Thank you, George W. Bush

On Feb. 7 I'm going with a friend to see Will Ferrell's one man Broadway show, You're Welcome America, where he plays our 43rd president.

George W. Bush was inaugurated on January 20, 2001. I was 18 years old, and politically aware and interested but not ideologically developed. The vote I cast for Al Gore remains my proudest. Before Bush took the oath of office, I had a conversation with my high school girlfriend's father. He'd voted for Bush, and I told him that after Bush was through the country would be worse off economically and socially. He disagreed.

On this, the last night of the Bush presidency, I want to take a look back at his time in office.

9/11

Just in case the above anecdote makes me seem like a know it all, indulge me one more. After 9/11, my friend and I were sitting in his dorm room watching ex- presidents and dignitaries file into the National Cathedral for a mass marking the tragic event. Gore was on screen and I remarked, "Man, I voted for him, but I'm really glad that he's not president right now. We need Bush in there." He agreed.

Bush's bravado and cowboy style comforted a nation that had its sense of invincibility rocked. He was a man who would punish those responsible and restore order to our world. Check out this SNL clip, where Ferrell plays the president just after 9/11. The cheers and hoots are remarkable and almost startling.



We craved this kind of call- out, we wanted revenge. Seven years later, this clip is more sad than funny. If you'd told the members of SNL's studio audience that night that bin Laden would be on the run and releasing tapes in 2009 I don't think they'd have believed you. I certainly wouldn't have.

But Bush was his best in those early days, even if he didn't actually accomplish anything. I'd argue the two best moments of his presidency came in late 2001:

Here, Bush is confident and well spoken, even eloquent. He's not giving prepared remarks, but reacting to the emotion of the moment and words of workers at Ground Zero.



I don't like George W. Bush, and I hate the New York Yankees. But this was pretty cool--



The Aftermath

Bush executed the War on Terror in a reckless way that was often politically motivated. The Senate's vote for use of force against Iraq was held right before the '02 midterms, which turned it into a political issue.

Dick Cheney executed his "unitary executive" theory, which gave the president new power at the expense of civil liberties and international law. Neo- Cons executed their Iraq- as- Petri dish experiment for American hegemony in the 21st century unfettered, at the expense of American servicemen and women, uncounted civilians and America's alliances.

And the president wasn't curious enough or interested enough or competent enough to stop them.

Iraq

The Iraq War was, as John Kerry famously put it, the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. But with improved security in the country it has become Bush's best chance at lasting achievement, and the only thing that could rescue his name from historians' bottom tier of presidents, where he now seems destined to be remembered. A stable democracy in the heart of the Middle East, and the dismantling of an abhorrent dictator is a potential game changer for our world.

But it was sold under false pretenses and done on the cheap. And when it wasn't working, Bush didn't react. The failures in Iraq can fill books. And so it can never be a source of pride for Bush. But it does have potential.

The Economy

For much of Bush's eight years in office, before the economy collapsed in on itself, the country seemed to be doing quite well economically. Unemployment was stable near historic lows, the stock market routinely broke records, and home ownership was at its highest level ever. However, polls routinely showed that Americans didn't feel good about the economy. People didn't feel good about it because it wasn't working for them. Inequality skyrocketed during the Bush years, to levels that surpassed even the "Roarin' 20s."

Through tax cuts and loop holes corporate earnings and income for the wealthiest individuals were unprecedented. Yet the benefits failed to trickle down to the rest of us. And when inflated housing numbers popped they brought the DOW down too, and Bush's signature economic accomplishments were undone while he still lived in the White House.

The Administration

In Paul Krugman's 2007 book The Conscience of a Liberal the economist distinguishes the Republican party of Eisenhower, Nixon and Bush 41 from that of George W. Bush. Bush 43 emanated from what Krugman calls"movement conservatism," and one of its main tenets is patronage based on loyalty rather than expertise.

That became evident as figures drifted from the administration to companies they were supposed to be regulating and back. It was clear after the utter incompetence of horse breeder turned FEMA director, Michael Brown who still enjoyed George Bush's loyalty even as people suffered through the federal government's incompetence.



Conclusion

Bush's presidency might be best understood through the lens of what's known as the Peter Principle. It holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently. Sooner or later they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their "level of incompetence"), and there they remain.

George Bush rose to a level for which he was simply incompetent.

However, his presidency is not so much a personal failure, I think, as it is a failure of ideology and a corrupt politics. George Bush's disposition and personal character and story made him somewhat of a blank canvas on which movement conservatives could project their vision of government. For eight years we endured that vision.

Now, thanks to that experience, eroding racism and a shift in demographics movement conservatives have turned the Republican party into a mostly regional force. When the party returns to national prominence, we can expect it to look very different.

So perhaps Bush's legacy is that he made today possible. He helped elect the most progressive government since the 1930s. And I firmly believe our country will be better off for it. What's more, he put the country in a place where it was finally ready move past, not so much its racial divisions, but the cultural roils that defined the baby boom generation. Now that our first post- Boomer is in the White House we can close the book on George W. Bush's presidency and that tumultuous age.

So, thank you, George W. Bush.

The President & The Pastor

President- Elect Obama is catching some flack from liberal groups for picking Saddleback Ranch pastor Rick Warren to lead the invocation at his inauguration. Warren is pro-life and anti-gay (he uses the same faulty arguments against gay marriage as Mike Huckabee).

Liberals waited to get one of their own in the White House for a long time, and giving such a high- profile honor to a social conservative has many groups uneasy.

Their disappointment is unfounded. Obama is committed to the power of what unites us. When you try to change the status quo in a profound way, you have to be. While there are fundamental differences between the incoming Obama administration and Warren and his flock, there are also important ties.

There are those who will say that it's easy for a straight person to think this way, and that a poor record on gay rights (human rights) should be a deal breaker. There are those who would accept a dialogue between Warren and Obama, but who will say that such a prominent role goes too far, that it's a slap in the face to those who fought to put Obama where he'll be on January 20.

To them, I submit that Barack Obama needs Rick Warren more than vice versa. Rick Warren is one of the most popular people in America, his readers and followers number in the millions.

He isn't going anywhere.

So, Obama can either bring him into the fold, enlist his help in the areas on which they can agree, or, he can marginalize Warren, brush off his congregation. Tell 'em to stick it, and wish 'em better luck in 2012. Then, Warren can spend his Sundays railing against the "liberals" in government and inflame his followers with exaggerations about their social agenda.

Having Warren lead the Inauguration's prayer is an attempt at unity. It's a new day for all Americans, not just the ones who voted Obama/ Biden. Just because there are fundamental disagreements doesn't mean that conservatives don't get a seat at the table. If they're shut out then real change either won't come or won't last.

And Warren, while socially conservative, is not over- the- top in his rhetoric or beliefs. This isn't Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell. So while the disagreements are vehement, Warren holds an ethos that's very much in the mainstream.

I'm old enough to remember the schisms that surrounded the last two presidents. One invoked conspiracy theories against his enemies, the other described the slimmest of victories as significant political capital, and governed from the extreme.

Change was temporary, achievements fleeting. President Bush in particular taught us the emptiness of the politics of division.

On Election Day, Americans chose a different path, and Obama is now leading the way. Liberals and conservatives alike should neither expect nor wish for anything different.

New Blogger on SAM

SAM is pleased to have a new team member, Charles P. Coleta. Charles graduated Boston College in 2005* with a degree in political science, and now works in the financial industry at the firm State Street in Boston. He is blogging under the name CPC_65.

Here is his first post:

* Editor's note: Charles actually graduated BC in '06, I apologize for any confusion that may have caused.

BOUNCING FROM IRAQ
by Charles Coleta

First blog, very excited. Here we go.

Many opinions about the current war in Iraq. We should pull out altogether. We should do so gradually, with an end date set. We should stay until the fight is over! Not to suggest that any of these, among others, are wrong, but rarely do I hear intelligent conversations about what Americans hope to see Iraq become, and the necessary steps needed to get there.

I'm a Democrat, and have been one for a long time. I can't stand Republicans for reasons articulated quite eloquently by Paul Begala and James Carville in their last political treatise, Take It Back. However, there's something quite unnerving in the standard liberal view of foreign policy that seems to be schizophrenic and leaves America in a worst state. And the troubling aspect is that liberals generally accept this notion, and would like to move forward from this position.

Liberals would want the U.S. to pull out altogether and deal with Afganistan, Sudan, and, for all I know, Cape Verde. Redeployment is the name for such a strategy. Loss of credibily would fit better. For what kind of legitimacy would the U.S. bring to those nations, among other, were it to leave Iraq in the wreck it's in now, only to go deal with what's arguably worse? Consider Somalia today. It's essentially a civilization lost. Guns are more rampant that food and drinking water. U.S. troops were once stationed there for purely humanitarian reasons, reasons that live up to American ideals and everything we've all been taught America was all about. No oil. No platinum. Nothing real to gain other than a country getting back on it's feet. We lose 16 soldiers on a horrendous day of fighting, and it's pack-it-up and pull-out. What followed was Rwanda and Somalia gone awry...awry with Jihadists and Islamists, that is. With that in mind, and considering we have real interests in Iraq (i.e. oil), why would we condemn ourselves to that same history. History that goes beyond the example just provided.

The problem with the administration is their inability to internationalize the problem, as Kissinger explained last month on the Charlie Rose program. This is more than just Iraq. How safe should all those little monarchies feel with a collapsed Iraq? Iran may be empowered, but it would have to feel more threatened due to the religious fighting between the Sunnis and Shias that it instigates and is known for instigating. Saudi Arabia would have to re-evaluate the presence of American troops, and see that it would be in a catch-22: Keep the troops, and be condemned for it; kick the troops out, and face a major security problem. Among others, these vital issues ought to be expressed to these countries by their American interlocutors, yet there is this feeling that thia has never happened, and is currently not happening at a pace that would bring about progress.

We need more troops to handle the security problems of Iraq. We need more diplomatic progress (even if it's secretive) to get the regional actors involved. But most importantly, we need to realize what kind of Iraq we want to see and work towards that goal. Otherwise, cut the funding entirely and call it a day.

The Idea Cycle

Has this ever happened to you? You are struck by a problem, issue, or idea - you read about it and think about it, and pretty soon you start to see references to it all around you. You ask yourself, have people always been talking about this and I am just now noticing because it's been on my mind? Or was my original thought a sign of something bigger, was it insightful or maybe part of a trend?

I found myself in such a situation reading an article in today's NY Times about Democratic presidential candidates. The Times reports that candidates have consistently been using a populist economic theme. Granted it's the primaries, and candidates always veer toward the "extremes," but the article confirmed something I've been feeling for a while now.

I think it's safe for Democrats to be Democrats again.

Bill Clinton taught the party a "third way," which was useful and important to overcome the "tax and spend" stigma and make the party viable again. However, politics (like everything else) is cyclical. And I think we are headed toward a cycle where the majority of Americans are willing to embrace old Democratic ideals.

Let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent expire.

Use the money to help parents pay for their kids education, or to expand health care coverage.

Put a check on the unbridled private sector: Don't automatically support free trade agreements. Negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies.

The 6 years of Republican dominance showed Americans the value of some of the cornerstones of liberalism, as witnessed in the Democrats' midterm victories. Now isn't the time to back down, but to push forward. Because, right now, it's a winning message.

Take Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who beat an incumbent by 12 points for his seat in 2006. He explains his success in a state that cost John Kerry the presidency this way:

“That’s because of the economic populist message. [Ohio voters] voted minimum wage, they voted trade, they voted student loans, they voted health care and prescription drugs, over what their traditional conservative social values might suggest. And that’s the route to winning Ohio for Hillary or Barack or anybody else.”

Indeed, Nancy Pelosi et al. were swept into office on the promise to raise the minimum wage, and cut the gap between the richest and poorest Americans, which is its largest ever (by a long shot).

The return of economic populism has been brewing for a few years now, and I expect it to stick for the near future. Until the cycle turns in on itself again. Sometimes it's hard to tell when one idea produced or simply preceded another. And sometimes it's hard to tell which came first.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/us/politics/16populist.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin