New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | February 8, 2006

President Bush it taking credit for declining teen drug use. Jacob Sullum wants to know how he managed it before even taking office.

Comments

|2.8.06 @ 9:53AM|#

I must make the obvious point that "before office" Bush snorted coke.

And every gram that went up his nose was one less for the "kids".

So yeah, he did have something to do with it.

|2.8.06 @ 10:11AM|#

Impeccable logic, Mr. Nice Guy. I'm sure Sullum will be by with a retraction in just a moment. ;)

norbizness|2.8.06 @ 10:20AM|#

Oh, I thought it was going to be like how he took credit for everything else. By excluding large, relevant chunks of data from the statistic, or by having 24-year-old political hacks silencing the statisticians.

|2.8.06 @ 10:26AM|#

I stopped smoking pot when Bush was elected. Reality was already f*cked enough - I was afraid getting high would bring things back to 'normal'...

|2.8.06 @ 10:33AM|#

"And every gram that went up his nose was one less for the 'kids'."

That's also Dennis Leary's critique of Keith Richards, IIRC.

|2.8.06 @ 10:36AM|#

While one doesn't have to agree with various administrations neverending War on Drugs, I have to disagree with Sullum's basic point - that Bush was "taking credit" for policies that began before he took office, or as Sullum puts it "President Bush seems to think his drug policies are so effective that they work retroactively." It's nit-picking that detracts from Sullum's overall argument.

Reading the SOTU speech linked, one reads Bush beginning this section of the speech with the term "in recent years". Yes, he talks about drug use "since 2001" but also speaks of "welfare cases [dropping] by more than half over the past decade" and "the number of children born to teenage mothers has been falling for a dozen years in a row."

He is clearly talking about trends, not successes solely due to his administration, and note that he concludes by saying that "everyone here tonight, Democrat and Republican, has a right to be proud of this record."

Why not a post critical of Bush for trying to "take credit" for the drop in welfare cases over the "past decade", or the "dozen years" worth of declining teen birthrates? Because it's clear that Bush is simply delivering a sop to Congress of the "look what we've all done together" stripe, rather than an "ain't I great" crowing.

|2.8.06 @ 10:36AM|#

Seriously, can anyone here name one thing that the Bush administration has done right? Just one?

|2.8.06 @ 10:42AM|#

Well, D. Ranged, there's the aquaduct.

|2.8.06 @ 10:44AM|#

Or even the aqueduct.

|2.8.06 @ 10:49AM|#

The No-Call Telemarketer list was a good thing.

|2.8.06 @ 10:50AM|#

We also haven't had any giant asteroids crash into the earth and drive humanity to extinction. That's always a plus.

MP|2.8.06 @ 10:54AM|#

Seriously, can anyone here name one thing that the Bush administration has done right? Just one?

HSAs.

|2.8.06 @ 11:01AM|#

And the roads!

|2.8.06 @ 11:06AM|#

I think you can see Lady Justice's boob again. Granted, it was one of Bush's hysterical prudes who covered it in the first place, but still...

|2.8.06 @ 11:11AM|#

Wow!

That's some impressive list of accomplishments after 5+ years in the White House!

Warren|2.8.06 @ 11:38AM|#

This is just another facet of the faith-based administration. Truth is determined by policy, if you believe it, then it is so. But you must have faith, doubt can only result in disaster. Therefore no deviation from dogma can be tolerated. Whatever the president says is necessarily true because his saying it makes it true.

Seems I recall a Reason article articulating (better than I have) this aspect of the administration some years ago.

Warren|2.8.06 @ 12:03PM|#

Found it;
This would also go a long way toward explaining Bush's visceral reaction to criticism. If one is in the habit of separating intent from outcome, not every mistake is shameful. Things can turn out badly even though one behaved as well as could be expected. When they're inextricably linked, however, every allegation of error rings like the accusatory cop-out of the failed revival healer: "It only works if your faith is strong." To accuse Bush of having made a bad decision is, if this is indeed his mind-set, in effect to call him a bad person, to question the quality of his heart no less than his judgment. Admitting error, acknowledging that things haven't panned out, becomes impossible.

Whole article here

|2.8.06 @ 12:13PM|#

To accuse Bush of having made a bad decision is, if this is indeed his mind-set, in effect to call him a bad person, to question the quality of his heart no less than his judgment. Admitting error, acknowledging that things haven't panned out, becomes impossible.

So he's a narcissist (or worse, probably) with a shaky ego. Sounds like how I acted as a hypersensitive 17-year-old. Grow the fuck up.

|2.8.06 @ 12:16PM|#

Hobson, your reading of that passage from Bush's speech might be persuasive if it weren't for the arbitrary cutoff of 2001, which indicates an attempt to take credit for the decrease in drug use, if not for the other positive trends. This fits with the general theme that Republicans are tough on drugs, while Democrats are wimps, as reflected in the op-ed piece by Jonathan Last that I discuss in another post today.

|2.8.06 @ 2:02PM|#

I somehow missed the Clinton administration rolling back the war on drugs. In fact, I rather thought it was the other way around.

|2.8.06 @ 2:31PM|#

Didn't you know, PL, that Clinton wanted to legalize pot? Oh, wait nobody else did either because he didn't say it until an Oct, 2000 interview with Rolling Stone.

Now, I'm not exactly sure who reads Rolling Stone but I have no doubt that who ever it is knew instantly how kewl Bill must be if they were not convinced of it already. It does not seem to have significantly influenced votes for the Democrats however.

Unless that's the reason so many Palm Beach and Broward County voters were unable to punch out their chads. :)

|2.8.06 @ 2:39PM|#

Jacob Sullum, I appreciate your response. I heard/read that section of the SOTU address as a list (specifically, five items) of "good social trends" that had occurred over the past few years - of various lengths of time, most going back far before the beginning of Bush's administration. With his "isn't government great, we all can be proud" summation of those trends, I didn't hear/read any sort of "hey, look at me" into it. You did. That's fine, our interpretations differ.

But to me, your interpretation harmed your article in that it focused the reader's attention on a Bush "gotcha" (and look at the majority of posts on this thread as evidence) rather than the more important underlying issues addressed in your article.

[By the way, let me take the opportunity to plug "Saying Yes" - two thumbs up!]