Extent of Support for and Opposition to Bush

Great Debates
21

I’ll tell you something that really, really bugs me. I didn’t vote for Bush. I would have voted for my neighbor’s dog instead of him. But I swear, every political discussion I get into, somebody makes some outlandish accusation against Bush—“He eats babies! He killed all those people in those mass graves!”—and then as a simple matter of logic, I have to defend the guy.

I don’t think he did too bad after Sept. 11th. But that was all he was good at. What I wouldn’t give to have Al Gore as President right now.

22

Aside from the domestic programs ElJeffe mentioned, let’s not forget Bush’s 15 billion to Africa, and his initiative to control the situation in Liberia - policies which have gained support from such well-known conservatives as Bob Geldof and Richard Gere.

The left in America doesn’t perceive Bush as a moderate because he pushed through tax cuts. That’s about it. That’s their litmus test for whether or not someone is a good guy. It doesn’t matter that he’s expanding government faster than Clinton did, with much of the money going to social programs and education. The thing is, he cut taxes ‘for the rich’, and is now eternally damned.

23

I appreciate the sarcasm. But let’s remember the voting public chose Gore in 2000. Bush was selected as president. No republican has won the popular vote since 1988.

And they won’t in 2004.

24

As for the 15 Billion for aids.

Lip service. The senate will not approve that much and he knew it.

25

Since I haven’t seen anyone address this directly, let me toss in my $.02 on this particular facet.

You’ve heard correctly, but I think you got the wrong impression. When you here Republicans talking about the party being hijacked by its extremist wing, nine times out of ten they are referring not to George W. Bush ( some of them may disagree with his hawkish foreign policy, but it is unlikely any would refer to it as extremist ), but rather to social conservatives. This group, due to excellent organizational skills, high motivation, and their tendency/ability to act more coherently as a bloc than most of their ideological opponents, are often considered to exert an influence out of proportion to their actual numbers. Accordingly members of the socially moderate and libertarian wings of the party tend to find them annoying/distracting/worrisome. Not enough to break party loyalty ( usually ), but enough to trigger a lot of grousing.

A good example of the “counter-productive” effect of this outsize dominance of social conservatives, from the socially moderate Republican point of view, is California. Through dint of very active mobilization and organization, social conservatives have in recent years assumed an arguably outsized control over local Republican committees. These are thankless jobs in general, not highly sought after. But en masse they dominate state Republican politics. By assuming control of many of these committees and functioning as an effective bloc, social conservatives have been able to exert considerable control over the candidate nomination process. Unfortunately for California Republicans, CA taken as a whole is a socially moderate state and in general elections social conservatives tend to start out with a lot of baggage that often ends up sinking them. The end result has been the increasing dominance of the Democrats in CA, much to the disgust of the Republican Party in general. There are other reasons as well, but from the economically conservative, but social moderate point of view, conservative social issues are often the millstone that sinks their agenda, hence the disgruntlement.

ElJeffe’s point is reasonably accurate from my point of view. By American standards Bush is not extreme right-wing, any more than Clinton was extreme left-wing. He’s moderate right-wing ( I wouldn’t say he’s a centrist, period - Clinton was possibly slightly closer to that - but he’s not on the far right ). Pat Robertson would be a little better representative of the far right. Or, IMHO, Attorney General John Ashcroft ( to pick someone from the administration ).

  • Tamerlane
26

From the Washington Post:

That was May 17. Since this is July 7, I assume we will get a retraction from you?

27

Thanks folks, I think I have a better picture now. To paraphrase, the Bush Administration is not perceived as radical or far right by most of the American population and Bush is not regarded as an extremist by most of them. The policies that so horrify much of the world are popular in the electorate. Logical deduction, they will therefore survive the demise of the Bush administration which was my main concern.

Not exactly heartening from my world view. Oh well excuse me now I will just go off and quietly despair.

28

Eolbo:

IIRC, Australia was at least a nominal member of the “Coalition of the Willing”, was it not? Apparently Bush’s policies are not so unsavory Down Under. Will any Aussie politicians be ousted for supporting Bush?

29
30

Geez…how the dickens did I do that?

31

You guys have probably already heard how Dean has a plan to force gay marriage on Eagle Scouts?

And no, I can’t prove it. But I think the Pubbies have picked Dean as the candidate they want to run against. I think Republican money is finding its way there, for that reason. If I can think of it, President Rove can think of it, already has, and is doing it.

Campaign contributions by internet opens up a whole new spigot of soft, and anonymous, money. The Bushistas have more than $100 million to fling around. Do the math.

Sure, its paranoid math. But we’re right a lot of the time.

32

I dont think you have to worry about bush or the republicans. The republican party is kaput.

  1. The republicans have not won the popular vote since 1988, 15 years ago.

  2. No president in our history, who lost the popular vote, ever got re-elected(adams, Harrison, ) .

  3. No president who lost 3 million jobs in 3 years ever got re-elected.

33

Our country has never lost 3 million jobs under any president.

It’s a first.

34

Reeder, first you said “Lip service. The senate will not approve that much and he knew it.”. That is provably not true.

Then you say something to the effect of “But did he sign it? Nyah nyah nyah!”.

Completely irrelevant to your original, incorrect, statement. Not that it matters, since GW states at Whitehouse.gov that, “I look forward to this legislation reaching my desk as soon as possible so we can begin to turn the tide in the fight against AIDS.” As in, he can’t sign it yet, since it is still in committee. And it is still in committee, because even though both House and Senate have passed versions of the bill, they are adding on debt relief for African countries. Once that is haggled out, it goes to GW.

35

We shall see my friend…we shall see.

36

You are on a roll, aren’t you? You say that no Presidency has seen more jobs lost? Prove it. Lets see a cite.

37

SS: The left in America doesn’t perceive Bush as a moderate because he pushed through tax cuts. That’s about it. That’s their litmus test for whether or not someone is a good guy. It doesn’t matter that he’s expanding government faster than Clinton did, with much of the money going to social programs and education.

Um, let’s not forget other traditionally conservative positions of this administration, such as opposition to abortion rights (remember the “global gag rule” flap?), “faith-based initiatives” channelling social spending to private religious programs, opposition to environmental regulation, diminished support for workplace law enforcement, support for Social Security and Medicare privatization, and so forth.

What exactly do you mean by the claim that Bush is “expanding government faster than Clinton did”? Spending as a whole? Domestic spending as percentage of GNP? I’d like to see some numbers about that.

(As for the $15 billion for AIDS countermeasures overseas, recollect that less than half a billion of that actually showed up as new funding in the '04 budget.) I agree that Bush has made some rhetorical attempts to appropriate some traditionally liberal issues, but not to the extent of actually espousing liberal positions on them.

Eolbo: To paraphrase, the Bush Administration is not perceived as radical or far right by most of the American population and Bush is not regarded as an extremist by most of them. The policies that so horrify much of the world are popular in the electorate.

Not quite. Bush’s job approval rating has declined from the wartime high into the low 60’s, and it’s only about 50% on domestic issues. Education and the environment consistently poll as more important priorities for Americans than tax cuts. I think it’s fair to say that Bush isn’t generally regarded as a right-wing extremist, but his positions are certainly right of center.

One thing you have to remember is that there is a profound hostility towards government per se in American culture, that may seem startling in other countries where government is regarded more along the lines of any other profession, say lawyers or auto mechanics or computer sales reps—some of them are real disasters and sometimes even the good ones really screw up and sometimes you get annoyed with the lot of them, but in general they’re people doing a job that needs doing. Many Americans, on the other hand, literally hate government; its image is that of some sort of inherently evil Dark Lord barring the way to prosperity and freedom that would otherwise come naturally. And other people’s governments, of course, are even more suspect and objectionable.

Issue by issue, ISTM, Americans are not drastically and unanimously more conservative than the rest of the developed world; we think it’s worth some taxation and regulation to provide retirement insurance and health care for the elderly, reduce pollution, educate children, etc., and we want friendly relations and mutual support with other nations. But if you lump such policies together and label them “pro-government” or “big government”, many Americans will automatically recoil on the grounds that Government = Bad.

38

The Australian govt is pretty supportive of the US Administration for now, its pretty much tied thier flag to it.

I think Australians in general are a wee bit nervous about that, but not enough that it will overshadow more domestic concerns in regards to who they vote for.

Similar with the US I suspect, this thread alone suggests that domestic issues will have more to do with Bushes success in the next election than anything to do with Iraq.

Sometimes seems like the prize for winning domestically is getting to do whatever you like foreign policy wise. The reverse generally doesnt apply.

Otara

39

Susanann, I hope that you are right that Bush won’t be reelected. But I doubt if the Republican party is kaput. A lot of people said that when Nixon was forced to resign, but the voters have a way of forgetting. John McCain could do much to revive the party.

As a Democrat, I can tell you that I am getting disgusted with my own party. With the exception of a couple of Democratic Presidential candidates, I am getting sick of “Republican-lite.”
And I don’t think I’m alone. If www.moveon.org continues to rally the Liberals, who knows what can happen.

Interesting stats, BTW!

40

No, no chance of that happening at all. Our current government is very securely in power, and our current prime minister has pretty much an iron grip over his party, and none of his colleagues would dare raise public voice against him. The major opposition party is disorganised and demoralised, and has just beaten off a leadership challenge by a politician popular among voters in order to maintain a highly unpopular leader. Ah politics.

The most contentious issue was our potential involvement in Iraq which at the beginning of the year was running at circa 90% opposed. As the war loomed closer, we had the government line ladled down our throats about WMDs just like you did and the level of opposition dropped although it still generated the largest mass demonstrations in Australian history. When the war broke out a new government line was added “even if you oppose the war you must support our troops”, this was effective and support for the war grew to about 50%. The Howard government dominates the political scene here to the extent that it was able to commit our troops to the war without any real parliamentary debate on the topic and to ignore an unprecedented vote of no confidence passed by the Senate. (had it been the House of Reps that passed the vote Howard would have been obliged to resign).

I havent seen any recent figures on support but on a purely anecdotal level people I speak with think post-war Iraq has gone poorly. I suspect long-term we will regard our involvement in Iraq as a mistake ala Vietnam but we arent there yet.

There is no threat to John Howard here like there is to Blair over the issue of misleading the nation/parliament over WMD. The issue exists here in a way but it just doesnt have any momentum. I think at higher levels its implicitly understood that WMD were never really the issue for Australia. We arent excited over WMD lies because well we never really believed them, and besides we just parroted Blair and Bush so the lies werent really ‘ours’ anyway. We just fought to maintain the friendship of our current ‘powerful friend’ like we usually do. That may seem cynical but its actually not, maintaining the friendship of a ‘great and powerful friend’ has long been one of the centrepieces of Australian foreign policy and thats the very phrase used. Hell to curry favour we will even invade Canada with you guys if you ask, even though we like Canadians, well as much as anyone does.