What is Bushism?

[Хahar 🤔]

Now that Bush is almost out, we've begun to explore what he really believes in. Some of the conservatives on this site have tried to disown him and tar him with the brush of liberalism. That's clearly untrue: George Bush is not a liberal. But he also doesn't belong to the school of conservative thought. It seems that he belongs to a reactionary third way, which we shall call Bushism for wanbt of a better name. What is Bushism?

Foreign

• Idealistic and moralistic
• Belief in the Unites States as a force for good in the world

Social

• Strongly conservative
• Religious and moralistic

Economic

• Belief in the wealthy and corporations as the bedrock of society
• Belief that the interests of the rich coincide with the interests of America

For an ideology without real parallels, it's surprisingly coherent. I would place it as similar to the ideology espoused by Rome in the 1860s.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

• Belief in the Unites States as a force for good in the world

That, at least, I agree with.

[minionofmidas]

But he also doesn't belong to the school of conservative thought..

Not? Possibly not thought in the sense of rigorous logic, but...

[Хahar 🤔]

But he also doesn't belong to the school of conservative thought..

Not? Possibly not thought in the sense of rigorous logic, but...

Not in the American sense, no. American conservatism is individualistic in nature, unlike European conservatism which is communitarian in nature.

[The Populist]

When I voted for Bush in 2000, I believed he would govern as a moderate, willing to hear both sides of every argument, and make the best decision.  I admit that, as a Southern Baptist, I was drawn to his obvious faith, and I hoped he would govern as a Christian.  However, I was disappointed by the way he let his faith influence seemingly every decision he made in office.

[Brandon H]

Someone had a thread similar to this maybe two weeks ago (which may be what inspired this thread as the term "Bushism" was used stating that Bush, particularly on economic policies doesn't fit in with liberalism or conservatism).

[2952-0-0]

"I'm the decider, and I decide what's best."

[Хahar 🤔]

Someone had a thread similar to this maybe two weeks ago (which may be what inspired this thread as the term "Bushism" was used stating that Bush, particularly on economic policies doesn't fit in with liberalism or conservatism).

Gully Foyle used that term, yes.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Someone had a thread similar to this maybe two weeks ago (which may be what inspired this thread as the term "Bushism" was used stating that Bush, particularly on economic policies doesn't fit in with liberalism or conservatism).

Gully Foyle used that term, yes.

However, I personally prefer the term "Bush-Reaganism" myself.

[Joe Republic]

I don't know what the hell you clowns are jabbering about, but here are some examples for you:

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream."

"Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?"

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."

[Governor PiT]

Now that Bush is almost out, we've begun to explore what he really believes in. Some of the conservatives on this site have tried to disown him and tar him with the brush of liberalism. That's clearly untrue: George Bush is not a liberal. But he also doesn't belong to the school of conservative thought. It seems that he belongs to a reactionary third way, which we shall call Bushism for wanbt of a better name. What is Bushism?

Foreign

• Idealistic and moralistic
• Belief in the Unites States as a force for good in the world

Social

• Strongly conservative
• Religious and moralistic

Economic

• Belief in the wealthy and corporations as the bedrock of society
• Belief that the interests of the rich coincide with the interests of America

For an ideology without real parallels, it's surprisingly coherent. I would place it as similar to the ideology espoused by Rome in the 1860s.

Believes in Ope Borders and Free movements of goods and peoples.


FCUK Bushism.

[Хahar 🤔]

Now that Bush is almost out, we've begun to explore what he really believes in. Some of the conservatives on this site have tried to disown him and tar him with the brush of liberalism. That's clearly untrue: George Bush is not a liberal. But he also doesn't belong to the school of conservative thought. It seems that he belongs to a reactionary third way, which we shall call Bushism for wanbt of a better name. What is Bushism?

Foreign

• Idealistic and moralistic
• Belief in the Unites States as a force for good in the world

Social

• Strongly conservative
• Religious and moralistic

Economic

• Belief in the wealthy and corporations as the bedrock of society
• Belief that the interests of the rich coincide with the interests of America

For an ideology without real parallels, it's surprisingly coherent. I would place it as similar to the ideology espoused by Rome in the 1860s.

Believes in Ope Borders and Free movements of goods and peoples.


FCUK Bushism.

Yes, that's part of what Bushism is.

[opebo]

Well elucidated, Xahar, but it isn't so lacking in parallels.  It is essentially a mild fascism - a mix of traditional European conservatism and American Imperialism/expansionism/exceptionalism.  A very nasty brew, but one very appealing to both stupid prole and vicious rich.

Alas the only real practical problem with this kind of fascism is really only the one - its residual 'individualism', which has led to a foolish worship of markets, deregulation, etc., leading to our current economic collapse.  If someone could embrace Bushism mostly, but with a heavy dose of Keynesianism (the sort which guarantees some working class incomes but brutalizes others, preferably based on race or 'skill' differences would fit in well), they would have an absolutely winning, functional coalition.  The key for the wealthy to understand is some workers must be 'overpaid' or demand cannot be sufficient, but that even if you 'overpay' some, you can still enjoy the benefits and pleasures of destroying others - in fact, in a political sense, the bigger the differential, the better it works playing these natural allies off against each other.

Come to think of it, isn't this pretty much what Hitler had set up?  I suppose if he hadn't invaded Russia it would have worked to this day.

[dead0man]

What happened to that Godwin thread?

[Хahar 🤔]

I think it has more parallels to Mussolini's system than Hitler's (though obviously not as overtly authoritarian). Hitler was repressive, whereas Mussolini was ineffectual; we have seen the effects of Bushism.

[opebo]

I think it has more parallels to Mussolini's system than Hitler's (though obviously not as overtly authoritarian). Hitler was repressive, whereas Mussolini was ineffectual; we have seen the effects of Bushism.

Bush could hardly have been a greater success for those he serves, Xahar.

[Scam of God]

I think it has more parallels to Mussolini's system than Hitler's (though obviously not as overtly authoritarian). Hitler was repressive, whereas Mussolini was ineffectual; we have seen the effects of Bushism.

This is almost exactly right. Bush is a fascist in the truest, most non-partisan sense of the word: an economic nationalist, a corporatist, who believes in a top-down economic structure in which business can replace most functions of government, not, as libertarians believe, by displacing government wholly, but instead by being incorporated into government. This is exactly the same economic philosophy Reagan espoused, who was also a fascist.

[Хahar 🤔]

I think it has more parallels to Mussolini's system than Hitler's (though obviously not as overtly authoritarian). Hitler was repressive, whereas Mussolini was ineffectual; we have seen the effects of Bushism.

Bush could hardly have been a greater success for those he serves, Xahar.

Exactly. And thus he was deposed by the Republican leadership (although he still maintains power through Congress, which he controls).

I think it has more parallels to Mussolini's system than Hitler's (though obviously not as overtly authoritarian). Hitler was repressive, whereas Mussolini was ineffectual; we have seen the effects of Bushism.

This is almost exactly right. Bush is a fascist in the truest, most non-partisan sense of the word: an economic nationalist, a corporatist, who believes in a top-down economic structure in which business can replace most functions of government, not, as libertarians believe, by displacing government wholly, but instead by being incorporated into government. This is exactly the same economic philosophy Reagan espoused, who was also a fascist.

This seems to be more a reaction to power than

I think it has more parallels to Mussolini's system than Hitler's (though obviously not as overtly authoritarian). Hitler was repressive, whereas Mussolini was ineffectual; we have seen the effects of Bushism.

This is almost exactly right. Bush is a fascist in the truest, most non-partisan sense of the word: an economic nationalist, a corporatist, who believes in a top-down economic structure in which business can replace most functions of government, not, as libertarians believe, by displacing government wholly, but instead by being incorporated into government. This is exactly the same economic philosophy Reagan espoused, who was also a fascist.

This looks more to be a reaction ot power than anything; it seems inevitable for all who run on a pro-business (and thus corporatist) message.

[Scam of God]

This looks more to be a reaction ot power than anything; it seems inevitable for all who run on a pro-business (and thus corporatist) message.

Sure, and much of it doubtlessly has to do with Reagan being the consummate dipsh*t; I doubt he ever really knew what he wanted out of the economy, preferring as he did to "sleep in and eat jeallybeans". But it's the inevitable outcome of such a policy as implemented by his staffers, at any rate.

[opebo]

Sure, and much of it doubtlessly has to do with Reagan being the consummate dipsh*t; I doubt he ever really knew what he wanted out of the economy, preferring as he did to "sleep in and eat jeallybeans".

Actually no one who is lazy and likes to sleep in can be all bad.