Thoughts on Zell, bipartisanship, and why GWB does not deserve a second term

[Democratic Hawk]

In his speech to the Republican National Convention, Georgia Democratic Senator Zell Miller stressed the need for unity and the setting aside of partisan differences to support President George W. Bush in the 'War on Terror'.

He cited the example of Wendell Wilkie, the defeated Republican presidential candidate in 1940, who went on to stress a need for a loyal oppositionto FDR in a two-party system. This was common sense because in 1941 Europe was at war and it was only a matter of time before Europe's War became America's War.

George W. Bush has waged a determined and, arguably, effective 'War on Terror', I don't doubt that, following the al-Qaeda atrocities of September 11. Senator Miller now seems to under some illusion that the honourable thing for Senator John Kerry to do now is set aside his presidential campaign, and the values, hopes and aspirations of the Democratic Party, in the "national interest". I disagree.

I, myself, have supported both President Bush and Prime Minister Blair in 'War on Terror'; and Iraq. Threats to global peace need pre-emptive action and as long as the United Nations remains 'tiger without no teeth', I don't have much faith in them.

However, as far as domestic policies go, Bush, unlike FDR (in my humble opinion the greatest US president with the exception of Abraham Lincoln), hasn't done a good job. Bush inherited a projected national surplus of $5.6tr (from Bill Clinton, who was a good example of why two-term limits should be revoked) in 2001, which now stands at c. $7.22tr national deficit; while the US has lost 2.3m jobs during the first three years of his administration compared with the 22m jobs created during Clinton's eight years in office; and that's without even mentioning other domestic policy failings. Now that's a stark contrast! Bush's record on jobs is the worst since Herbert Hoover and we all know what happened to him. He was defeated, in 1932, by FDR and justly so.

As much as the 'War on Terror', such domestic failings need to be considered by the American electorate before they vote on November 2nd because they are all of vital importance to the national interest. Therefore, it is because of Bush's domestic policy failings that I support Senator Kerry in the forthcoming presidential elections (or at least, that's how I would vote if I were American). It's domestic policy as opposed to foreign policy, which primarily determines how I vote in the UK. I'm not one of those people who has a job and couldn't care less about those who don't nor am I one of those who lives well, yet couldn't care less about those who live in poverty. I have a profound social conscience, which is based on my Christian faith and its social gospel, which is why I chuckle when I here Pat Robertson say that he was a Democrat until he found God and became a Republican - as if only Republicans believe in God.

Getting back to Miller and his appeal for bipartisanship. Had Bush been to date effective, as opposed to reckless, in his domestic policies as FDR was, then that might have all been very well, but the reality of the situation is far from it. The Democratic Party cannot, nor should not, be expected to lie down and follow the Bush agenda like that of some compliant wife!

At the RNC, Rudy Giuliani compared Bush with the great Sir Winston Churchill so I'll use the example of Churchill to stress what true bipartisanship actually means. During World War II, the United Kingdom had a Coalition government from 1940-1945 headed by the Conservative leader Churchill, who ran the 'war front', with Labour leader Clement Attlee as Deputy PM (effectively from 1940, though not formally until 1942), who led the 'domesticfront'. This happened despite ideological differences, which were rightly set-aside in the national interest. Thus, if it were to happen true bipartisanship would require exactly that, with Bush, and the Republicans, and Kerry, and the Democrats, sharing executive decision-making and legislative initiatives. Sadly, Miller's 'Maddoxesque'and demagogic speech at the RNC, which ironically would have been more appropriate in intolerant and repressive societies such as Iran, was anything but reconciliatory and compliance to the Bush agenda, either domestic or foreign, by a servile Democratic Party is not an option.

In all honesty, I can';t see true bipartisanship ever happening. For a start, I'm not quite sure if the circumstances of the day actually warrant it. Terrorism is a global threat, but 2004 is not comparable with 1940. Terrorism can be resolved effectively where the problem is spatially confined as, for example, with the IRA in Northern Ireland. However, al-Qaeda threatens the very existence of civil society, which transcends spatial boundaries. Islamic fundamentalism is a reactionary movement, which threatens our progressive ideals and the liberal democratic principles on which they are founded. Such terrorism is global and requires a global strategy between nation-states. A consensus builder can only truly execute such a global effort against terrorism.

I can't believe that Bush has squandered the national surplus obtained during Clinton's presidency by, among other things, giving tax cuts to the very people who need them least. He doesn't even seem to bothered about it either ,perhaps he's taken the attitude that he's only in the Oval Office for eight years tops so I'll let somebody else sort my mess out. Still judging by his convention speech, Bush evidently does have a domestic agenda but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for great things to come along not if the last four years are anything to go by. He does not deserve a second chance. Effective presidents need to be competent all-round in the socio-politico-economic and international arenas and Bush falls well short of that.

Of course, these failings can't be blamed on Bush alone, especially when a servile Republican controlled Congress has aided and abetted his squandering of the national surplus. I had hoped that the Democrats would have re-gained control of the House of Representatives following the failure of that reactionary debacle 'Contract with America' and the welcomed demise of Newt Gingrich as a major political player but since redistricting, due to demographic changes, looks like it's going to benefit the Republicans, so I doubt the Democrats are going to win the House in 2004. If Kerry wins the Presidency, it won't be so bad but if Bush is re-elected, there will be a lack of accountability.

All the clever packaging at the RNC cannot obscure the tawdry truth beneath. Two Republican parties with a moderate face, on the one hand, as espoused by Senator John McCain (a Republican I have much respect for not least because of his Vietnam service), Rudy Giuliani (a New York hero but then you get the inappropriate Churchill analogy - please!) and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (who defined what it means to be Republican in a series of the most uninspiring one-liners that I've ever heard, which quite easily could have ended with the word Democrat). Those three moderate contenders haven't a hope to get the GOP nomination in 2008 and as to whether a naturalised Austrian-born American is allowed to run for the Presidency remains to be seen. So you never know if the law is repealed, yours truly could be well on his way to America (only joking).

Then, on the other hand, you have the reactionary Republican platform - talk about taking America backwards! 'Contract with America' proved that. And then you get a six-point or so bounce which gives Bush an 11% lead over Kerry -it beggars belief. Kerry';s really going to have to pull out all the stops. It's far from over yet though and the Democratic case can still be won. Talk about Bush's domestic, economic and fiscal failures, and lets face it there is plenty of 'em, and how you would seek to put things right. Continue to play the game fair and square. Don't let Bush off the hook and let him steal this one.

In sum, and in light of Bush's domestic failings and alienation in aspects of his foreign policy, Kerry, who served his country in Vietnam and in the US Senate, deserves his fair shot. He strikes me as an enlightened and thoughtful man, who has the capacity to become an able consensus builder, especially on the international stage. Bush has blown it. This ought to be a very important issue to Americans. I make no bones about it America's standing in the world has diminished substantially under Bush's leadership. I honestly, and most sincerely, believe that America is a great nation and most worthy of commanding international respect across the world that she deserves. Sadly, I don't see much of that forthcoming should Bush win a second term in office.

Now before anyone starts, I know I'm British, I know I can't vote for your president, etc but take it as a complement that I'm interested in American affairs. Our political opinions and orientations might differ, but civil society allows freedom of speech. Our respective countries have long stood hand-to-hand, as both friends and allies, and long may it continue.

Dave

[Niles Caulder]

Hi again, Dave!

Thoughtful comments and thoughtfully spoken.  You've brought up again some perspectives stated on a prior thread and I'll again respond to them with mine.

I far prefer surplusses to defecits myself...the utility of deficit spending has inevitably dire consequences and I have strong reservations if they're the preferable means of addressing today's problems.  Nevertheless, there's an argument to made for the fiscal policy often called "Starve the Beast."  America enjoying the "surplus" it did for those short years, even under a Republican Congress discretional spending shot up to a 4% annual increase per budget.  Regretably, if the money stream is there, government will not keep its hands off it for the sake of paying down the national debt---and unlike the relatively cultural homogeny and concentrated populations of European liberal democracies--the "New Deal"/"New Society" philosophy of government spending programs in the US is one that suffers extreme inefficiency because of the disperate and tenuous political will that permits it all.  (And it has ever since FDR's explosively bureaucratic philosophy of government.)

Democratic or Republican victories in November...this basic tectonic geography of American political spending won't change...at least not any faster that it is doing so already.  A Kerry administration won't 'lead it forward' any more effectively than did the Clinton one.

So in the meantime, a deficit-hawk such as myself has to choose between a higher income stream for government that goes towards inefficient government--or cutting the income stream of government so that it's imminent confrontation with basic mathematics of entitlement programs comes sooner---at the expense of money wasted on debt financing!  I really dispise the choice.  But the latter forces America to do the right thing faster.  "Starve the Beast" it is.

You may very well prefer the former strategy working of differing working assumptions--however a blanket indictment of the Bush administration's fiscal governance as incompetant is a harder argument than you've made thus far.

Again, as I've posted previously, job loss is an inevitable part of recessionary cycles...and no presidency can prevent them...hope to delay them perhaps.  This president arguably sought to hasten one upon entering office to get it over with.  We can scrutinize the wisdom of doing so, but simply throwing up numbers with named date ranges isn't sufficient to address an economic policy debate.

I don't think Zell Miller expected or wished the nation's oppositional politics to cease because of the War on Terror.  I do think he simply felt the field of Democratic challengers to President Bush to be entirely inferior.  I disagree with him on this assessment, but there's a difference between advocating a suppression of the democratic debate and simply crossing party lines during one, as fringe members are apt to do behind the scenes or on stage.

And I think you've addressed "The Contract with America" well enough.  With the same spurious and uncollonized energy that Clinton brought to the White House in '93 hoping for a liberal revolution of government, Gingrich brought to the Congress hoping for a conservative one.  Both enjoyed the same fate:  Clinton effectually handed the Congress to the Republicans halfway through his first term; Gingrich's 'Contract with America' simpered out with a humiliating legislative flatulence and eventually lost leadership of the Party as the American electorate kept pruning back its majority.

So as determined as the "enlightened" of the Western World are determined to paint W. as a reactionary leader of the American Right Wing...it's simply a matter of retrograde motion in measuring by the part of observers claiming so.  The Republican Platform has slowly but surely softened in the years I've observed it in normative terms.  No Republican voters expect Abortion to be outlawed any more.  They do not waste their breath on a Flag Burning Amendment.  They have given up the fight on Prayer in School.  The Religious Right is but a fraction of the size it was in the Reagan/Bush era, and its voice low in the doldrums.  The Social Conservatives of America have little tactical agenda other than try to keep the rush into the Information down to a skid.

Now having alienated the world who measures by retrograde motion is a real issue, and one I may find decisive.  I imagine my 20+ minutes in the voting booth will come down to exactly that...does America need more to make a statement of resolve and independence or a gesture of reconciliation to allies.  I have my doubts about whether President Bush's continued presence in office will permit America the diplomatic leverage we made need in the next four years.  But I also have my doubts about whether changes horses will do anything but make the problem worse by encouraging more resistance to our leadership, having rewarded the behavior so generously.

"Respect" can be a fickle thing...but the international world's fixation on this president as the last bastion of the Death Penalty, rebellious anti-environment energy policy, anti-labor business, and iconic stupidity is the source of this president's problem.  He has cultivated this image intentionally and it serves him well in forcing opponants to underestimate him.  But it taps into the mythic imagination few seem able to see through, and the strain on Western alliances and their failure to hold up these past years is as much to do with that lack of discipline on the part of our allies as anything else.

[Democratic Hawk]

Hi Niles,

I'd just typed this up, when I'd read your reply to my first.

I take your points very carefully re-economy cycles. I'm no economist and just have a rudimentary understanding of Keynesian and monetarist econimic paradigms theories. The figures I found just didn't look good.

Dave

[Niles Caulder]

Hi Niles,

I'd just typed this up, when I'd read your reply to my first.

I take your points very carefully re-economy cycles. I'm no economist and just have a rudimentary understanding of Keynesian and monetarist econimic paradigms theories. The figures I found just didn't look good.

Dave

LOL I don't care for them either.  But despite this being the "worst economic presidential term" since Herbert Hoover's, it's not like the two are comperable.  I liked 3.5% better than 2% for Q2, but I'll take a positive 2% and consider it significant considering the anchors it's pulling.

Beyond the typical economic paradigms, it's just flat political psychology that's been weighing us down this term...and Iraq is the single largest causal factor of its continued malaise (in my opinion.)  For that, I find the President quite culpable...but he's betting all his chips on the fact that America won't hold it against him too badly given the "New World Order."

Come to think of it, though...I'm no economist, either!