Houston's Clear Thinkers

One word K-A-T-R-I-N-A. Carter may have screwed up the hostage situation but even he never bore culpability for the complete destruction of a complete US city.

It's too early to write an accurate Presidential history of Bush. WAY too early. That will come ten or twenty years down the road (just as it is starting to come with Reagan), and I think it may surprise.

I think we can say right now that the Carter comparison is silly, though. Indeed, any comment that deals with who is what to their party might need to take heed of the fact the GOP majority has grown under Bush. That may not please the libertarians, but their track record isn't nearly so good, is it? :)

I see how Dubya is culpable for the "complete destruction of a complete US city." (not the incomplete kind) I remember when the CNN crew spotted Dubya placing explosive charges on the levees. It is all his fault. Literally. He is literally, culpable for every molecule of H2O in every metaphysical, epistemological and teleological sense. The chief executive is required to keep all of the stars in heaven fixed in their firmament.

Tom,

Don't forget that the steel tariff charges are bogus. Look at all the bilateral trade deals. The Bush/Zoellick free trade credentials are stronger than Reagan's.

Most of the critique above is valid; but much of it, in particular the "criminalization of business interests" I think can be put down to a generalized desire on the part of narrow Republican Congressional majorities to protect themselves, electorally speaking, at all costs. Any policy position that would give left-populist Democrats the chance to snipe at Republicans (e.g. Enron) is defused by the Republicans tacking left for votes. I think this is a mistaken policy, but explains much about what's going on.

I think Bush's biggest mistake, for which he is to some degree now paying, is his repetition of LBJ's mistake of fighting a hot war coldly, that is, without taking steps to mobilize public opinion behind an all-out effort. He had an opportunity to do this on 12 September 2001. If he'd asked for conscription, war taxes, etc., he'd have gotten them.

Similarly, he has not explained the war in Iraq, necessary to make an example of Saddam, and to encourage other Mid East rulers to cooperate fully against Al Qaeda, in ways that people can understand.

El Jefe, I don't understand your observation regarding "any policy position that would give left-populist Democrats the chance to snipe at Republicans (e.g. Enron)." The Clinton Administration was a big supporter of Enron, as was the early Bush Administration. The Bush Administration has undertaken a policy of severely criminalizing business interests. Sounds as if you would prefer that approach as opposed to a more measured policy that I would hope that sensible Democrats would follow.

Oops...Did not mean to convey a false impression. I certainly wish the Bush administration would follow the more measured policy which you speak of.

As to your point about Clinton and Enron: no argument there. But the Democratic Party is a different, much more left-wing animal than in Clinton's time. At the present time, I cannot imagne the Democrats following a more sensible, measured policy as to business.

What I was trying to say is that certain Republican circles seem, wrongly to my mind, to have been exquisitely sensitive to criticism as being too pro-business, and moved to appease such criticism by wrongheadedly criminalizing matters best left in the civil realm.

Ah, now I understand, and I think you make a good point that the GOP's desire to placate through politically expedient measures is short-sighted.

In what world is Jimmy Carter not a complete abject failure?

Tom: What do you think President Bush has done well?

I want to come back to this point, which is a recurring one on your blog:

Regardless of what one thinks about the Administration's venture into Iraq, the Bush Administration has overseen a tremendously damaging criminalization of business interests

I don't think anyone can take issue with that rationalist commercial/economic perspective (with which I have some degree of sympathy).

However, it may not pay sufficient heed to a broader political perspective. After Enron and other accounting scandals, I think there was tremendous political pressure to "do something" and I think there were legitimate fears that is "something" weren't done, investor confidence was going to go into the toilet, people were going to stop investing in 401ks (a big investment for normal people), and the country was going to take a huge economic hit as a result.

Given that circumstance, you saw market-minded folks ranging from Jim Cramer to Larry Kudlow endorsing many of the policies that are now criticized here for the simple reason they were political solutions to boost investor confidence. They did not add, "in the short term," but I think that it was implied. And maybe that short-term boost was important, psychologically. I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis of longer-term effects, but that maybe the short-term political/psychological aspects mattered also?

“Sounds as if you would prefer that approach as opposed to a more measured policy that I would hope that sensible Democrats would follow.”

Sensible Democrats? Isn’t that an oxymoron? I’m afraid that the more reasonable Democrats have already been marginalized. The Republicans often act hypocritically, but they are essentially the only game in town.

Even as bad as President Bush has been, he cannot limbo under the low bar that Mr. Carter established.

Oh, I don't know about that; Bush can get pretty low.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: