Wednesday, August 15, 2007
The more you listen, the less you know
Posted by Harold Henderson on 08.15.07 at 07:16 AM
On the occasion of Karl Rove's departure from the White House, All Things Considered broadcast an account of his tenure there that never mentioned his major ambition: to make the Bush presidency a political turning point and establish right-wing Republican hegemony for decades, much as FDR's New Deal set the terms for years after his presidency.
Turn off your radio and read the straight dope on Rove in September's cover story in the Atlantic (not yet online Monday) by Joshua Green. Rove aimed to do five things en route to his hoped-for political realignment: "establish education standards, pass a 'faith-based initative' directing government funds to religious organizations, partially privatize Social Security, offer private health-savings accounts as an alternative to Medicare, and reform immigration laws to appeal to the growing Hispanic population." The only one of the five to be fully realized was No Child Left Behind; Social Security privatization in particular became a political albatross on Bush's second term even before Katrina revealed the administration's true character.
Green brilliantly dissects both how Rove's bull-in-a-china-shop style crucified slow movers like Kerry -- and how that style failed when it came to changing policy in Washington. The contrast with Reagan's successful handling of Social Security reform is devastating.
NPR did mention that Rove wouldn't be doing political consulting in 2008. Apparently none of the many Republican candidates wants to be tied that closely to George W. Bush. Can you imagine Democrats in 1948, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1968 wanting to distance themselves from Roosevelt?
Comments (12)
Showing 1-12 of 12
When I was in high school, a classmate told everyone that his mom was getting a new car And not just any new car -- they were going to be getting a certain flashy sports car. None of us believed it -- we were all "of limited means" -- and several of us said it would never, ever happen. But for a week the kid bragged and bragged about how his mom was going to get this particular, wonderful automobile. His mom then purchased a used four door sedan. But, because we all felt so embarrassed for the humiliated little twit, none of us ever said "I told you so" or even brought it up again. Maybe NPR feels really embarrassed for Turd Blossom. -- SCAM
like
dislike
I am trying to figure out how Social Security reform was an albatross before Katrina revealed the true nature of the Bush Presidency. SS Reform was exceedingly liberal, and devolved power from the State to the individual. Katrina showed the need of some State power, tempered the wretched nature of the State in doing things like routine maintenance and hirng political cronies rather than professionals. The adults lost on SS Reform, but sort of won on Katrina, as groups like the Coast Guard were pretty much heroes in rescuing scores of victims. I am willing to stomach an unpopular President, with an unpopular advisor if he can use basic arithmetic skills regardless of the fish hanging around his neck. JBP
John, the point is political, not substantive. Social Security privatization was a non-starter politically. Bush didn't campaign on it; and once people heard about it they didn't like it. This is not the stuff of which realignments are made. Whether it's a good idea wasn't Green's point, nor was it mine. I'd be willing to stomach an unpopular president if he could provide as well for the poor black residents of New Orleans in their need as he has for Halliburton.
Devolving power from centralized authority is quite liberal. Centralized power, such as we have today is Statist Authoritarianism. Agreed, Bush didn't much push for Social Security, but I still don't get the link to Katrian. Two issues approached differently. I would much rather the residents of all shades in New Orleans were allowed to provide for themselves. They surely have had enough of the government trying to provide for them. JBP
Bush's 2004 victory gave him some political capital, but none on Social Security, an issue on which he did not campaign. He was unable to convince Americans that his idea had merit, and it went nowhere, but Rove insisted on persisting in the campaign, giving his administration a defeat at the beginning of his second term. Katrina was a different issue with the same result -- a black eye for the administration. Most Americans can save their libertarian sermons when people are being left to wallow in filth in a superdome while the president congratulates his failing subordinates on a job well done. The first event showed Karl Rove's political blind spot; the second showed the administration's incompetence at performing basic acts of government in a time of emergency.
H, Not sure your example flows...the Coast Guard and Federal rescue types performed amazingly well, once engaged. The planning and organizational types were pathetic, starting from the city of New Orleans (from about 1814 on), to the State of Louisiana, to FEMA. Is the solution, more organizational types pulled from the Horse Breeding community? Or letting people decide where they want to live without the government dictating that poor people will live in flood plains. JBP
John, the subject of this post was politics, and even if Bush's cronies had done a good job, the political impact wasn't favorable to him. As to the substance, you pose false alternatives. Bill Clinton didn't appoint morons to run FEMA. And as recent history shows, undoing racism in housing patterns requires a lot more than government "letting people decide where they want to live." Libertarianism is good for a lot of things, as I point out when true, but it's wholly inadequate to this challenge.
Harold, Generally agree with you point, it is your example that is botched. Libertarians generally claim that restrictive housing ordinances and covenants are ok-so the neighbors can keep out people they don't like; Liberals generally claim that people can live where they want to spend their own money to live where they want; Only a Leftist could come up with a plan to reward poor people to live in flood plain. I don't buy the claim that suddenly Federal Bureaucracy became incompetent when Bush came into office. There is a long history of incompetency before Bush and I am sure there will be plenty after him. JBP
"I don't buy the claim that suddenly Federal Bureaucracy became incompetent when Bush came into office." Iraq, Katrina, poisoned pet food, poisoned toys, Osama still walking the Earth... But don't let mere facts influence your opinion on Bush's undermining of the Federal Government. And speaking of mining... -- SCAM
SCAM, One might think that there was not an issue with Iraq, product safety, Osama, and the weather before Bush became President, but I distinctly recall such all three of these from at least the Clinton Presidency, and perhaps even furthre back. Bush has done more to increase (not undermine) the size and scope of the Federal Government than anyone since Nixon. The results are pretty much the expected standard operating procedures of incompetence. Nothing new. JBP
Of course there's a constant level of government corruption, because the incentives are rarely right, just as there's a constant level of corruption in private enterprise. In neither case does it discredit either government or private enterprise. Bush has expanded the government's reach, a lot (c'mon, John, give Bill Clinton credit where it's due), but not competently. If you're going to have national standards for education, or a bloated new agency instead of new ideas for fighting terrorism, they need to be followed up effectively and staffed by people with professional credentials, not hacks.
