Running Against Bush

by Caroline Glick - October 30th, 2008 - Jewish World Review

Obama has successfully cast Bush's presidency as a repeat of Ronald Reagan's presidency. Obama has portrayed Bush's foreign policy as a reenactment of Reagan's muscular, pro-American foreign policy which was based on Reagan's belief in American exceptionalism and his willingness to disregard what America's enemies and its erstwhile allies thought of America's actions. Obama has also portrayed Bush's economic policies as a reenactment of Reagan's policies of free market capitalism characterized by deregulation and tax cuts.

Obama has claimed that European and Muslim estrangement from the US; the increased strength of the insurgency in Afghanistan' Russian aggression; the resilience of the insurgency in Iraq; Iran's unimpeded drive towards nuclear weapons, and every other major US foreign policy problem are the consequences of Bush's embrace of Reagan's foreign policy approach. Obama claims that the financial crisis too, is a consequence of Bush's Reaganesque tax cuts and his general embrace of supply-side economics and the conservative preference for limited government.

By so defining Bush's record in office, Obama has been able to make a case for his own policies, which are diametrically opposed to those he ascribes to Bush.

There is only one problem with Obama's description of Bush's record in office. It is utterly false.

This is a very interesting article. In addition to the statements above about the mischaracterization of Bush's record by Obama, there is a great litany of the failures of Bush to portray his own actions honestly and correctly. I have always used the term, "tone deaf" to explain why bush could not communicate well. Glick has convinced me that it was more incoherence in understanding and advocating mistaken policies that led to the communication problems.

I love the following quote:

In short then, both in foreign and domestic affairs, Bush's record is completely at odds with Reagan's record in office. Indeed, his policies have been far more similar to those that Obama - who runs as the anti-Reagan -- promises to advance than those that Reagan adopted.

And this is the great irony of the campaign season. By failing to accurately represent his policies to the public, Bush invited Obama to misrepresent his record and so wrongly ascribe Bush's failures to policies he never adopted - much less implemented.

Bush took over with Republicans in control of all three branches of the federal government. However Bush could not lead, according to Glick at least as much because he did not have a clue where he wanted to lead us as because the agenda he advocated was not Republican. Bush did not follow the Republican agenda in most ways. He and Karl Rove have destroyed the Republican Party because they NEVER represented the Republican Party. We allowed a big government socialist to lead our Party and the nation at a time when we needed a true libertarian-conservative who loved America for what it was, not for what they could make it. Bush led under false colors.

Now, 8 years later, George Bush is reviled by both the people whose agenda he adopted, the socialists, and the people he pretended to represent, conservatives and libertarians.

Glick faults McCain for not clearly explaining the difference between his policies and Bush's policies. I think I know why he failed. McCain, like Bush, does not really think through the logic of his positions. He has gut instincts. However the intellectual heft that allowed Ronald Reagan to truly understand what he stood for and why, does not exist in McCain. Thus he can embrace the evil of McCain-Feingold and never have a clue why true conservatives despise his position.

Though not as evil as Bush, McCain would still be a man groping for a path to succeed in leading a free nation, and like Bush, in grave danger of veering left to tyranny on many issues without realizing it.

Obama on the other hand knows exactly what he wants. The duplicitous way he has sold his program indicates he is far better prepared to veer left intentionally, rather than be steered there due to a misunderstanding.