Cowboys and Eggheads

mollyjp · #1 (**permalink**) 05-28-2005, 11:28 AM

Quote:

From the June 6, 2005 issue of The Nation
Cowboys and Eggheads

Eric Alterman

Liberal Democrats today are faced with an unhappy paradox. The most significant factor in John Kerry's defeat was that, according to exit polls, 79 percent of voters who said terrorism or national security determined their vote chose the chickenhawk over the war hero. Though they agreed with the Democrats on most issues--and agreed, by a 49 to 45 percent margin, according to election day exit polls, that the Iraq War had made us less, not more, secure--a majority of voters still felt safer with the idea of George W. Bush minding the store. Based on the evidence, it is almost a perfectly irrational reaction to reality. Everything the Bush Administration has done in the security realm has proved not merely wasteful and ineffective but counterproductive. Consider the following:

§ Osama bin Laden remains free, and Al Qaeda has been allowed to regroup.

§ Iraq, which was not a terrorist threat before Bush attacked it, now accounts for the killing and maiming of Americans daily.

§ North Korea, the world's most dangerously irrational regime, stands poised to test a nuclear bomb.

§ Iran, another regime motivated by fear and hatred of the United States, also stands poised to develop a nuclear weapon.

§ The most obvious terrorist targets in America--nuclear and chemical plants, water and food supplies and transportation networks--remain as vulnerable to terrorists as they were on September 10, 2001, endangering as many as 12 million people in a single attack.

§ Outside our borders, America is hated as never before, inspiring terrorist recruitment across the Islamic world.

All of these negative developments are the result of Bush Administration policies that required the reversal or rejection of Democratic alternatives. In some cases the Administration achieved its aims by deliberate deception, fooling more than a few supposedly tough-minded "liberal hawks" about not only its evidence but also its intentions--and in a few cases it did so with scare tactics designed to exploit the emotions aroused by the 9/11 attacks. In none of these instances, however, did the Administration win its argument with an honest assessment of the evidence or consideration of available alternatives.

Democrats have a separate set of answers for the problems that bedevil US security policy, as Matthew Yglesias concluded after he surveyed a host of foreign policy programs from the leading Democratic-oriented think tanks and independent analysts in a recent issue of The American Prospect. He found a strong consensus on the kinds of steps necessary to develop a foreign policy that will increase our level of protection from catastrophic terrorist attack at home while rebuilding our alliances for the purpose of frustrating the organization and implementation of attacks from abroad. Yglesias included reports from the Democratic Leadership Council, the Century Foundation, the Center for American Progress and the House Homeland Security Committee minority staff. I would add a recently published compendium of articles from the Open Society Institute and the newly formed Security and Peace Institute, titled Restoring American Leadership, which does a good job of summing up the position. None are exactly bedtime reading--unless you're trying to fall asleep. And, of course, the problems created and/or exacerbated by the Administration aren't easily solvable; nobody really knows what to do about the unholy mess in Iraq or how to talk North Korea down from its nuclear pretensions now that the Administration's all stick, no carrot policy has proved a miserable failure. Even so, almost all these reports would appeal to any sane person who believes, for instance, that when one particular group attacks your nation, it is a good idea to fight those people rather than another group of people who may speak a similar language, have a similar skin color and practice the same religion but had nothing to do with the attack.

And yet making sense on foreign policy is not enough. It may actually be a net negative. As Bill Clinton famously explained, Americans prefer a President who appears "strong and wrong" to one who seems right but looks weak. If that means getting a bunch of innocent people killed or making foreign policy problems worse, so be it. Council on Foreign Relations president emeritus Leslie Gelb admitted as much when he wrote on the Wall Street Journal editorial page of the Democrats' alleged "Cheney Envy." (No, I do not think this was a reference to recent photos of the VP appearing on the Internet.) Gelb argued that "sometimes, even often, he and President Bush use [military power] too blatantly and bluntly, and it backfires. Such has been true of the administration's clumsy and erratic efforts to stop nuclear weapons programs in Iran and North Korea." Nor does it matter that Bush and Cheney "let U.S. forces march off to smash Saddam without a plan to win the peace, or...[that their] contempt alienated our closest allies needlessly." What matters, at least politically, he argued, is that "Americans need to feel assured that our leaders will crush those who would hurt us. Correctly or incorrectly, Americans wonder whether Democrats have the stomach for this. They don't wonder about Mr. Cheney or Mr. Bush."

It's true that the Iraq War has grown increasingly unpopular since the election, and future developments in Iran and North Korea may further reinforce the Administration's failure to face up to the limitations of its aggressive unilateralism. But the fact remains that the only two presidential elections won by a Democrat since 1976 took place in the brief interregnum between the end of the cold war and the beginning of the "war on terror." It's not as if Americans suddenly trusted Democrats on security issues; it is that they allowed themselves to privilege economic issues--where Democrats have long enjoyed the advantage.

So there's the conundrum. Talk tough and reach for your revolver often, and Americans might let you craft their healthcare, education and family-leave policies. Speak sensibly about foreign policy, and even if they agree with you, they'll go for the guy with the gun.

So what do you all think? How do smart guys win elections when even if voters agree with you on most issues they still vote for the other guy?

bubbly_1 · #2 (**permalink**) 06-02-2005, 11:41 AM

I hear myself saying ... what is the world coming to... alot lately. Then I remind myself oh yeah how did we get here... by Bush. It just pisses me off with all the important big issues that he should be focusing on and instead he's all about the war in Iraq

I have no clue how he managed to get elected... must have put a spell on most of the population or something. I didn't vote for him either time and I'm proud to tell people.

Quote:

As Bill Clinton famously explained, Americans prefer a President who appears "strong and wrong" to one who seems right but looks weak.

I love that quote. As a country we need someone who is going to make us look good.

tabrown · #3 (**permalink**) 06-02-2005, 12:35 PM

What is funny is I was telling my DH the other day that this administration acts like the group of 'dumb jocks' that you had to deal with in high school. Tight-knit, eager to fight and belittle anyone who wasn't 'like them', yet not very well read. I honestly don't know how to get the smart guy to win since, when you think about it, we're raised to admire and popularize the 'dumb jock' in many social aspects while making fun of and discount the 'geek'.

mollyjp · #4 (**permalink**) 06-02-2005, 02:43 PM

You are absolutely right Traci and I hadn't thought of it that way. The thing is, when I was in high school I always had crushes on the dumb jocks, but I grew up and married one of the geeks! Of course the geek became handsome as he got older! I would like to think that we grow out of idolizing the dumb jock, but I guess a lot of people don't ever lose that mentality! Thank goodness I did, because I can't imagine life without my geek!

torimakes3 · #5 (**permalink**) 06-05-2005, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tabrown

What is funny is I was telling my DH the other day that this administration acts like the group of 'dumb jocks' that you had to deal with in high school. Tight-knit, eager to fight and belittle anyone who wasn't 'like them', yet not very well read. I honestly don't know how to get the smart guy to win since, when you think about it, we're raised to admire and popularize the 'dumb jock' in many social aspects while making fun of and discount the 'geek'.

You are so right, and it totally frightens me. I've heard that dubya actually 'dumbed' himself down to get elected! I don't know if you can ACT as dumb as he does, but if that is what he is doing, it is really frightening. I do take some consolation that it appears even his own party is beginning to turn on him.

If you visit the debate board, you've probably already read this . . . but I found it interesting.

Quote:

Bush's Political Capital Spent, Voices in Both Parties Suggest
Poll Numbers Sag as Setbacks Mount at Home and Abroad

By Peter Baker and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 31, 2005; Page A02

Two days after winning reelection last fall, President Bush declared that he had earned plenty of "political capital, and now I intend to spend it." Six months later, according to Republicans and Democrats alike, his bank account has been significantly drained.

In the past week alone, the Republican-led House defied his veto threat and passed legislation promoting stem cell research; Senate Democrats blocked confirmation, at least temporarily, of his choice for U.N. ambassador; and a rump group of GOP senators abandoned the president in his battle to win floor votes for all of his judicial nominees.

With his approval ratings in public opinion polls at the lowest level of his presidency, Bush has been stymied so far in his campaign to restructure Social Security. On the international front, violence has surged again in Iraq in recent weeks, dispelling much of the optimism generated by the purple-stained-finger elections back in January, while allies such as Egypt and Uzbekistan have complicated his campaign to spread democracy.

The series of setbacks on the domestic front could signal that the president has weakened leverage over his party, a situation that could embolden the opposition, according to analysts and politicians from both sides. Bush faces the potential of a summer of discontent when his capacity to muscle political Washington into following his lead seems to have diminished and few easy victories appear on the horizon.

"He has really burned up whatever mandate he had from that last election," said Leon E. Panetta, who served as White House chief of staff during President Bill Clinton's second term. "You can't slam-dunk issues in Washington. You can't just say, 'This is what I want done' and by mandate get it done. It's a lesson everybody has to learn, and sometimes you learn it the hard way."

Through more than four years in the White House, the signature of Bush's leadership has been that he does not panic in the face of bad poll numbers. Yet many Republicans on Capitol Hill and in the lobbyist corridor of K Street worry about a season of drift and complain that the White House has not listened to their concerns. In recent meetings, House Republicans have discussed putting more pressure on the White House to move beyond Social Security and talk up different issues, such as health care and tax reform, according to Republican officials who asked not to be named to avoid angering Bush's team.

"There is a growing sense of frustration with the president and the White House, quite frankly," said an influential Republican member of Congress. "The term I hear most often is 'tin ear,' " especially when it comes to pushing Social Security so aggressively at a time when the public is worried more about jobs and gasoline prices. "We could not have a worse message at a worse time."

Many experienced Washington hands believe that Bush has the opportunity to reestablish his clout if he focuses his efforts. "Every president goes through patches like this," Newt Gingrich, the Republican former House speaker, said in an interview. "[President Ronald] Reagan had a difficult patch in August '81, but he came back and was strongly successful. Clinton, if you'll remember, in June or July of '95 looked like he couldn't get anything done and then won reelection. These things come and go."

To get back on track, Gingrich said, Bush should pare down his Social Security plan to its central element, personal investment accounts funded by payroll taxes. "I don't think he can get complex reform through," Gingrich said. "It's too hard with the AARP opposing you and all of the Democrats lined up against it."

Bush has had a hard time persuading Congress to go along with his agenda, in part because surveys show that much of the public has soured on him and his priorities. In the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, taken last month, 47 percent of Americans approved of Bush's performance, tying the lowest marks he ever received in that survey, back in mid-2004, when Democrats were airing tens of millions of dollars' worth of campaign attack ads.

Similarly, just 31 percent approved of his handling of Social Security, an all-time low in the Post-ABC poll, while only 40 percent gave him good marks for his stewardship of the economy and 42 percent for his management of Iraq, both ratings close to the lowest ever recorded in those areas. Other surveys have recorded similar findings, with Bush's approval rating as low as 43 percent.

Such weakness has unleashed the first mutterings of those dreaded second-term words, "lame duck," however premature it might be with 3 1/2 years left in his tenure. "The Democrats are doing everything they can to make this president a lame duck," Republican consultant Ed Rollins complained on Fox News on Friday. William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, wrote recently about "the impression -- and the reality -- of disarray" in urging Bush to wage a strong fight for the nomination of John R. Bolton as U.N. ambassador.

torimakes3 · #6 (**permalink**) 06-05-2005, 06:46 AM

cont . . .

Quote:

"He's not a lame duck yet, but there are rumblings," said Robert Dallek, a presidential historian. Dallek said Bush's recent travails remind him of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who overreached in his second term by trying to pack the Supreme Court, a move that backfired. "Second terms are treacherous, and presidents enter into a minefield where they really must shepherd their credibility and political capital," he said.

Bush started off his second term with a string of important victories, pushing through measures to make it harder to file class-action lawsuits against big corporations and to wipe out debts by filing for personal bankruptcy. Congress passed its first budget resolution in years, largely along the lines of Bush's proposals, and gave him nearly everything he asked for in an $82 billion supplemental appropriations bill to pay for war costs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The White House rejects talk of drift by pointing to such victories. Asked at a briefing last week about the possible "onset of lame-duck status around here," White House press secretary Scott McClellan ticked off a list of accomplishments.

"This Congress has been in place for just over four months now, and we have made significant progress," he said. Addressing the troubled Social Security plan, he added: "Sometimes the legislative process isn't going to move as fast as we would all like, particularly on an issue that was this difficult."

Another senior White House official, who asked to remain anonymous to offer a franker assessment, acknowledged the perception problem. "I will admit it's a challenge to shine the light on the progress," the official said. "The victories have been overshadowed by partisan drama."

Nowhere was there more drama than in the Senate last week, when 14 senators from both parties forged a deal without White House approval that would allow some, but not all, of Bush's stalled judicial nominees to receive floor votes. The deal on judges was followed quickly by a vote to shut down a filibuster on Bolton's nomination, a vote that Bush and the GOP lost.

The House also rejected Bush by passing a measure easing his restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, with 50 Republicans joining most Democrats despite the threat of a presidential veto. The Senate has also advanced a more expensive highway bill than Bush has deemed acceptable, while his efforts to win passage for a Central American trade pact and an immigration guest worker program are stalled.

Overseas, violence in Iraq has killed about 700 civilians and at least 63 U.S. troops this month, frustrating efforts to stabilize the situation after January's successful parliamentary elections. The governments of two U.S. allies resorted to crackdowns on opponents. In Uzbekistan, government forces opened fire on demonstrators, killing hundreds, while in Egypt, pro-government gangs beat up protesters after a visit by Laura Bush.

In some ways, allies said, Bush has run into resistance because he swings for the fences, taking on especially hard issues. By making Social Security the centerpiece of his domestic blueprint, he guaranteed a tough legislative campaign. But it has begun to take its toll on the rest of his agenda as well. The White House had hoped to be far enough along with Social Security by summer to launch his second top priority, overhaul of the tax code. That is likely to be delayed until next year.

Bush's chief strategist, Karl Rove, is said by colleagues to remain optimistic that Congress will deliver Social Security legislation that includes personal accounts. But other aides privately are beginning to talk about whether they could accept a deal that does not include the accounts.

John D. Podesta, a top Clinton aide who runs the Center for American Progress, a research institute that promotes ideas that counter conservative policies, said Bush made the mistake of trying to turn a successful election strategy of catering to his base into a governing philosophy that excludes Democrats.

"What surprises me is that they seem to be unable to adjust particularly to the circumstances," Podesta said. "They promoted their Social Security case. It bombed. I would have thought they would have tried to change the subject or tried a different strategy. 'You're with us or against us' works well when you're fighting al Qaeda, but it doesn't with Social Security, and they don't seem to have another play in the book."

Kenneth M. Duberstein, who was White House chief of staff during Reagan's second term, said after the congressional recess Bush needs "to seize the momentum" on energy legislation, the Central American free trade pact, spending bills and a Social Security solvency plan.

"After all, the president is always in the driver's seat, as all presidents are, and he cannot be distracted by speed bumps and detours along the way," Duberstein said. "The president needs to define victories in ways that he can achieve them."

bubbly_1 · #7 (**permalink**) 06-05-2005, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Similarly, just 31 percent approved of his handling of Social Security, an all-time low in the Post-ABC poll, while only 40 percent gave him good marks for his stewardship of the economy ...Other surveys have recorded similar findings, with Bush's approval rating as low as 43 percent.

I don't like what Bush has suggested for the S.S. reform. I don't see how it will benefit people to "be in charge" of their own S.S. I can just see people loosing the money. But I guess my opinion doesn't really matter anyways since by the time I get old enough to collect it there won't be anythere for me.

I was talking to my friend, who is a Republican, she was trying to convince me that Bush's S.S. plan is a good idea. I was like ok... tell me about it, why is it so much better than what we have now? (I don't remember the questions that I asked

) But I remember that I got her stumped. She said that she would go ask her DH about the "inner workings" of it.

So the people that support this S.S. reform don't even really know why they support it. Is this how the whole country's Republicans are? (BTW she never got back to me on that)

On the economy... yes unemployment has gone down and there are more jobs, but they aren't the same kind of jobs. Those jobs have been replaced by these lower paying, almost no benefit jobs. I don't see how they are comparible.

Where I live Boeing is a major employer. They are being bought out, by a Canadian company and thousands of people are loosing their jobs. So tell me how this economy is really doing so much better. We might not being feeling it just yet, but in 6 months when there unemployment runs out these people are either going to have to move or settle of lesser jobs. What does that mean to me? Well around December I am graduating and I'm going to be looking for a job. I already know that I will probably have to move to be able to find something in my field.

	Entertainment \| Beauty & Style \| Home & Living \| Pregnancy & Baby \| Love & Sex \| Food & Recipes \| Parenting \| Chat \| Contests
	Home My SK Blogs Chat Members Today's Posts Search Register