Assessing Bush: Domestic Policy
Jeff Alworth
In the third of four posts assessing the presidency of George Bush, we turn now to domestic policy. Compared to the economy and foreign policy, Bush's domestic policies can get lost in the shuffle. Yet here, too, he was an activist president who left a mixed legacy.
Bush came into office with big plans to forge a new kind of politics based on "compassionate conservatism." This was always a slightly confused governing philosophy because it fused the methods of activist liberalism--using government to craft social change--with the morals and goals of Christian conservatism. Bush wanted to reform areas hitherto considered the domain of liberals--education, social security, immigration, and poverty--but rather than putting them under the purview of government, he wished instead to farm them out to favored private sectors. When he arrived, his to-do list consisted of reforming education, creating a network of quasi-government "faith based" programs, reforming immigration, and privatizing Social Security. As I mentioned in earlier posts, these were again fairly radical new ways of thinking about problems. Bush was, above all, willing to put untested theories to work in real-world experiments.
Successes
Bush, the former governor with no appetite for "nation building," was far more successful within the sphere of domestic policy. The first months of his presidency were dominated by the passage of "No Child Left Behind," a flawed but serious attempt (co-sponsored by Ted Kennedy) to reform education and improve US performance. A devout man, his belief in faith-based programs was also wholly evident, and he was proud to get these off the ground. Finally, although he failed to get immigration reform passed (failed, in fact, to see how damaging it would be to his own party), he was genuinely invested in creating a workable fix. If he had been in office during Clinton's term, we would be focused on these efforts as the highlights, rather than forgotten sidebars, in what would be regarded as a more successful presidency.
Corporatism, Again
One of the inclinations that marred Bush's domestic programs were his unfailing effort to reward corporate interests to the detriment of the government, small business, and private citizens. Worse, this blinded him to opportunities that might have actually helped revitalize certain sectors (medical, financial, automotive, communications, airline, eco); instead, toadying up to corporate bosses resulted in bloated, consolidated industries that list along or are collapsing. A few examples. When he crafted a new energy plan, he tailored it to the oil and gas executives who alone were invited to participate in the discussions. Farm bills were designed to streamline an industrial model of agriculture that have America in the midst of an obesity crisis (see Michael Pollan for a lot more about that). In considering communication policy, Bush always deferred to behemoths more interested in gobbling up competitors than delivering quality content.
Homeland Security, Medicare Reform
Bush, the conservative, flummoxed and perhaps hamstrung his own party by passing two of the largest expansions of government in the country's history. The first was the sprawling Department of Homeland Security, the kind of agency that gives arch conservatives night terrors. It collected 22 agencies under one umbrella, the idea being that one huge agency could coordinate and communicate better than two dozen. (A hypothesis that would have gotten a great deal more attention had it not been for 9/11, the precipitating event.) The second was a Frankenstein's monster designed to expand prescription coverage under Medicare. It was a deeply flawed and unpopular bill that managed to pass the House only after Speaker Denny Hastert strong-armed his members (and perhaps bribed them). Its popularity has not much grown.
Christian Right
No president in US history enjoyed more support from conservative Christians than Bush, and they expected him to deliver. In one regard he did--he managed to get two very conservative, very young judges onto the Supreme Court, and appointed a raft of conservatives to lower courts. But the structure of government prevented the GOP from doing more during the Bush years. Early in office, he managed to limit government funding of stem-cell research, though this didn't fully satisfy his base nor stop research. Abortion laws tightened at the state level, but Roe was not overturned. Gay marriage was a reliable re-election issue, but during his eight years in office, legal gay marriage and civil unions became the law in several states (including Oregon--yay!). And as a particular low-light to the Christian era, Bush and the GOP attempted to thwart a legal process in the case of Terri Schiavo--an early and embarrassing defeat of Bush's second term.
In the end, Bush managed to do a fair amount with his time in office, but the legacy may be short lived. No Child Left Behind has recorded--at best--mixed success. Faith-based programs are likely to be downplayed and probably face a slow phase-out under Obama. The immigration legislation Bush started might have continued except for other car wrecks he left behind (the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan) that demand immediate attention. And the currency of the Christian right appears to be dramatically declining--a shocking turnaround from just four years ago, when they thought their hour had arrived. But Homeland Security and the Medicare prescription reform--those will, for better or worse, outlast Bush. It ain't much, but given everything else, maybe Bush will be happy to take it.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jan 16, '09
Just reported on CNN....
Obama: "I always thought George Bush was a pretty good guy."
2:43 p.m.
Jan 16, '09
Well, I never thought Bush was a pretty good guy. He's a lying, incompetent, crook. Domestic policy: he's a disaster. Foreign policy: he's a disaster. Personally: he's a disaster.
Happy days are here again -- almost!
Jan 16, '09
Let's not forget how he spoon fed Govt. subsidies to Haliburton, Blackwater, and other employer's of mercenaries under the guise of the "no bid" contract. When the gravy train stops flowing, just think of all the unemployed mercenaries who can prop up the paint ball industry. Now that's a legacy of which one may be proud.
Jan 16, '09
One of the inclinations that marred Bush's domestic programs were his unfailing effort to reward corporate interests to the detriment of the government, small business, and private citizens.
Given the money Obama took from Wall Street and other major corporations there is no reason for optimism that an Obama presidency will lead us to the promised land. With Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers leading his economic team, only a fool would believe that Obama's primary interest will be "the people." Obama has replaced Clinton as the Democratic wizard with the same operators manipulating the system behind the curtain.
That Obama was just as capable of bullshit as any other politician came after he became active in the economy - supporting the original bailout without any oversight - but dodged the tough question of Gaza with crap about only one president at a time. And the people on Tuesday will prove they are just as gullible as ever believing whatever he has in his inaugural speech. When he takes the oath to uphold the Constitution think of his vote on the FISA bill.
Jan 16, '09
Yeah Bill, Obama, Bush--what's the difference?
Jan 16, '09
"Given the money Obama took from Wall Street and other major corporations there is no reason for optimism that an Obama presidency will lead us to the promised land."
Why don't we at least give him a chance before we condemn him.
Jan 16, '09
Yeah Bill, Obama, Bush--what's the difference?
Jeff: Read what I wrote. I didn't say they were the same. My point is that Obama is unlikely to lead us to the promised land his speeches about change implied. That doesn't mean Obama will be the same as Bush, just that he won't be as bad. If I made any parallel for Obama it was with Clinton. While he was seriously flawed, he wasn't Bush.
Unfortunately, as we are witnessing in Gaza, if we don't have our heads buried in Democratic sand, there is very little daylight between Bush and Obama. The only hope there is that if Obama decides to reverse his groveling before AIPAC and tries to reclaim some honor, he might prove to be an honest broker. But I wouldn't bet the family farm on that one.
Given Obama's close ties with Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner perhaps you might enlighten us on what we can expect out of that collaboration.
Jan 16, '09
Why don't we let Obama have the benefit of the doubt until he does/n't prove us wrong.
Jan 16, '09
Bill, two things. First, I didn't expect a prophet or a messiah, just a politician. There's no promised land in politics. Second, you must be using a more powerful TV than me, because mine doesn't allow me to see into the future. Very little daylight between Bush and Obama?--that's a bet I'll take.
Jan 16, '09
Bill, two things. First, I didn't expect a prophet or a messiah, just a politician. There's no promised land in politics. Second, you must be using a more powerful TV than me, because mine doesn't allow me to see into the future. Very little daylight between Bush and Obama?--that's a bet I'll take.
Jeff: You keep distorting what I'm saying. I'm not projecting the future. I'm suggesting what risks are in the future.
Very little daylight between Bush and Obama?
I said that on Gaza. You're implying my position is that condition applies to all aspects even though I said there is hope Obama will reverse his position on Israel/Gaza.
Why don't we let Obama have the benefit of the doubt until he does/n't prove us wrong.
Given most of Obama's team there are good reasons to doubt Obama; however, history has shown many examples of people with dim prospects proving to be much better than expected. So let's cut Obama some slack, but let him know we are watching and checking as to whether he will live up to his promises - real and implied. Truman was one who was given a grim prognosis but proved to be better than expected; although, I don't believe he deserves the adulation he was given during the last couple of years.
Jeff: You didn't answer my question about Obama's association with Rubin, Summers and Geithner. You know, those financial experts in the Clinton administration who pushed for deregulation of Wall Street adding grease to set up the 2008 financial crisis.
Jan 16, '09
as we are witnessing in Gaza...there is very little daylight between Bush and Obama.
Or maybe not. This from The Guardian last week:
"The incoming Obama administration is prepared to abandon George Bush's doctrine of isolating Hamas by establishing a channel to the Islamist organisation, sources close to the transition team say."
Jan 16, '09
"The incoming Obama administration is prepared to abandon George Bush's doctrine of isolating Hamas by establishing a channel to the Islamist organisation, sources close to the transition team say."
Dan: I certainly hopes that proves to be true, but given Obama's shocking performance before AIPAC I wouldn't bet on it. Candy Crowley on CNN discounted talk of these overtures claimed by "The Guardian" but she is not always a reliable reporter. If Obama does try to be an honest broker on Israel/Palestine, something I do consider he might want to be, he will very likely find most in Congress ganging up on him as was the case with Jimmy Carter.
These are a couple of comments made by Simon Schama, an English, pro-American historian, on Bill Moyers Journal tonight:
"His great strength is that he does know all these worlds (from Hawaii to Chicago). The question, really, was whether he knows too much. Whether he has too much experience of all these worlds to be able to say enough of input really. Time for a decision. We have no idea if he's any good at that. We're about to find out."
"I think he's going to start by kissing up to too many people. And then I think there'll be a moment maybe about two months down the line and the kissing's going to stop. I rather hope so."
I hope so, too. The question is, will the people he owes prove to be loan sharks and bring him down? If he doesn't alienate his base of all those people who donated $10, $20, $50, $100 to his campaign he may need them to come to his rescue. His biggest personal problem may be walking the tightrope between his Wall Street backers and the ordinary people who supported him.
Jan 17, '09
Bush gets a great deal of deserved criticism for his and his administration's policies, but let's not forget that the vast majority of politicians in Congress were complicit in most of his sins, including the more egregious.
Bush deserved more than criticism. He deserved impeachment, but one reason he got away with that is that a majority of members of the House of Representatives(?) knew they shared in the sins and the guilt.
Jan 17, '09
Can these leopards change their spots? "Obama's association with Rubin, Summers and Geithner." I can't help but assume these bright people now recognize prior misassumptions about the economy. I doubt they share W's dogged determination in the face of failure. (I ascribe that trait uniquely to W) Let's assume they are more inquisitive than W, and given their experience and knowledge base, who better to try to effect recovery and ultimately sustainable growth for this fragile economy? Suggest a replacement better qualified to jump into this emergency and perform right now. Very few people have that experience - it's a minute pool of qualified individuals. Their experience will prove invaluable. We've all witnessed the "slack jawed" performance by Paulson with TARP, can they improve on that pathetic effort? Perhaps throw a few strings on the dollars? Wait and see. 3 days and counting.
Jan 17, '09
"Obama's association with Rubin, Summers and Geithner." I can't help but assume these bright people now recognize prior misassumptions about the economy.
genop: You make a lot of assumptions that contradict the evidence. Presumably, Obama was taking the economic advice of these three economic "experts" when he voted for the first version of the bailout plan that was rejected by a majority in the house of reps. The one without any oversight provisions. Subsequent versions didn't have much improvement either.
I doubt they share W's dogged determination in the face of failure. (I ascribe that trait uniquely to W)
That you would ascribe "dogged determination in the face of failure ... uniquely to W" suggests a lack of awareness on your part of how universal and eternal that trait has been and continues to be. Including on this blog.
As for alternates to Obama's chosen economic triumvirate he would surely have done much better with Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman - two Nobel Prize winners. But then the Wall Street corporations that donated millions of dollars to his campaign wouldn't have had any representatives to influence Obama in his deliberations.
Jan 17, '09
Krugman's piece in Rolling Stone on recovery was enlightening but I wonder how well he could see his plan to fruition working within an administrative bureaucracy. Brains alone do not implement the vision. Academics need not answer to political will, thus Krugman advocates a much larger number less palatable to the fiscal conservatives out there. I heard Obama concede errors to come which is something W never did during his tenure. This "evidence" tells me he lacks the "doggedness" possessed by W.
Jan 19, '09
Posted by: anon | Jan 16, 2009 2:34:01 PM
Just reported on CNN....
Obama: "I always thought George Bush was a pretty good guy."
He has to say that. We're going to be hearing what those crooks did for the foreseeable future and he wants to position himself as someone that isn't out looking for things to get him with.
Which concentration might be better placed toward figuring out how he's going to tap dance around/reverse the fact that baby Bush just signed a National Security Directive claiming the underwater arctic shelf as sovereign US territory. The boundary with Canada isn't even formalized there and the UN convention has been held up, so it's US security policy until reversed. It's kind of like sticking the hands of State into one of those donation boxes with the serrated edge that gets you if you try to pull it back out. Your choice; stay where you're at or reverse course.
"We are an arctic nation". Interesting. By that logic, Denmark is the largest country in Europe, and twice as close to the US as England! And an arctic nation as well.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Congress really useless in all this? Yes, they can't directly block an EO NSD, but they could pass a non-binding resolution that says they are diametrically opposed to the idea, drawing national consciousness to it. Surely, that would make it easier for Obama to reverse in the future, no? He, does, want to reverse it, doesn't he?
Jan 19, '09
Re: "He, does, want to reverse it, doesn't he?"
Present.
Jan 27, '09
Glenn Greenwald indicates in his outstanding book, “A Tragic Legacy,” that Bush has been a failure relative to both the domestic front and the foreign front. Glenn Greenwald indicates that perhaps the only thing Bush did right was cut taxes. Bush’s innumerable mistakes include his failed policies relative to the “War on Terror.” Bush’s legacy has already been written, and it is indeed a tragic one. Bush is the worst president in American history.