Dear Bill Maher - Obama should not be more like Bush

CTLawGuy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-15-09 08:48 PM
Original message

Dear Bill Maher - Obama should not be more like Bush

Maher's argument on Olbermann tonight is that it was Bush's ideas that caused him to fail as a president and not his tactics. His tactics allowed him to successfully push legislation that he wanted such as tax cuts and a war in Iraq. Thus, Obama should adopt Bush's tactics if he wants to have similar success with progressive ideas.

However, this is a bad idea for several reasons:

1. Bush's tactics included things like
(a) ignoring the constitution,
(b) politicizing the Justice Department,
(c) using signing statements and recess appointments,
(d) intimidating dissenters such as Joe Wilson,
(e) insulting and belittling those who disagreed with his policies, home and abroad,
(f) putting a religious gloss on his policy decisions,
(g) ignoring inconvenient international laws,
(h) punishing media who were critical of him with denial of access, and
(i) shutting his eyes to evidence contradicting his ideas.

These are objectively reprehensible tactics that NO president should ever engage in.

2. Bush's unpopularity was not just because of his ideas. His approval was in the 20s and about 33% of this country is conservative and the 40% or so that are moderates include many sympathetic to conservative ideas. That means that dislike of Bush went beyond ideas. If you don't believe me, ask yourself, do you agree that McCain basically agreed with most of Bush's ideas during the campaign? If you agree with that, note that he received 46% of the popular vote. Compare that 46% number to Bush's 20% approval rating.

3. Bush had unusual political and governing advantages that Obama does not have including:
(a) having opposition leaders such as Harry Reid, Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt - not the most assertive or ideological bunch. Obama has to deal with the much more ideologically rigid John Boehner and Mitch "the Turtle" McConnell.
(b) an ideologically uniform congressional contingent managed by competent and ideologically rigid leaders, and who are kept in check by an organized and powerful propaganda machine consisting of Fox Noise, the Club for Greed (er "Growth"), and an army of talk radio hosts. By contrast, Obama has an ideologically diverse Congress, many of whom represent conservative states/districts such as those in the south and the great plains, that is run by the overly cautious Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. The left also lacks an efficient mechanism equivalent to the Club for Growth to threaten dissidents with primary challenges. Instead the left has groups like the DLC which advocates victory by obsessively looking for the middle and standing in it.
(c) the goodwill generated by 9/11 which thwarted even more the mild opposition within Congress for his agenda.

4. Bush did SEVERE long term damage to the Republican party that we obviously do NOT want Obama to repeat for the Dem party. He was a constant albatross around McCain's neck. He has created a climate, again egged on by talk radio, where it is impossible to be a Republican without being ideologically pure. The Republicans have been decimated in New England, including New Hampshire, which was as recently as 04 a competitive state. As a result of constant demonization of Latinos (which I guess to be fair wasn't bush's fault personally) the Rs lost Latinos 2-1 in 08 and are in lots of trouble in AZ, NV, NM, CO and FL for the near future as a result. The Rs experienced severe losses among the young, the educated and suburbanites. They are being whittled down to their narrow base of southern whites and the rich.

I think Obama should of course push progressive ideas, and make reasonable compromises when necessary to actually enact good legislation. Whether he is compromising too much or not being bold enough is another kettle of fish, but basically he should stay away from the tactics of Bush.