Is President Bush LBJ?
More and more, Bush is looking like a Big Government conservative. But what is conservative now would have been liberal in 1966.
No No No!
Cheney will be LBJ.
That makes Bush JFK?
I think I just got a migraine.
Not quite got a grasp of the whole “fight against ignorance” thing, perhaps?
Take it to the Pit, you two-bit incendiarist.
You’ll have to explain this one. Considering how far to the right the United States has shifted over the past couple of decades, it’s far more accurate to say that what was conservative in 1966 is liberal today.
By the way: Bush did mislead on Iraq. He said he knew where the weapons of mass destruction were, and here it is, nine months later, and we haven’t found any. If he knew where they were, something surely would have turned up by now. Unless Bush mislead, of course (though the word I prefer to use is lied. Gets right to the point, you know?)
“Texas”; check.
“Expanding entitlements”; the new Medicare bill definitely expands government subsidisation of prescription drugs, but I think that’s an inaccurate -or at least incomplete- label for the plan. The great increase in expenditures will benefit insurance and drug companies greatly and directly, which is certainly in character for this administration, but is not a straight entitlement to seniors, being tied to the HMOs.
“Interventionist foreign policy”; check.
a) Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I’ll assume you’re unaware that the characterization “pro-tyrant activist”, being a vile and cowardly lie, is imminently Pit-worthy. Please don’t do that.
b) “Bush allegedly misleading on Iraq”; the only allegation which remains unsubstantiated would be that Bush misled through deliberate intent rather than absolute ideological blindness to contrary facts. While there is much in the neocon literature available to substantiate that charge against the administration chicken hawks, there’s also much to substantiate willful ignorance on the part of the President. Comparisons to Gulf of Tonkin are entirely approprate. (So would that be a “check” or not?)
“Deficits (guns and butter?)”; check, sort of, although LBJ scale deficits seem like the model of conservative fiscal policy when compared to GW scale deficits. There’s also the matter of intent; LBJ intended the expansion of the federal government through social programs, while GW’s administration IMO intends to shut down those programs by way of a manufactured deficit crisis, and therefore collapse the federal government to pre-New Deal/Great Society levels.
On the whole, I’d say Bush and his administration’s policies are quite distinct from the LBJ era.
Receipts:GDP Ratio
FY04: 17.0%
Post WW2 Avg: 17.9%
WJC: 19.4%
GHWB: 17.7%
RWR: 18.0%
Outlays:GDP Ratio
FY04: 19.7%
Post WW2 Avg: 19.5%
WJC: 19.6%
GHWB: 22.0%
RWR: 22.3%
Deficit:GDP Ratio
FY04: -2.7%
Post WW2 Avg: -1.6%
WJC: -0.1%
GHWB: -4.3%
RWR: -4.3%
Defense Spending:GDP Ratio
FY04: 17.5%
Post WW2 Avg: 35.5%
WJC: 17.1%
GHWB: 21.7%
RWR: 26.7%
When comparing the ratio to Gross Domestic Product,
GWB’s FY04 Budget proposal vs. the
1945-2002 WWII Average,
1994-2001 WJC,
1990-93 GHWB, and,
1982-1989 RWR
budgets, the most alarming figures are the mandated spending (SSI, Medicare and other entitlements) percentages.
Non-Defense Discretionary Spending:GDP Ratio
FY04: 19.2%
Post WW2 Avg: 19.4%
WJC: 17.6%
GHWB: 16.6%
RWR: 17.1%
Other Mandatory Spending:GDP Ratio
FY04: 55.4%
Post WW2 Avg: 41.6%
WJC: 51.4%
GHWB: 46.2%
RWR: 42.9%
IMHO,
HayekHeyst making the unfair a=b/b=a analogy: “Pro-tyrant activists (excuse me, I mean anti-war activists)” isn’t pit-worthy. Nor is calling him/her a 2-bit incendiarist .
Correction:
Last 3 should read : Total Outlays Ratio
So, I’ll hijack my own thread for a moment.
Chance the Gardener writes
Well, perhaps my remark on on pro-tyrant activists was a little provocative, but
So, I think it’s a little rich for you to claim that I’m out of line and that I should take it to the Pit. Your remark could be taken as the kind of smug moral superiority that believes that since you’re on the right (left?) side of things, you can do no wrong, and anyone whose opinions are not in line with yours is either a fool, a knave, or both. But I take it you’re not that kind of person and it’s all a big misunderstanding?
That said, my remark was intentionally provocative. Hopefully, it provokes thoughts as well as feelings.
Consider the abortion debate in the US. The two sides have labeled themselves Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. Life and Choice are both good in the abstract–who would be opposed to Life or Choice as such? But each of these movements is, either by omission or comission, Anti-Choice or Anti-Life in certain concrete instances.
In the interests of civil political dialogue, I’ve no problem with allowing groups to self-label, as long as those self-labels aren’t grossly deceptive. However, it behooves us to unpack the euphemism and unspin the spin from time to time, so that we remember to think and avoid lazily falling into an intellectual rut.
I know Anti-War activists are a diverse group. Some are against all wars, some are against certain types (preemptive or un-UN-sanctioned) of wars, and some are just opposed to this specific war. And, much like most of us think ourselves Pro-Life in the abstract (who, after all, is self-consciously Pro-Death?), most of us think ourselves Anti-War, in the abstract (who, after all, thinks of themselves as Pro-War in the abstract as a general proposition?).
However, just as being Pro-Life implies being anti-Choice in some specific instances, being Anti-War implies being Pro-Tyrant (by omission, and in consequential, not motive, terms) in some specific instances. Like Pro-Choice implying anti-Life, Anti-Tyrant implying Pro-War.
There are a lot of issues of omission vs. comission, motive-based vs. consequence-based thinking here.
Is President Bush LBJ?
Texas. True… but he’s a Yalie, for potato’s sake. How Texan could he be? LBJ graduated from a tiny teacher’s college in south central Texas!
Expanding entitlements (medicare drug benefit). Bush did this, I suspect, largely to win the elderly vote. LBJ, on the other hand, based on his extensive work to legislate civil rights, actually gave a damn about Americans whether they voted for him or not.
activist/interventionist foreign policy. Hard to defend this one. LBJ worried about Commies. Bush worries about Terrorists… although it may well be that their motives were different.
Pro-tyrant activists (excuse me, I mean anti-war activists) draw parallels between Gulf of Tonkin incident/resolution and Bush allegedly misleading on Iraq. Again, hard to argue this one.
Budget deficits due to simultaneous guns and butter. True, but Bush is doing his best to boost the money flow to the rich, so as to prevent the economy from toileting. LBJ attempted to shunt money to the poor via the Great Society, for much the same reason…
So, I’ll hijack my own thread for a moment.
Chance the Gardener writes
Well, perhaps my remark on on pro-tyrant activists was a little provocative, but
So, I think it’s a little rich for you to claim that I’m out of line and that I should take it to the Pit. Your remark could be taken as the kind of smug moral superiority that believes that since you’re on the right (left?) side of things, you can do no wrong, and anyone whose opinions are not in line with yours is either a fool, a knave, or both. But I take it you’re not that kind of person and it’s all a big misunderstanding?
That said, my remark was intentionally provocative. Hopefully, it provokes thoughts as well as feelings.
Consider the abortion debate in the US. The two sides have labeled themselves Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. Life and Choice are both good in the abstract–who would be opposed to Life or Choice as such? But each of these movements is, either by omission or comission, Anti-Choice or Anti-Life in certain concrete instances.
In the interests of civil political dialogue, I’ve no problem with allowing groups to self-label, as long as those self-labels aren’t grossly deceptive. However, it behooves us to unpack the euphemism and unspin the spin from time to time, so that we remember to think and avoid lazily falling into an intellectual rut.
I know Anti-War activists are a diverse group. Some are against all wars, some are against certain types (preemptive or un-UN-sanctioned) of wars, and some are just opposed to this specific war. And, much like most of us think ourselves Pro-Life in the abstract (who, after all, is self-consciously Pro-Death?), most of us think ourselves Anti-War, in the abstract (who, after all, thinks of themselves as Pro-War in the abstract as a general proposition?).
However, just as being Pro-Life implies being anti-Choice in some specific instances, being Anti-War implies being Pro-Tyrant (by omission, and in consequential, not motive, terms) in some specific instances. Like Pro-Choice implying anti-Life, Anti-Tyrant implying Pro-War.
Obviously, there are a lot of issues of omission vs. comission, motive-based vs. consequence-based thinking here. I myself do reject that omission and comission are equivalent. But much like dollars and pesos, non-equivalent does not mean non-commensurable.
Okay, I’ll bite.
This logic would mean that we’re all pro whatever we’re not trying to stop which renders the terms pro(whatever) so large as to be meaningless.
People are pro-oppresion because we dont think its a good idea to invade NK. People are pro-rape because they don’t favor going to war in Rwanda.
In short, it’s a pile of utter and complete bullshit. There’s a clear and distinct difference between opposing A and supporting B.
Did I say a pile of utter and complete bullshit?
I meant, “It is, at best, pure sophistry.”
Urk. Mistakingly posted the same post twice. (Well, slight addendum on the second post relative to the first.)
At best, pure sophistry? Thanks for the generosity. 
Then what is it at worst?
Ethical philosophy may be divided into three main branches.
Deontological (theory of Right, as pertaining to what is the Right Action)
Consequentialist (theory of Good, as pertaining to states of affairs)
Virtue (theory of motives)
I’ll grant that in terms of motive and Rightness, there is a clear and distinct difference between opposing A and supporting B.
But in consequentialist terms (say, Utilitarianism), if the continued existence of B is a consequence of success in pursuing A via action or position C, there is no clear and distinct difference between A and B when evaluating action C.
So, I would argue, at best, my post represents a consequentialist construction. You may think that consequentialism is trash (or, at least, doesn’t represent the whole of how we should think about the world), but I don’t think the argument is transparently BS.
P.S. I don’t consider it a flame to have an argument called BS or inflammatory. I can distinguish between an ad hominem attack and an attack on a statement or argument.
There’re not often real world examples that’re as clear cut as what you wrote. In reality, in this instance, very few if any people who opposed the invasion thought that nothing should be done to curtail the atrocities of Hussein. All that was under discussion was the means of curbing Hussein. Therefore, not even consequentially does your equation make sense. Curbing Hussein, promoting his fall from power were advocated. Not wanting the invasion to happen under the conditions that it happened is not at all equivalent, not even consequentially, to being pro-tyrant.
Can we include for consideration entitlements to rich people and corporations?
How exactly is this statement cowardly? It was clearly meant as tongue-in-cheek. Even calling it vile is a bit much, under the circumstances. Is rough joking to be contained only with the Pit? I hope not.
**
That’s a check!
**
It’s very difficult to be sure what Bush’s intentions are, but I think you articulate the problem fairly well. One thing I think we can agree on, Bush’s butter is in no way intended to benefit directly any Americans living at, near above, or below the median income. The direct benefits have consistently been only to those well above median income.
Bush is not a friend of “ordinary” Americans, his retoric nothwithstanding. I wish he’d be honest enough to abandon that pretense.
**
Well of course, but I find it fun to notice the parallels, as did the OP. Considering the details provides insight into how just plain mean and despicable the Bush administration really is. I say this as a former Republican, by the way.
(For the record, my respect for the GOP was permanently harmed when Newt Gingrich and his ilk seized power in 1994.)
Could you aim it at a specific individual? I am curious about which activists you consider to be pro-tyrant.
The father of a close friend of mine was killed in horrific circumstances by a ME tyrant, I was anti the DFW (“Damn Fool War”), so excuse me if I react badly to the implication that being anti-war == pro tyrant. It’s not a “joke” to me.
Keep your naive provocations for the pit - the “thoughts” you provoke in me can only be stated there.
Utter, utter crap.
Like saying Anti-fascist implies being Pro-Communist and vice versa.
Huh? YOu mean how far to the left the United States has shifted. Now, even the republicans want bigger governemnt, more federal spending, more government agencies, more gun control, etc.
Today, there is not one single conservative even running for office.