Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Bush as LBJ Nixon
Tired of all the talk of Bush = LBJ? Former Reason intern and NY Post scribe Ryan Sager has posited that the better analogue is in fact one Richard Milhous Nixon. From a recent col:
Nixon's eschewing of conservative principles isn't a bad point of reference [for Bush]. Nixon had his proposed Family Assistant Plan, entitling every American to a minimum income; Bush has his $1.2 trillion Medicare prescription-drug giveaway, the first new entitlement since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. Nixon had his wage-and-price controls; Bush has had his steel, lumber, shrimp and textile tariffs. Nixon created the expensive and intrusive EPA; Bush created No Child Left Behind, which has sent federal education spending soaring and meddled with every school board in America....
The difference between Bush and Nixon, up until now, was that Bush hadn't managed to tick off the entire conservative movement at the same time.
But the Miers pick left social conservatives (who have been itching for a fight over the Supreme Court) screaming at the president's representatives in closed-door meetings.
As Sager notes, Bush lost the small-government, free trade, and libertarian GOPers a long, long, time ago.
Whole bit here.
|10.12.05 @ 11:26AM|#
Someone needs to explain the seeming descrepancy:
Nixon, in the thread nearby, shows a negative 16 percent for
discretionary spending.
|10.12.05 @ 11:27AM|#
Did he mention the scandals, based on events committed in the first term, creeping closer and close to the top during the second?
|10.12.05 @ 11:53AM|#
Bush lost the small-government, free trade, and libertarian
GOPers a long, long, time ago.
If that were really true, he wouldn't have been re-elected. Sounds
to me like some "small govt, free traders" are engaging in some
revisionist history. As I recall from election time, when push came
to shove, they voted for him again anyway. Too late to wash your
hands now kids. You had your chance, and you fucked it up.
dhex|10.12.05 @ 12:21PM|#
"As Sager notes, Bush lost the small-government, free trade, and
libertarian GOPers a long, long, time ago."
yes, and all 10 of them are very angry.
|10.12.05 @ 12:32PM|#
independent worm, not only the revisionist history, but falling all over themselves to explain why what Bush does is the right thing! Who was it who posted the RedState link a while ago to the guy demonstrating how Bush's deficit explosion was a net good?
|10.12.05 @ 1:02PM|#
Bush lost the small-government, free trade, and libertarian
GOPers a long, long, time ago.
I wonder if this is really the case. What percentage of small l
libertarians voted for Bush because "Kerry would've been worse"? It
would be interesting to see. Why should Bush make any appeals to
libertarians when he can do whatever he pleases and still be seen
as better than the alternative?
|10.12.05 @ 1:11PM|#
I wonder if this is really the case. What percentage of
small l libertarians voted for Bush because "Kerry would've been
worse"?
My exit from the Bush camp happened long before the Bush/Kerry
election. ...and, indeed, I think I was part of the libertarian
exodus from the Bush camp that they're referring to here. It didn't
happen after the last election, I think it happened sometime after
the Bush/Gore election.
...and kudos to Reason for giving the libertarian exodus from
Bush's GOP so much attention so soon. Reason was way ahead of the
curve--as usual.
|10.12.05 @ 1:48PM|#
Apt comparison. Throwing money around while pandering to the
sociocons...in libertarian terms, W. is the worst
Commander-In-Chief we've had since the ol' Dickster.
One interesting sidenote: in the last thirty years, one president
actually reduced the size of government, another signed a welfare
reform bill. Remember who? Hint: they were the Democrats...
|10.12.05 @ 2:18PM|#
Tom Crick,
The GOP "survived" Nixon, gaining the White House back after just
one term, because the country was in the midst of a realignment
towards his party that was larger than him. The center of the
country was becoming more and more favorable to Republican ideas
about taxes, crime, the Cold War, and social policy.
Now? It's tough to think of a major issue that the GOP is gaining
ground on, and easy to think of some that they are way behind or
losing on.
|10.12.05 @ 2:18PM|#
Both are more apt than either of these.
I don't think I'm beggin' the question here, 'cause I think I can
make the case that we're in a quagmire .
...how can Wilson or FDR be more apt than Johnson, considering that
the President expanded the Great Society and assuming that he's
slogging us through a quagmire?
Oh...and one of the differences between Nixon and Bush the Younger
is that when Richard "I guess I'm a Keynesian now" Nixon changed
direction, he did so against the judgement of his advisors. ...Bush
is following his advisors judgement--he's doin' this shit on
purpose! ...It's all goin' according to plan!
|10.12.05 @ 2:20PM|#
This just shows how absurd political discourse has become in this country. Politics is becoming like sports, people just root for laudry and the pleasure of lording victories over supporters of defeated rivals rather than ideas. Richard Nixon gave liberals the EEOC and the EPA. Jimmy Carter gave conservatives airline and energy regulation. Ronald Reagan gave liberals huge spending hikes in domestic spending (while of course they derrided him as being a mean old man who wanted to throw grandma on the street). George Bush gave liberals a huge a tax hike rolling back many of Reagans cuts. Bill Clinton gave conservatives NAFTA and Welfare Reform. Things of which Reagan could only dream. Now, George Bush II gives liberals endless domestic spending, a bloated throw money at the problem education bill, and the first new federal entitlement in 40 years. Yet, both sides loath the other's Presidents and with regard to Nixon, Clinton and Bush II, to the point of irrationality. Democrats hate Bush for the same reason Red Sox fans hate Alex Rodriguez. He just happens to wear the wrong uniform.
|10.12.05 @ 2:23PM|#
Dream on Joe. The Democrats will have to come up with some ideas besides Chimpler and get the U.S. out of North America before they can win any elections beyond the occasional reaction to a Republican scandal. See 1974 and 76.
|10.12.05 @ 2:28PM|#
Comparing Presidents who had major opposition in congress to
those with a rubber stamp contingent probably isn't fair. George
Bush's discretionary spending record is all his own.
Ronald Reagan gave liberals huge spending hikes in domestic
spending (while of course they derrided him as being a mean old man
who wanted to throw grandma on the street).
The following is taken from a Cato report Reason linked to
recently. I'll look up the link when I get off this conference
call.
Reagan's discretionary spending increase is mainly a result of
his defense buildup. However, he paid for that defense buildup in
part with offsetting cuts in the nondefense budget. During the
first year of Reagan's presidency, nondefense spending went down by
$10 billion in nominal terms.
By the end of Reagan's tenure, nondefense spending was up in
nominal terms but down considerably once you adjust for inflation.
All told, Reagan presided over a real nondefense discretionary
spending cut of 9.5 percent.
|10.12.05 @ 2:40PM|#
John, you are right that Democrats will have to sell their ideas
to the public.
But you have demonstrated on many threads your inability to
accurately judge whether they are doing so.
Universal health insurance, a war on terror that actually focuses
on terrorists, healthy neighborhoods and a balanced budget are all
political winners, and they all belong to the Dems.
|10.12.05 @ 3:22PM|#
Universal health insurance...
People vote for Universal health insurance when they think it will
get them medical care and drugs for free and then vote against it
when they find out they'll actually have to pay for it.
|10.12.05 @ 3:47PM|#
Here's the link to the Cato report:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf
...and here's the link to the Reason thread:
http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/10/thats_one_way_t_1.shtml
|10.12.05 @ 4:06PM|#
Universal health insurance, a war on terror that actually
focuses on terrorists, healthy neighborhoods and a balanced budget
are all political winners, and they all belong to the
Dems.
Some of those items seem contradictory to me. ...A balanced budget
and universal health care? ...but I do think the Democrats
should run their next slate on a balanced budget.
...Wouldn't it be nice if the budget debate had balanced budget
Democrats on one side and anti-Tax Republicans on the other? ...I
can dream.
|10.12.05 @ 4:44PM|#
Joe,
I think 1993 proved that universal healthcare can be a looser for
the Democrats. Its a good example of the need to come up with new
ideas. If by universal healthcare you mean copying the failed and
inhumane systems in Canada and the UK, then you are never going to
win any elections. If you mean something else that recognizes that
unless you want to ensure that no one gets good care not everyone
is going to get equal care and that price and market incentives
need to play a role in reducing costs, then you may have a winner.
The problem is of course that terms like market incentives drive
the Democratic base over the edge. I see no particular reason why
Democrats should be so wed to the single payer model and couldn't
embrace something else that included subsidies to ensure that
everyone can afford some kind of basic health insurance, but good
luck and selling that to the rank and file.
Education is another example. Take bi-lingual education. Everyone
except for the bureaucrats who make their living from it agrees
that its been a terrible failure and robbed generations of
immigrant kids of decent educations. Yet, the Democratic Party
continues to defend it and immersion learning is a completly
Republican issue. What the hell is so conservative about teaching
kids how speak, read and write English? Nothing that I can see
other than the teachers Unions and moonbat La Raza members love
bi-lingual education. If the Democrats would give up their statist
dogmatism and embrace any idea from any source that helps people,
they would have a chance to win elections again.
|10.12.05 @ 4:55PM|#
Joe,
War on terror? Okay, how? I don't you can be serious about the war
on terror and also go out of your way to give illegal immigrants
every possible measure of due process before being deported, expect
every terrorist subject to be proven guilty of an actual criminal
act in federal court before being incarcerated, object to any
sharing of intelligence information between law enforcement and
nation security agencies and expect the Justice Department to go to
a different district court for a wiretap order everytime a
terrorists leaves his home or changes cell phones. Democrats claim
they are so serious about terrorism but all they can claim to want
to do about it is not invade Iraq. Had it been up to Democrats we
wouldn't have the Patriot Act and we most certainly would not have
grabbed and deported the large number of people that we did after
9-11. Now, maybe those were bad things to do, but I do not see the
Democrats offering any alternatives other than claiming GUTMO is a
gulag and John Ashcroft is going to read your library records.
|10.12.05 @ 5:10PM|#
I think 1993 proved that universal healthcare can be a
looser for the Democrats.
I think it runs into the same problem that school choice does.*
...Most of the people are happy with their health coverage.
...There are a lot of people who wish health care was less
expensive, but it isn't clear to them that universalizing health
care will make it less expensive. ...and most fear it will risk the
quality they already enjoy.
...Sure, there are a number of disenfranchised groups that support
universal health care--cater your pitch to them and you're sure to
lose.
*Most people are happy with the schools their children attend.
...at least they're happy with the aspects of it that choice claims
to fix.
|10.12.05 @ 5:20PM|#
I'm big on the idea that the Democrats should do a Contract with
America pitch. ...but I think they should keep the list
small--maybe just three things. ...and I think one of things on the
list should be a balanced budget.
...but for the life of me, I can't think of what the other two
should be. It has to be something that their core supporters can
get enthusiastic about, but it also has to appeal to
Soccer/Security Moms. ...maybe free health care--just for
children?
...I don't know what you mean by "healthy neighborhoods" joe.
...but I think Soccer/Security Moms are already happy with their
neighborhoods.
|10.12.05 @ 6:49PM|#
Tom Crick, "Some of those items seem contradictory to me. ...A
balanced budget and universal health care?" No moreso than
promising a balanced budget, lower taxes, a stronger military, and
protecting Grandma's checks, as Republicans did in every campaign
of my lifetime. "We're gonna cut waste, fraud and abuse. We're
going to close tax loopholes. We're going to cut welfare." (Except
Dems as "corporate welfare." "We're going to make these things a
priority."
See, look how you just twisted the facts and demogogued on
bilingual education. Of course most people are going to support
what you describe, and not what those nasty Democrats and
bureaucrats want, with their social engineering and windsurfing.
Your argument has nothing to do with the actual issues and merits
surrounding the issue, but it's very persuasive.
John,
Polling done the week the Congress killed Hillarycare showed that
it had majority support. Remember, even Poppy ran on a universal
health care platform in 1992, and the debate for a few weeks was
whether a plan that covered 98% of people counted as universal, or
whether it had to be 100%. He didn't do this because he believed in
it, but because he knew he would lose in a landslide to a candidate
who promised it if he didn't follow suit.
"If by universal healthcare you mean..." Focus, John. We're talking
electoral politics. Your Kerryesque tangents about merits don't
exactly play well on the stump. "I believe people who work hard and
play by the rules deserve health care. My opponent wants your
children to die of diptheria so he can give tax breaks to his rich
friends." You have this horror of Canada's health care system.
Could you please name for me a politician who won a race by
accusing his opponent of wanting to emulate Canada's health care
system?
"Democrats claim they are so serious about terrorism but all they
can claim to want to do about it is not invade Iraq." Even if all
Democrats were saying is "the money the want to spend in Iraq,
we'll spend hunting down terrorists and disrupting their plots,"
the Democrats would win the issue in 2006. More Americans think
Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror than an essential part
of it, and the trend it towards less and less support.
|10.12.05 @ 7:28PM|#
Joe,
No question there was a real push for universal health care in the
fall of 1992. The more people got to know about it, the less they
liked it, however. A Democratic Congress voted down Hillarycare.
They didn't do that because it was popular. Also, we have found out
in the 10 years since that the Canadian and U.K. systems don't work
nearly as well as we thought they did. I will be the first to admit
we need new ideas in this area and I don't see why the Democrats
neccesarily can't be the ones to come up with them.
As far as terrorism, spending money to do what? The Democrats have
to show the country that they have the stomach to do the nasty
business of catching terrorists. Doing so means detaining and
deporting people and killing people. How willing are the Democrats
to do this. Maybe they do have the stomach for it, but I would be a
lot more convinced they would show half of the outrage against Al
Quada as they do against Ashcroft and Bush.
|10.12.05 @ 7:59PM|#
"The more people got to know about it, the less they liked it,
however."
If issues were hashed out at this level of detail in political
races, we'd have a president who could speak French right now. Or
English, even.
"A Democratic Congress voted down Hillarycare." Actually, it never
came to a vote. The Republicans wouldn't allow one, because there
was no way they could go on record opposing Health Care
Reform.
"The Democrats have to show the country that they have the stomach
to do the nasty business of catching terrorists." You mean like the
Millenium Dome plot, the LAX plot, and the Airliners Over the
Pacific plot? Or do you mean showing that having a Republican in
office will mean the president will go on vacation while the
national security staff desperately tries to get his attention
about an impending attack? Or do just mean showing that a Democrat
can be tough enough to, say, demonstrate extreme courage and skill
in a mortal confrontation? It's not 1988, Joe - mission
accomplished.
|10.12.05 @ 9:28PM|#
As Sager notes, Bush lost the small-government, free trade,
and libertarian GOPers a long, long, time ago.
Unfortunately, not before they voted for him twice.
When was the last time Bush did or proposed anything that supported
small government, free trade, or libertarian goals? During the 2000
campaign?
|10.13.05 @ 10:26AM|#
joe
Of course there is big support for Universal health care. But there
are big reasons why it will never happen.
Almost everyone would like it if someone else paid their medical
bills.
Trouble is practically nobody wants to pay someone else's medical
bills.
|10.13.05 @ 11:55AM|#
Isaac, polls that phrase the question as "Would you be willing to pay higher taxes for..," or that follow up a general support/oppose question with a question about taxes, consistently show majority support.
|10.13.05 @ 1:43PM|#
Polls may show that, joe. Problem is, the way people actually
vote tends to verify my claim.
People make all kinds of claims when answering poll questions that
are not born out by actual observation of the way they act.
|10.13.05 @ 1:47PM|#
You see, joe, good compassionate and concerned people like you
want a welfare state because you're concerned about the wellbeing
of the little people.
But the majority is just not like you. They want a welfare state
because of what it will give them for nothing. Politicians love
both you and them for it guarantees they will always have
power.
|10.13.05 @ 1:55PM|#
"Problem is, the way people actually vote tends to verify my
claim."
Really? Would you care to point out a candidate who won a race
promising to stop universal health care?
Please, Mr. Libertarian, enlighten me more about the majority's
opinions.
|10.13.05 @ 2:36PM|#
Candidates win promising Universal healthcare, but then it never
gets implemented when everyone figures out who has to pay.
I am not speaking as a libertarian, or any one who is for or
against Universal health care, just making some observations of
facts as I see them.
You really need to quit the mindreading. Your record so far isn't
even as good as someone making wildass guesses.
The fact that every democratic party platform since HST* has
advocated it and failed to deliver when its candidate won (even
when he controlled congress ie every time) makes me pretty
confident that it ain't ever gonna happen except as a mishmash
interest driven clusterfuck like most American welfare
programs.
*That's Horrible Shithead Truman for those who need to look it
up.
|10.13.05 @ 2:54PM|#
"Candidates win promising Universal healthcare, but then it
never gets implemented when everyone figures out who has to
pay."
Seeing as how the conversation is about winning political
strategies, my work here is done.
|10.13.05 @ 3:54PM|#
Seeing as how the conversation is about winning political
strategies, my work here is done.
Reread and you will never find I said that Universal Health Care
was not a winning strategy.
Considering that free medicine enjoys about the same levels of
support as the death penalty and prohibition of gay marriage, the
real winnig political strategy will be
free health care and incorporating Leviticus into the Criminal
Code. We're getting there but that doesn't mean it's a good
thing.
|10.13.05 @ 3:57PM|#
And again pols get elected promising expensive programs. They
then fail to deliver for fear the people will vote them out because
of the cost. The find a way to pin the failure on some other
guy.
No wonder the people are convinced that politicians are lying sacks
of shit.
|10.13.05 @ 4:25PM|#
"Polls may show that (people support universal health care),
joe. Problem is, the way people actually vote tends to verify my
claim.
People make all kinds of claims when answering poll questions that
are not born out by actual observation of the way they act."
led me to believe you were, in fact, saying "that Universal Health
Care was not a winning strategy."
You know, the part about people not voting for universal health
care - I took that as a comment about the issue's effectiveness as
an electoral strategy.
David Rossie|10.13.05 @ 5:40PM|#
"As Sager notes, Bush lost the small-government, free trade, and
libertarian GOPers a long, long, time ago."
I wish it were true.
What's strange to me is that every right-wing blogger and their
mother claims to be "more or less libertarian." Seriously, has
anyone else noticed this? I think libertarianism is the new chic:
the blogospheric right's version of Che. Hints of anti-government
here and there, but nothing that would make the GOP tremble. Little
yelps of dissent always qualified by examplesof how the other side
is worse, or how the cause is still crucial. Libertarian shadings
make them feel cool, but when it comes down to it they're merely
war-bloggers who'd vote for Bush and the GOP every time.
|10.13.05 @ 5:58PM|#
No, I meant the part about the taxes. I concede that may not
have been clear.
But, oh, let's offer people free stuff and appeal to the majority's
most base authoritarian desires. That's always a winning strategy,
duh.
So, yes, pols will continue to offer free goodies to get
elected, but don't expect anybody to deliver anything but a token
mishmash interest driven clusterfuck. And then look for them to
find the other guy to blame it all on.
But, I misunderstood. I had given you credit for actually wanting
good public policy not just getting your friends elected. So I
guess I'm no better at mindreading than you are. :)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245