Because as governor of Texas Rick Perry holds the same position that George W. Bush held before becoming president, it is difficult not to compare the two men. It is also apparent that despite both being conservative Republicans with abrasive styles and palpable contempt for educated liberals and having both having served as governor of Texas, the two are quite different. Those differences provide some interesting insight both the nature of Republican politics and our political culture more generally.
When he first became a national political figure, Bush seemed to represent the final step of a generational, ideological and geographical shift within the Republican Party. The symbolism of George W. Bush, whose father was almost a caricature of a patrician, and at least early in his career, liberal, northern Republican, emerging as a conservative, younger and southern face of the Republican Party was hard to miss. Nonetheless, candidate Bush's rhetoric about a "humbler" American foreign policy and efforts to position himself as a "compassionate conservative" seems like a stark contrast to candidate Perry about whom there is nothing humble or compassionate.
Rick Perry's emergence as a national figure is a reminder that nothing is ever static and that politics can always get more extreme. Bush had roots in the newer, more Southern and conservative wing of the Republican Party, but due to his family name and degrees from elite academic institutions, still had ties to an older and more moderate Republican Party. Perry, however, is a far more authentic product of the right wing of his party. Although, Bush is only four years older than Perry, in some ways they seem to have come from different generations.
Perry has been able to capture, even through his body language, a righteous right-wing anger to which Bush could only aspire. Perry's extreme positions are well articulated and genuine, particularly compared to Bush whose inarticulateness sometimes suggested a lack of confidence about his views. When George H.W. Bush said something that was radically conservative, it was clear he was pandering. No matter how extreme Rick Perry's statements are, he seems genuine. George W. Bush was somewhere between the two.
While George W. Bush sought to portray himself as an outsider with little knowledge of Washington, his political and economic pedigree, along with his strong ties to the Republican establishment, made it difficult to view Bush that way. Moreover, when Bush became president his first cabinet included people like Colin Powell who all but symbolized the Washington establishment and had strong ties to what was left of the liberal wing of the Republican Party. Perry is different. Should he become president, it is not likely that his administration will be dominated by members of earlier, more liberal, Republican governments. A Perry presidency, if it ever comes to that, will be quite different as he would likely appoint an ideologically extreme cabinet with fewer links to an older, more moderate Republican Party. This would probably not make a Perry administration more effective, but it would make it more frightening.
Perry embodies an even greater anger and unwillingness to understand policy questions in anything but the most ideologically driven terms than Bush did during his first run for president. This is both disturbing and a reflection of how much tension and hostility permeates our political system. Perry's now famous debate response about the death penalty demonstrates this tension and hostility. His response was striking not only because of the sight of people applauding Perry's having presided over 234 executions, but because of the sincerity and confidence with which he stated his position. Bush, in a similar situation would have given in to a smirk or simply bumbled his words thus making himself sound weaker. Perry, however, was beaming with pride both after the applause and after the initial response.
It is easy to imagine Perry taking similar pride in not believing that climate change is serious and due to human activity or in his belief that a program established to keep old people from starving which is based on contributions from working people is a Ponzi scheme rather than a flawed program, but one which is enormously important to the ethical and financial future of our country.
A central lesson from the Bush administration is that certainty does not compensate for being wrong. Should Perry become president, he will make Bush look positively wishy-washy, but probably will be even more wrong on more issues than his fellow Texas governor was. Perry's certainty, bravado and sincerity take the place of curiosity, nuance, creativity and the ability to work across differences to solve problems. America does not need a president for whom getting political opponents angry seems to be more important than solving problems, but that is precisely the kind of president Perry would probably be.
Follow Lincoln Mitchell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/LincolnMitchell
Shane Claiborne: Duane Buck And Celebrating The Interruption Of Death
In other words, Rick Perry has a juvenile mentality and America faces the prospects of being led by a teenage bully, in the white house. The world won't ever be the same.
As much as I hate to state it, Perry is an authentic Texan. He was born and raised on a small cotton farm. He was educated here.
What is unique about Perry is that he is the first of a brand, the first right wing Christian republican national candidate to come out of Texas He is a product of the right wing republican party, which has only existed for the past twenty years. In that respect he like nothing that has ever been seen out of Texas. The last republican president from Texas was IKE, and he was hardly a conservative right winger.
If Perry gets the nomination, and I believe that he will, there will be many in Texas - democrats and republicans - that will oppose his election.
Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today's young may well get less than they put in).
-- Paul Krugman
And why is it always Bush we're asked if we miss? How about Clinton? Now THERE is a president I wish could be in the White House again!
Look at how they left America after the left office. Coincidence ? I don't thinks so.
The Shrub? 2 wars, rendition, Guatanamo, that disgrace called the Patriot Act, a terrible economy etc and I don't recall one positive accomplishment the whole 8 years.
so I applaud Perry on that..but maybe,if repubs really hate it so much,they can have those illegals pay back what was illegally spent on them by taking a "Little bit more" out of their pay checks than we do others.20 a week ? I dunno..something that won't hurt TOO much,but will give repubs cover :)
Some of the crevasses are wide, deep, gaping, entirely OBVIOUS. It is easy to see these, and to step around them.
Other crevasses are the kinds that really kill. No spectacular blue depths leading downward to oblivion, no gaping maws.
Instead they lie, slumbering under a sparkly blanket of new snow. They are narrow, which enables them to capture the beautiful snow over layer. But they are just the width of a man, and they will suck a mountaineer down as surely as the big, obvious ones.
Bush was a big, obvious crevasse. Obama is a sweet, pretty, non visible glacier. Just as deadly via his betrayals, but welcoming one to cross over, to step onto.
Kind of like the witch in Hansel and Gretel.
Hence, around June, I will probably be thinking of which third party I am going to vote for.
In matters of foreign policy, President Obama has shown complete continuity with his predecessor, continuing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan (undeclared but real), Yemen (formerly covert), Somalia (covert until recently), and starting a new war in Libya (illegally). He has also defended torture in US civil courts. He is running a semi-secret rendition prison in Somalia that is probably torturing (or at least abusing) people there. This is not a complete list, but it makes the point.
Domestically, President Obama has not done well either. By agreeing to extend the "temporary" Bush-era tax cuts last December he created the climate which allowed the recent debt ceiling debacle to happen. His payroll tax cuts threaten to undermine the fiscal health of the Social Security system. On health care he did a back room deal with the pharmaceutical industry. Recently, he offered to raise the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67.
It may well be (in fact, almost certainly is) true that President Obama would be the lesser of two evils comparied to a President Perry, but if Perry does get elected he will be taking over from where President Obama left off, which is a USA even further degraded from where President Bush left off.
Totally bought and paid for like every other politician in that cult.
Perry can't make me do anything but wonder WTH is up with his entire torso jerking every time he tries to place emphasis on another hair-brained point.
I say we just go with the ol' Magic 8 Ball. I mean, how much worse could it do??
I always try to tell the young people ( African Americans in my case) to vote and also but prepare yourself for the future.
It'll get progressively more difficult as time goes on. When I completed high school in 1964 there were 3.5 billion people in the world; now it's doubled and the Republicans have never ( except Lincoln's era) cared much about the average citizen. They're business oriented which is why they always indicate America should be run like a business with a balance sheet. They've been against; civil rights, minimum wage, social security, medicare, rights of women, or any other right of people. In fact they've made businesses people. That's right a company is a person; ask Rommney! Lol ha!
Because of the Republican philosphy; they represent a small number of people in society but they control because most people do not vote. That Governor in Wisconsin ( Scott what's his name) who won the office earlier this year is a good example. The people voted him in office and he began stabbing them in the back Immediately for his business backers. Lol.
"The people have spoken and now they must suffer'! Lol ha.' That's how they really feel.
Seriously; get out there and vote otherwise your worst nightmare will be realized.