Top Ten Accomplishments of the Bush Administration (from a liberal perspective).

10). Bush has managed to do what even Bill and Hillary could never hope to do: he has destroyed the Republican Party.

9). Rather than soak the rich through tax hikes he simply bankrupted the country so everyone is poor.

8). Dubya’s close identification with private retirement accounts virtually ensures no politician will ever try to privatize Social Security again.

7). G.W.B. is likely to be the last white guy from a backward southern state to make it to the Oval Office for a long time.

6). Bush has managed to turn Clinton fatigue into Clinton nostalgia. Filegate, Pardongate, Travelgate, Monicagate, & Hillarycare. Ah . . . those were the days!

5). Bush’s flight suit photo-op antics makes Michael Dukakis look like Patton in comparison.

4). Hey, it’s only poetic justice for Bush himself to do more than anyone else to overturn Bush vs. Gore in the eyes of History.

3). After three recessions and four wars under two George Bushes we can be damn well sure the country will never elect another George Bush again.

2). Bush’s malapropisms, the so-called Bushisms, represent some of the greatest political humor ever conceived.

1). Bush managed to fuse elements of Elizabethan tragedy and vaudevillian farce. It’s like having Adam Sandler play King Lear. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry, but I can’t stop watching.

Sphere: Related Content

Bush’s State of Disunion

Bush’s State of the Union was a surreal exercise in self-delusion. Virtually everyone – Republicans and Democrats – recognize the Bush administration has been a catastrophic failure, but lawmakers on both sides of the aisles treated our hapless and incompetent president to rapturous applause. It may be a measure of how morally obtuse our political class is that a hoard of legislators sought the autograph of the man who presided over Katrina, Guantanamo, and the tragically mishandled invasion of Iraq.

All the available evidence suggests that George W. Bush is poised to eclipse Andrew Johnson, Warren Harding, and Richard Nixon as the single worst chief executive in presidential history. Still, a dwindling number of Bush sycophants and apologists believe forty-three will be vindicated by history, just as Harry Truman has been. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to square their Pollyannaish views with the grim reality that over the last seven years the United States has suffered an unprecedented and precipitous decline in its national power and moral prestige. Put simply, Bush’s policies have left the United States isolated, drained, and divided while greatly exacerbating the strategic and economic challenges the country faces.

Former Bush scriptwriter, Michael Gerson, tries to put the best spin on Bush’s State of the Union in his column in the Washington Post. Bush, Gerson argues, has remained true to the principles of compassionate conservatism. His faith-based initiatives, AIDS relief efforts, and educational reforms associated with the No Child Left Behind legislation represent the "persistent advocacy" of a compassionate leader. Bush bashing has become an industry fueled on hatred, Gerson implies, of a decent man who aimed to do well.

I’ve never subscribed to the simple-minded view that Gergon attributes to Bush critics, namely, that Bush is "heartless and callous." No doubt, Bush’s legacy will include some admirable and worthy accomplishments. Ironically, however, I believe it is Bush messianic idealism coupled with his personal mediocrity that accounts for the unfolding multiple tragedies his administration is responsible for.

At one time or another, Bush has exhibited an axis-of-mental ills – dyslexia, attention deficit disorder, alcoholism – that probably go a long way to explaining the perverse mixture of hubris and ineptness he has displayed in office. It’s not that Bush is unintelligent, by any means, but his thought processes and reasoning are demonstrably defective. His persistent resort to cliches, mixed metaphors, and non-sequitars, for instance, is a sign of artful demagoguery at best, or serious cognitive deficits at worst.

It’s easy to laugh at the mixed metaphor that has become virtually synonymous with the Bush administration’s spectacular intelligence failure regarding Saddam’s phantom WMD -- "we can’t wait for the smoking gun to become a mushroom cloud" – but as the pundit Karl Kraus recognized long ago, a person’s character is invariably revealed by the way they use language. It’s probably no accident that Bush failed to connect the dots prior to 9/11, and then subsequently connected dots where there was no logical connection (Iraq and al-Qaeda). Likewise, his decision to lump three disparate states into the infamous "axis-of-evil" is another example of Bush connecting the dots where no formal alliance or real-world connection existed.

Bush’s ADD almost certainly has everything to do with the lack of due diligence he displayed in the run up to the Iraq War. Whether it is the infamous sixteen words that everyone agrees should never have appeared in 2003 State of the Union, or the failure to prepare for the occupation of Iraq, Bush’s decision-making processes can best be characterized as rash, impetuous, reckless, and ill considered. He never planned for worst-case scenarios because he mistook prudence for pessimism. And he never allowed evidence or the facts to get in the way of his instincts. Bush’s ADD has made him a deeply irrational decision-maker.

Bush’s "leadership" has been a moral, strategic, and economic calamity for the United States. As recession looms, the deficit swells, and the dollar slumps to new lows it is becoming apparent to most Americans just how much the country has been steered in the wrong direction by the Bush administration. The architect of America’s great unraveling, however, remains largely oblivious to all this. How is this possible? I remember a Town Meeting where President Bush was asked about his decision to go to war with Iraq. Bush defended his war of choice, but surreally blamed Saddam for kicking the UN weapons inspectors out of the country. Much of the audience – and I’m sure Bush too – probably believed the U.S. had done everything it could to avoid war.

The only problem, of course, is that it wasn’t Saddam who kicked the inspectors out of Iraq, it was president Bush that ordered them out because he insisted the inspections weren’t working. Another couple of weeks, Hans Blix contented later, and we’d have known for sure that Saddam never had the alleged WMD stockpiles. Even after the fact, Bush couldn’t admit the truth. It’s a telling revelation of a president who will probably go down in history as the political equivalent of Inspector Clouseau.

Sphere: Related Content

Endorsing Obama: Restoring and Fulfilling the American Dream

Bill Clinton deserves credit for leaving the country better off following his eight years in the White House. Incomes for working Americans were rising, the federal government was running a $236 billion surplus, and military readiness was at an all-time high. Enter George W. Bush: income gains have stagnated and even dropped, health care costs are soaring, the country has mortgaged its future by acquiring $ 3.5 trillion in debt, and the U.S. military is stretched to the breaking point. Even worse, America’s reputation is in tatters while the threats from nuclear proliferation, terrorism, an unstable Middle East, and a rising China have mushroomed exponentially. The United States has never been so isolated, divided, and drained. The next U.S. president must reverse this trend or America’s influence (and its standard of living) will continue in a steep decline.

The candidate most qualified to restore America’s image, articulate and chart a new course for the country, and offer the visionary leadership we so desperately need is Barack Obama. Put simply, everything I’ve seen from the senator from Illinois suggests that he has the character, judgement, and leadership abilities to move the country in positive and progressive direction.
George W. Bush has tarnished the American brand; essentially making the U.S. synonymous with imperial hubris, torture, pre-emptive war, and incompetence. Barack Obama is the one candidate who can transform America’s image from day one following his election. Restoring America’s soft power (its ability to persuade through ideals and example) is not a superfluous luxury. Rather, it is an essential pillar for projecting America’s values by inspiring other countries to emulate the American model.

For example, with the Bush administration’s hegemonic designs in ruins we are rapidly moving to a multipolar world where a rising China and the E.U (already an economic colossus) can check America’s influence and compete on equal terms. It is true, of course, that neither China nor the E.U. can compete with the U.S. militarily, but each can and will seek to extend its sphere of influence and leverage their economic clout to America’s disadvantage. Competition to acquire energy and natural resources from second and third world countries to fuel first world prosperity will depend on economic inducements and diplomatic suasion, proficiencies that have atrophied under the current administration. Put simply, the next American president will have to manage America in a way that suggests to the average second and third world citizen (be they in Africa, the Middle East, or South America) that the American way and an American partnership has more to offer them than competing models.

After eight years of the Bush administration this is a very tall order, but American prosperity cannot be sustained by America’s military power alone (as Iraq has shown). And America will be unable to sustain its military prowess without restoring its economic health (no, borrowing money to pay for tax cuts is not sustainable as the looming Bush Recession is showing).
The run-up to the South Carolina primary, which Obama won handily, revealed just how uninspiring, divisive, and even venal the Clintons can be. Hillary, if you will, is all prose and no poetry. Like her husband she is smart, competent, and part of the reality-based community. But like Bill, she is more of a policy wonk and a technocrat than a visionary statesman.

To be sure, we need leaders who understand how to operate the levers of government. But even more than that we need leaders who will chart a strategic vision for the United States that will revive our country’s long-term economic fortunes and shape an international order where the rule of law supplants the philosophy that has animated both al-Qaeda and the Bush administration: the notion that might makes right. Put simply, double standards and legitimacy are incompatible. And it is the Bush administration’s double standards – "we have the right to use force to impose democracy, launch preventive wars, and torture suspected terrorists" – that has discredited the United States in the eyes of the world.

Dynasties have a tendency to exempt themselves from the rules that bind everyone else. There is a sense of entitlement, of preordainment, and exceptionalism. These habits of mind are characteristic of political aristocracies. And they have proven fatal for George W. Bush. There is much evidence from Hillary’s campaign and character that she shares a mind-set in common with another heir apparent, George W. Bush: particularly an Us vs. Them mentality, a psychological need for enemies, a messianic self-certainty, and a congenital inability to admit mistakes.

Obama is the un-Clinton and the un-Bush. He is not a polarizing triangulator (Clinton) or a demagogic divider (Bush). Rather, his diverse background contains the seeds of a remarkable personal journey and psychological integration that somehow seems to reflect the collective need of our globalized age. It’s not "Us vs. Them" for Barack, it’s "We are all in this together." That’s the story of his life and what he represents. And it says a lot that the Clintons resorted to the Republican playbook to try and take Obama down.

Is America ready for an African American president? I believe it is and I hope so because I’m convinced he’s the best person for the job of restoring and fulfilling the American Dream.

Sphere: Related Content

Top Ten Reasons Bush is NOT Responsible for the Recession

10) "Since when has George ever been responsible for anything." -- Barbara Bush

9) "There’s still 11 months time for wealthy benefactors to bail out U.S. economy, just like they’ve always done when Jr. screwed up in business." – Anonymous Administration Official

8) "Dick told me for sure that "Deficits don’t matter."" -- G.W.B

7) "As consumers spend the economy will mend." -- New Cliché/Slogan/Policy the brain trust in the Bush Administration has come up with to deal with the financial crisis.

6) "The Fed Chairman assures me that they have enough green ink and krinkly paper to continue printing dough as long as needed. And may I add, they’re doing a heck of a job over there at the Treasury." -- George W. Bush

5) Bush ordered super-duper secret program to buy Lotto tickets just in case the economy went south. Critics will be eating crow when the Commander-in-chief hits the jackpot.

4) "War, recession, and natural disasters. I’m sure glad my last job as the part-owner of the Texas Rangers prepared me to be a great leader." -- George "Dubya" Bush

3) "Wealthy foreigners have no choice but to keep lending us money or we won’t be able to afford their products. We really have them over a barrel, Big Time." -- Top administration figure speaking from a secure location (well stocked with ammo and canned goods) who would only identify himself as D.C.

2) "The Book of Revelation predicts the mother of all financial meltdowns just before the end of times. This recession is part of God’s plan." – Mike Huckabee (presidential candidate).

1) Sure, it's easy to blame Bush for mishandling Katrina, the disaster in Iraq, failing to capture bin Laden, and the what is shaping up as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, but you got admit the guy is a barrel of laughs.

Sphere: Related Content

The Bush Recession

The politicians in Washington have a sure-fire plan to cure the credit crisis, which is fomenting a recession: borrow money and lend it to over-stretched consumers so they can continue spending like there is no tomorrow. Of course, the knuckleheads in Washington won’t tell Americans how they are going to pay for the $150 billion dollar stimulus package that aims to give individual taxpayers rebates of up to $800. It sounds good in the same way that a prescription for a gallon of chocolate-chip ice cream per day might sound good to a diabetic, but it is only a way of postponing the inevitable reckoning the occurs to every country that lives well beyond its means.

The Spanish Empire faced a similar predicament under Phillip the II before it crumbled. Spain didn’t manufacture much of anything, but it had more than its fair share of financial "wizards" who continually found clever ways to repackage debt. The Conquistadors, too, were big on plundering gold from the New World (which for a time kept the Spanish Empire afloat), just as the Bush administration was banking on exploiting Iraq’s black gold (in order to break the back of OPEC and keep petroleum prices down) as a way of keeping America’s ailing auto industry afloat.

Getting $150 billion dollars into the hands of American consumers makes a lot more sense than hundreds of billions we’ve spent turning Iraqi into a Disneyland for Islamic extremists. But for the most part, the Bush administration has failed to invest America’s resources in wise ways that will ensure a more prosperous future.

Dick Cheney, of course, once argued that "deficits don’t matter" and that conservation cannot be the sound basis of a national energy policy. According to Cheney’s logic, nations that are getting rich hoarding U.S. Treasury bonds (China) or selling us oil (Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) have no other choice but to continue to subsidize our trade deficit, lest we stop buying their products (be they plasma TVs or petroleum). The only problem, of course, is that we are becoming the American Indians who traded Manhattan for beads and trinkets. That is, we are trading our future for lead painted toys, poisoned dog food, and fossil fuels that exacerbate global warming.

Americans are a lot poorer today than they were when Bush took office seven years ago. The price of oil, for instance, has quintupled. And Bush’s massive $1.3 trillion dollar tax cuts exploded the deficit just before huge federal outlays were needed deal with the 9/11 attacks, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the rebuilding New Orleans following Katrina. The steep decline in the dollar is an indication that international lenders have lost confidence in the economic and strategic course charted by the Bush administration.

The fiscal stimulus the Bush administration is touting seems suspiciously like the surge in Iraq. That is, both are Band-Aids intended to buy the Bush administration time so that things don’t fall entirely apart until after they are out of office. Make no mistake, the gathering economic storm clouds are a consequence of Bush administration policies that have been bankrupting the country, both morally and fiscally. Tax cuts without fiscal discipline are the economic equivalent of steroids; they confer a temporary advantage, but they weaken the nation’s fiscal health over the long term. But hey, you can’t say you weren’t warned. After all, George W. Bush always said about his tax cuts, "It’s your money, you paid for it."

Sphere: Related Content

William Kristol and Fairy Tales

William Kristol is to serious political commentary what Liberace is to classical music; sure, he's got some talent, but the closer you listen to him the worse he sounds. Kristol, of course, has been one of the most indefatigable cheerleaders for the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq. Recently, he has taken to chastising leading Democrats for opposing the so-called surge, contending that Bush’s decision to increase the number of troops in Baghdad was an act of great political courage that has turned the tide in Iraq.

As someone who opposed the war – but after much agonizing reluctantly concluded that the surge was probably the best of our really bad options – I am deeply skeptical of Kristol’s glib assessment that the surge is in the process of being vindicated. Put simply, the surge has bought the Bush administration some valuable time, but the underlying conditions in Iraq remain anything but conducive to a national reconciliation.

The inherently limited duration of the surge has brought a short-term reduction in violence, but there are numerous reasons to believe the tactical momentum General Petraeus has achieved will prove to be something of a mirage. For one thing, nearly every force allied against the United States – from Sadr’s militia to al-Qaeda in Iraq – has an incentive to lay low before the U.S. is forced to reduce troop levels sometime later in 2008. Second, The Sunni militias we are arming to fight al-Qaeda now may turn their weapons against the Iraqi government later. And third, so long as corruption remains rampant, and the disbursement of political power and Iraqi oil revenues is based on tribal affiliations, then Iraq is likely to remain a dysfunctional state. U.S. troops, in short, are likely to be tied down in Iraq for decades in order to prevent the country from disintegrating into a Hobbesian nightmare.

Kristol chides Democrats for failing to "celebrate" progress in Iraq. I have to say I find Kristol’s snide obtuseness here morally repugnant. Four million Iraqis have been displaced from their homes, between 160,000 and 600,000 Iraqis have been killed, and "success" has been defined down so much that achieving it may mean little more than mitigating the threats unleashed by the invasion and botched occupation itself. Put simply, Kristol resembles nothing so much as an analyst who hyped Enron’s stock and then cleared his conscience by recommending investors could recoup their losses by selling their certificates on e-Bay.

Here, it is worth remembering that invading and occupying Iraq has not advanced America’s strategic interests. On the contrary, morally, fiscally, and militarily the occupation has been a catastrophe that has isolated, drained, divided, and diverted the United States in ways that have diminished its capacity to respond to other vital challenges. For instance, it has impeded our efforts to capture or kill bin Laden, which would have been a surefire way of delivering a knockout blow to al-Qaeda. Instead, the Bush administration led America astray with its quixotic fairly tale of turning Iraq into a beacon of democracy that would supposedly inspire a regional transformation in the Middle East).

Bush has bet not only his legacy on succeeding in Iraq, but also America’s future. The emergence of democracy, however, takes at minimum a generation, but by that time the nuclear genie may be out of the bottle as Islamic extremists based in Pakistan, Europe, or even the United States may have already detonated a WMD in a major American city. The enormous resources in blood and treasure America invested in Iraq may easily come to naught overnight. The historian Arnold Toynbee would have recognized the folly of the Bush administration’s faith-based foreign policy. After all, as he observed societies that reform themselves are more apt to succeed than societies that attempt to reform the rest of the world. If the past is prologue, Cassandra’s pessimism will prove more prophetic than the Pollyannaish fairy tale that that the Neocons like Kristol sold Bush on.

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary Clinton's Crocodile Tears?

Hillary Clinton’s voice usually has all the warmth and humanness of a computer-generated telemarketer. Her halting cadence, monotonous tone, and bland delivery remind me of the pod people in the sci-fi classic, The Invasion of the Body Snatchers. As much as I detest George W. Bush, and everything his administration stands for, I’m not sure I’m ready to vote for someone who acts like a Queen Bee. I can deal with Alpha Males, but Hillary’s stinging stares and venomous glares against her campaign rivals make them appear like male drones about to be devoured.

Hillary’s tears certainly stung Obama’s chances in New Hampshire. But was Hillary’s misty-eyed emotional display spontaneous or a carefully choreographed political calculation? Her words certainly seemed finely calibrated to appeal to a demographic that would prove crucial to her victory, namely young, single working mothers. For instance, Hillary expressed her presidential aspiration in terms any waitress, hygienist, or sales clerk could identify. "It’s not easy," Hillary began, "but some of us put ourselves out there everyday . . . against great odds . . . because we care about our country, each one of us."

Substitute the word "family" for "country" and many single moms could imagine themselves saying exactly the same thing. Hillary’s masterstroke was to frame her campaign in the political arena as the same kind of struggle working women face everyday. She then added a clever coda: "Some of us are right, and some of her wrong. Some of are ready, and some of us not." Ironically, her presumptuous catchphrase, "Some of us are right, some of us are wrong," is nothing but a kinder, gentler version of Bush’s Manichean slogan (i.e., "you are either with us or against us").

Was Nixon’s "Checkers Speech" authentic or contrived? In a figure as complex as Nixon it may have been both. Perhaps it doesn’t matter if Hillary’s campaign-saving emotional display was spontaneous or not, it was effective political theatre in a realm where everyone is an actor to some extent. A lot of voters clearly found Hillary’s emotional display refreshing, and the candidate clearly believes she has found her voice. But it says something about the electorate that what Hillary said was far less decisive than how she said it. After all, when it came to the Iraq War some of us (including Obama) were right, and Hillary was wrong.

Sphere: Related Content