Why do so many people hate George Bush?

Politics International Politics
41

I don’t hate the man. I’m sure he’s a basically decent, usually well meaning, and reasonably likable fellow, though with rather limited intelligence and a fairly large quota of character flaws. If he were just one of my office colleagues, we’d probably get along pretty well.

However, I have great contempt for many of his attitudes, values and policies, and deeply regret that such a man could be elected as President of the United States. He is certainly not fit to hold that office. Nearly every one of us, American and non-American alike, is paying and is going to have to pay a very high price for the disastrous failure of the democratic electoral system that put him into the White House.

42

[quote=“Omniloquacious”]I don’t hate the man. I’m sure he’s a basically decent, usually well meaning, and reasonably likable fellow, though with rather limited intelligence and a fairly large quota of character flaws. If he were just one of my office colleagues, we’d probably get along pretty well.

However, I have great contempt for many of his attitudes, values and policies, and deeply regret that such a man could be elected as President of the United States. He is certainly not fit to hold that office. Nearly every one of us, American and non-American alike, is paying and is going to have to pay a very high price for the disastrous failure of the democratic electoral system that put him into the White House.[/quote]

Come now. Aren’t you being a tad hyper-emotional about Bush and his policies? Do you have any support whatsoever for this “very high price” we will have to pay or the “disastrous failure” of the electoral system?

43

Omni:

The same old tired mishmash of Liberal woes.

Gee. The man is an idiot. Only Carter and Clinton are smart. And look at what their policies did to American security. Carter and North Korea treaty under Clinton’s watch and the not so much watching that Clinton did with Osama bin Laden and Islamofascism and then Carter and Iran in the first place but he meant well. Yes, and the most successful president since Reagan (and he was an idiot too remember?) in terms of getting his policies implemented has to be an idiot because he is a Republican and all the journalists are Democrats.

Just read Bob Herbert’s IHT article on homelessness in LA. Another one of those only during Republican administrations, etc.

Remember Bernard Goldberg (CBS News) book “Bias.” All this was detailed in it and I have to say, since I read it I see the liberal bias every day. The words used “coldhearted, profit seeking Republicans” and their counterparts the “concerned activists” on the Left. Yawn.

Given Reagan and Bush in the USA vs Carter and Clinton, I will take the former any day as would most citizens of the world. But no doubt about it Bush is an idiot and unqualified to be president. Tell me, Omni would you vote for Carter? Did you? Did you vote for Gray Davis? Welcome to the world where Atlas Shrugs huh? haha

44

Was that hyper-emotional? :shock: I thought it was rather balanced and restrained.

Anyway, here are two rather significant items of the high price I referred to: (1) a world more prone to war, terrorism, hatred, division, conflict and repression, making us all far less secure and severely restricting our freedom; and (2) the escalation of environmental destruction and resource depletion around the world, threatening the very survival of our species.

There are plenty more costs to add to the account, but that’s a high enough reckoning to begin with. :cry:

45

You were restrained and balanced on Bush’s personal characteristics, but hyper-emotional about his policies.

This is what I mean about “hyper-emotional.” You would think that war, terrorism, repression, hatred, division and conflict all around the world is something parceled out at the White House like tax credits in the federal budget.

Bush’s foreign policies have broad support among Americans. To the extent there is some dissatisfaction with Bush, it is on his domestic economic policies and, to a far lesser degree, with his social/cultural policies.

While he is widely unpopular abroad, Bush has also rallied support around the world to focus attention on stopping terrorism. But since U.S. security is involved far more directly than it is for places like Europe and East Asia, it’s understandable there are wide divisions in what the U.S. priorities should be in the war on terror.

Threatening the survival of our species? Please. Our species has never had it so good.

That you are concerned about the environment is great. But your Chicken Little attitude, in general, and blaming Bush for letting the sky fall, in particular, is just way over the top.

46

Unradical Son: George W. Bush isn’t the fire-breathing reactionary liberals love to hate

DEMOCRATS MAY DISAGREE among themselves about how the country should be governed, but they are largely in agreement about how George W. Bush has misgoverned.

By recklessly cutting taxes, President Bush has enriched the wealthy and neglected the poor, sent the federal budget deficit to record heights, and imposed a colossal financial burden on the coming generation. He has revived the culture wars by flaunting his Christian faith and by promoting traditional values. He has undermined public schools by supporting school choice. He has eroded the wall of separation between church and state by seeking federal funding for faith-based charities. He threatens to reverse decades of progress in civil rights by packing the judiciary with right-wing extremists. He has alienated our European allies with his crude cowboy diplomacy and provided a legitimate basis for anti-Americanism around the world. And he has knowingly deceived the American people in a matter of grave national importance by resting his case for war against Iraq on trumped-up charges about weapons of mass destruction.

But the portrait of President Bush as a fiend bent on destroying all that progressives hold dear is a partisan caricature. It prevents them from recognizing that Bush’s priorities differ from theirs not because he rejects their deepest principles

47

Er, nothing in the article you linked contradicts or even attempts to refute anything in this paragraph. That Boston Globe article simply changes the subject to discuss school vouchers and Condoleeza Rice’s affirmative action tokenism and Bush II’s “big government conservatism”. It’s all true. Good to see them admit it.

48

The article is just so-so. I linked to it without comment, and thought it worthy of mention only because it is a recent opinion piece on the subject at hand and so might spark some comments.

Unlike the author of the article, Peter Berkowitz, I think George Bush is the most conservative president of the modern era. He is too much of a free spender for me, but in most other respects he is as conservative as a president can be. Berkowitz seems to think that because Bush is not as ideologically conservative as former Speaker Newt Gingrich that he is not a real conservative, but I think the author mistakes Bush’s pragmatism for a lack of conservative commitment. Gingrich’s conservatism was always motivated by ideas; Bush’s is more a part of his character.

49

I happen to disagree with practically everything in this editorial:
opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003895
but since it’s directly related to what Cold Front has brought up. . . .

If you read it, I would strongly suggest also reading the readers’ responses to it.

First couple of paragraphs:

[quote=“Fred Barnes, WSJ”]A ‘Big Government Conservatism’
George Bush hasn’t put a name to his political philosophy, but we can.

BY FRED BARNES
Friday, August 15, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

Is President Bush really a conservative? When that question came up this summer, the White House went into crisis mode. Bush aides summoned several of Washington’s conservative journalists to a 6:30 a.m. breakfast at the White House to press the case for the president’s adherence to conservative principles. Aides outnumbered journalists. Other conservative writers and broadcasters were invited to luncheon sessions. They heard a similar spiel.

The White House needn’t have bothered. The case for Mr. Bush’s conservatism is strong. Sure, some conservatives are upset because he has tolerated a surge in federal spending, downplayed swollen deficits, failed to use his veto, created a vast Department of Homeland Security, and fashioned an alliance of sorts with Teddy Kennedy on education and Medicare. But the real gripe is that Mr. Bush isn’t their kind of conventional conservative. Rather, he’s a big government conservative. This isn’t a description he or other prominent conservatives willingly embrace. It makes them sound as if they aren’t conservatives at all. But they are. They simply believe in using what would normally be seen as liberal means–activist government–for conservative ends. And they’re willing to spend more and increase the size of government in the process.[/quote]

50

MaPoDoFu, I’m surprised you disagree with practically everything in that piece.

I think it’s a fairly accurate and well-written article. The few of the readers’ comments that I read are surprisingly vehement

51

[quote=“Cold Front”]MaPoDoFu, I’m surprised you disagree with practically everything in that piece.

I think it’s a fairly accurate and well-written article. The few of the readers’ comments that I read are surprisingly vehement[/quote]
Hmm. I guess I should have been clearer: I disagree with Barnes’ conclusions, not his facts.

Barnes thinks that Bush is somehow “conservative” because he ran as a Republican, even if it’s some sort of bizarre “big government conservative” (which is a contradiction in terms if I ever heard one). I think Bush has sold out on practically every good point of his domestic agenda that he ran on and is just too wishy-washy to handle the pressure.

From steel tariffs to prescription drug benefits, Bush has failed miserably. His only successes have been on the war fronts. I happen to think those are important enough that overall, I would prefer Bush to any of the alternatives, but I wish there were available someone better who could crush the enemies of the U.S. both foreign and domestic.

52

[quote=“MaPoDoFu”] I think Bush has sold out on practically every good point of his domestic agenda that he ran on and is just too wishy-washy to handle the pressure.

From steel tariffs to prescription drug benefits, Bush has failed miserably. His only successes have been on the war fronts. I happen to think those are important enough that overall, I would prefer Bush to any of the alternatives, but I wish there were available someone better who could crush the enemies of the U.S. both foreign and domestic.[/quote]

Fair enough. I agree that Bush is not conservative enough on fiscal matters, but on taxes, social/cultural issues and foreign affairs, he is pretty conservative.

53

Do we really have to go through this again? The words “liberal” and “conservative” are constantly misused in American politics.

Main Entry: con

54

One quick point of reference regarding steel and agriculture. While I do not believe in tariffs for anyone and I am especially incensed with distorted trade in agricultural products, I think that this blame can be laid squarely on the French. Does anyone really imagine that Europe would be talking about reform if the US had not upped the ante. I certainly do not.

55

Agricultural tariffs are the shame of the developed world. Only New Zealand has been bold enough to drop government subsidies for their farmers. Government policy is to artificially boost the prices of fruits & vegetables for in-country consumers through farm subsidies, and retard economic development in primarily agricultural developing countries by imposing unfeasible tariffs that leave them unable to export their food for profit. As a government policy it doesn’t make much sense for the good of the nation and the world as a whole, except to protect the narrow interests of coddle corporate farmers - the agricultural lobby is quite strong.

56

The Argentine Senate Office or Regional Economies had always hoped to get agricultural reform but it was always blocked and guess by whom?

The Cairns group has pretty much left agriculture unsubsidized. The big offenders are EU (most especially France), the US and Japan. Also Switzerland?

Anyway, try just try to get the Europeans (led by France) to give these up. I know many large agrobusinesses in the US also benefit so they are not the disinterested parties they claim to be either but none of this well little gets to the so-called family farmer.

But if you work in agriculture (trade wise) I can guarantee you that only one nation will be mentioned if you ask who is holding up reform and that nation is and always has been FRANCE FRANCE FRANCE.

I think the only reason Europe is talking about this now is because there is pressure to get EU finances in order, the Americans upped the ante to european levels with the new subsidies, the Poles have 25 percent of their workers in agriculture so something has to give. Do not expect France to be making any generous gestures any time soon to help the poor in the Third World. Just look at its aid programs in Africa for a sick joke.

57

Mod Lang, you never went through this with me. If you had, I would have corrected you.

You only think the words are constantly misused because they constantly change their meanings. In the political jargon of yesteryear, today’s conservative has a political philosophy that has some elements of libertarianism, some elements that are reactionary, and some elements that are conservative.

Today’s liberals, on the other hand, have almost nothing in common with liberals of the early twentieth century, when the word still nearly synonymous with libertarianism. The liberal political philosophy now has elements of statism in economics and elements of extreme libertarianism in the social sphere.

There’s no point getting worked up about the evolution in meanings of these terms. The words today in American political discourse have become hopelessly boggled up and no one is going to set them straight. They are what they are.

The disappointment with Bush by some of what we today call conservatives is that he has given in fairly easily to higher non-defense spending. This goes against a key element in the modern conservative’s belief system. For all your exaggerated rhetoric about how modern presidents are all a bunch of statists, Reagan did make some moves to lower non-defense spending.

This is a caricature. With the possible exception of LBJ and perhaps Nixon (who really had no consistent economic philosophy), no modern president could accurately be called a statist. Central government levels of taxation and spending have been fairly steady since the 1960s.

Absolutely ridiculous hobgob. Levels of central government spending were extremely small until WW2. In 1939, just before the beginning of the war, the federal goverment only spent about 6% of the nation’s GDP – that’s less than a third of what it is today. And before the New Deal, it was even smaller, with no more than 2% in any year being spent by the federal government. This low level of government was supported by both Democrats and Republicans, and only war affected it. That means that about seventy years ago, almost every Democrat and Republican was a Libertarian by today’s political accounting.

So what you describe as true for the past century is really only true for about the last sixty years, and even that you highly exaggerate. The United States remains one of the only developed countries in the world with a genuine movement to limit the central state’s power. You think the U.S. is run by a bunch of statists, move to Germany, France or Sweden and see if you can tell the difference.

58

As to why people want lower federal government spending, I think I can provide some examples.

In America, the argument goes something like this: “We must give more money to education so our children have a good future.”

Well there is no correlation between spending and quality and in some school districts 72 percent of money is for nonclass expenses to administer programs for minorities (Blacks), American Indians, bilingual education, etc. etc. etc. DC is one of the worst offenders so it is not surprising that its schools are some of the worst in America. DC schools spend US$7,500 to US$9,000 per pupil (let’s not even talk about private grants that are outside this as well as special education) compared with US$1,500 to US$3,000 at private (but often Catholic) schools with much better results academically.

Second, unemployment insurance and transportation (gas) taxes go to the federal government where anywhere from 36 cents to 52 cents on the dollar can be lost to administrative expenses before being sent back to the States to deal with these particular problems.

The flat tax is popular with conservatives (new sense of the word) because companies face such byzantine rules regarding tax write offs, depreciation etc. which is all to the benefit of tax lawyers (who vote Democrat) and accountants. This is fine for the large corporations that can afford it but very difficult for small and new businesses to negotiate.

Why not get rid of corporate welfare too? The business lunch write off, the depreciation of assets, export credits, etc. which disproportionately go to large corporations who can afford international marketing and promotion efforts.

Then there is Job Corps. which by some estimates costs US$16,000 to place one worker (we are talking about very basic entry level clerical and factory positions here) and there are no figures given for how long the person stays in that position. Temporary agencies offer the training for free and have a much better placement rate so… why have Job Corps?

Then there is Amtrak which continues to lose money. Why not get rid of it and let private companies run trains along routes that are profitable. It costs the government more to let one person ride Amtrak crosscountry than it would to fly them to their destination first class (air).

Then there is housing and urban development HUD which by some estimates costs US$100,000 to build one unit of public housing and as anyone can see looking at the state of public housing in the US, we are talking about slums here. Much better to expand Section 8 and give the rent subsidies to private landlord who can kick bad tenants out if need be. Try to remove someone (drug dealers etc) from public housing. Also at those rates, why not just give the house to the people in charge or buy them one?

So on and on, there is such a low level of efficiency in many government services that conservatives want to get the government out completely and I have to say I completely support those efforts.

In Argentina, which has fallen out of favor with reformists because of the financial collapse, nothing worked prior to 1990 reforms. There was no housing, electricity was in short supply particularly in the summer, water shortages while broken main pipes flooded the streets, the subways were not running, there were no new roads, no pay phones, had to wait in line hours and hours to pay bills, no ATMS, no computers, no faxes and certainly no email. Then everything was privatized and wham within three years there was more than enough of everything and plenty of new jobs in the private sector and services that worked. The problem with Argentina was the corruption and bloated state sector that survived. This is what bankrupted the country.

Everywhere the state sector dominates you have problems. Take a look at (formerly) communist countries and of course Africa and India prior to reforms (1993). Reforms cannot be made people say because we do not want to lose jobs but once they are initiated high growth rates ensure that standards of living rise much higher and such reforms can only be postponed not stopped anyway. Look at India today.

59

Are you running for office, Fred Smith? You do sound awfully like a candidate out on the hustings. :wink:

60

Omni:

Yes a vote for Fred Smith means a vote for Honesty, Integrity and Support for the Hardworking Family Man.

But what would I run for? haha