h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Bush isn't a "compasionate conservative". He's a cronyist capitalist at best, an utter moron at worst.

>an utter moron at worst<
I think that's a vast understatement, Dealer. How about 'a walking catasterophe'?

"...You're a catastrophe that walks like a man. On your watch we've lost almost all of our allies, the budget surplus, four airliners, two trade centers, a piece of the Pentagon and the city of New Orleans. Maybe your just not lucky. I'm not saying you don't love this country. I'm just wondering how much worse it could be if you were on the other side. Yes, God does speak to you. And he's saying: "Take a hint."

- Bill Maher rant - September 9, 2005

this on my PS now:

"There should be a rule that if you slack off while an American city is destroyed, and then your response is to fly around hugging people and making excuses, you have to stop being President. And if it happens again four years later, you really have to stop."

from http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/k.html

"Blair isn't a market socialist though, I'd say he was a pretty straight up capitalist."

Market socialists are capitalists, they regard the whole thing as hand-in-hand. Blair's "third way" idea has a great deal of similarities to market socialism.

And if by capitalist you mean Thatcherist then I'd have to say no he isn't.

"Bush isn't a "compasionate conservative". He's a cronyist capitalist at best, an utter moron at worst."

It's debatable whether he is. I've read some stuff by conservative Americans that claim that he is although I've not seen that much evidence. His post-Katrina stuff about using federal money to rebuild New Orleans could be taken as CC but then I think there was little else he could do or risk his reputation slipping further.

Well Bush isn't conservative - he's expanded the federal government's size more than any president since FDR. He's increased government spending at record levels. And that's deficit spending. What's conservative about that combination?

If you want to say he's compassionate, I feel no need to debate with you about that.

"Well Bush isn't conservative - he's expanded the federal government's size more than any president since FDR. He's increased government spending at record levels. And that's deficit spending. What's conservative about that combination?"

Have you any links to back that up? I've certainly heard some Americans say that Bush is a government-expander but I've not seen any figures.

It's possible to be conservative and pro-government, incidentally. Modern conservatism tends to support smaller governments and my own insinctive belief is that this is because government has been largely colonised by the centre-left, because the right tend to value self-reliance and because anti-statism appeals to the right's isolationist tendencies but I think it's possible to harness the state to the agendas of modern conservatism. What has Bush been using any expansion of the federal government to do?

"
If you want to say he's compassionate, I feel no need to debate with you about that."

You think he is or isn't? I've no real opinion on Bush's personal world-view.

Read anything on the website of the *conservative* Hertiage Foundation:
http://www.heritage.org/

Read anything on the website of the *conservative* Cato Institute:
http://www.cato.org/

Read the article "Red George"/"A socialist in the white house" in the *conservative* Economist:
http://economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=S%27%29HL%25P%21%23%21%20P%23D%0A&tranMode=none

it requires paying, so here's the abstract:
There are few better ways of understanding America's emerging Republican establishment than studying the two Medicare bills that are currently working their way through Congress. These bills point to two conclusions that are worth pondering. The first is that the Republicans are mighty shrewd when it comes to short-term political manoeuvring. The second is that they are almost completely indifferent to the basic principles of sound finance. The Republicans have given up any pretence of using the new drug benefit as a catalyst for structural reform. They are merely creating a vast new entitlement programme - a programme that will put further strain on the federal budget at just the moment when the baby boomers start to retire. It is par for the course for this profligate president. This opportunism may win Bush re-election next year, but sooner or later it will catch up with his party at the polls.

and a highlight:
As Veronique de Rugy of the Cato Institute points out, federal spending has increased at a hellish 13.5% in the first three years of the Bush administration ("he is governing like a Frenchman"). Federal spending has risen from 18.4% of national income in 2000 to 19.9% today. Combine this profligacy with huge tax cuts, and you have a recipe for deficits as far ahead as the eye can see.

Why has the self-proclaimed party of small government turned itself into the party of unlimited spending? Republicans invariably bring up two excuses--the war on terrorism and the need to prime the pump during a recession; and then they talk vaguely about Ronald Reagan (who sacrificed budget discipline in order to build up America's defences).

None of this makes much sense. The war on terrorism accounts for only around half the increase in spending. The prescription-drug entitlement will continue to drain the budget long after the current recession has faded. As for Mr Reagan, closer inspection only makes the comparison less favourable for Mr Bush. The Gipper cut non-defence spending sharply in his first two years in office, and he vetoed 22 spending bills in his first three years in office. Mr Bush has yet to veto one.

Ronald Reagan wouldn't

The real reasons for the profligacy are more depressing. Mr Bush seems to have no real problem with big government; it is just big Democratic government he can't take. One-party rule, which was supposed to make structural reform easier, also looks ever less savoury. Without a Congress that will check their excesses, the Republicans, even under the saintly Dr Frist, have reverted to type: rewarding their business clients, doling out tax cuts and ignoring the fiscal consequences.



Any real conservatives, who actually pay attention and do some research, would quickly come to realize what a disaster Bush is as a president. Easily, and by far the worst president ever. It goes to show how unprincipled people are in general that republicans line up to vote for Bush - clearly allegiance to the party is more important than allegiance to their idealogy.

I have no metric for proving whether bush is or isn't compassionate, but in my opinion he is the antithesis of compassion.

I found that article rather, erm, cranky to be honest. It's one thing to say that Bush is pursuing a policy of high-spending and low-taxation and that this is unsustainable. It's quite another to accuse him of being socialist, "the same as" a democrat or not a conservative.

First off, Bush has to stick to high spending because a) the USA is a huge and the needs of it's government (and often people) are too and b) he has US troops tied up in two foreign countries. If the laissez-faire (not "conservative", as they incorrectly call themselves) ideologues were in power America would probably be unable to fight a war on terrorism because federal reserves would be far too low. Similarly, their policy of opposing any kind of welfare (which they rather sneeringly call "entitlement") would have left New Orleans sinking into a swamp and it's dispossessed citizens permanently homeless with disasterous consequences for Louisiana and it's economy.

"a) the USA is a huge and the needs of it's government (and often people) are too"

Well, that's just plain mis-understanding the point. If you read the article, or the other sites, it's about huge *increases* in spending. Are you claiming the US has undergone a massive expansion lately, commenserate with 13-18% spending increases?

"b) he has US troops tied up in two foreign countries"

Again, if you'd read the article you'd have seen that the spending on all the wars, and the "war on terror" account for less than half of the increase.

You're right, Zagreb, I can see where some socialist goals or impulses can exist within a market economy. The New Deal seemed to have socialist goals, but FDR was not trying to dismantle markets or transfer the means of production to workers.

I guess a more hardcore anti-capitalist socialist would say that you can't really accomplish socialist goals in a market economy, and Reagan fans would say that a market economy would be unable to operate efficiently when it is burdened with socialist programs.

"Well, that's just plain mis-understanding the point. If you read the article, or the other sites, it's about huge *increases* in spending. Are you claiming the US has undergone a massive expansion lately, commenserate with 13-18% spending increases?"

Not quite. My point is that maybe Bush feels that the federal government was underspending in certain places where it was needed and feels the need to increase spending. Maybe it's an attempt to "reach out" to social or moral conservatives in the American working-class who vote Democrat because the Democrats will spend money on helping them. Who knows?

"Again, if you'd read the article you'd have seen that the spending on all the wars, and the "war on terror" account for less than half of the increase."

Exactly - the war on terror takes up a significant (which "less than half" is) portion of Bush's increased spending. If the Laissez-faire people had their way, Bush would have been unable to prosecute the war properly as they are 1) opposed to increased government spending and 2) believe that the US Armed Forces are for protecting the United States within it's own borders - in contrast to Bush's interventionalism.

well, you've made your point very clearly - you have no idea what the definition of conservative is, or you're willing to change it so that it matches Bush's behavior.

"Not quite. My point is that maybe Bush feels that the federal government was underspending in certain places where it was needed and feels the need to increase spending. Maybe it's an attempt to "reach out" to social or moral conservatives in the American working-class who vote Democrat because the Democrats will spend money on helping them. Who knows?"

If you're reaching out to a group by spending money on them, for political points, that's pork.

But anyway, you postulate it, you prove it. You asked me for articles and data to back up my points, I provided it. You've just presented a whopper of a theory, let's see some backup. Where's a list of what the increased spending went towards, and why it was required.

You've still completely failed to address how any of this is conservative. SHouldn't he be cutting programs that are unnecessary in order to fund the ones he likes, if he's conservative?