I don't think that Bush is a fine President at all.
He is no better, or worse, than the rest of them. They are human beings, as subject to frailty as the rest of us. The only training they get is "on the job".
You well know of the errors that Bush made at the beginning of his Presidency - simple errors that nevertheless brought scorn down on his head from his political enemies. (Not opponents, but enemies, for he had snatched the shining and profitable crown of the Presidency from their hands. His lot were equally thrilled by all this stature, power, and treasure, dropping into their bailiwick.)
Presidential politics is the politics of money. In fact, all politics in the US is concerned principally about money. This is not to say that Presidential candidates don't have philosophical convictions. They do. Perhaps Bush more than many.
But the real world of the Presidency probably shows them quickly that they can do little to bring their philosophy to life - though Bush is trying.
A remarkable thing about Bush's election was that there was no attempt to hide who he really is. He came to the hustings as a rock-ribbed conservative - considered death in politics. One tries to be centrist and indeed, elected Presidents can be expected to move towards the center.
When Bush assumed office, people complained about his conservative stance. You may recall the Economist editorial that laughed at this, saying that Bush was elected as a conservative - how else should he behave but as he is. I would expect that Bush if he survives into a second term to move toward the center - but that's a war away.
What bothers me about general reaction to Bush - and what impels me to "tell it like it is" is the general analysis of Bush based on interpretations of events, that may or may not be true.
Everyone psychoanalyzes Bush. Someone suggests, someone else picks up the suggestion. After a jump or two, it becomes fact. The fact is then heated up, passed around, embroidered, and becomes startling and front page material.
Where again, it is endlessly pawed over and interpreted.
I like to stay with what I can see. At the Press Conference, I saw confidence. I asked whether you saw the symbolism of Bush being alone. I can't remember a Presidential Press Conference in which the President wasn't flanked by flunkies. Their job was to get the POTUS out of trouble if necessary - ending the event abruptly on occasion. Do any FW's recall a "man alone" Press Conference with a previous President?
Then, he had a list of reporters to call on. So, he called on ABC. With previous PC's the reporters would all yell, clamoring for attention. Then, the President would call on ABC. That's the difference.
Bush seemed in control of the proceedings. He didn't appear to say anything he hadn't said before. He stayed for close to an hour. Seemed to me that was much longer than most PPC's.
The guy was very confident - perhaps born of sociopathic tendencies - but I have no reason to assume that, though others jump to such thoughts.
He was in control of the proceedings - which is where a leader is supposed to be. I saw no sign that drug or alcohol addiction was a concern. In fact, between the interminable speeches - Oops! I mean answers - Bush smiled and joked a little.
I try to see it like it is. I see no understanding of the economic situation by the Bush Administration. Lowering the interest rate is just plain soppy - but part of the manipulation of the economy that has taken the place of what passes for free market adjustments.
Reducing taxes as an economic measure is equally soppy. However, giving large tax reductions to rich people with the intention of stimulating the economy makes more sense than giving smaller reductions to lots of poorer people. Poorer people will probably use it to pay off some of their credit card debt. Rich people will invest their reduction - probably in China.
Bush doesn't know what to do about the economy - even though I am sure he is pelted with advice by people who also don't know what to do.
Similarly, the Democrats don't know what to do about the economy. Both sides have been brought up with such basic information as 'two consecutive downward quarters mean recession'. This kind of thing makes them believe they have a grasp of the situation - even though they haven't a clue as to why there might be two consecutive downward quarters.
Both Democrats and Republicans can 'view with alarm' - which they do.
But, neither of them know what's wrong - as I've intimated in previous posts. The only thing we can be sure of is that when the economy goes up both parties will claim credit.
It looks to me now that the only direction to go in the near future is faster inflation of the money supply and an increase in interest rates. The trouble is that this will make the dollar externally weak. We are likely to need such a policy to save a catastrophic depression that will likely be started by the collapse of high land prices that have made buying real estate so attractive.
But, who would dare to take the political risk of raising interest rates and inflating?
I think I will save for a separate post the real problem - energy. We have the same two choices we had 30 years ago - coal and nuclear power. No other power sources are viable.
Harry ----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith wrote:
Hi Harry,
Well! Yours (14:38 09/03/03 -0800) was a noble defence of Bush! I can't possibly answer it. Your and my view of Bush are so different that we will just have to wait upon events to see who is right.
Generally speaking, you regard Bush as a fine President. I regard him as a travesty. In my view, he's almost as ridiculous as, say Kim Il Jong of North Korea, who chooses dishes from 30 different meals set before him every day and fires missiles off into the sea as a hobby, and the President of Kirghizstan (is it?) -- the chap who has re-named the days of the week after himself and those of his wife.
Bush is not crazy, of course, as the two above. But he's not Presidential calibre either and, in the way, he is being influenced by a very dubious group behind him (with, probably, other private agendas), I regard him as a dangerous man (even though, paradoxically, I am more inclined to Republican economic ideas than to Democratic ones). But we must hope that he is more of a danger to himself than to others.
Keith
****************************** 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: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 2/25/2003
