Don't intrepret my defense of Bush as meaning I agree with everything he represents. There is no one I agree with 100%, as I'm sure you don't either.
I personally abhor his environmental stances, and the Patriot Act. However, much of that could have been controlled/overridden by Congress, so I don't see it as something Bush is solely responsible for.
I just believe in showing some loyalty to the existing government. I don't feel like tearing down our own leadership is a good attitude to have as Americans -- it makes us appear weak and divided to other countries.
Years ago, when Roosevelt(?) was president (I may be wrong on the details of this -- I just remember this story from my grandparents) -- during the great depression and the TVA and all that -- farmers were told to kill their new calves, throw out their milk, etc. -- I guess to increase demand and bump the economy (again, I'm hazy on details). But I remember clearly grandma saying that although her father disagreed with this policy tremendously, they still DID it, because they showed respect for their leaders, and they want to teach their kids respect for authority. It was not a popular policy, but the idea wasn't torn apart in the media, the people did as instructed, and the country recovered.
I personally very much disliked most of the Clinton Administration -- especially the man and the moral of the man himself. However, I would still treat him with respect and not feel a need to bash him publically, as many others love to do here on a public forum. We elected him as the leader, and by doing so, we agree to follow his leadership for the time he is in office.
Technically, I am not a republican -- although I come from an all-republican family. I am registered as an Independent.
But whether Bush wins or someone else wins, I will give them my respect.
posted
Nobody swears on oath to the President (though a small number swear an oath to protect the President). Oaths are sworn to the Constitution and (through that) to the people.
The President is a citizen with great powers, but we have no special duty to him, just as we have no special duty to any citizen -- only to the acts of his which are empowered by the Constitution and the people.
posted
But there really is very little a president does solely of his own accord (except by Executive Order, perhaps) -- most everything else has to be approved by the Congress.
So how come I don't see you people jumping all over the House & Senate's approval of all these things you disagree with?
posted
Yes, but the president can always veto legislation he disagrees with OR he feels would be detrimental to his oath.
However, this president has been in at the ground floor helping to shape the legislation that reaches him, hence is lack of the use of the veto. This sort of tactic predates him a bit; Clinton increasingly did this as well, though with a House that was controlled by the opposite party, it was a bit more difficult to do so. I believe there is an article out on the web that goes into detail about the increasingly lower use of the veto.
The thing is, the Reps and Senators represent smaller components of the US. The president represents us all. I think this is one reason why there is a difference. A related reason is that if someone brought up the lack of spine in most of, say, the democrats in Congress, there wouldn't be much argument over it, except maybe pointing out that both the Senate and the House are republican controlled. What the democrats can do, even if they were unanimous, is little, especially since few blocs of Congress have ever shown as much solidarity in voting tendencies as the current republican majorities.
posted
Good views, Slash. I only believe in respecting authority when they give me a reason to respect them. i can't believe Roosevelt ordered them to do that! What a waste. But he was a cool president in that time... I wonder if he's responsible for why they throw a way a ton of perfectly good vegetables -_-. Dang, I hate that. My problem is I have not found a reason NOT to dislike Bush's policies. i've read the news, looked at some of the news on TV. I just don't like the guy. I never have. Even when I was watching the debate back in 2000 I culd not help thinking that both Bush and Gore were MORONS I know it's not nice, but their statements were ridiculous! And after he got elected I still couldn't find any proof that he was doing any good for the country. Last year, my computer was out of commision for about a month so i listened to NPR a lot. I just couldn't agree with the war from the very beginning, but I Couldn't figure out why. On one side there was a whole pack of people saying, "IF you don't agree with the war you're anti-patriotic." I drove in a cab where the cab driver said, "YEah! bring on the war! Let's go." Then there were the anti-war people and OSC's views. That war seemed to have come completely out of left field and I just can't believe that the motives of it were pure.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do. I regularly criticize the house and senate for their actions, notably on issues of fiscal responsibility.
Also, I am quite specific in my criticisms of Bush by saying "he advocated" "he supported" "he did not support" and the similar with regard to legislative items. And I can very much blame him for advocating things that I consider wrong; just because another group of people did some (typically minor) vetting of the situation doesn't mean the person saying "do it now! do it now!" isn't responsible.
Furthermore, the use of many powers is very much at the Presidential discretion. Congress makes the laws, but this country is run by the executive branch, under the President.
The Justice Department reports to the President through Ashcroft. The EPA reports through whoever's in that office now that the conscientious Whitman has been forced out, the Education department reports to the President through Paige, et cetera. These are the organizations that run this country, and their actions are largely subject to their boss's whim (particularly as he fires anyone who doesn't toe the party line).
The Justice Department would not be using the PATRIOT act for non terrorist crimes (despite administration officials assuring Congressmembers that it would almost entirely be used against terrorist crimes) if the President did not allow it. The EPA would not be peeling back regulations at every step if the President did not allow it (most repeals so far have been one of two things: a bureaucratic change or a presidential order; notice how many fewer presidential orders there are on the subject now that Bush no longer has to use them to force Whitman to comply).
Do the departments have a certain degree of autonomy? Yes. However, it is quite clear what has happened in this administration when that autonomy is exercised beyond what the President likes.
Is it legal for the President to change (for instance) environmental regulations in the way he has? Sure. Must I support him in it? Not a chance.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Further Bokon, what little the Democrats succeed in doing [in the house and senate] is condoned as obstructionist and anti-American people.
Here is why I believe there is such a backlash against President Bush (side note: I always try to call him President Bush, this is his legal and legitimate title. To do less is to criticize the office, not the man).
President Bush was elected without a majority of the votes of the people. He won on a slim electoral vote. He holds the senate by a slim number of voters.
Yet he acts as if he has a supreme mandate from the vast majority of the people. I don't know the numbers, but I believe there are many conservatives out there, but they may make up only 25-30% of the population. Liberals or liberal leaning people make up a similar amount. The majority are centrist. This centrist number was cut down the center during the last election, mainly because President Bush demonstrated many centrist attitudes. Sure he also mentioned some conservative attitudes, but he said he would keep them in check.
After the election those centrist attitudes have slipped away and his Conservative roots are showing.
To make matters worse, the conservative roots that are showing are only partially the social conservatism his backers were expecting. Instead they have been overwhelmingly economic conservativism.
Of the two, the American people will tolerate a social conservative who has high morals. They see Economic Conservatism as a greedy thing, unworthy of their support.
The result is a lot of people voted for a man they thought was slightly conservative, in all the right ways, but mostly moderate. What they find is a man who is greatly conservative in the worst ways.
posted
Farmgirl, I think that family story has gotten garbled over the years. FDR didn't ask farmers to slaughter calves and dump milk. Dairy farmers were getting screwed by the processing plants and it was costing them money to produce milk. The processing plants were engaged in price fixing and the farmers were starving. So, they decided to strike. In a series of strikes, they dumped their milk. There were other farmers (corn, wheat, etc.) doing the same thing. The dairy farmers did their dumping on the sides of highways and at train crossings (to block the trains.) FDR's solution was to impose a tax on the processing plant and use that tax to pay the farmers not to plant crops or produce milk. (This may be where the family story comes from, if they were being paid not to produce milk, they may have needed to dump milk and slaughter calves in order to get their subsidies from the government.) In 1936, shortly after being enacted, the US SC said it was unconstitutional to tax on industry to pay another, so in 1938 the legislature enacted the same basic bill, but paid for it out of the general tax fund, which the US SC didn't have a problem with.
Today, more than 65 years later, we are still paying artificially inflated dairy prices because of these farm subsidies.
Faith is one thing. Blind, deaf and dumb faith is another.
Oh, and the depression started in 1929. Roosevelt didn't create this program (AAA) till 1936/1938. While there was a slight improvement in the economy in 1937, Roosevelt slashed federal programs/spending and returned the US to a depression. Some economists think the depression ended in 1940, when the economy returned to 1937 levels, but by then, the government had spent 20 billion dollars, created a huge bureaucracy, and millions (over 14%) were still out of work. So, many economists don't believe the depression really ended until 1942, when millions of Americans were in the Armed Forces in WWII and millions more in factories creating the tools of war, lowering the unemployment rate to 4.7%. It has even been acknowledged that many of the FDR policies actually lengthened the depression. And, amusingly, FDR is the one responsible for creating the very policies that the Republicans hate today, including Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance and farming subsidies. Roosevelt is the one that started pork barrel spending and the era of big government. While I happen to agree with most of his policies, I don't think that somewhere down the line, it would have been unreasonable to question them. Nearly 30% unemployment and people starving and dying. Something needed to be done. However, once the economy recovered and the war ended (a war with a clearly defined enemy and clearly defined goals,) I don't think it would have been unreasonable for people to go back and look at the policies. Did we still need farm subsidies? Did everyone need to get Social Security? I'm more of a socialist/communist at heart, and I wouldn't mind seeing Social Security benefits only for people under a certain income. Eliminate the Social Security tax and start a low income retirement benefits program, funded from the general tax pool. All I'm saying is that there is a time to accept and time to question. What was happening in this country in 1933-1945 isn't at all comparable to what is happening today. When a third of the country is in danger of starving to death, something needs to be done. When there is a World War, I can see the need for patriotism and sacrifice. Even then though, there was dissent, and rightfully so. Some of the programs (Japanese internment to name one) were wrong then, just as they are wrong now (Guantanamo.) However, when unemployment is 6.5%, the country is filled with illegal aliens working millions of jobs, and the government is hunting down mysterious terrorists and locking up dissenters, I don't think it is inappropriate to question the abilities of the leadership.
Posts: 171 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
thanks for the info. I do wish that generation of my family was still alive so I could ask them again about that -- I know the story made quite an impression on me as a youngster, but I don't remember the details.
From what you describe, I can see now that perhaps this is why my grandparents, etc. were always very much against government subsidies (if you had to kill your animals in order to get government payoffs, I can see where they would think that is just wrong). We are about the only farmers in our entire area that I know of who have always refused government subsidies for our farm. (part of the reason why we are the poorest farmers around, too). Even when the government offered the CRP program (to turn farmland back into grassland) and we turned our farmland back into grassland -- we didn't apply for CRP funds, because we didn't like them telling us what we can/can't do with our land. (there are all kinds of rules about CRP land)
I believe in letting the free market reign as much as possible - -but suddenly switching to a free market all at once would be devasting to the economy.
I think I will research more on what you say, now that I have that much information to start with in the search.
quote:To make matters worse, the conservative roots that are showing are only partially the social conservatism his backers were expecting. Instead they have been overwhelmingly economic conservativism.
Of the two, the American people will tolerate a social conservative who has high morals. They see Economic Conservatism as a greedy thing, unworthy of their support.
I'd have to disagree. I think economic conservatism is the thing that has been really driving the success of conservatism in the past 10 years, and is probably the best part of the conservative ideology. It is a rejection of the bloated government, high taxation, and Keynesian economics that essentially failed in the late 60's and 70's - and I think on the whole most people do support small government these days.
I think social conservatism, though strongly supported by a minority of Americans, comes back to hurt the conservatives. It's generally intrusive, and I think most centrists generally oppose the notion that the government should be telling us how to act ethically.
I don't see how you could say Bush is an economic conservative, though. It's not economic liberalism because he is cutting taxes fiercely, but at the same time it is not economic conservatism because it is massively expanding the government. Basically, he's just practicing social irresponsibility - taking the most popular (in immediate political terms) parts of both philosophies, by cutting taxes and raising spending on most fronts - and leaving the debt issue for future leaders to deal with.
Truthfully, I think the Bush administration is better classified as authoritarian than conservative, because it supports a big, expensive, intrusive, centralized governemnt - although it's a brand of authoritarianism that wants future Americans to foot the bill, rather than current Americans.
posted
FG, one of the reasons I voice my opinions about the Adminsistration (and that goes for ANY Administration, by the way) is that I feel it is very important to exercise one of the key rights of Americans -- free speech. In particular, free speech with regard to our leaders.
I'm not reckless in my comments.
Now, I thought Clinton was immoral in his personal life. And even very probably in his business dealings.
But I found that these concerns did not necessarily translate to mishandling of the government's business. I never felt, for example, like he was arranging things for his own benefit or the benefit of his cronies.
With President Bush, I find he has displayed moral problems (drunk driving, drug use, possibly skipping out on military duty that he agreed to take on). And I think that his business dealings are not all above board. We even have the example of his brother being one of the guys embroiled in the S&L scandal and his father fairly well implicated in Iran/Contra -- suspicious but not completely proven...right?
So, taken on a whole, I feel like G.W. Bush needs watching. They all do, frankly. Anyone who would even WANT the job of President is suspect in the first place as a potential ego maniac and potentially out for personal gain.
That's why we, the people, have the power to review their performance.
True patriotism means loyalty to the country. American patriotism allows us to remain loyal to the country while revolting openly against our leaders.
I'm not even go so far as to revolt against the leadership, openly or not.
I'm simply saying that the man has proven himself to be untrustworthy. And these are in things that ARE the people's business. Not just that he was an idiot who made us look bad in the international community by having sex with an intern in the oval office.
No, this man has set us outside the international community on issues. He has lied to us about something important -- the presence of a clear and immediate threat in a country he then ordered our military to attack. And, his lies are directly related to the deaths of Iraqi civilians and our own soldiers (not to mention an array of people from other countries and other duties).
He has pursued a social agenda that is restrictive and oppressive for no good reason that I can fathom.
He has promoted the Patriot Act (I and II) and continues a drive to turn America into a police state. He has started enlisting truck drivers as "informers." It's all going in the wrong direction.
Then there's the environment, Halliburton's no-bid contracts in Iraq, Energy policy, and a host of other issues that make it clear to me that he is President precisely because he can deliver the goods to his powerful cronies. And that is, perhaps the greatest flaw of all. That he unabashedly claims that what's good for HIS friends is good for all Americans.
So...all told, I feel like it would be completely UNpatriotic to fail to point out that this man is doing things that are NOT in America's best interest, as I understand it.
Rest assured, however, that if America needed a sacrifice from me (other than my silence) for a meaningful goal -- like all pulling together to solve a real problem, I would get behind this president or any other president. Mainly because I'm behind the idea and the ideal and if it's a good one, I don't care who came up with it or whether there's a partisan issue about it. Good ideas that make America better are worth it to me.
Presidents who sell the country to their friends are not.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to point out that, even if the President were a corporate sellout (which I'm not certain that this is his intent/motive at all), he wouldn't be the first President to do so, and I'm not talking recent history. The latter portion of the 19th century was also inundated with cronyism.
I just wanted to say that because people often think what he's doing is unpresidented, but that wouldn't be true (assuming he is a patron for cronyism).
quote:I don't see how you could say Bush is an economic conservative, though.
Your right tres. He's a neoconservative with an agenda. He and his fellow neo-conservatives' plan includes bankrupting Social Security and Medicare. Haven't you read the Project For A New American Century? They pretty much outline their goals there. Also, you might read [/i]Reflections of a Neoconservative[/i] or The New Messiah.
Posts: 171 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
