Was Bush an authoritarian corporatist?

[Alexander Hamilton]

Obviously

[Mint]

Let's see: Patriot Act, illegal wire taps, bail outs..

Yes.

[Holmes]

Aren't all presidents?

*hi-five*?

[Alexander Hamilton]

I see Rowan voted.

[Earth]

No. Bush's ideology always seemed more to be out of a selfish need, than any specific corporatist outlook. Of course, that's not to say he wasn't magnificent in supporting them. Holmes has it about right.

[Mechaman]

Aren't all presidents?

*hi-five*?

*hi-five*

[Beet]

It seems like most post World War 2 American Presidents have been corporatist. But the relationship seems to grow stronger over time as the economy becomes larger and more complex, driven largely by practical considerations. The reformists therefore generally give me some apprehensions about whether any workable alternatives are possible. But one reformist proposal I will absolutely support is the public funding of elections and strict campaign finance rules as far as the courts will allow.

As for authoritarianism, that also seems to be growing with time. It is not just a matter of Presidents. Seat belt laws, car seat laws, smoking laws, stricter enforcement of speed limits... it is again driven by practical considerations. And despite the recent bout of anti- government, anti- bank anger, I do not see the general authoritarian trend reversing. Practical considerations always seem to win out.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Aren't all presidents?

*hi-five*?

     Yeah, I agree with this.

[Хahar 🤔]

Yes, obviously.

I suppose Jimmy Carter was the last one who didn't entirely fit that definition.

[Psychic Octopus]

Yes.

[cannonia]

No, he had no controlling ideology or bedrock principles.

[Eraserhead]

Aren't all presidents?

*hi-five*?

*hi-five*

Wonder Showzen?

[Person Man]

Yea... I pretty much agree with Beet. We kind of hitched our boat to a black hole  in 1946...

[k-onmmunist]

Aren't all presidents?

*hi-five*?

*hi-five*

*hi-five*

[opebo]

Remember how they got rid of Dan Rather and muzzled the press?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Do most people here actually know what "corporatism" is? Hint: It doesn't (at least in theory) mean pure whoring to a select group of corporations.

[opebo]

Do most people here actually know what "corporatism" is? Hint: It doesn't (at least in theory) mean pure whoring to a select group of corporations.

If I remember correctly its a kind of south american thing mainly, and it is a lot closer to Obama and the Democrats than it is to Bush and his silly ideologues.

[Хahar 🤔]

Do most people here actually know what "corporatism" is? Hint: It doesn't (at least in theory) mean pure whoring to a select group of corporations.

That's how corporatism worked in practice, no? There was never any harmony between workers and owners.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Do most people here actually know what "corporatism" is? Hint: It doesn't (at least in theory) mean pure whoring to a select group of corporations.

That's how corporatism worked in practice, no? There was never any harmony between workers and owners.

That's the "at least in theory" in bit. The theory if based on anything were the 19th Century "social" Papal encyclicals, especially Rerum Novarum - blame Leo XIII.

Of course not all statist-capitalist policies can be considered 'corporatist'. Ireland is actually more corporatist than the United States in many ways - which is unsurprising given that the papal ideas were very strong in the early formation of the country. Plus giving Bush's policies a label actually gives them more coherence than they actually had.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Do most people here actually know what "corporatism" is? Hint: It doesn't (at least in theory) mean pure whoring to a select group of corporations.

That's how corporatism worked in practice, no? There was never any harmony between workers and owners.

That's the "at least in theory" in bit. The theory if based on anything were the 19th Century "social" Papal encyclicals, especially Rerum Novarum - blame Leo XIII.

Of course not all statist-capitalist policies can be considered 'corporatist'. Ireland is actually more corporatist than the United States in many ways - which is unsurprising given that the papal ideas were very strong in the early formation of the country. Plus giving Bush's policies a label actually gives them more coherence than they actually had.

Not only that, but I'd argue that there needs to be a strong dirigiste element to corporatism - not something you can really accuse Bush of.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Do most people here actually know what "corporatism" is? Hint: It doesn't (at least in theory) mean pure whoring to a select group of corporations.

That's how corporatism worked in practice, no? There was never any harmony between workers and owners.

That's the "at least in theory" in bit. The theory if based on anything were the 19th Century "social" Papal encyclicals, especially Rerum Novarum - blame Leo XIII.

Of course not all statist-capitalist policies can be considered 'corporatist'. Ireland is actually more corporatist than the United States in many ways - which is unsurprising given that the papal ideas were very strong in the early formation of the country. Plus giving Bush's policies a label actually gives them more coherence than they actually had.

Not only that, but I'd argue that there needs to be a strong dirigiste element to corporatism - not something you can really accuse Bush of.

That is also correct. But here "corporatism" has come to mean anything where due to the influence of corporations (the corporations of Bush and the corporations of Mussolini were different) the state plays some role in influencing the economy which also isn't obviously in any way towards "socialism". Under this definition, every state in the world is corporatist.