Bush Beyond Iraq

From the Post's "narcissistic child" article:

Bush is fixated on Iraq, according to friends and advisers. One former aide went to see him recently to discuss various matters, only to find Bush turning the conversation back to Iraq again and again. He recognizes that his presidency hinges on whether Iraq can be turned around in 18 months. "Nothing matters except the war," said one person close to Bush. "That's all that matters. The whole thing rides on that."

The Bush presidency is often seen through this lens. It's also true that for a two term president who enjoyed GOP congressional control for several years, he really does have remarkably few legislative accomplishments. Where other leaders would have seen an opportunity to push a governing agenda, Bush saw an opportunity to evade congressional oversight as he used the executive branch to commit crimes against the constitution, fill many executive agencies with incompetents, and fill others with people who helped his campaigns' financial backers rob the public. Which leads us to what's probably the most important aspect of Bush's non-Iraq legacy, his decision to provide an elegant demonstration of public choice theory and destroy public faith in the possibility of government action by showing exactly how poorly a government can be run.

Beyond that, we have a failed stab at immigration reform, massive tax cuts that saddled the country with big debts but produced a macroeconomic situation worse than that prevailing under his predecessor's policies, an increase in the level of subsidies for fossil fuel producers, an increase in the level of farm subsidies, a Medicare reform structured as a large subsidy to health insurance and pharmaceutical firms, the institutionalized use of torture and arbitrary detention, and a return of illegal domestic surveillance. Also -- No Child Left Behind, and an invasion of Afghanistan whose goals, though eminently justified, have not been achieved.

Comments

I'd like to find solace in the thought Bush will slink off to be deservedly tortured by some very onerous inner demons. However, I have no trouble believing he is in fact serene and mostly untroubled by the death and destruction he's wrought. For that reason he should just be hanged.

Posted by steve duncan | July 2, 2007 9:06 AM

Right wing American politicians do not need much in the way of legislative accomplishments. The policy status quo is already much to their liking.

Posted by otto | July 2, 2007 9:11 AM

You forgot, Bush saved the forests with the Healthy Forests Initiative.

Posted by mk | July 2, 2007 9:17 AM

Don't forget: (1) the Administration's terrible performance in reacting to Hurricane Katrina resulting in suffering and displacement for thousands of people; and (2) the Administration's terrible record on failing to address Global Climate Change.

Posted by Joe | July 2, 2007 9:19 AM

Let's also not forget an incoherent compromise on stem cell research!

Posted by Dan f. | July 2, 2007 9:25 AM

> Where other leaders would have seen an
> opportunity to push a governing agenda, Bush saw
> an opportunity to evade congressional oversight as
. he used the executive branch to commit crimes
> against the constitution, fill many executive
> agencies with incompetents, and fill others with
> people who helped his campaigns' financial backers
> rob the public.

By the standards of those who decided sometime around 1998-1999 to put him in office, W has been an incredibly successful President. For the rest of us not so much, but that isn't the concern of the ruling class.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | July 2, 2007 9:30 AM

I often think of the missing $12 billion dollars (in cash) that Bush had sent to Iraq.

Of course, the bastard's serene.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 2, 2007 10:08 AM

"Bush....baaad." He could have just posted that.

Posted by Dave | July 2, 2007 10:23 AM

I'd like to find solace in the thought Bush will slink off to be deservedly tortured by some very onerous inner demons. However, I have no trouble believing he is in fact serene and mostly untroubled by the death and destruction he's wrought.

I've noted many times that quite possibly the worst [technical] president will retire to become inarguable the worst Former President. My image is of a serene W watching endless Tom and Jerry cartoons, quite content having traded Extra Strength Xanax for 25 year old blended Scotch.

Posted by ed | July 2, 2007 10:28 AM

Bush is well positioned to be the ex-President least in demand for public speaking engagements in the history of the U.S.

Seriously, what is this guy gonna do with the rest of his life. I mean, he could coach Little League. He's about of that calibre.

Posted by Bill | July 2, 2007 10:39 AM

Mars, bitches!

Oh, and you forgot Poland.

Posted by DMonteith | July 2, 2007 10:56 AM

It's also true that for a two term president who enjoyed GOP congressional control for several years, he really does have remarkably few legislative accomplishments.

Actually, from the point of view of a "starve the beast" attitude toward the federal government ( one that favors tax cuts not just because they favor the rich but also because they deplete the government ), dearth of "legislative accomplishments" would be a good thing, not a bad thing.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | July 2, 2007 11:19 AM

"It's also true that for a two term president who enjoyed GOP congressional control for several years, he really does have remarkably few legislative accomplishments."

Medicare Part D and the NCLB are as consequential as any of Bill Clinton's legislative accomplishments.

Also, EGTRRA included the most significant pension reform in twenty years, including the creation of Roth 401(k)s, huge increases in annual contribution limits to IRAs (from $2k to $4k, or $5k for those over fifty), 401(k)s (from $8,500 to $15,500), etc.

Posted by Harry | July 2, 2007 11:58 AM

Harry nails it! Why, I'm utterly confounded as to the dearth of marchers storming the barricades, agitating for repeal of the 22nd Amendment!

Posted by steve duncan | July 2, 2007 12:03 PM

If I were a Republican, I'd be mad as hell at Bush's incompetence right about now.

In the aftermath of 9/11, he had close to 90% approval ratings at home, and almost unanimous support abroad.

Had he handled it effectively, he would have insured Republican majorities on the federal level for at least a generation.

The incalculable damage he's done makes it impossible to celebrate, but he may be the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party since JFK.

Posted by dave | July 2, 2007 1:33 PM

I mean, he could coach Little League. He's about of that calibre.

Incorrect. Bush, Jr. is a petty, vindictive, self-absorbed pouty-pants dipshit asshole. He's a horrible choice to coach Little League. And I'll bet he knows fuck-all about the funcamentals of baseball coaching and strategy to boot. He might make a good cheerleader though.

Posted by ed | July 2, 2007 2:02 PM

Bush didn't introduce the Roth IRA.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 2, 2007 3:16 PM

Bush is a failure only if you think he was trying to succeed. What his administration has actually done is work to delegitimize action by the Federal government. They've taken an old Reagan joke--the one with the punchline, "I'm from the Federal government and I'm here to help"--and made it flesh. Couple that with the ever-hardening 20 to 25 percent of the population whose fanatical obedience to the GOP line has not lessened one jot, and we're approaching a point where the U.S. may be ungovernable through customary means.

And that's pretty much the point. The people who brought us the Bush administration make no secret about wanting to dismantle the entire structure of governence that was built in the 20th century. But since everything that's been added from Teddy Roosevelt on is widely popular, the only way to make that happen is to destroy it from within. They'll run things into the ground enough that the next president won't be able to make things work. And then, oh boy, the GOP'll run the proverbial man on horseback to sweep away everything that came before.

The point of the Bush Administration isn't Bush, no matter what he himself thinks. It's about setting things up for the guy who follows Hillary.

Posted by jlw | July 2, 2007 3:18 PM

As a person who has never voted for a Democrat, I am rather pissed at the way that "my" Republicans have governed this country for all the reasons that Matt and Dave state. I am a devoted fiscal conservative but even I favor tax increases (as long as we also restrain the growth of government) to attempt to save our country.

The country is deeply in debt, we have another $30 trillion in other financial obligations related to Social Security and Medicare and yet we continue deficit spending. I'm 36 years old, can't support the Republicans and simply can't trust a party that is run by Dean, Pelosi and Reid. I have my first child on the way and when I allow myself to think what the boomers and the seniors are doing to my generation and, particularly, to my child's generation it makes me incredibly sad and mad, all at once.

Where the hell have all the statesmen gone? Where are the politicians that don't just pay lip service to changing policies and programs that are unsustainable but actually do something about it?

I'm a political junkie but I am sick of politics. There has to be a better way.

Posted by Koop | July 2, 2007 7:53 PM

For those who think that Americans will be convinced that the government is useless because of Bush's incompetence, you forget that everywhere, people expect the government to serve their interests.

Americans will not shrug their shoulders and forgive Bush for his incompetence. Instead, they will vote for leaders who will promise to clean up his mess, knowing full well what an impossible task it is.

I guarantee that they will be hesistant to elect a Republican to do that, especially Rudy McRomney

Posted by AxelDC | July 2, 2007 9:33 PM

He could always move to Albania when he retires. I hear he's got a few fans there, who appreciate his time.

Posted by Michael | July 3, 2007 2:06 AM

Democrats helped craft No Child Left Behind, though I suppose one could argue it is embraced by no one now.

Democrats proposed Medicare drug coverage that would have been drastically more expensive than what passed in 2003. And it is true that Medicare Part D helped "pharmaceutical firms" -- only because before 2003, seniors in Medicare couldn't use their coverage to pay for prescriptions! ANY drug coverage plan would have helped "pharmaceutical firms."

Posted by GaryKarr | July 3, 2007 7:45 AM