 million for campaigns, it’s becoming fair to ask, on domestic policy and compassionate conservatism, “Where’s the beef?”

The bottom line is Bush’s White House is more concerned about how they are perceived than how effective their policies are. Liberals have been attacking his antagonistic and misguided foreign policy, his “slap-dash,” as DiIulio puts it, homeland security cabinet, and now I think we can renew the criticism of his non-existent domestic policies. Bush, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft would no doubt dismiss it all as the impotent moaning of unpatriotic ingrates.

[ElvisL1ves]

And yet that was one of the favorite tools of Clinton-bashing by these very same people. Not that they invented it, either.

Not a surprise, but also just one person's viewpoint, too - or maybe an agenda.

[Bricker]

Well, then undoubtedly Bush will be voted out in 2004.

Although when I proposed a wager on that point, the rush to respond was... somewhat less than packed. But maybe times have changed.

If Bush's White House is so misguided, I wonder why his popularity was enough to influence the mid-term elections?

- Rick

[cainxinth]

Originally posted by Bricker
If Bush's White House is so misguided, I wonder why his popularity was enough to influence the mid-term elections?

Because they devote all their energies to creating a positive image and influencing voters, not developing policies that can actually improve the country.

[UncleBeer]

The bottom line is Bush’s White House is more concerned about how they are perceived than how effective their policies are.
Could this charge not be leveled at the Clinton, or any other, administration? Sounds like bullshit politics as usual to me.

[cainxinth]

Originally posted by UncleBeer
Could this charge not be leveled at the Clinton, or any other, administration? Sounds like bullshit politics as usual to me.

These folks have their predecessors in previous administrations (left and right, Democrat and Republican), but, in the Bush administration, they were particularly unfettered.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally posted by Bricker
Well, then undoubtedly Bush will be voted out in 2004.
Never underestimate the etc.

[quote]If Bush's White House is so misguided, I wonder why his popularity was enough to influence the mid-term elections?[QUOTE] 'Cause he talked about getting the bad guys and cutting taxes. Always good vote-getters there.

[Guinastasia]

Yeah, they said the same thing about Ronnie Reagan, Bricker.

I'm too much of a cynic to believe otherwise.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Orinally posted by UncleBeer

Could this charge not be leveled at the Clinton, or any other, administration? Sounds like bullshit politics as usual to me.




Clinton was “the natural,” a leader with a genuine interest in the policy process who encouraged information-rich decision-making. Clinton was the policy-wonk-in-chief. The Clinton administration drowned in policy intellectuals and teemed with knowledgeable people interested in making government work. Every domestic issue drew multiple policy analyses that certainly weighted politics, media messages, legislative strategy, et cetera, but also strongly weighted policy-relevant information, stimulated substantive policy debate, and put a premium on policy knowledge. That is simply not Bush’s style. It fits not at all with his personal cum presidential character. The Bush West Wing is very nearly at the other end of this Clinton policy-making continuum

[Squink]

The story of DiIulio's double apology (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=536&e=3&cid=536&u=/ap/20021203/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_diiulio) for the remarks also provides some interesting insights into the machinations of the Bush team. Just how did they induce DiIulio to make his second, more abject retraction ?
That great bellwether of liberal thought, The Washington Post, saw fit to print the story only in bowdlerized form (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A692-2002Dec2.html). :rolleyes:

[Squink]

From the AP article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=536&e=3&cid=536&u=/ap/20021203/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_diiulio):
DiIulio's first statement Monday said the article "is unjustly hard on Mr. Rove and over-the-top complimentary to me, thereby creating a too-pat contrast that is, I feel, MOST UNFAIR TO MR. ROVE." DiIulio did not say how the article was unfair. But, he said, "I regret any and all misimpressions."

After DiIulio's first statement, Fleischer said DiIulio had "issued an apology."

Shortly after the press secretary's criticism, DiIulio issued a second statement that was strikingly similar to Fleischer's comments. "John DiIulio agrees that his criticisms were groundless and baseless due to poorly chosen words and examples. He sincerely apologizes and is deeply remorseful," a university spokeswoman said.

[cainxinth]

DiIulio issued two statements, the first generally standing by his criticism, the second — similar to Fleischer's comment — calling his own allegations "groundless and baseless due to poorly chosen words and examples."

Sounds to me like big brother threatened to put the screws to him.

[UncleBeer]

Every domestic issue drew multiple policy analyses that certainly weighted politics, media messages, legislative strategy, et cetera, but also strongly weighted policy-relevant information, stimulated substantive policy debate, and put a premium on policy knowledge.
Perhaps, but the impression I, and I believe the vast majority of Americans, hold, is politicians care far more about appearances than actual results.

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Bricker
Well, then undoubtedly Bush will be voted out in 2004. Just to note: he was never actually voted in.

In fact, more than 3/4 of the American electorate did not vote for Bush. I will wager anything you like that less than 30% of the electorate will vote for Bush in 2004.

[cainxinth]

Originally posted by UncleBeer
Perhaps, but the impression I, and I believe the vast majority of Americans, hold, is politicians care far more about appearances than actual results.

I’d agree to that. The debate is whether Bush is more guilty of it than most.

[UncleBeer]

If that's the debate, why didn't ya say so? It's gonna be damned short tho', ain't it>?

[cainxinth]

It won't be a short debate if conservatives can make a case that the Fleischer statement is correct, DiIulio was wrong, and Bush isn't substituting rhetoric and campaigning for actual policy initiatives.

[ElJeffe]

I don't think this story is particularly indicting of anything. Every adminisatration is going to have dissenters, some of them particularly whiny. One of the whinier ones happened to grant an interview to Esquire, was reprimanded for exercising poor judgement, and apologized. Not exactly breaking news.

Chumpsky:

In fact, more than 3/4 of the American electorate did not vote for Bush. I will wager anything you like that less than 30% of the electorate will vote for Bush in 2004.


Yeah, but about 1/2 of the electorate didn't vote against him, either. 1/2 the electorate decided they really didn't give a damn, and as far as I'm concerned, they're not really worth consideration. If you don't vote, you haven't earned the right to bitch about the State of the Union.

Jeff

[Bricker]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
Just to note: he was never actually voted in.

In fact, more than 3/4 of the American electorate did not vote for Bush. I will wager anything you like that less than 30% of the electorate will vote for Bush in 2004.

I think his goal is to get re-elected, not to achieve more than 30% of the electorate's votes.

So if you'll bet me anything I like that he won't be re-elected, then let's talk.

- Rick

[cainxinth]

Originally posted by ElJeffe
I don't think this story is particularly indicting of anything. Every adminisatration is going to have dissenters, some of them particularly whiny. One of the whinier ones happened to grant an interview to Esquire, was reprimanded for exercising poor judgement, and apologized. Not exactly breaking news.


Do you have any comment on the allegations of said "whiner," or is a blanket dismissal the basis of your argument?

[december]

Originally posted by cainxinth right-wing policy scholar, John DiIulioOriginally posted by ElvisL1ves... And yet that was one of the favorite tools of Clinton-bashing by these very same people. John DiIulio is a Democrat (http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york081701.shtml). He is not one of those people.

[ElJeffe]

My argument is as follows:

- No administration is going to be full of people who all get along perfectly.

- Of the people who disagree with the more powerful of the administration, there will be some who are whiny.

- DiIulio's statements don't seem to have much in the way of objective observations, and appear to be a bunch of subjective hyperbole. He claims in eight months, there were only two "meaningful, substantial policy discussions". Meaningful and substantial by whose measure? For example, many liberals would dismiss any policy discussion among conservatives to be "meaningless", and vice versa, based on the fact that they just disagree with the philosophies of the debaters.

- In general, he sounds like someone who disagrees with the direction the administration is headed, and thus believes that means the administration must not take issues seriously.

- I don't feel a responsible ex-aide would give an interview to the press badmouthing individual people while the recipients of his criticism are still in their positions. It would be the same as if I quit my job, and then told a magazine that everyone I worked with were incompetent retards. It's just plain unprofessional. If there were actual incidences of criminality, or something similarly unethical, that would be one thing, but that's not the case.

- Whiny people would be more likely to give such interviews than non-whiny people.


From the above, I conclude that DiIulio is a whiny ex-aide who thought he'd air what he perceived as some dirty laundry, so as to make a buck.

Basically, it doesn't surprise me in the least that there is someone in the Administration that feels this way. I would bet there have always been people in every administration that feel this way. The news story boils down to "Someone disagrees with the the way the president runs things!", and I don't consider that to be newsworthy.


Jeff

[zigaretten]

First…..John DiIulio was the director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. I doubt that this is the branch of the White House staff to which Bush turns first when seeking advice on policy. And as DiIulio admits: “I was not at all a close insider……”

In fact his statement “I observed and heard a great deal that concerned policy issues and political matters….” suggests that he is reporting on issues which didn’t actually concern him. I have to question whether he really possesses the expertise to comment on these issues.

This question is reinforced when I note that, as far as I can determine, DiIulio never worked with the Clinton White House. In fact, his letter seems to imply that he is basing his description of Clinton on Joe Klein’s The Natural: The Misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton. Now I’ll admit that I have never read this book, but it is my understanding that it is more of a popular apologia than a scholarly assessment of Clintons policy making apparatus.

But my primary complaint with the charge that the Bush White House lacks “policy” (either clear or coherent) is that I’ve heard it all before. I heard it under Clinton, under Bush, under Reagan, under Carter, etc, etc, etc. And the reason that one hears this charge so frequently is that it “sounds good” but is so vague that it is almost impossible to either prove or refute.

For instance, Mr. DiIulio charges that “There were no actual policy white papers on domestic issues….” Yet here is an administration which, in less than two years, has either already accomplished or is working on: a tax cut, the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, environmental legislation, school voucher legislation, new regulations concerning corporate fraud, social security reform, prescription medicine for the elderly, and I can make the list longer if you insist.

Now it would be easy for me to say “Ha….what did Clinton accomplish in his first two years? Running away from Somalia and nothing else!” But the truth is that with a little work I can make just as impressive a list for Clinton as for Bush, but not, in my opinion, a particularly more impressive list.

[Kimstu]

EJ: From the above, I conclude that DiIulio is a whiny ex-aide who thought he'd air what he perceived as some dirty laundry, so as to make a buck.

Is that the description you'd apply to ex-Clinton aide George Stephanopolous for his (extremely profitable) 1999 book on the Clinton scandals, All too Human? Just trying to be bipartisan here.

[Avalonian]

Originally posted by zigaretten
For instance, Mr. DiIulio charges that “There were no actual policy white papers on domestic issues….” Yet here is an administration which, in less than two years, has either already accomplished or is working on: a tax cut, the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, environmental legislation, school voucher legislation, new regulations concerning corporate fraud, social security reform, prescription medicine for the elderly, and I can make the list longer if you insist.

What might be pointed out here (for any administration) is that this list of "accomplishments" is a questionable one. Just what did the administration accomplish with these "accomplishments?" Are they positive accomplishments or negative ones? I think, with most of the Bush Administration items, it's far too soon to tell. I wouldn't call them "accomplishments" just yet, as they may become things to be ashamed of.

The Bush tax cut, for example, is already edging towards that area. It has fallen under round criticism from liberals, conservatives, and economists of every stripe. I wouldn't exactly call the greatest single contributor to our current economic slowdown an accomplishment. But it happened because Bush likes tax cuts... that's his schtick. So, there it is. Is it good policy? I don't think so.

And the bigger question is this: These are all hot-button issues. But do they make a coherent policy? I read an administration's policy as a plan... a careful projection of where the nation is, and where we would like it to be, and what measures can be put it in place to help get it there. It's a holistic view of what an administration can accomplish.

Applied to many recent administrations, this view can find them lacking. Clinton's only partially measured up to this mark, but I would say that his policies were carefully-made and intelligent, each with consideration for the others, though many of them were not smart politically. In short, Clinton's policies were strong, but they weren't always the ones that would net him the most votes.

The Bush Administration does seem to be on the opposite side of the spectrum. Their policies seem to be chosen piecemeal, without the wider picture in mind. They are, however, politically smart. The people like them. In fact, they seem chosen for that purpose. Most Americans can get behind a tax cut on a personal level... "I get to pay less taxes, woohoo." It is only when thinking on a wider perspective (a policy perspective, you might say) that a tax cut seems like a bad idea.

To put it another way, a strong political "accomplishment" gets votes in the short term, but a strong policy does good over the long term. That's the difference I see.

Which is not to say that some accomplishments can't be both strong politically and good policy. They can... I think the point is which goal this particular administration is shooting for. All administrations are guilty of at least some politicking, of course. But as someone stated earlier, the point is that some are worse than others. I agree with the OP that the Bush Administration seem to focus much more on politics (as in winning votes) than policy. I think their list of "accomplishments" actually supports that conclusion.

[cainxinth]

My mistake December, but he's quite unconventional for a Dem. He headed a faith-based federal initiative, he's written books on deregulating public services and devolving Medicaid, and he writes for the Brookings Institute a traditionally liberal think tank that has grown more conservative. The fact that he’s a professor at an Ivy should have clued me in though.

Originally posted by ElJeffe
In general, he sounds like someone who disagrees with the direction the administration is headed, and thus believes that means the administration must not take issues seriously.

I don’t see that at all. He doesn’t criticize the conservative agenda, just the manner in which Bush is pushing it. He’s a centrist Dem that was chosen to give some credibility to a contentious program, if he didn’t agree with Bush he wouldn’t have taken the job in the first place.

I don't feel a responsible ex-aide would give an interview to the press badmouthing individual people while the recipients of his criticism are still in their positions. It would be the same as if I quit my job, and then told a magazine that everyone I worked with were incompetent retards. It's just plain unprofessional. If there were actual incidences of criminality, or something similarly unethical, that would be one thing, but that's not the case.

Pardon me, but what good does it do to save your criticisms until after they can do any good? This is another example of the persistent disparagement of dissent that Bush is also pushing. It’s not unpatriotic to disagree with your county, and certainly not unprofessional.

From the above, I conclude that DiIulio is a whiny ex-aide who thought he'd air what he perceived as some dirty laundry, so as to make a buck.

Who said he got paid? I think he’s a concerned citizen who wants to inform his country of what he perceived as problems that are being suppressed. He was in a position to experience them first hand. It’s ironic and sad that he would buckle under the pressure of a similar cover up.

The news story boils down to "Someone disagrees with the the way the president runs things!", and I don't consider that to be newsworthy.

First this isn’t just someone, DiIulio worked in the West Wing and headed a program that was a campaign issue for Bush, and second if you truly think criticism of the president isn’t newsworthy you don’t understand how this country or the media works.

[elucidator]

Well, I dunno. But the line "Mayberry Machiavellians" was worth the price of admission.

[ElJeffe]

Kimstu:

Is that the description you'd apply to ex-Clinton aide George Stephanopolous for his (extremely profitable) 1999 book on the Clinton scandals, All too Human? Just trying to be bipartisan here.


If his revelations were analogous to DiIulio's, then yes, I would.

Avalonian:

I wouldn't exactly call the greatest single contributor to our current economic slowdown an accomplishment.


Ha ha ha ha ha! Good one! Oh, wait, you were serious?

cainxinth:

Pardon me, but what good does it do to save your criticisms until after they can do any good? This is another example of the persistent disparagement of dissent that Bush is also pushing. It’s not unpatriotic to disagree with your county, and certainly not unprofessional.


Really, you think that this interview is going to do any good? I fail to see how it could conceivably alter anything, even if every bit of it was true, and this holds true in any administration, not just this one. Do you honestly believe that, say, Donald Rumsfeld would change his approaches to policy because a minor ex-player in the WH says publicly that he disapproves? I don't believe it's unpatriotic or unprofessional to disagree with your nation, nor is it unprofessional to try to act on it in an appropriate manner. This interview, IMO, did not constitute an "appropriate manner".


First this isn’t just someone, DiIulio worked in the West Wing and headed a program that was a campaign issue for Bush, and second if you truly think criticism of the president isn’t newsworthy you don’t understand how this country or the media works.


If you truly *do* believe that criticism of the president is newsworthy, then you must not follow politics very closely. I think it would be more newsworthy if there wasn't any criticism.


Jeff

[zigaretten]

Originally posted by Avalonian

Are they positive accomplishments or negative ones? I think, with most of the Bush Administration items, it's far too soon to tell.


This criticism, and some of your other criticisms concerning the ultimate correctness of specific legislation, aren’t important to the question of whether or not Bush has a policy, which I think you defined quite well as “a plan... a careful projection of where the nation is, and where we would like it to be, and what measures can be put it in place to help get it there. It's a holistic view of what an administration can accomplish.” The question of whether or not any given policy is the right policy will always be debatable, I mean, should Augustus really have declared the Rhine and Danube to be the natural frontiers of the Roman world? Mightn’t we be better off if he had conquered Germany? Regardless, for better or worse, he had a policy.

The point that I was trying to make is that the entire accusation is so vague as to be virtually meaningless. How does one prove that President (insert name here) had a strong “holistic” view of affairs? The only reasonable way to assess “policy’ is by assessing actions taken and statements of intent. And Bush has not demonstrated a lack of initiative in introducing legislation or in taking a stand on issues, even controversial issues.

While googling for a site to remind you that Bushs rejection of the Kyoto accords was rather unpopular I found the following in a BBC opinion piece from July, 2001:


I've not talked about Mr Bush's policies for a while…..(discusses election)......

Then he gratuitously announced that he was rejecting the Kyoto Treaty - a decision that appalled 188 countries which had also done nothing about ratifying it. Only Romania had the right to be outraged.

And then Mr Bush - bang - proclaimed that the United States was going ahead to make for itself a protective nuclear missile shield. The abruptness and seeming belligerence of this announcement was not preceded by a reminder that when the Soviet Union expressed shock and pain over President's Reagan's announcement of the Star Wars shield, the Soviet Union itself had been secretly working on such a shield for nine years.

Nor did Mr Bush or the secretary of defence or their aides remark that the shield decision had come after at least a dozen years of intense intellectual concentration on the efficacy of such a technological achievement.

In simpler words: Mr Bush's entry into the White House was marked, not so much by shockingly reactionary policies, as by a truly appalling exercise in public relations.

My point here is that, as the above writer notes, Bush does show every sign of having a distinct policy (whether you approve of it or not) and being willing to act on that policy even at the expense of popularity.

And what is the actual evidence of President Clintons strong policy? Don’t ask don’t tell? The fact that he believed in Health Care reform so strongly that he put his wife in charge of it? I seem to recall eight years of jokes about waffles and accusations that he was playing to the popularity polls.

Now I’ll admit that these kinds of jokes are unfair. I believe that Clinton was reasonably policy oriented. But how does one prove it? By his use of White House White Papers? I think not. If you consider for a moment one of the principal purposes of White Papers is to ensure that the entire staff is on the same page; and that is mostly important for purposes of PR. The people who make and enact policy aren’t using White Papers.


To put it another way, a strong political "accomplishment" gets votes in the short term, but a strong policy does good over the long term. That's the difference I see.

Well…..we couldn’t possibly disagree more. I believe that political accomplishments can lose as many votes as they gain and that a strong policy is not automatically good, though given the nature of our democratic/legislative system I will admit that it is unlikely for a President to get very far with a truly disastrous policy.


I agree with the OP that the Bush Administration seem to focus much more on politics (as in winning votes) than policy.

Again.....I've heard the same thing over and over about President after President. I don't see any evidence to convince me that it is any more true of this administration than any other administration.

Note: I would be the last person to deny that politicians do, in fact, play politics.

[Apos]

I think I agree with the gist of this Reason article, though not the tone of it.
http://reason.com/links/links120202.shtml

---a tax cut---

A big win, indeed. But pretty meaningless in the broad scheme of things. How high one sets the tax rate at any given is almost meaningless compared to how much the government spends period: though WHO pays is an important issue.

---the creation of a Department of Homeland Security,---

You mean the largest federal bueracracy ever concieved? The one his administration opposed for months before they realized (very shrewdly) that they could take it out of the hands of the Democrats if they wanted to, leaving the Dems with nothing to push for? Not exactly a big win for conservatives interested in government policy.

---environmental legislation---

You mean emergency orders to destroy environmental restrictions? I'm not sure what knocking those apart does inthe way of furthering a conservative agenda, as opposed to simply servicing bussiness partners and contributors (which fits the pattern pretty well).

---school voucher legislation---

Dead. Abandoned.

---new regulations concerning corporate fraud---

Utterly ineffectual measures, even further gutted after the issue went away abd the Senate was won back.

---social security reform---

? Under what conception of what social security should be? Unless you mean sabotaging the program by gutting the budget.

---prescription medicine for the elderly---

This is a conservative win based on what, exactly? The old conservative love for redistributing income from one generation to the next?

[zigaretten]

Originally posted by Apos

I think I agree with the gist of this Reason article, though not the tone of it.


Sigh……it’s not exactly new to accuse sitting Presidents of having “sold out.” Notice that your article also accuses Reagan of having been too liberal and if called upon I can show you contemporary writings by liberals who considered FDR to be too conservative. The fact that Bushs real life policies are not as libertarian as your writer would idealistically like them to be simply doesn’t mean that Bush lacks a coherant policy.

So…..yet again…..you can disagree on specific issues, in fact you can abhor everything that Bush has done since taking office and that still doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have a policy. It just means that you don’t agree with his policy. Nevertheless……

---a tax cut---

I’m not certain I grasp your point here. Bush is a conservative. Bush ran on a conservative platform. Conservatives generally favor tax cuts. Bush promised a tax cut. Bush delivered a tax cut. How does this indicate an absence of “policy?”

---the creation of a Department of Homeland Security,---

You’re half right. What I actually meant was the creation of the Homeland Security Council (not the Department) on October 8, 2000. Admittedly Bush didn’t have a policy anticipating the creation of this Council, no one anticipated the attack on the World Trade Center. This does, however; fit in with the policy, which Bush articulated during his campaign, of dealing “firmly” with terrorists and regimes which seek weapons of mass destruction, etc.

---environmental legislation---

I’m referring to legislation designed to implement Bushs stated policy of encouraging “a cooperative approach that emphasizes voluntary solutions instead of government mandates.”

---school voucher legislation--- …….. Dead. Abandoned.

Since when? Seriously. I haven’t followed this very closely, but I know Bush gave a speech as recently as July supporting vouchers. And the GOP seemed excited over some recent Supreme Court decision allowing vouchers for religious schools. And I know I’ve heard some talk (though very nonspecific and unofficial) about the Republican victories in the last election increasing the chances for vouchers.

---new regulations concerning corporate fraud---

As for being “utterly ineffectual”, you may be right. Laws have been around for an awful long time and people haven’t stopped breaking them yet. We’ll just have to wait and see. As for bills being “gutted”, you can’t blame that on the new Senate because they haven’t been seated yet.

---social security reform---

I don’t quite understand the specifics of your criticism on this issue. The point is that during his campaign Bush espoused a policy of reforming the Social Security System and since his election (yeah, yeah, I know….stole the election) he has acted on that policy.

---prescription medicine for the elderly---

And one last time: Bush outlined a clear policy during the campaign…..Bush has acted on that policy. Whether you like the policy or not, it is still policy.

[Tejota]

Originally posted by Bricker
Well, then undoubtedly Bush will be voted out in 2004.

- Rick

Nonsense. Bush wasn't selected for his policy competence in the first place. There's no reason to belive that he will be booted out of office when his policy competence is proven to be nonexistent.


If Bush's White House is so misguided, I wonder why his popularity was enough to influence the mid-term elections?


Because not enough people vote based on policy.

[Mullinator]

Chumpsky wrote:
Just to note: he was never actually voted in.

In fact, more than 3/4 of the American electorate did not vote for Bush. I will wager anything you like that less than 30% of the electorate will vote for Bush in 2004.

I'd just like to thank you for bringing up a completely irrelevant and useless number. I assume by reading your post that you are referring to the total number of votes Bush received versus the number of age eligible voters that could have voted and somehow extrapolated that this low percentage then means something. I tend to think that people that rely on this logic are really reaching at straws. As a comparison of how meaningless it is, here are the relevant results for each presidential election from 1964 to present.
(Presidential vote totals (http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/results/restable.html), Voting Population (see page 12) (http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p20-542.pdf))

Year Vote Age Pop. Winner # Rcvd % of Tot Pop
1964 110,604,000 Johnson 43,129,484 38.99%
1968 116,535,000 Nixon 31,785,480 27.28%
1972 136,203,000 Nixon 47,167,319 34.63%
1976 146,548,000 Carter 40,827,394 27.86%
1980 157,085,000 Reagan 43,267,489 27.54%
1984 169,963,000 Reagan 53,428,357 31.44%
1988 178,098,000 Bush 48,881,278 27.45%
1992 185,684,000 Clinton 44,908,233 24.19%
1996 193,651,000 Clinton 47,401,185 24.48%
2000 202,609,000 Bush 50,456,169 24.90%

[Shodan]

I think the terms of the debate have changed from "Bush is too concerned with his popularity to get anything done" to "what Bush has gotten done doesn't count because I think it is a bad idea."

And I think the OP needs to present some more specific examples of how Bush concerns himself with politics to the exclusion of actual achievement.

Yesterday, the results of a survey by the Pew Corporation were published, and it appears that the popularity of the US has dropped in many instances, and this was attributed to the policies of the Bush administration. When this was presented to Bush, he brushed the results aside, saying that his administration did not conduct policy based on polls. (Cite available on request.)

I would expect a President who was doing something because it was popular to be more concerned with such poll results. I would expect a President who was doing something based on the decision that it implemented a policy he believed in to behave as Bush has done.

FWIW.

Regards,
Shodan

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by Shodan

Yesterday, the results of a survey by the Pew Corporation were published, and it appears that the popularity of the US has dropped in many instances, and this was attributed to the policies of the Bush administration. When this was presented to Bush, he brushed the results aside, saying that his administration did not conduct policy based on polls. (Cite available on request.)

He does not care about international polls because they don't vote. His administration is, in fact, obsessed with polling the crap out of any and every policy issue before making a decision. W will not take a crap before finding out what color toilet paper voters most approve of.

[Shodan]

Then I repeat, DtC, cite?

Something a little more specific than either you or the OP have presented.

Regards,
Shodan

[ElJeffe]

He does not care about international polls because they don't vote. His administration is, in fact, obsessed with polling the crap out of any and every policy issue before making a decision. W will not take a crap before finding out what color toilet paper voters most approve of.


From what I've heard from a few sources is that while Bush pays very close attention to polls, he doesn't use them to form policy. Rather, he forms policy, and then uses polls to determine how best to sell his policy ideas to the general public. A subtle but important difference, which makes sense, given that Bush's policies haven't really changed that much since the beginning of his term. Indeed, it seems when he wants something done, he keeps pushing the buttons of the populace until they agree with him.

Jeff

[Mullinator]

Diogenes the Cynic (who thanks to his username I can only picture wearing a toga) said
His administration is, in fact, obsessed with polling the crap out of any and every policy issue before making a decision. W will not take a crap before finding out what color toilet paper voters most approve of.

While the above may be true, I wonder how this would be any different than any other presidency in this day of media driven politics, especially in a first term. I can't imagine anyone making the case that Al Gore would not be driven by poll numbers. Heck, throw pretty much any politician into office, and regardless of party affiliation, I would be surprised if they didn't run a poll driven presidency.

But, is there anything necessarily wrong with that? Running based on polls means that to some extent a candidate is making moves that please a large portion of the populace. As long as a President avoids playing purely to polls and avoids making poor choices just to please polling data then things should work out pretty well.

[Kimstu]

EJ: From what I've heard from a few sources is that while Bush pays very close attention to polls, he doesn't use them to form policy. Rather, he forms policy, and then uses polls to determine how best to sell his policy ideas to the general public.

This I tend to agree with. Seems to me that saying "Bush is all poll-driven and has no policy" is rather like saying "Bush is dumb"; both are superficial and fundamentally mistaken characterizations that tend to distract critics from more important issues.

It has always seemed to me that Bush does have several clear policy positions---US-hegemonic, anti-internationalist, highly laissez-faire, pro-privatization with subsidies, anti-social spending, and anti-tax, for example. IMHO a major reason that he markets his policies so assiduously is that they are quite a bit more radical, less "poll-friendly", than the views of the average citizen; without lots of spin they would not sell as well.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

From what I've heard from a few sources is that while Bush pays very close attention to polls, he doesn't use them to form policy. Rather, he forms policy, and then uses polls to determine how best to sell his policy ideas to the general public.

This is exactly what Dick Morris said about Bill Clinton. The difference is that Clinton was a true wonk who knew what he wanted for policy. W has admitted that he is unable to read or comprehend policy and is dependent on his advisors to explain it to him. If DeIulio is correct (and, given that he is extremely conservative, I find him very credible) the advisors reduce everything to its barest political essence, Karl Rove makes the decisions, and Junior signs that part at the bottom.

[Mullinator]

If DeIulio is correct (and, given that he is extremely conservative, I find him very credible)

So someone is very credible if they are extremely conservative and voice a statement you agree with. Perhaps a better measure of credibility is how much access a person had to situations in question rather than just one aspect of their personal beliefs that manages to match up with the subject of the story.

[Apos]

---The fact that Bushs real life policies are not as libertarian as your writer would idealistically like them to be simply doesn’t mean that Bush lacks a coherant policy.---

I think you missed entirely the point of the article, or perhaps read it from ten feet away with a telescope. The complaint is not about his policies per se: it's about his refusal to defend what he does on the principle they were inspired by. It isn't a matter of doing one thing or another: it's the matter of linking them together into a policy that has a coherent whole in conservative ideology, as opposed to simply piecemealing out wins for favored interest groups.

---Bush is a conservative. Bush ran on a conservative platform. Conservatives generally favor tax cuts. Bush promised a tax cut. Bush delivered a tax cut. How does this indicate an absence of “policy?”---

Because most conservatives aren't so stupid as to think that diddling with the tax rate changes anything about the amount of money the goverment will take from the public in the long run. Tax cuts are not a panacea: which is exactly what Bush's admin has treated it as, and sold it as. It is part in parcel of reducing the size and waste of government: and both things have to be done at once. Simply lowering the tax rate is ineffectual.

---What I actually meant was the creation of the Homeland Security Council (not the Department) on October 8, 2000. Admittedly Bush didn’t have a policy anticipating the creation of this Council, no one anticipated the attack on the World Trade Center.---

It's an impressive policy to form a council on Security when it's obvious we have security problems? Just so you know, such a council existed as a joint project between the executive and legislative branches, across both parties, before Bush even took office, and it's suggestion was the creation of a department of Homeland Security, or at least re-thinking the way our intelligence agencies work.

---Since when? Seriously. I haven’t followed this very closely, but I know Bush gave a speech as recently as July supporting vouchers.---

Believe me: it's not on the agenda. The general feeling is that if they push it, it'll be Bush's version of Clinton's Health Care debacle.

---Laws have been around for an awful long time and people haven’t stopped breaking them yet.---

That's a laugh. No enforcement, and no laws covering the main new tactics that people are using to defraud people while avoiding the letter of the law.

---As for bills being “gutted”, you can’t blame that on the new Senate because they haven’t been seated yet.---

What did I say about the new Senate? Bush gutted them by executive order, and the existing Congress basically let the issue go (and I don't see the new Congress picking it up again)

---The point is that during his campaign Bush espoused a policy of reforming the Social Security System and since his election (yeah, yeah, I know….stole the election) he has acted on that policy.
---prescription medicine for the elderly---
And one last time: Bush outlined a clear policy during the campaign…..Bush has acted on that policy. Whether you like the policy or not, it is still policy.---

You'll have to explain to me a) what you think he was actually advocating and b) what he has actually done c) what these acts actually do.

[cainxinth]

The debate is getting a little off track... Shodan called for clarification of my OP, and I think Kimstu did a fine job of that for me.

The debate isn't do you agree with Bush's policies or not. It’s do you think Bush is pushing a predetermined agenda by political means, allegedly without sufficient policy analysis. DeIulio makes a case that as an outside observer of this presidency makes a lot of sense. It does seem like the Bushies have chosen a stance that fits them ideologically while appeasing various constituencies, primarily the Christian Right and big business, and they are sticking to it. To say that Bush is overly dependent on the polls is a reversal of the point I was making. He doesn't adjust to the polls, he gets his PR machine to make the polls come to him.

[zigaretten]

Originally posted by Apos
I think you missed entirely the point of the article, or perhaps read it from ten feet away with a telescope. The complaint is not about his policies per se: it's about his refusal to defend what he does on the principle they were inspired by. It isn't a matter of doing one thing or another: it's the matter of linking them together into a policy that has a coherent whole in conservative ideology, as opposed to simply piecemealing out wins for favored interest groups


Nope, I read it from nine feet with binoculars this time and my criticism still stands. We pretty much agree on the gist of the article. The writer would like for Bush to be an ideological knight in shining conservative armor. Instead Bush is leading a real-world administration which does odious things like compromise (sell out), attempt to sell his agenda to the voters (act feckless) and make use of political patronage (out-Democrat the Democrats).

An example of my point is that your article actually criticizes Bush for citing a “National Emergency” when he instituted a pay freeze on federal workers instead of justifying the move on ideological grounds. But the fact is that the law doesn’t allow Bush to freeze their pay just because that’s what he wants to do. He can only do it if there is a “national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare.” This is the sort of issue that sitting Presidents have to deal with and ideological libertarians can ignore.

There are reasons why your article cites a “Goldwater administration” as the ideal. First, Goldwater ran what was probably the most ideological campaign in the last 50 years. And Goldwater got murdered. As a result, there never was a “Goldwater administration.” If there had been such an administration it is a pretty safe bet that Goldwater would have had to make the same kinds of compromises and play the same kinds of political games as every other President in US history.

And as I said, I’ve heard it all before with President after President. If “having a coherent policy” means being a martyr to ideology then we never have had, and almost certainly never will have, a President with a “coherent policy.”

[cainxinth]

Originally posted by zigaretten
If “having a coherent policy” means being a martyr to ideology then we never have had, and almost certainly never will have, a President with a “coherent policy.”

JFK and Lincoln ring any bells?

[elucidator]

No policy! What rot! The man simply bristles with stern policy objectives, recently and firmly enacted.

Cutting energy assistance funds, so that impoverished and elderly layabouts will get out there and chop down some trees. Show a little initiative, Granny! A little "can do" spirit instead of whining under your blanket and staring forlornly at the space heater!

As we have learned from Reagonomics, if the economy isn't functioning well, its because the poor people are hoarding all the money!

[zigaretten]

Originally posted by cainxinth
JFK and Lincoln ring any bells?

Yes, here’s some Lincoln:


"Any People anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better... Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement."

Abraham Lincoln, House of Representatives, Jan 12, 1848; in a speech comenting on the war with Mexico.

Hmmmm….he doesn’t seem to have lived up to that ideal very well. Here’s some more:


"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. “Letter to Horace Greeley August 22, 1862”

Looks to me like Lincoln is saying “To hell with my long-standing anti-slavery ideals. I’m planning to do what is expedient now!” Not exactly hard-headed ideology.

Now, why don’t you show me that Kennedy was an ideologue. You might start with his support for civil rights in the 1960 debates and how that ties in with his vote on the 1957 Civil Rights Act and his failure to get any civil rights legislation during his administration despite the fact that his party was in charge (in fact, because his party was in charge). Then you can discuss his support for the Diem regime right up to the time that he started supporting the overthrow of the Diem regime. And let’s not forget his debate pledge not to “unbalance the budget” followed a couple of years later by his request to lower taxes because even though it “will, of course, temporarily increase the deficit.”

Oh, there’re lots of things you can talk about with Kennedy.

[cainxinth]

Let me get this straight… Lincoln and JFK aren’t martyrs to their particular ideologies? Then why exactly do you think they were killed? Someone was fed up with the lack of “coherence” of their policies and decided to take matters into their own hands? :rolleyes:

[o42cDeadBeef]

Quote: ...and now I think we can renew the criticism of his non-existent domestic policies.

Looks like Bush must have been listening to all of your complaining, eh cainxinth? It's amazing what can happen when one posts to the GD....


http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,72341,00.html

[zigaretten]

Originally posted by cainxinth
Let me get this straight… Lincoln and JFK aren’t martyrs to their particular ideologies? Then why exactly do you think they were killed? Someone was fed up with the lack of “coherence” of their policies and decided to take matters into their own hands?

Is that all you’re arguing? You’ve somehow descended from an OP concerning the presidents reliance on “policy” to puny taunts of “Oh Yeah? Well these guys got shot, huh!”? Forgive me for assuming that you were trying to argue something a little more….um…..substantial than that. I’m sorry I wasted both of ours time.

But for the record, although JFK and Lincoln have both certainly been treated as martyrs, I seem to recall that it is traditional that martyrs choose death over conversion (see how that fits in with my initial statement?). I don’t recall either Booth or Oswald (or Czolgosz for that matter) having the decency to offer their victims any options in the matter.

And I might add that I believe that the causes of these assassinations had a lot more to do with the psychological make-up of the assassins (sad, pathetic little people obsessed with their own lack of importance) than with the ideological “purity” of the victims. Remember that two people shot at Gerald Ford. Was he twice as ideological as JFK or Lincoln? Somehow he doesn’t strike me as the type.

[TVAA]

Originally posted by ElJeffe
If you don't vote, you haven't earned the right to bitch about the State of the Union.

"Don't blame me--I voted for Qodos!"
--Homer Simpson

[cainxinth]

zigaretten, there is no need to get heated, I wasn't discussing my OP. I was addressing a hijack, a ridiculous one at that, which frankly has gone on long enough. If you want to continue the debate on whether JFK and Lincoln are martyrs you can start a new thread, I’ll be glad to post to it.

But as you recommend, I believe I will get back on topic. As o42cDeadBeef pointed out, another Bushie has deserted the cause. First DeIulio of the faith based initiative and now Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill due possibly to <gasp> ideological concerns. Obviously, he was less than confident with Bush’s lack of a stance on economy recovery (aka let the corporations police themselves despite rampant fraud).

Neither here nor there, but anyone else find it humorous that when Bush addresses the nation about the economy the stock market tanks, but when his head economic advisor resigns, “stocks rose in late-afternoon trading Friday as investors bet the shakeup will usher in fresh solutions for the slow-growing economy.” That’s just hilarious.

[zigaretten]

Far be it from me to try to hijack your thread. I believe that I’ve been trying to keep it on track by concentrating on questions like “what does it really mean to be policy oriented” and “how policy oriented is any president” rather than irrelevancies about whether one approves or disapproves of specific policies. That was my earlier point. I thought you were trying to claim that JFK and Lincoln were somehow more “ideologically consistent” than other presidents and so I responded with examples which I believe indicate that they were just as much the slaves of circumstance as Bush, Clinton, et. al. But maybe I'm somehow missing the whole point of the OP.

Anyway, look at your last points about Paul O’Neill. How does O’Neills resignation indicate a lack of policy? If, as you say, the resignation was due to ideological concerns doesn’t that actually reinforce the argument that Bush does have some sort of ideological stance? Else what would there be for O’Neill to disagree with? Unless you really mean that “Bushs lack of a stance” really means some sort of total vacuum. The trouble is that you yourself then define that “lack of a stance” as a policy to let corporations police themselves. Now we can debate whether or not that is a fair assessment of Bushs policy and we can debate whether or not that is a good policy, but one thing is certain: it is a policy.

Surely we can agree that, at the very least, Bush has a policy of “I want a good economy.” I don’t know of any president who actually didn’t care about the state of the economy. If you’ll grant me that much, then I’ll illustrate why I believe these sorts charges, that this president or that president doesn’t have a policy, are so meaningless.

There seem to be two arguments concerning the reason for O’Neills resignation. One is that he’s gone because he didn’t do a very good job. The other is that he resigned to placate a “public view that the shaky economy was not in skilled hands.” How do you tell the difference? Is there any difference? One of the strengths of our political system is that “doing what’s best for the country” so often coincides with “doing what improves ones standing with the public.”

So when we argue about whether a president is enforcing policy or pandering to the polls what we’re really asking is did Bush get out of bed this morning saying to himself “gee, I’ve really gotta do something about my popularity” or did he get up saying “hmmmm, I think I’ll take action on the sluggish economy today”? And isn’t it just possible that Bush, and presidents in general, are sophisticated enough to realize that they can, hopefully, implement good policies which improve the wellbeing of the nation and thus ensure their popularity at the same time?

(And I didn't intend to seem heated, though I am running a temp these days, darned infections)

[december]

O'Neill didn't really resign. He "resigned at the request of the White House." (http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-wh/2002/dec/06/120603300.html) That is, he and Lindsay were fired.

The stock market reacted positively, anticipating that they would be happier with the people Bush chooses to replace them.

[XPav]

Well, Bush hasn't been in a hurry to replace Harvey Pitt. Lets see how quickly he gets around to putting together a new economic team.

[cainxinth]

December I think you’re a touch off base on this one.

Without question O’Neil was a subpar Treasury Secretary (what do you expect he was a Bush appointee…just joshing). But, what got him fired was three things: One, Bush’s supporters in congress wanted it and appeasing them will further ease the passage of new legislation he wants. Two, O’Neil was an outspoken critic of the Bush economic policy or lack thereof (see cites below). Third, if he spins it right Bush can scapegoat the rising unemployment, weak dollar, and generally sluggish economy on a firebrand like O’Neil. Plus, after the Harvey Pitt embarrassment, Bush probably wanted to preempt the next resignation.

Indianapolis Star (http://www.indystar.com/print/articles/1/006595-8201-031.html)
Paul O'Neill was praised as a plain-talking straight shooter when President Bush tapped him as treasury secretary two years ago. His outspoken ways eventually became a problem for the Bush administration.

O'Neill once characterized a House Republican economic stimulus package as "show business," prompting one GOP congressman to demand his resignation.


Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/341/nation/Economic_team_ousted+.shtml)
During last year's debate over Bush's $1.6 trillion tax cut, O'Neill told Congress he was not convinced that tax cuts were a tonic for the economy.

Chicago Sun-Times (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-econ07.html)
”I hereby resign my position as secretary of the Treasury,'' O'Neill said in a terse 46-word statement. Associates said he was tired of Washington and might have left without a shove from Bush.

NY Times (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021207-093757-2331r)
Given President Bush's fear of following his father into early retirement because of a weak economy, the shake-up may also be prelude to a new raft of ambitious but ill-advised economic stimulus proposals. ...

Mr. Bush now has an opportunity to appoint a forceful Treasury secretary who can help him shape and communicate the administration's economic policies, and play a leadership role in global economic matters. If he wants that sort of partner, he would be well advised to bypass political operatives and economic ideologues.

Well the list of deserters is growing. To recap: John DeIulio head of the faith based initiative, Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Harvey Pitt, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, and White House economic adviser Larry Lindsey.

One last note. I think this Kansas City Star column, Perception, not policy, is the reason behind resignations (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/4683890.htm) is quite good ;)

[december]

Originally posted by cainxinth December I think you’re a touch off base on this one.:confused: All I said was that they hadn't left voluntarily, which my cite confirmed.

I heard Ari Fleisher on TV carefully give no information at all about the resignations and answer no questions, so Bush's motivatons are anybody's guess. Your guess is as good as mine, and our guesses are just as good as the guesses of the columnists you cited. Well the list of deserters is growing. To recap: John DeIulio head of the faith based initiative, Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Harvey Pitt, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, and White House economic adviser Larry Lindsey.The only one of these people who left voluntarily ("deserted", if you like) was DiIulio. And, I read somewhere that he never intended to stay long. However, his comments make it clear that he was disenchanted. OTOH various media reports have indicated that the other three would have liked to stay on.

[ISiddiqui]

Didn't I hear this from the Clinton administration detractors as well? Especially after 1995 when the Republicans took Congress?

I mean all he did was politics and spin. If there was any policy, I didn't see it.

Same charge now, different president.

[cainxinth]

Well december I guess it all boils down to who do you trust. I trust various pundits at the NYtimes and other respected liberal sources and you trust the official state propaganda right from chief spinmeister Fleischer’s lips.