The Great Unraveling of the Reign of Bush
For a while, it was good to be king.
Although he was born into privilege and had the advantages of access and wealth, George Bush had been a mediocrity at everything he did.
As a last resort, his father hired Karl Rove, an up and coming Republican operative, to tutor this smirking son of the oil patch on the nitty gritty of politics. Rove worked his magic, the son was elected governor of Texas and then as had the father himself, president of the United States — if only by stealing an election.
It was so good to be king that when terrorists flew jetliners into the World Trade Center, Pentagon and a farm field in western Pennsylvania eight months into his reign, there was a groundswell of support for him not seen in the land since the Pearl Harbor attack. While the younger Bush had play-acted being presidential, he had done nothing of substance since his inauguration, but that didn’t matter. The homeland was under siege and he was given a mandate akin to that granted FDR as America entered World War II.
It has been all downhill from there. And while the Great Unraveling of the Age of Bush should not be surprising when you understand the man, his motives, his handlers and their motives, the slow-motion collapse of his presidency has been extraordinary.
Please click here to read more at Kiko’s House.
26 Responses to “The Great Unraveling of the Reign of Bush”
Not that I disagree, but I wonder how this could provoke meaningful discussion with the other side, or among moderates. Seems just like a good, ol’-fashioned rant.
Carpeicthus:
The record is what it is. That can’t be changed.
I myself am falling back on the power of prayer. As in praying that the republic makes it through the next 22 months without things getting even worse.
Another step towards KOS-World.
Carp had it right. How, exactly, is this commentary supposed to ignite anything but (verbal) bomb-throwing from each side?
A train wreck is a train wreck, whether we like it or not. =/
AR It is nothing like Kos, or even BalloonJuice. This is a group blog, some Left some Right and some down the middle.
Sorry right wingers, Bush has proven to be a terrible President. To deny that is to deny reality.
Chris – actually, to the surprise of many here I am sure, I agree completely about Bush.
Doesn’t change the fact that the site as a whole is turning towards a more leftist-oriented Bush-bash-fest, but perhaps in a couple years when there is a Democrat in the White House, then things will become more balanced again.
In case you haven’t noticed, AR, the President, and his actions, are responsible for his image and public opinion of his abilities, or lack thereof.
With 68+ percent of the population believing him wrongheaded, you can hardly expect anyone to think the current anti-Bush sentement is just ‘leftist-oriented’ radicals.
Steve
PS – Your “TMV is turning into DailyKOS” rant sounds a little ‘RedStatish’…
Is it not remotely possible that people are looking hyper-critically at Bush because he has in fact earned this sort of treatment?
Is it not remotely possible that this response by people to look hyper-critically at Bush is less some talking points “Derangement Syndrome” and more of reaping what you sow?
The Democratic Congress, in their extensively-hovering-about-three-months term, has not distinguished itself well. This isn’t a Republican vs. Democrat issue.
It’s a completely failed presidency that continues to fortify itself against the American people.
AR,
It seems perfectly logical (to me anyways) that the people at this site are critical of Bush. He is the one in power, he is the one leading us down all these destructive paths. Would you have said the same thing if this site were going after Nixon during his reign of terror?
Now, I do wish this site would focus a little more on the failures of our new Congress to do anything about the war in Iraq and their failure to take the necessary steps to prevent one with Iran. The Democrats gave up the right to be consulted before an attack on Iran could be commenced. How insane is that? Why aren’t we talking about it here?
Chris:
For what it’s worth, a quick check of my posts on the new Congress show that I have been very critical of the Dems in three and critical of Congress in general in two others. I also have not held back about the insufferable Hillary Clinton.
I don’t have an ideological agenda. I call ‘em as I see ‘em.
Shaun,
I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, and I’m glad you’re trying to be even handed. Keep up the good work, I wouldn’t keep coming back if I didn’t like the site
Look the polls. You’ll find moderate and independent voters have been abandoning the Bush administration, mostly because in the vast number of policies and decisions it is playing largely to its conservative base. I have to remind people that moderate, centrists and independents are not all like the hosts of CSPAN — trying to keep a noncommittal face when people talk. We DO vote. We DO decide. Also, we have a lot of people signed up to coblog on this site. Some do and some don’t. So I have gotten emails from people saying TMV has too many people on the right and they will never read it or donate to it again (we don’t get many tips anyway). And then a day later from someone who feels its a hotbed of radicalism. In reality, the site reflects whatever the writers decide to contribute and which writers decide to share with readers perspective. Also ever writer here has expressed a vareity of views. But on GWB? I don’t think the feelings here are at odds with what polls show on how the administration is playing with moderates and independents at all.
Shorter Austin Roth.
Look, I realize Bush sucks (finally), but how does pointing out the fact that his reign has been a nightmare for America bring about thoughtful discussion about collecting foriegn tennis balls and knitting humorous cumberbuns?
Bottom line, it doesn’t Austin. At least it’s not nearly as effective as questioning someones patriotism or calling them objectively pro-terrorist
But then again, life isn’t perfect now is it?
Shaun,
The great irony of this last sentence is that the Imperial Presidency that has come to characterize the Bush presidency and has been strenuously defended by neoconservatives who favor a strong Executive Branch was actually begun under FDR, the Patron Saint of many Democrats.
It was FDR (who like Bush, was also a son of priviledge) who dramatically increased the power of the Executive Branch. Prior to FDR, American presidents wielded far less power than than do today or even during the 1930s. A lot of people criticize presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Collidge for being “do-nothing” presidents, but that fact of the matter is that these two presidents took a relatively “hands off” approach to government, and the country did pretty well during these eight years–we had both peace and prosperity.
It wasn’t until the Great Depression that Americans really began to rethink the role of government and the Executive Branch. President Herbert Hoover, who had the unfortunate luck of presiding over the 1929 Stock Market crash and the beginning of the Great Depression, found himself at a great juncture in American history. Should he use the power of government to help those hardest hit by the depression? Or should he continue the “hands off” policies championed by his predecessors?
Ulitmately, Hoover chose a kind of “middle of the road” approach, in which he expanded the powers of the federal government to a certain degree, but not nearly to the extent of the administrations that would follow him.
FDR’s presidency was a period of dramatic transformation. FDR expanded the size and scope of federal government in ways not dreamed of by his predecessors.
But it wasn’t merely the power of the federal government that grew during this time. The power of the Executive Branch also grew dramatically during this time. For all the talk today about the Bush administration’s firing competent district attorneys and politicizing the Department of Justice, we seem to forget the ways in which FDR manipulated the U.S. Supreme Court in order to implement his agenda–even going so far as to expanded the number of Supreme Court Justices and packing the Supreme Court with Justices who were sympathetic with his radical (or so it was considered at the time) agenda.
FDR’s presidency was a time of extraordinary circumstances. We had the Great Depression which left tens of thousands of Americans impoverished. We had World War II, which raged across the entire globe, pitted the free peoples of the world against naked totalitarianism, and left tens of millions of people dead.
But what history has consistently shown us is that governments that expand their powers during periods of crisis rarely give all of those powers back once the crisis is over. Some of FDR’s policies were overruled by the Supreme Court, and some of the powers that the government accrued were given back. But much of the power that the government accrued during the presidency of FDR, it kept and never reliquished.
And the Imperial Presidency endured. President Truman continued many of FDR’s policies and implemented some of his own–continuing to expand the power of the presidency–plunging us into the Cold War and the Korean War abroad while attempting to nationalize the steel industry at home. The power of the presidency and the “privileges” it deemed necessary for itself continued under LBJ, who mislead the American people about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, escalated our involvement in Vietnam and sent tens of thousands of Americans to their deaths.
What were Republicans to do but simply continue aggrandizement of presidential power that occured under their Democratic predecessors. And this they did with vengeance under President Nixon, who secretly invaded Cambodia without the consent of congress and used the power of his office to go after political adversaries.
Which brings us to today–a period in which we are plunged in an pre-emptive elective war halfway across the globe with no end in sight–a period in which the congress and ceded its powers to the Executive Branch and passed the USA PATRIOT Act and has screamed loudly but done little to curb the abuses of the NSA’s electronic surveillance program–a period in which the administration has politicized the Deparment of Justice and allowed it to prosecute medical marijuana users/growers in western states, despite the fact that laws were passed in these states allowing these people these rights.
But to blame the Bush administration for the Imperial Presidency is to ignore all of his predecessors who made it possible for Bush to accumulate such power. It ignores the famous axiom that “power tends to corrupt” no matter WHO’s in power–Democrat or Republican–and that if you give a power to one president to implement the things you want, if will unevitable be used by some later administration to implement things that you may not agree with.
There is a growing movement among libertarians and conservatives that is trying to curb the ever-growing power of the Executive Branch, and one assumes that after six years of George W. Bush, liberals would sympathetic to this objective.
But we have to stop pretending that the abuse of power is a partisan issue. The Bush presidency is the inevitable result of decades of the congress ceding its power to the Executive Branch, and of the growing power of the neoconservative movement, which in additional to an interventionist & unilateralist foreign policy, strongly advocate in favor of a strong Chief Executive who, as Commander-in-Chief, is granted certain unique “priviledges” not explicited granted to him/her by the U.S. Constitution.
President Bush is not the problem–he’ll be gone in 22 months. The problem is the pervasive mentality that allows us to cede unchecked power to the Executive Branch–contrary to the explicit words of the Constitution and contrary to the express will of the Founding Fathers.
- nicrivera
nic,
I’m glad that you wrote that instead of me. When I’ve brought up FDR in the past, I’m accused of deflecting blame from Bush but that’s not my intent. I agree 100% with your comment, and my view is that Bush’s overreaching on Executive authority is a problem but it’s not without precedent.
Nic:
Thank you for the timely history lesson, especially your point that abuse of power is a not partisan issue.
Kind of ironic, isn’t it, that FDR is a loathsome figure to many of the same conservative Republicans who have been so supportive of the Bush power grab.
I will only add one small point regarding FDR: His Democratic-controlled Congresses didn’t always roll over and let him scratch their tummies. A notable exception, which you allude to, was FDR’s unsuccessful effort to enlarge the Supreme Court when it began ruling against his power grabs.
Nic Rivera said:
> It was FDR (who like Bush, was also a son
> of priviledge) who dramatically increased
> the power of the Executive Branch.
… far beyond reasonable, let alone constitutional, bounds.
But FDR and his boys knew they could win votes that way (along with buying the votes), and win votes they did.
Interestingly, a worshipper of FDR and the New Deal, Arthur Schlesinger, made the phrase “Imperial Presidency” commonplace — when referring to an administration that was not Democratic and not as liberal as FDR or JFK.
C Stanley,
Well I don’t think anyone will accuse me of attempting to deflect blame from Bush (afterall, I’m a critical of the guy as anyone and voted against him twice).
But often it seems as if Bush’s critics spend more time pointing out the symptoms than they do pointing out the underlying problems with our system of government.
I am a strong opponent of the so-called Imperial President that has come to be associated with presidents like George W. Bush and Richard Nixon, but history shows us that this phenomenon actually began in earnest under FDR.
It’s perhaps not very politically correct to say this, but I feel that FDR is one of the most overrate presidents in American history. Sure, he did some good things (inspired hope in American people, successfully prosecuted World War II), but he also did some bad things (dramatically expanded the power of the Executive Branch). And because we are willing to overlook the instances in which FDR expanded his power, we’re now stuck with a mentality that dictates that any current–Democrat or Republican–has certain powers or priviledges that go far beyond those granted to them by the U.S. Constitution.
Bush has done a lot of bad things for which he’ll certainly receive no quarter from me. But I suspect that if he had done HALF the things that FDR had done, he would have been impeached already.
Nic and CStanley:
A couple of points:
(1.) Contextually, let’s remember that Roosevelt ran the show during the era of fireside chats and Sunday funny papers. Word of abuses of power spread at the speed of light these days.
(2.) Perversely, I think that Richard Nixon was a much better president than he is given credit for despite that Watergate thingie.
FDR might be loathsome to many conservatives, but he is a hero to many neoconservatives. His success in expanding the power of the Executive Branch and successful prosecution of World War II are EXACTLY the type of qualities that they want in a president. That is why they’re always citing FDR approvingly and trying to compare the Iraq War with World War II.
I’m in agreement with this point. FDR certainly did face opposition from his own party (both in Congress and in the Supreme Court) when he tried to implement his policies. This is in striking contrast with the Republican congress which held power during the first six years of Bush’s presidency and demonstrated an almost unprecedented degree of complying with whatever the Bush administration asked of them. The fact that Bush vetoed only ONE bill during his entire first six years in office pretty much encapsulates the Republican congress’s refusal to serve as a check on the Bush administration.
When one looks at the history of presidential vetoes, it is virtually unprecendented for a president to go as long as Bush did without vetoing a single–even when you go back to previous periods in our history during which the presidency and congress were controlled by the same country.
I think this demonstrates that congress has to accept some of the blame for our current problems. A congress that rubber-stamps the agenda of the president is simply not doing its job.
Heh.
> Perversely, I think that Richard Nixon
> was a much better president than he is
> given credit for despite that Watergate
> thingie.
Domestically he’d be considered too liberal for today’s “real” GOP.
If you think the far Left is angry at Hillary Clinton, think of what John “missile gap” Kennedy would face nowadays as a Dem.
>>In case you haven’t noticed, AR, the President, and his actions, are responsible for his image and public opinion of his abilities, or lack thereof.
Yes, but it’s all in the language used and a lot of this post was “rant” and derogatory language imbued by the author not the situation.
Also, a site has to listen to its readers, and weed out the “concern trolls,” of course. The site’s been moving left, and new authors have given the site less focus.
> Doesn’t change the fact that the site as a whole
> is turning towards a more leftist-oriented Bush-
> bash-fest, but perhaps in a couple years when
> there is a Democrat in the White House, then
> things will become more balanced again.
It’ll be a leftist-oriented Democratic-President-defense-fest and critic-bash-fast once that Democrat (and her spouse, if they remain together that long) is in the White House.
It is other things as well, some subtle, some not.
The number of right/conservative posters in the comments section seems to have dropped, and the number of left leaning ‘front-pagers’ has gone up.
The truly nut-job posts in the recent Chavez thread.
The change in the listing of linked blogs, where right-oriented blogs come at the very end, after even other voices.
I agree that some of it is certainly due to the continuous missteps of the current administration, but that shouldn’t change the meaning of ‘moderate’.
And the comment about the tone of the criticism was dead on. There have been a lot of people hear who for a long time have been critical of Bush, but the overall tone is becoming more uncivil.
As always, IMHO.
I think if some of you have a problem with political bias at TMV, you ought to take it up with the site moderators. I, myself, have noted and commented on the leftward drift of this site over the last 6 months or so, but I can’t answer for others at this site (whom I hardly even know).
Personally, I think Joe and Michael do a good job about being fair and objective in their posts and also post nonpolitical topics from time to time. And I’d like to think that I provide a libertarian-leaning bent that transcends the left-right politics that too many bloggers seem enamored with.
I think what it comes down to is that there are left-leaning bloggers at this site who clearly have an attachment with the Democratic Party (and hence are not completely objective), and there are right-leaning bloggers here who clearly have an attachment with the Republican Party (and hence are not completely objective).
As far as an overall uncivil tone and nutjob comments, I’ve personally come across rather uncivil comments from BOTH SIDES in just the last 36 hours, and I called both parties out.
As far as Shaun’s post goes, Shaun clearly has his own “political bent” on President Bush. I think my reply was extremely fair and even-handed towards Democrats and Republicans alike, and more importantly, I think it cut through some the political bickering and focused on the root of the problem–which is how we, as a country, have come to invest too much power in the Executive Branch.