Is President Bush a right wing extremist, as Al Gore charged, or is he the socialist Bristol baby conspiracy theorist Andrew Sullivan implied and conspiracy theorist at large Lew Rockwell insists?
The answer is neither, of course. But the president has surely taken a beating from both sides of political center over his two terms in the White House. Ed Gillespie explodes some of the myths from both left and right about the Bush record in an op-ed for RealClearPolitics.com.
Democrats have attacked the president for his tax cuts, and the meme “Tax Cuts for the Rich” became one of Barack Obama’s most often repeated talking points during the campaign. In reality, says Gillespie:
There are not 116 million “wealthy Americans,” but that’s how many taxpayers benefited from the President’s tax relief. The across-the-board tax cuts provided tax relief to every American who pays income taxes, created a new bottom 10 percent bracket rate, doubled the child tax credit to $1,000, and actually increased the share of the Federal income tax burden paid by the top 10 percent of individual earners from 67 percent in 2000 to 70 percent in 2005. Furthermore, this Administration removed 13 million low-income earners from the income tax rolls completely.
Environmentalists and other liberals charged that George W. Bush payed no attention to issues that are of concern to them. Gillespie counters:
From 2001 to 2007, air pollution decreased by 12 percent, and fine particulate matter pollution is down 17 percent since 2001. Ethanol production quadrupled from 1.6 billion gallons in 2000 to 6.5 billion gallons in 2007, wind energy production has increased by more than 400 percent, and solar energy capacity has doubled. In 2007, solar installations increased more than 32 percent and the U.S. produced 96 percent more biodiesel (490 million gallons) than in 2006. The Administration also provided nearly $18 billion to research, develop, and promote alternative and more efficient energy technologies such as biofuels, solar, wind, clean coal, nuclear, and hydrogen.
Liberals, especially some members of Congress who refused to admit that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were out of control and were receiving large sums of money from the two government-sponsored entities, have attempted to lay the blame for the financial meltdown and our current economic problems at Bush’s feet for his deregulatory policies. Gillespie points out that the Bush tax cuts gave the country an unprecedented 52-month run of uninterrupted job growth, with 8.3 million jobs created. In addition:
This reflected six consecutive years of economic growth from the Fourth Quarter of 2001 until the Fourth Quarter of 2007. From 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a remarkable gain of nearly 2.1 trillion dollars. This growth was driven in part by increased labor productivity gains that have averaged 2.5 percent annually since 2001, a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, ’80s, and ’90s. In the same period, real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent, and there was a 4.7 percent increase in the number of new businesses formed.
Gillespie also has something for the “Bush is a socialist” crowd:
Teenage drug use has declined 25 percent; in 2007, the violent crime rate was 43 percent lower than the rate in 1998; between 2005 and 2007, the chronically homeless population decreased approximately 30 percent; funding for veterans’ medical care has increased more than 115 percent; and as of 2005, the most recent abortion rate is at its lowest since 1974.
And one last fact: Our homeland has not suffered another terrorist attack since September 11, 2001. That, too, is part of the real Bush record.
Michael Novak lists some more of the president’s conservative accomplishments:
No president has ever been so strongly conservative on the pro-life front as President Bush. He has consistently labored to protect the human rights of the unborn, and has acted similarly when it comes to other important pro-life matters.
Bush signed the Partial Birth Abortion ban and the ban on funding abortions through UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund). He also restored and expanded the Mexico City agreement. He capped, by executive order, federal funding for embryonic-stem-cell research and vetoed legislation that would have violated this boundary. (He did not prohibit private embryonic stem-cell research, but, rather, he acted according to the Jeffersonian principle that it is odious to tax people for actions that they morally abhor.) He dedicated unprecedented funds to abstinence education through the Department of Health and Human Services.
And on family legislation?
Bush endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment, which defines marriage as a contract between one man and one woman. He repeatedly speaks of the family as the “unseen pillar of civilization.” He was the first president to sign a school-choice bill to give parents greater freedom in deciding where their children will be educated.
He has committed his administration, through the Departments of Justice and State, to halting sex trafficking and modern forms of slavery throughout the world, and he has appointed an ambassador to oversee such reforms. He has dedicated funding to prepare prisoners for productive lives after they leave prison.And on big domestic issues?
He signed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which will curb Medicare/Medicaid spending by $11 billion over the next five years. He braved the “third rail” of American politics in his attempt to reform Social Security. He implemented deregulation across all government agencies. He ordered every department of government to assess points of cooperation with faith-based initiatives….
And with regards to the courts, in just six years President Bush has nominated and seen confirmed 30 percent of all sitting federal judges, as well as two very intelligent and solid conservative jurists on the Supreme Court, Justices Roberts and Alito.
I won’t go as far as Novak does in maintaining that George W. Bush “defined a new kind of conservatism.” His so-called compassionate conservatism isn’t conservatism in my view, and no president who allows the sort of unrestrained federal spending that GWB did without reaching for the veto pen deserves to be called a conservative.
In my opinion, President George W. Bush is a centrist who ventured into liberal seas as much as he steered into conservative waters. Some of his policies were very conservative, and some were very liberal. After the wash, GWB remains a centrist. He is also a good human being and a true gentleman. He wasn’t the conservative that conservatives hoped for, nor was he the ogre that liberals say he is. Aside from his unshakable determination to keep the nation safe from jihadist attacks, conservatives can be proud (not to mention thankful) that they had Bush to kick around instead of a President Gore or a President Kerry.
- JP
Neil Stevens
Steve Maley
NEITHER!
kyle8 (Diary) Monday, December 22nd at 6:11PM EST (link)He was the modern Herbert Hoover, a well meaning man with some slightly conservative leanings who believed in big government and had no real conservative values or vision.
A man with a level of stubbornness that could easily be misunderstood as steadfastness.
“Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty”
Kyle
I would opt for a modern day Jimmy Carter.
mbecker908 (Diary) Monday, December 22nd at 6:57PM EST (link)But the net result is the same.
I think history will not be kind to GWB, but that’s nothing but guesswork on my part. I am sure, however, that in the near term he will not be well regarded.
Put me down for "Bush is a [pro-life] socialist"
ZootSuit (Diary) Monday, December 22nd at 6:32PM EST (link)Indeed, the Gillespie quotations you use to “prove” that Bush was not a socialist have absolutely nothing to do with that question. Quite frankly, Josh Painter, you are being disingenuous. Whether you personally believe Bush is a socialist or not, the Gillespie article, and specifically the quote used, does not address that question one way or another.
***** Unrepentant African-American nationalist, Unapologetic African-American conservative!
Quite frankly, Zootsuit...
Josh Painter (Diary) Monday, December 22nd at 8:09PM EST (link)you’re ignoring the half of the article which references Michael Novak. Read the whole thing and get back to me.
- JP
“An armed society is a polite society” – Robert A. Heinlein, “Beyond This Horizon” (1942)
But even Michael Novak doesn't provide evidence that Bush is not a socialist
ZootSuit (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 10:59AM EST (link)Bush is pro-life and pro-family: agreed!
Of the many, many things I have against George W. Bush, I think he was fairly strong here. And this despite the fact that he tried to put Harriett Miers on the High Court and really did not fight for his nominees on the lower court.
As for the “big domestic issues”:
1) “He signed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which will curb Medicare/Medicaid spending by $11 billion over the next five years.”
But he gave us the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act with Medicare Part D, which even the White House Budget now gives a 10-year cost estimate of $1.2 trillion. That alone is 1100x greater than the amount Bush “saved” with the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and that cost estimate itself is the low ball figure.
2) “He braved the “third rail” of American politics in his attempt to reform Social Security.”
And absolutely NOTHING was done about it. Sorry, but this was just vaseline: like I said, Bush talked a good game but rarely if ever delivered.
3) “He implemented deregulation across all government agencies.”
Can you please give substantive examples?
4) “He implemented deregulation across all government agencies. He ordered every department of government to assess points of cooperation with faith-based initiatives…”
So what? This matters little in an argument against Bush’s socialism if it still means that the size and scope of the government has still increased greater than at any time since the New Deal.
And to the point in Michael Novak’s article that you do not quote:
5) “He signed into law prescription drug assistance for the elderly — the first and only health-care reform in modern history to win a nearly 90-percent approval rating and to come in substantially under budget.”
Surely Novak is not referencing the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, which again is estimated to cost at least $1,200,000,000,000 over the first ten years? What should we now be happy that the estimates are not $1,500,000,000,000?
And indeed, I must wonder where and how Michael Novak can say that it came substantially under budget when all through the process — and even now afterward — the cost estimates have ALWAYS gone up. That program is definitely NOT under budget.
So bottom line, whether you or I think George W. Bush was a socialist or not, neither Gillespie’s nor Novak’s article refutes the claim that he was.
***** Unrepentant African-American nationalist, Unapologetic African-American conservative!
Bush Was a Conservative
Joe Cor (Diary) Monday, December 22nd at 6:59PM EST (link)However, he always coveted the approval of the left. As a result, he was a wash policy-wise, while a political disaster.
excellent point
indym (Diary) Monday, December 22nd at 7:08PM EST (link)Huh?
mbecker908 (Diary) Monday, December 22nd at 10:27PM EST (link)You’ve gotta splane that one to me.
As I recall he…
Went to the UN for permission to invade Iraq.
Presided over the biggest expansion of government in recent history.
Allowed Congress (a Republican Congress no less) to spend money like drunken sailors would love to be able to.
Made exactly no effort to reduce the size or scope of government.
Signed bills that he said were unconstitutional in the hope that SCOTUS would back him up. They didn’t.
Never even attempted to enforce existing immigration law.
Attempted to rewrite the immigration laws effectively offering amnesty to some 15 million illegal aliens.
I suppose I could go on, but you should get the idea. Anyway, please provide specifics if you really thing GWB is a conservative. ‘Cause he ain’t.
As I Said, He Wanted the Left's Approval
Joe Cor (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 8:11AM EST (link)Hence, he was deferential to the UN. (But I think Tony Blair had a big part in that.) Although I think it was untilmately incredibly foolish, because you don’t ask for permission if you don’t think you need it.
Didn’t want to make waves so he didn’t veto a bill in his first term.
He was against the campaign finance bill (a conservative position). He signed it because he was afraid of confronting the left.
I don’t fault him on the prescription drug bill, because he never would have been elected without it.
Was not a conservative on immigration, I’ll agree. But see how aggressive he was there. He had the left’s approval, so all his diminutive, New Tone style was suddenly inoperative.
He was often conservative, but timidly so. He was very tentative in his attempts to reform social security. He was afraid to defend his decision to invade Iraq. He tried to classify information that would have helped to make his case.
He was, I believe, a confused man. His instincts were conservative, but he felt his second-class social status for not being a liberal. He dealt with that by bending over backwards, to absurd degrees, to appease liberals. He was a conservative without the the courage of his coservative convictions.
He was often a conservative...
mbecker908 (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 9:14AM EST (link)Yeah? When? You keep citing all those myriad of times when he acted like a liberal and you have yet to cite a single instance of conservatism.
And, FYI, “a conservative without the the courage of his coservative (sic) convictions” is not a conservative.
He was conservative
Joe Cor (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 10:18AM EST (link)in proposing a market-based solution to social security. He was a timid conservative in dropping it as soon as Democrats demonized it.
He was conservative in being pro-life. For the most part, however, he spoke “in code” on this issue. He vetoed the stem-cell embryonic research bill. One of his finest hours, I believe. He believed in saving Terri Schaivo’s life. Not enough, however, to intervene or even speak out once the media demonized the effort.
He acted aggressively in taking out Saddam. But was too timid to defend his decision once it was demonized.
He supported a limited missle defense. A conservative move.
He appointed two conservative Supreme Court Judges. He timidly tried to get Harriet Miers on the court so that he wouldn’t get a fight from the Democrats. He believed in conservative judges, just didn’t fight very hard when Democrats obstructed.
He vetoed a few spending bills his second term. A conservative move.
He spoke out against too much government intervention in the economic crisis. Quietly, I’ll admit. And then caved in the last few days. But I still contend his instincts were conservative on this.
CONCLUSION: BUSH IS A HYBRID?
Rod_Patrick (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 10:24AM EST (link)He started as a conservative but turned out to be highly liberal in spending,,,,and in his last 6 months in office, he has become a crony to bailout-loving Democrats.
In the end, Bush is hailed as the King of Bailout Bipartisanship.
I agree with your thoughts
indym (Diary) Monday, December 22nd at 7:13PM EST (link)History may be kinder to George W. Bush if Iraq and Afghanistan are able to build stable democracies and have a positive influence on their nieghbors. However overall I think his presidential ranking will be lower that Bill Clinton.
Bush
deepredpatriot Monday, December 22nd at 8:26PM EST (link)Bush has been one of our greatest presidents, I believe. He didn’t listen to the so called experts in the state department and CIA who wanted us to do absolutely nothing in response to September 11th. He also re-introduced Christian values into government.
The difficulties we have had in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the economy are 99% the fault of liberals. He also got blamed for New Orleans not getting on their buses. For 8 years he held the line against the liberal media and academia which despises all that is truly American. With Bush in the White House, one could be confident the government wouldn’t actively attempt to destroy traditional American culture. With Obama you can’t say that. Obama is a closet socialist influenced by fundamentalist Islamic, and secular thinking, and his followers are prejudiced against white Christians, and seek to use government to force minority culture and values on the rest of us. I would vote for Bush if he could run again.
almost nothing you said is correct
kyle8 (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 9:26AM EST (link)He did not bring any sort of christian values to Washington, that place is still a sewer. No one in the state dept was proposing that we do nothing in reaction to 9/11.
He bears much responsibility for the housing crisis as it was official administration policy to promote home ownership among minorities.
He was very socialist/big government oriented and that continues with his auto bailout. He got everything wrong in Iraq for three years and almost waited too long to change strategy.
Even the one thing in his administration that he did get right, the Supreme Court appointments, he almost screwed that up with Harriet Miers.
No, I am afraid he will not be remembered as a good president.
“Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty”
Kyle
Let's be fair
JustLeaveMeAlone (Diary) Wednesday, December 24th at 12:06AM EST (link)GWB gets called a liberal here because of his apparent embrace of big government. But criminy, he’s hardly the only Republican “conservative” to say one thing and do another in that area!
In fact, I’m hard-pressed to name any Republican who manages to get elected to a DC job and doesn’t throw out the whole shrink-the-federal-bureaucracy thing within minutes of arriving in town. I swear it’s a symptom of Potomac fever that crosses the aisle with no barrier. They must give ‘em a dose along with the Oath of Office.
Oh sure, you can find the occasional obscure Rep who has voted against Big Guvment here and there, but I really can’t think of anyone who holds the line all the time. If such a person exists, someone point them out to me, please. Not just someone who preaches it, but someone who lives it.
GWB did what I wanted him to do. He nominated good people for the Supremes, and he’s kept us free of terror at home since 9/11. For those two things, I can forgive the rest.
And I believe he is a genuinely decent and caring man, and yes, stubborn — thank God. We’re about to experience someone whose ready to hand over the nuclear codes to anyone who asks if they’ll just invite him to tea; I fear we’ll soon wish we had a stubborn, bull-headed, die-hard patriotic, America-first and damn the torpedos president.
“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” Thomas Jefferson
Not One of The Best
bc3 Tuesday, December 23rd at 12:31AM EST (link)I also doubt that history will be kind to Bush43. He had a tremendous opportunity to unite the country after 9-11 and actually did so for about 90 days.
George Bush has two fatal flaws. He is an incredibly stubborn man and an incredibly poor communicator.
He did far more damage to the GOP and conservatives than the Democratic
Parrty could everdo.
bc3
True: He was a horrible communicator, and stubbornly chose to remain so. [nt]
Martin Knight (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 9:44AM EST (link)5!
Rod_Patrick (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 9:56AM EST (link)GWB wasn't the only Republican from '00 - '08
Achance (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 11:30AM EST (link)Since we kicked Gingrich to the curb, there has been NO ONE who could/would effectively articulate a Republican message. Each member of Cogress went his own way and while we had a National effort in each election, we had no Nationalized campaign message.
GWB did a terrible job of nuts and bolts government – leaks, sabotage, too many holdovers, poor appointments, and never effectively communicated nor defended his policies and actions. Unfortunately, nobody else communicated or defended them either.
In Vino Veritas
bc3, mbecker908 and kyle8, I wholeheartedly agree with you!
ZootSuit (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 11:04AM EST (link)Bush was simply a pro-life liberal. And, in my opinion, not a very competent one at that.
The really, really sad thing is that after all is sad and done, I do think Bill Clinton will go down as a better and more successful President than Bush. And I say this as someone who still has very serious issues (to put it politely) with Bill Clinton and his Administration.
***** Unrepentant African-American nationalist, Unapologetic African-American conservative!
No. You have to include his defcon creds also
Bill S (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 11:08AM EST (link)If you consider the 3 legs of the conservative stool to be Social, Fiscal, and Defense, Bush definitely qualifies on two of the three – socon and defcon. It’s the fiscal leg where is is an out-and-out liberal.
“It’s such a fine line between stupid, and clever.” – David St. Hubbins
I disagree
Bob_Frazier (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 11:28AM EST (link)With our Southern border wide open, Bush has badly handled the defense leg. Waging war against Iraq and Afghanistan, especially the way the former was botched, does not make for a strong defense leg of the conservative stool.
Plus, he was the first president to support funding for embryonic stem cell research. Even Clinton did not do that.
He is a failure in all three legs. And here he is setting everything up for Obama so that Republicans will take the blame for introducing socialism into America.
Fellow republicans, thanks to the “bailout” we are looking at two generations in the wilderness. Even now, where is the condemnation of George W. Bush over this?
Bob Frazier, I agree here with you so much that ...
ZootSuit (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 12:08PM EST (link)I think you may be me.
***** Unrepentant African-American nationalist, Unapologetic African-American conservative!
Conservative Enough?
OneAmericanChristian Tuesday, December 23rd at 12:33PM EST (link)Considering the fact that I don’t care if he was conservative enough for anyone… I think President Bush has been a great President. I grow just as weary of “conservatives” attacking the man as I do liberals. George W. Bush will be looked at as a great defender of freedom and human rights. Defender of the unborn, liberator of the Iraqi people, caregiver to the continent of Africa, protector of American cities, diplomat for Chinese Christians, and the list goes on and on…
He wasn’t perfect, but he did his best. I wish we had a shrinking deficit, I wish we had a trade surplus, I wish we had Federal Life and Marriage amendments…but I also wish you would show President Bush the honor and respect he deserves.
I like Bush as a person
aesthete (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 2:57PM EST (link)And have tremendous respect for the Office of the Presidency (I’ll give him credit for the good things he’s done in office, as well, such as our current good relations with India), but c’mon! We don’t pick Presidents to “caregive” to Africa, or to be a diplomat to Chinese Christians. We pick our Presidents to keep America strong and prosperous, not to be the rest of the world’s Santa Claus. In point of fact, the idea that the government’s foreign policy should keep the focus on other nations’ well-being, rather than our own, is a liberal position.
And if you truly believe that he did his best, may I suggest that your opinion of George Bush’s potential as a president is vastly lower than my own, and smacks of (to use the quote) “the soft bigotry of low expectations”.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
Bigotry LOL :-p
OneAmericanChristian Tuesday, December 23rd at 11:29PM EST (link)I certainly didn’t see that one coming, lol. I could argue with you on a few points, but I’m not in the mood. One thing I will say is this…I want a President who will stand up for the millions of persecuted Christians around the world, and I think Bush has taken a step in the right direction in that regard.