John DiIulio is a Democrat. He is not one of those people.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, I dunno. But the line “Mayberry Machiavellians” was worth the price of admission.
Kimstu:
If his revelations were analogous to DiIulio’s, then yes, I would.
Avalonian:
Ha ha ha ha ha! Good one! Oh, wait, you were serious?
cainxinth:
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”.
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
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:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Because not enough people vote based on policy.
Chumpsky wrote:
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, Voting Population (see page 12))
**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%
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
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.
Then I repeat, DtC, cite?
Something a little more specific than either you or the OP have presented.
Regards,
Shodan
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
Diogenes the Cynic (who thanks to his username I can only picture wearing a toga) said
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.
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.
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.