President Bush and Dick Cheney: Closet liberals?
And now for something completely different: President Bush, yes, this President Bush--as a liberal.
The Canadian magazine Macleans is making that argument, under the shocking headline "The shockingly liberal legacy of George W. Bush."
The irony that it misses: Could it be that Vice President Dick Cheney is the force behind at least one element of the "liberalization?"
In a lengthy article that addresses the breadth of the Bush presidency and notes that the administration's legacy is more than just the war in Iraq, it says: "In some areas it is the result of hard-line conservative ideology — but in others it is surprisingly liberal."
Consider the seeming contradictions: The tax-cutting conservative who ...
...expanded government's size and power. The champion of states' rights who centralized power in Washington. The proponent, it notes,"of race-neutral policies who did more than any president before him to measure, track, and invest in the achievement of black and Latino children."
The magazine continued:
He is the advocate of human dignity who authorized interrogation techniques that amount to torture. The passionate defender of liberty who circumvented laws to spy on his own citizens. The lover of freedom who toppled one dictator while propping up others. The progenitor of wars that killed thousands on one continent, and the humanitarian who spent unprecedented sums to save millions from disease on another.
It is a complex picture.
If it is painted by numbers, here's an important one: Federal spending under Bush grew by 68%--double the growth during Bill Clinton's two terms.
The magazine noted:
The Iraq war, which the Pentagon had initially estimated would cost US$50 billion, is now projected to cost some US$700 billion in direct spending, with some economists saying the total cost may be more than a trillion dollars with all associated costs.
Here's another pair of numbers to paint into the picture: Under Bush, total government spending grew from 18.4% of GDP in 2000 to 20.3% in 2006, the magazine reported, quoting the Tax Policy Institute run by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.
But, then, Bush also "aggressively cut taxes."
Where does Cheney fit in? His role is ignored in the Macleans article.
He, for sure, favored the tax cuts, and was of course a central figure in pushing the United States into war with Iraq.
And he was a force behind the anti-terror measures that critics argue have crossed lines of civil liberties in the United States.
Behind it was Cheney's belief in the need for a powerful chief executive--another hallmark of a "liberal" presidency--albeit one moderated by how that power is used.
When Cheney first served in the White House--rising to the powerful post of chief of staff to President Gerald R. Ford--the power of the Oval Office was waning as a result of the excessive reach of the Nixon administration and the errors of Watergate. Congress was on the rise.
Cheney has made no bones of carrying with him for three decades the lessons of a weakened presidency--and his desire to strengthen its clout within the three equal branches of government.
"Correcting" what Cheney saw as an imbalance, Bush is leaving behind a federal government more powerful than ever, the magazine noted, using muscular (which some would call "strong-arm") control of a centralized federal government and "sweeping new claims" of presidential controls in foreign policy and national security.
And one more area seemingly favored by liberals and conservatives alike: The president's policies in Africa.
Macleans notes:
...his administration has forged a largely unexpected yet formidable legacy that is saving millions of lives. Foreign assistance to Africa tripled under Bush, and most has been on public health: fighting HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, and avian flu. In the year 2000, the U.S. was spending US$140 million on AIDS programs around the world. Today, it is spending US$6 billion, and most of it is going to Africa.
Adding to the contradictions: The opposition to abortion rights, a favored policy of social conservatives; the conservative stamp he left on the Supreme Court, and his failed attempt to move Social Security into the business of private investment accounts.
But notwithstanding the contradictions, the magazine posits, an argument can be made that taken as a whole, Bush pursued a direction--in deed, if not in acknowledged philosophy--that was the very course that liberals have historically followed.
And that conservatives run against every four years.
-- James Gerstenzang
Photo: Evan Vucci / Associated Press
