After his oath to protect the Constitution of the United States President Bush made a speech in which he said he wished people in other nations to be free in their own way.
I hope he meant this, as the examples of the broad American way of freedom that President Bush gave in his speech were ‘the Homestead Act’, the ‘Social Security Act’ and ‘the G.I. Bill of rights’.
The Social Security Act (a government pyramid scheme) speaks for itself. As does free education for ex-servicemen (to call this the ‘GI Bill of Rights’ was an insult to the real Bill of Rights – rights as limits on government power, not excuses for it).
As for the Homestead Act – well this (in 1862 I believe) was an effort by President Lincoln to copy some of the ideas of Jefferson (as expressed in the North West Ordinance) of breaking up land into small farms. In the West it was a terrible mistake – as much of the land was not (and is not) environmentally suitable for farming (as opposed to the big ranches that would have naturally envolved). ‘Water mining’ and soil damage (remember the dust bowl of the 1930’s) were the result of the Homestead Act.
The Social Security Act at least was unconstitutional (or the Tenth Amendment does not mean a thing – and there is no need to list the powers of the fed government in Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution – as the “General Welfare” has been declared a power rather than what is actually the case, that “the common defence and general welfare” being the purpose of the powers).
In short, like most recent Presidents, Mr Bush does not have a clue about the document he swore to defend.
Oh well Presidents do not write their own speeches, and at least there was no plan to go to war with Lower Slobovia to make sure they have got a Social Security Act.
The Social Security Act is a brilliant piece of Financial Engineering, the Grey Panthers can today live off the future incomes of their offspring – the Bumper Stickers will read ” I ‘m Spending my Childen’s Future Income” not … as they did….”We are spending the Kid’s Inheritance”
What can you expect from a Gubment that operates the largest Ponzi scheme of all time through the $2BN daily Deficit that the Asianbuyers of Treasuries have been financing …… so far ?
So long as Congress keeps allowing the guys with the funny paper and the inky hands to keep the Press’s rolling, I guess.
Paul Marks,
“Mr Bush does not have a clue about the document he swore to defend.”
That’s unnecessary condescension. You could grant Mr. Bush and his advisers the credit that they know not less than you do. I assume they can read.
Given the political realities and the environment he is working in, Mr. Bush isn’t doing such a terrible job. A politician doesn’t operate in the void, like you do, Mr Marks. You can afford to say anything, because you aren’t doing anything but talking. That’s ok, that’s your job description. People even might like what you write.
A President works within constraints. A President is a politician.
I had my doubts about the President’s speech. It struck me mostly as blah… blah.., but that’s what you usually get. I have some doubts about some of Bush’s policies.
Mr Bush did some good things (tax reduction, Iraq), and some bad ones (Medicare, No Child left behind).
He tries to introduce Social Security reform, and though the scope is too modest, it’s better than nothing.
I have no doubt that the other candidate, Kerry, who came very close to winning, would have been an unmitigated dissater on ALL issues.
To sum up: I didn’t like the tone of your critique.
Bush apparently did say ‘the G.I. Bill of rights’. I assume he was mispeaking. (Although Google says this phrase is often used, the name of the Congressional bill was the “Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944.”) Understood in the context of American politics, this refers to the plan implemented after WWII to make it possible for returning veterans to go back to college and educate themselves for new careers rather than giving them welfare payments. Generally considered a successful step away from a pervasive welfare state.
The Homestead Act of 1862 turned over 270 million acres, (an area twice the size of France), over to individual farmers. It may not have been ecological, but it populated 30 western states. A classic case of devolving central state power to individual achivement.
The Social Security Act is, as the first comment notes, a Ponzi scheme, but this is simply a case of having to put a positive spin on a program he’s about to overhaul. At each step of privitizing Social Security, we can expect President Bush to laud the program as the greatest thing since sliced bread; — which is fine with me as long as he gets the job done.
“…Rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.” I find it dubious that a man who can say this “does not have a clue about the document he swore to defend.”
Bush apparently did say ‘the G.I. Bill of rights’. I assume he was mispeaking. (Although Google says this phrase is often used, the name of the Congressional bill was the “Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944.”) Understood in the context of American politics, this refers to the plan implemented after WWII to make it possible for returning veterans to go back to college and educate themselves for new careers rather than giving them welfare payments. Generally considered a successful step away from a pervasive welfare state.
The Homestead Act of 1862 turned over 270 million acres, (an area twice the size of France), over to individual farmers. It may not have been ecological, but it populated 30 western states. A classic case of devolving central state power to individual achivement.
The Social Security Act is, as the first comment notes, a Ponzi scheme, but this is simply a case of having to put a positive spin on a program he’s about to overhaul. At each step of privitizing Social Security, we can expect President Bush to laud the program as the greatest thing since sliced bread; — which is fine with me as long as he gets the job done.
“…Rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.” I find it dubious that a man who can say this “does not have a clue about the document he swore to defend.”
Jacob, I totally agree with you. I also found the remarks of Paul Marks of Northamptonshire offensive. GWB has achieved the office, for the second time, of chief executive of the most powerful nation in the history of the world. He has surrounded himself with brilliant people, and it takes a very stable, secure and intelligent person to act thusly.
He has degrees from both Harvard and Yale. He got far better grades than Al Gore or JFK manqué. If Mr Marks of Northamptonshire, England wishes to insult the Ivy League by implying that Mr Bush bought his grades, let us remember that Al Gore’s family is as rich as the Bush family. I read a study of some people who used the Freedom of Information Act to go back, three or four years ago, and get GWB’s SAT results, and he tests as having an IQ of 157. I assume reading comprehension was included in the SATS.
I think President Bush understands the Constitution he is committed to defend.
What Paul Marks and James Bovard said.
Verity writes:
“He has degrees from both Harvard and Yale. He got far better grades than Al Gore or JFK manqué.”
Absolutely! I find this constant sneering at George W. Bush’s intellect highly amusing coming, as it so often does, from Leftist commentators whose own educational achievements stem from the mediocrity of the British “comprehensive” system, reinforced by their worthless degrees in Marxist-driven claptrap, from hastily re-named colleges of further education.
When it comes from someone like Paul Marks (whose analyses I usually admire) I find it more disconcerting than amusing.
There’s little richer than summoning-up BBC R4’s The News Quiz to hear an ultra-Marxist political agitator masquerading as a comedian like Jeremy Hardy (a leading light of the soi disant Socialist Alliance) digging at Bush’s intellect from his lofty position as a former student of…. Southampton University. And no, he didn’t read Marine Science.
Bush may be inarticulate, but, clearly, he is very, very far from stupid. Unlike the bandwagon-jumpers who believe if they read it in the Grauniad, or heard it on the BBC, it must be true.
We wuv Pwedident Bush, we want to have Pwedident Bush’s babies, I’m so jewous of Barbra Bush, I wish it was me getting to be with that hot Connecticut stud every night, I wonder what he looks like naked, I wonder what his seed tastes like.
We wuv Pwedident Bush’s intelliwect, he is so wise, so much wiser than any ordinawy man, everything Pwedident Bush says is true, even the Iraq WMD stuff, and people who disagree with him are evil, sometimes he has to do things that seem like torture to the evil people, but it’s not torture because it’s America that’s doing it.
Pwedident Bush is the new Massia, God speaks through him, he said so himself so it must be true.
Here’s a poem dedicated to Pwedident Bush:
Pwedident Bush we love you,
Evrythin’ ya say is so true,
You are the voice of God
Not just some silly sod,
We wanna be the First Lady
And wanna have your baby,
Disbeleavers are evil,
And very medievil.
Paul, you are making a fairly common mistake of seeing Americans as lacking in finesse. You are also being intellectually lazy in reading something and seeing what you want to see and not looking under the cover to see what is really there.
The purpose of the homestead act west to get people to leave the settled east and “Go West, young man, go west!” It had absolutly nothing to do with efficent land management. If it had been Europeans in charge, they would have just rounded up some peasents at gun point and shipped them off. Ever hear of Hells kitchen? For several decades before and after, Europeans were pouring ashore and crowding around the ports, re-creating the social conditions of the Europe thay were escaping. Moving them west was needed and the homestead act was a way to get them going. It offerred them two things Europe couldn’t. Land and Freedom to do withit what they willed.
The GI Bill, what ever you call it, was about creating more colleges and universities. Supply and demand. Government money created the demand for higher education, Private enterprize supplied it. Half a century or so later, America has the worlds best educational system.
Bush’s inaugural speech was the most important since Ronnie said “Tear down this Wall”. It doesn’t read well, but it was a SPEECH, not a position paper. The Intellectually lazy and dishonest will panic. I give you the Guardian as an example.
In one speech President Bush linked Hobbs and Kant to Wilson and Reagan. It is a plan for the ages. 300 years from now that speech will mark the beggining of the golden age of Man. The speech itself won’t bear fruit for decades.
That doesn’t mean we will be nuking Saudi or Pakistan tommorrow, or ever. It does mean that the foriegn policy of the USA will be directed toward promoting Free Market Democracies (government by consensus). That is a good thing. It is so within the Democrates view of the world that I expect the Democrates to ‘steal’ it.
The Hill-beast especially, with her ‘gobla village’ POV.
Not sure what they teach in Poly Sci over there, but here there are two macro catagories of legislation, Social engineering and wealth re-distribution. Good legislation does both. The homstead act and the G.I Bill were good legislation. Social Securoty isn’t anything except a wealth re-distribution scheme.
The ongoing attempt at a make over is an effort to put an element of social engineering into Social Security.
He may be intelligent, but part of leadership is the ability to communicate your ideas – failure to do so leads to misinterpretation, either wilful or accidental. In a minor position, this may not be a problem, but in the leader of the most powerful nation on earth such lack of communication skills is a major problem.
Whilst it’s true that those who accuse Bush of being stupid are wrong, I find very little evidence of Bush’s supreme intellect either – and this is the problem. Bush has largely failed to convince everyone of his intellectual ability precisely because of his inability to properly communicate it.
Of course, one could take the view that he, at least to some extent, intentionally avoids speaking in a “highbrow” manner, since to do so would be politically disadvantageous – a reputation as an “intellectual” didn’t do Al Gore any good, after all, and Clinton was often regarded as being a bit “too” clever. In contrast, Bush’s manner is (infuriatingly to many) almost the opposite; he seems to revel in his “ordinary” image, as opposed to the clever but untrustworthy image of a Clinton or even a Kerry.
As a “pro-intellectual” person – I believe intelligence should be celebrated where it exists – I find Bush to be frustrating. He very rarely gives much insight into his thoughts, or publicly displays any of his reasoning beyond the soundbites. He typifies a “don’t ask questions, just trust me” attitude which, whilst it might be tolerable under good leadership, is altogether too monarchical. If Bush really is so smart, he’d certainly get a lot more respect from me* if he showed it publicly once in a while.
* I am aware that Bush cares not a jot whether I respect him or not. But since I doubt if Bush cares about any opinions posted here, this is really quite irrelevant to this debate.
Bush had many chances to show conservative credentials early. Instead, he signed welfare for Big Steel, welfare for Big Agriculture and the blatantly unConstitutional Campaign Reform Act.
For this last, he should’ve been impeached (for more serious grounds than was his predecessor–violation of the Oath of Office).
Rebublicans seem to lose their spine upon election as can be seen yet again in the House, as GWB speaks of Social Security reform.
Rob
He may be intelligent, but part of leadership is the ability to communicate your ideas …
Of course, Bush’s inability to communicate his ideas has resulted in two Presidential election wins. How odd. I really can’t be bothered commenting on the rest of your post. I will add, though, that maybe Bush has an advantage in not offering up his intelligence ‘to be celebrated’; he obviously isn’t conceited.
Although of course that never happened in British North America either. At least in British North America when they passed a similar sort of law they tried to keep in mind the protection of the native people who lived in the West already.
When did America overtake Finland?
That doesn’t seem in the least plausable. If you’re going to make stuff up why didn’t you just choose a nice round number like 1000 years?
Well that’s a relief, give us some time to build some fall out shelters in which we can usher in the Golden Age of Man. If that’s what you’re thinking of doing to your “Allies” God only knows what you plan for the rest.
So I guess we’ll be having 4 more years of that then.
He said “God is behind me; God speaks through me.”. If that’s not conceited, I don’t know what is.
In 1939 the maximum Federal Income Tax rate in the US was 4%. 1 in 39 people qualified for the 4% rate, the rest paid less. This was also the first year of withholding…….which if you think about it has more massive political implications than any tax rape…I mean….rate.
The best way to make the world free is to lead by example. That’s my advice to President Bush. Make the US a free country again. I won’t be holding my breath.
If you define best educational system as riving economic growth and nobel prizes, the US system wins hands down. Its very best far outstrip all others.
If you want to take the mean instead, then sure, it’s not. But hey, collectivist methodology like the Euros’ style does result in rather impressive ‘across the board’ kind of achievement, even if it means relatively more brain dead adults later on.
Unfortunately, I tend to agree with Rob. Yes, he did win 2 elections, but too narrowly for real comfort (I did vote for him the second time, for the record). I am convinced, however, that he is genuinely inarticulate. There are many kinds of intelligence, that include different skills. An ability to express one’s self is only one of these skills. A person can be very good at expressing utter crap (I am sure all of you here can come up with good examples). The problem with Bush is that he is uncapable of expressing his good ideas well enough for everyone to understand. I think that if he was, he would have won by a much wider margin.
Not sure what they teach in Poly Sci over there, but here there are two macro catagories of legislation, Social engineering and wealth re-distribution. Good legislation does both. The homstead act and the G.I Bill were good legislation. Social Securoty isn’t anything except a wealth re-distribution scheme.
Commies did try social engineering and wealth re-distribution too.
When the great European (Totalitarian Socialist Welfare) Union crumbles into dust within the next fifteen years, then the world will understand the meaning of President Bush’s 2005 Inaugural speech.
And when Europe is awash in uthopian misery have no fear, America will once again compassionately open her heart to help even the downtrodden cynics of liberty.
On that note, perhaps posting President Lincoln’s second Inaugural speech will help those cynics move beyond their hate in order to understand what President Bush meant. The Slavery Movement will never survive against The Liberty Movement.
Interesting to note, the Lincoln-haters were no different than the Bush-haters. Each equally cannot understand “the fire” that burns in the hearts of man.
Rob writes:
“He may be intelligent, but part of leadership is the ability to communicate your ideas….”
It is pretty clear that many in the USA find Bush’s wooden style appealing. Small wonder when they had to endure the glib, silver-tongued, intellectually empty Clinton, before him.
I’m afraid I can’t help reflecting how the ability you seem to prize so often leads to what we have here in the UK – a Prime Minister with a facile, lazy mind, given to incoherent impulsive panicky gestures, devoid of principle or honesty, more actor than politician, a proven liar, but with sufficient ability to communicate that hoi polloi are repeatedly fooled.
As I have said before, I have little time for Bush, personally. I find his religiosity repellent and his politics far too statist. But the fools who accuse him of stupidity are attacking him for what he is not, not what he is.
In 1939 the maximum US marginal tax rate was 62%, taxes had been very very high since 1931 and the number of rich people had really declined. Marginal taxes were pretty low for a few years in the late 1920s (25%) having been lowered from the 75% they had been in the earlier part of that decade, early in the 20s they also toyed with rasing the maximum tax rate to 100%. In 1941 maximum tax rates were raised to 91%.
So all in all Income taxes were very high after income taxes were introduced, and the current rates are not so much a reflection of a new found love for the populous, rather they are attempts at more efficient tax farming.
I wonder how many past great presidents would be judged harshly in modern times, given the preponderance of technology and instant media.
Not well, I wager.
Bush may not have style, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have substance. Nobody without substance, not even Clinton and Blair, could have gotten reelected. Could they? Hmmmm…
TWG
“God is behind me. God speaks through me.” No, Della, I find that the opposite of conceited. I find it very humble for such a powerful man, especially as we know he means it.
G Cooper, I don’t like excessive religiosity either. And yet, and yet … could he, or anyone, have have taken on such a vast, historic task – that of saving Western civilisation – had he not had profound faith that he was fulfilling god’s will?
That well-known British actor of stage, screen and the TV couch, Tony Wannabee, jumped into the war because War Leader is a role he’d been coveting since he was inexplicably elected to do the role of British prime minister. There is no conviction behind it. It’s one more opportunity for posturing and strutting about. Had it not been for George Bush, Blair would have been “sitting down at the negotiating table” drinking mint tea and giving Britain away to Muslim terrorists. Oh! Wait a minute!
Verity,
“Tony Wannabee, jumped into the war because War Leader is a role he’d been coveting since he was inexplicably elected ….”
I, respectrfully, dissagree.
I’m not a specialist Tony analyst, but I seems to me he did it out of genuine conviction on two points:
1. The moral principle of removing a nasty murderer (Saddam)
2. The importance of maintaning the alliance with the US.
It seems to me, these were deeply felt convictions or principles. Tony fought courageously the public opinion and his own party for his principles.
He deserves the highest of praise for this episode.
Your hatred of Blair should not blind you to the one thing he did right
Now you may resume the normal programming of Blair bashing, for a myriad of other, justified, reasons.
What Jacob said.
Sorry, Jacob, but Anthony Swanky (available for funerals), joined the US in the WoT (despite T Blair apparently believing that terror doesn’t really exist) for two reasons. One was, it was the role he had been hungering for since Margaret Thatcher prosecuted the war for the Falklands. Second, he had been sent in by Jacques and Gerhardt to persuade GWB to go back to the kleptomaniacs retirement home in Manhattan and get its permission, some time in the next 20 years, to prosecute the war and achieve some mythical consonance with “international law”. He is very biddable re Jacques and Gerhardt because he believes if he shows how committed he is, they are going to make him into the king of Yurrop as soon as they ram the “constitution” through.
President Bush did hold off for a few months, but eventually went ahead anyway. By that time, Toneboy was committed and couldn’t lose face by backing out plus, as I said, he felt it was the role of a lifetime.
In order to get permission from Parliament, he corrupted the security service and got them to present as fact what was, in reality only uncomfirmed suspicions about weapons of mass destruction. He also hit on the idea of lmisleading Parliament by telling them there was evidence that Saddam could send those weapons over to Britain within 45 minutes. Bingo! Permission granted! If he didn’t make his first visit to the troops costumed as Lawrence of Arabia, it would only have been because Alastair Campbell wrestled him to the floor and pried his clutching hands off the thobe and keyiffah.
I think we were absolutely right to go to war and I think we are right to stay in Iraq, which I do not believe is a quagmire. We are indebted to those brave people serving in the militaries of the Coalition of The Willing. But Tony Wannabee, who finally did something right, did it for the wrong reasons.
Col.Hogan wrote:
“Bush had many chances to show conservative credentials early. Instead, he signed welfare for Big Steel, welfare for Big Agriculture and the blatantly unConstitutional Campaign Reform Act.”
Instead? you mean Bush has done NOTHING else during his time in office?
He has also stopped federal money being used to promote abortion, an issue which is important to real conservatives. He has stood up for traditional marriage, brought faith back into the public sphere, and his administration has been working hard on defending and protecting the rights of conservatives and Christians in our education system.
Perfect? Hell no. But unlike libertarians, Bush has to work in the real world in which a conservative President has at best 6 years to get as much achieved as possible against entrenched special interests and virulently hate-filled liberal-left opposition. And in President Bush’s case he had to do this while at the same time dealing with an economic recession and the attacks of Sept.11. Under the circumstances Bush has achieved far more than most would have in his place.
Moreover, a commitment to free market economics are not an indication of a person’s conservative credentials, as conservatives have always had a variety of views on economic issues.
Laugh all you want Della, Socialism is dead and will be buried within another 50 years. Free-Market Capitalism has won the battle of the ‘isms’. Fukayama (sp?) was almost right. History isn’t dead, but if you listen closely you will hear the death rattle.
A free market requires consenual government and rule of law. Given those things, nations don’t make war on each other. That alone is enough to reach golden age status. Plus F-15’s have made many kills. Although I doubt that you understand that.
Stehpinkeln – Yes, indeed, but I certainly wouldn’t give the notion of socialism another 50 years! That’s three or four generations! No. Ten years. Toast.
Hangers on, yes. The late Susan Sontag would have been one, but, alas, is no more to join the fight. The critical mass of those dinosaurs will all be dead long before 10 years is up. Those sociology professors in mandatory retirement tapping away at thoughtful books that will be so passé that no publisher will look at them … “iconoclastic” comedians hawking themselves round … the realities of life and the interests of the masses with their attention captured elswhere (namely themselves) will have overtaken the Che generation.
I’d be interested, though, to read why you set such a long-term figure as 50 years on the demise of socialism/Gramscianism.
Coming to this a little bit late, but Re: the GI Bill:
As a current beneficiary of the Montgomery GI Bill, I have a little to say on it. The Montgomery GI Bill is one of those things that makes it possible to keep a voluntary standing military without the coercion of a draft (surely something no libertarian would object to?). It works as a contract to be signed before one actually joins. The way it worked for me was that $100 a month would come out of my salary for my first year in the Navy (a not inconsiderable amount for a junior enlisted person in 1992.)
In return for an honourable discharge and my previous $1200, I get re-imbursed to the tune of about 3 years worth of university tuition to be used within 10 years of leaving (I’m getting c.$400 a month now for part-time education, as long as I am enrolled and passing classes; it just barely covers my tuition after all the exchange from dollars to stirling to dollars again, otherwise it would also cover books). I, and many others I know, probably would never have joined if it wasn’t for the GI Bill. The irony is, that very few people I know actually took advantage of it. I almost suspect that the money they take from paychecks to help finance it probably equals the amount of payout to veterans in educational benefits.
Many of the people who join up see the military and the GI Bill as their ticket out of otherwise crappy lives of gangbanging or flipping burgers, and a way to pay for an education. For better or worse, the US would not be the power it is, or be able to maintain its military force personnel levels, if it wasn’t for the GI Bill.
The GI Bill is a way for Uncle Sam to give in return for service what many Brits and Europeans take (or took, here in Blighty) for granted as a right… a university education.
James G is absolutely right. There is nothing wrong with the GI bill, and I seriously doubt that there is anything unconstitutional about it. If anything, I would be inclined to expand it. as a further incentive to encourage military service.
Nor do I see any problem with state provided welfare and retirement pensions for serving and retired military personnel and their spouses and dependents.
And before anyone makes the point, no, I couldnt care less that this is not in accord with libertarian doctrine.
People are not equal. Those who are, or have served their country in its armed forces deserve and have earned the right to special benifits.
I seem to have upset Jacob and Verity.
Well I did not say that President Bush was stupid. I said that like most recent Presidents (Ronald Reagan SOMETIMES spoke as if he understood something about the Constitution) he did not have a clue about the Constitution he had just sworn to defend.
Actually I doubt that Mr Bush does know much about the Constitution – he certainly would not have been told the truth in either Yale or Harvard.
Would you have liked it better if I had said “he does understand the Constitution and, therefore, has falsely sworn”?
There are no other options. Talk of “political realities” and other such does not alter this.
As for the implied point (Mr Marks of Northamptonshire) that as I am not a citizen I have no right to point things out – well one plus one equals two and if the President of the United States says it does not he is wrong.
By the way, had I been a citizen, I would have voted for Mr Bush. But the fact that he is not as bad as Mr Kerry does not mean that we should pretend that Mr Bush is wonderful (although I accept that taxes have gone down and that some gun control regulations have been got rid of – would that this was so in Britain).
On the President Wilson style dream of spreading democracy all over the Earth (by armed force). Well this great league of world democracy idea goes back to the German philosopher Kant (not known as a writer of the Constitution of the United States).
And whilst it is true that Jefferson was interested in this vision (which, he somewhat mistakenly, connected with the French Revolution – an enterprise that was, from the very start, about robbing and killing, not about setting up a stable polity) Jefferson (whilst a very great man and a great President) was also not a writer of the Constitution of the United States.
Most of the Founders had big doubts about democracy, and (other than PERHAPS Jefferson) I know of none of the Founders who were in favour of “wars for democracy” round the world. And, in office, Jefferson showed no great desire to make war on nondemocratic governments in order to make them democratic (he only supported war against powers that had attacked Americans).
On Iraq: Once a war like this has been undertaken it must be faught to victory (otherwise the United States and Britain will be shown to be weak – which invites attack), but there must be no other wars for democracy.
I believe (or at least hope) that President Bush understands this.
I think that you’ll find when it comes to being glib, Bush is in the lead by a country mile. And Clinton was anything but intellectually empty.