I told everyone 12-18 months ago that Bush was a negotiator and that he made his name in Texas as a negotiator. He would bring different sides together to effect a compromise. In this way he would get what he wanted - not everything he wanted but the things important to him.
Like everyone else, I was sure he would be eaten alive when he got to Washington and like everyone else, I was wrong. He has managed to get legislation through the morass that is Congress that no-one thought he would manage.
Even the steel tariff (George Will called it the worst day of the Bush administration) was perhaps a delightful maneuver. The steel monopoly - corporations and unions alike - demanded a 20% tariff on steel imports, even though this would mean increased cost of living for everyone in the country.
Bush gave them 30% - something you economists know is no different from 20%, though it looks better. Since then, he has been selectively removing restrictions from particular classes of steel. As I earlier reported, 106 classes of steel have been removed from the tariff (and probably a lot more since).
This made big steel happy, it made the highly efficient,highly profitable, mini-mills happy. It must have made the Europeans happy, for I've heard little from them since their first outrage.
Even made the Floridians happy for they can still send their orange juice to Europe. Nobody gets exactly what they want - but that's what happens with negotiation, or it wouldn't be negotiation.
It can also all break down, so part of the art of negotiation is establishing (as far as possible) continuity and permanence. We've been hung on the clothesline of temporary settlement too often, while the "negotiators" return to their comfortable hotels.
Perhaps you don't understand negotiation, Lawry. When you sell a car, you ask $10,000. After kicking it around a bit, you finally accept $7,000,which is what you expected to get all the time. Asking for $10,000 and getting $7,000 is not a contradiction.
However, you apparently know what "Bush and his brain trust" wanted. Just as the guy who bought your car knew exactly what you wanted - $10,000.
Did you know what Clinton and his brain trust wanted? Or, Carter and his brain trust? Or Kennedy, or FDR? (One of FDR's brain trust - Raymond Moley - was a Georgist, though not a good one, I would say.)
Every President has advisors and it is sensible to listen to those with more experience - but it doesn't mean you give your power of decision over to them.
In fact, you can't. As was said - the buck stops here.
Saddam now has three "dates certain". He must comply, or else. If he thumbs his nose at the Security Council, perhaps shame will make them act responsibly.
Meantime, the one thing that will make him comply is the huge presence of American technology and a cowboy in the White House. So, that's what he'll get.
The B52's are moving closer, troops are moving around the regime.
Maybe, Saddam hasn't noticed.
But, if he has noticed, the "or else" will loom large. But, as I said many times, in order for the UN mandate to work, Saddam MUST believe that the US is poised to strike - and will, if necessary.
How clearer can his ideology be? You'll recall I quoted the Economist for chiding liberals who complained of Bush's conservatism. Said the Economist, he is a conservative, he was elected as a conservative, why complain that he acts like a conservative.
The Democrats really don't have a clear philosophy, as the electorate indicated at this last election. They really had nothing to offer except that Bush was a no-good, right-wing hawk, in the clutches of the "Christian fundies". And they were laughed out of the polling booths.
To my Democratic friends on FW (who are trickling back after the traumatic event) I would warn again, Bush is good. He'll probably make a mistake that can be jumped upon, but he hasn't provided much opportunity yet. (The list was so empty, that both Sally and Arthur sent 'Tests' to see if it was working.) The 10 or 20 messages a day became zero.
I smiled. It's the Cheshire Cat in me.
Heck! Even the London Guardian suggested that perhaps this Accidental President was shrewd.
At least that beats the invective that the English papers have been heaping on his head mostly fueled, I would say, by the Democrat propaganda at the election. The Democrats thought all they had to do was to emphasize the difference between the country kid from the Texas prairie and the experienced elder statesman - Al Gore. That was a turn-up for the books, wasn't it?
Instead of allowing their vision to be clouded by Florida, perhaps attention should be given to WHY Florida became important.
Lawry, think about that.
Harry
------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence wrote:
Harry, I think you are too kind to Pres. Bush. You assert that he 'backed down' on a couple of things at the UN and 'got his way.' Leaving aside the inherent contradiction between these two statements, it is clear, if you have been following the debate, that Bush and his brain trust did NOT get what they wanted, at all: they did NOT want to have their war planning brought under UN controls; they did NOT want the issue of disarmament and inspections to rear up again; the last person they wanted to see donning his traveling shoes was Blix; they do NOT want to see 'regime change' (what a euphemism!) fade from the international and national discourse. Yes, it is true that the Bush administration compromised to get what they could, but it is not a compromise that they wanted. Instead, it was Powell who emerged as the primary architect, and Bush/Perle/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld/Kristof who were, at least for the moment, 'defeated.' Now, I will say that I see Bush as more influenced by the rest than they by him. If the liberals and intellectuals in this country had just reached out to Bush three-four years ago instead of looking down their noses at him, they might well be the ones influencing him today. Bush is malleable, and in this perhaps you see the elements of compromise and 'win-win', and to this extent, I would agree with you. But it is not a malleability that works in service to a clear ideology; it is one that works in service to whoever has his ear. And those that have won his ear are those who are kind to him. The Christian fundies and right-wing hawks figured this out some time ago; the liberals still prefer to bash him.I do hope that Powell changes his mind and stays on, and shudder to think what things might be like if Wolfowitz or Perle replace him. Best regards, Lawry -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-futurework@;scribe.uwaterloo.ca]On Behalf Of Harry Pollard Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 3:44 AM To: Ray Evans Harrell; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ed Weick; Karen Watters Cole Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Election - (was a "A more rational economics") Ray, It was the Democrat spokesman who gave those figures. Do you really believe that Republicans are all rich and Democrats are all poor? Not on your Nellie. Who got the most corporate money (obviously the Republicans) is not an issue. The point is they got a large amount of money from their "grass roots". The Democrats got much less, for they don't seem to have cultivated a grass roots. Warm bodies at the polls has been their goal. It's biting them now. Which is what the Democratic Leader was referring to. INDEPENDENT FILMS At a recent Oscar ceremony, all the winners were independents, so perhaps you are wrong. Independent films often put up a good show at all the awards shows. FRAGILE MUSIC BUSINESS Are you suggesting that the recording companies are not large? They are powerful enough not to give their artists much of the money they earn. In fact, they have to go on tour to earn some money. They don't get it from the recording companies. MY WARNING My warning about Bush over many months was essentially not to assume he is a dumbo. Yet, at times the reaction against him was almost vitriolic. Democrat friends - never underestimate your enemy. I told you he was a negotiator - an advocate of win-win. The latest Security Council decision is a prime example of this. He backed down on a couple of things and finished up with what he wanted. Every one of them voted "Aye". Incredible! HE"S A CONSERVATIVE You complain he is a conservative (the US kind). But as the Economist said (approximately) soon after his election: 'He came to power as a conservative. He's not trying to hide anything. Expect him to act like a conservative.' DEPRESSION Bush inherited a recession. But it could easily become a depression. Just think about it. Economists not only don't know why the recession started - they don't know how or why the boom continued for so long. With regard to the tax cut - which is good anyway - this is Keynes 101. However, Clinton brought in a tax increase that Republicans said was the largest in peacetime history - yet it didn't squash the continuing boom. Maybe that's Keynes 99. The fact is that neither Republicans, nor Democrats know what to do. Tax cuts and interest rate changes are pretty silly - perhaps intended only to relieve an anxious constituency that doesn't know any better. I don't either, but I do know what the problem is. And it's pretty scary. HARD ON COMMUNISM It was Nixon who went to China - not a Democrat. I would make a far-out prediction that in Bush's second term (if?) he'll make a rapprochement with Cuba. It depends on how politically safe his brother is in Florida - but I think he could do it. There you are. I'm on the hook, swinging in the wind. Harry
****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.416 / Virus Database: 232 - Release Date: 11/6/2002
