Bush Whacks

Two stories in today's Washington Times discuss ways in which President Bush is taking heat for being what he is and doing what he's doing.

The first talks about Bush losing some campaign donations due to his recently announced illegal immigrant proposal. The second is about a bunch of conservative groups who are fed up with the prez's free-spending ways. He may be on the wagon, they say, but he's still spending like a drunken sailor.

Among his base and moderates, Bush has benefited from the nastyish Dem race for the presidential nomination--and from hyperbolic criticism (e.g., Bush = Hitler) from the far left. But it seems likely he'll be taking more and more heat from his own base over the next few months, too.

Comments

[Mark Anderson]

Funny how Bush can benefit from a couple of people comparing him to Hitler but not lose any ground for hyperbolic statements that lead us into war. Wait, didn't Hitler make hyperbolic statements that led his country into war?

[Warren]

"...it seems likely he'll be taking more and more heat from his own base over the next few months, too."
Nick,
Are you on drugs? If not, should you be? If his base is making disgruntled noises it's only as a ploy to get more pork on their own plate.

The immigration thing could have more bite to it. If he works it right though, (only Nixon could go to China) it could really pay off for him. Too soon to call, but my money is on the "too stupid to pull it off" line.

[Shady O'Grady]

You have to think the Bush admin. is really testing their party's loyalty with a few of his policies.

But then again, the public at large has never really been bothered by the spending, just the taxing.

[Jason Ligon]

"Funny how Bush can benefit from a couple of people comparing him to Hitler but not lose any ground for hyperbolic statements that lead us into war."

I don't see how this is funny, ha-ha or otherwise. Could be that conservatives in general don't take Bush's infernal nature as a given? I wish this whole war discussion would move to a point where people just say, "You know, I don't find the aggregate of reasons for going to war compelling. I wish more people saw things my way." That would be a refreshing change from trying to uncover the one big lie that was woven into a scarf and pulled over my idiot eyes.

[megapotamus]

If he can constructively reform Social Security... as seems in the offing all of the other spending will pale in comparison to this achievement.

[Rick]

Mark Anderson, after reading your post a vivid image of you projects onto my screen. It's the southern end of a north bound horse.

[cdunlea]

I suspect his Social Security reform will go the way of his education reform, heathcare reform, tort reform, farm subsidy reform, environmental reform...nothing with him is "in the offing".

[Mac Daddy Hoon]

Bush Whackers...yummy.

REALLY good drinks!

[thoreau]

So what will the base do? The base, by definition, is not going to support a Democrat, or at least not any of the current Dem contenders. Maybe they'd support one of the very rare maverick conservative Democrats, but the only Democrat who might (notice I say might) fit in that category is Lieberman, and he's not going to get the nomination.

They might lose some enthusiasm, and loss of enthusiastic support can affect a campaign, but I don't see them defecting to the other side. They could, perhaps, vote for a third party candidate, but they all saw what happened to in 2000 when some leftists defected to Nader. I don't think they'll make the same mistake that the other side made last time.

That's the problem with 2-party systems: Where else are you supposed to go if you're dissatisfied? There are, of course, solutions that that would enable 3 or more parties to compete. For more info, see

Approval Voting
Runoff voting

[Andrew]

Thoreau--

I used to be interested in those kind of electoral gimmicks (along with national referenda and recall), and approval voting is fundamentally simple and would spare the public an endless election they neither want nor need.

I ultimately decided that the outcomes produced by our current system aren't really that bad, and likely reflect what most Americans prefer.

Libertarians are no more entitled to expect public policy outcomes that don't command real majorities than, say...Right-to-Lifers.

[Gadfly]

Not to worry, the guns and butter party's over - no matter who wins. We're so deep in the hole now, financially and militarily, that no significant spending programs will be approved for years.

[Warren]

"We're so deep in the hole now, financially and militarily, that no significant spending programs will be approved for years."

HA! Never stopped us before.

[thoreau]

Andrew-

I'm not saying Libertarians "deserve" to get policies implemented without popular support. I'm saying that with our current system it's impossible for more than 2 parties to compete in the marketplace of ideas. You can only support one candidate, so your rational strategy is to support one of the 2 front-runners. Hence third party and independent victories are rare.

With, say, Approval Voting, you can give support to multiple candidates if you wish. More than just 2 parties can be competitive. This isn't just good for the parties, it's also good for the voters. The marketplace of ideas is just like any other marketplace: Competition produces better quality for consumers (voters).

So no, this isn't just "affirmative action for Libertarians." Besides, I doubt the LP (at least in its current form) would be a viable contender with approval voting. Instead, I think some other third party would emerge that's fiscally conservative and socially liberal but not as extreme as the LP. Of course, we'd probably also get a party that's fiscally liberal and socially conservative. The end result is that more new ideas, and more combinations of old ideas (mix and match your favorite stances on economics, social policy, and foreign policy, among other things), would be out there competing.

Gadfly-

I'd like to think you're right, that the spending will stop because it's gone too far. But I don't share your optimism. The spending will continue for some time yet, I fear. The strongest advocates of limited spending are found among the Congressional Republicans (not all Congressional Republicans advocate limited spending, but most advocates of spending cuts in Congress are Republicans). However, the Congressional Republicans have subordinated themselves to this White House. The backbone that they showed under Clinton melted when one of their own took the White House.

I know some people here are skeptical of the "divided government rationale" for a Democrat in the White House, but our only hope for spending cuts is for the Congressional GOP to become more assertive, and I just don't see that happening with Bush in the White House.

[Ole Flem]

If the conservative base doesn't like Bush anymore, then they don't have to vote for a dem, they can just stay home! By the way, whatever happened to Ross Perot?

[Mark Anderson]

Jason,
If governments want to keep mis-representing facts in order to get what they want, the debate won't (and can't) move any further. Trust me, I don't think this is funny, just a figure of speech.

Rick,
Very clever. I guess you disagree with me. This is tragic. My day is ruined. Thanks Rick.

[Eric]

As probably one of the few Hit & Run readers who is a card-carrying member of the Bush base, I hope I can add something constructive to the conversation.

I decided some months ago I wasn't going to vote for Dubya this year.

I think the final straw was the prescription drug benefit. George Will pointed out in a recent column that Dem Prez Clinton repealed an entitlement (AFDC) while Republican Prez Dubya created one. That is absolutely backward.

Add that to the farm bill, McCain-Feingold, out of control spending, the education bill, and it's a wonder anyone thinks this man is a conservative.

If I want to vote to expand the welfare state, I'll vote Democrat.

So where do I go? I'll probably "waste" my vote on a candidate who won't win (like the LP candidate!) rather than give Dubya or a Dem the satisfaction of a vote in support. I did the same thing in 1996, when I pulled the lever for Harry Browne - I just couldn't vote for Bob Dole.

[joe]

thoreau, don't underestimate the importance of let-down voters. 1994 was primarily about the Democratic base not turning out, "Angry White Men" legends notwithstanding.

[thoreau]

MJ-

A lot of other countries have systems that differ from ours in several key respects, including a lack of federalism, little bicameralism, and a parliamentary system that's very unstable.

Let's look at Switzerland. Not an ideal libertarian state, but not too shabby in comparison with the US (which is obviously the very best system in the world...). Although they have a parliamentary system, their executive is elected by parliament to a guaranteed 4-year term, so they don't have the instabilities of "no confidence" votes resulting in early elections. They also have a very federal system, arguably even more decentralized than the US. They have a bicameral parliament organized along the exact same lines as our Congress. Both houses have equal power in all matters, whereas in most countries the upper chamber is fairly weak. Indeed, since both chambers must consent to the election of the executive, small states receive even more protection than in the US electoral college.

But they also use runoff voting to elect their Senate, and proportional representation (PR) within each state to elect their House of Representatives. Their PR system focuses on candidates in addition to parties, however, so party bosses don't have ironclad control over elections. And each state elects its own slate by PR, so federalism is preserved.

The Swiss have 4 big political parties. Although one can't make a perfect correspondence between their political factions and ours, roughly speaking they have a party that's fiscally conservative and socially conservative, a party that's fiscally liberal and social liberal, a party that's fiscally liberal and socially conservative, and a party that's fiscally conservative and socially liberal. All the various portions of the electorate are covered. They do have several smaller parties, but most of them are just more extreme (or principled, take your pick) versions of the big 4. The two largest minor parties are the Greens (similar to our Greens) and the Liberals (similar to the LP).

I wouldn't want their parliamentary system, but I wouldn't mind electing the Senate by runoff voting and the House by PR (although in the larger states it might make sense to draw several districts, so that no district elects more than 10 or so Representatives). All of the major portions of the electorate would be represented in Congress. It would be far more representative than our current system.

(And of course I wouldn't endorse their national referenda, at least not on this forum, because it is an article of faith among some libertarians that referenda will result in the immediate imposition of a Communist dictatorship.)

[Bert]

I agree, Bush's policies, even his foreign policy, are pretty much what you'd expect from a moderate Democrat. That's what's so funny about how the Democrats try to paint him as some wild-eyed conservative.

[Rick Barton]

While we give Bush; the big spending, big regulating issuer of "hyperbolic statements that lead us into war", his comeuppance we should also remember that there are some more principled Republicans worth fighting for. Here are some of them:

http://www.ntu.org/features/congress_by_numbers/ntu_rates_congress/2002/tpf_house_2002.php3

http://www.ntu.org/features/congress_by_numbers/ntu_rates_congress/2002/tpf_senate_2002.php3

[s'wonderful]

Eric,
Is Harry Browne running this time? I would love to pull the lever for him again. It's harder throwing my vote away living in CA than when I was in AL. But what the hell, CA will go Dem anyway?

[Gadfly]

Everyone thinking this is Left vs Right has got it wrong. This is Top vs Bottom, as in mega-corporate, blue suited takeover of government largesse. That giant sucking sound you hear is your money flowing up to the financial institutions who just can't wait til they get into the mother lode - social security.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Harry Browne said after the last campaign that he was done with politics, if I remember correctly.

[MJ]

"I'm saying that with our current system it's impossible for more than 2 parties to compete in the marketplace of ideas."

What, exactly, is the problem with that? From what I see in other countries with representational governments and strong multiparty systems, the resulting politics and policies are no better than what we have now, and and many cases, demonstrably worse. I see no "perfect" way to organize popularly elected government, and what we have now is "good enough" despite the annoying results it often churns out. Though I would like to see the trend away from runoff elections stopped and reversed.

[Gadfly]

Yeah. God's on his side.

[Eric]

Yes, I don't think Browne is running again. CA will probably go Dem again, though Republicans have hope because of Gov Arnold. But since he's been governing like a Democrat, I don't see how that helps Dubya.

[DFH]

Shouldn't we be proud of a politican who does what he thinks is right -- regardless of the political consequences?

George W. Bush is doing exactly that. He's following his head and his heart and trusting that the American people will follow.

He's making decisions based upon "right" and "wrong" instead of on the basis of the latest polls.

Perhaps after eight years of Clinton, people forgot that some politicans actually have value systems.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Don't you mean he has Gad on his side?