|
||
The One Big Thing George W. Bush Did Right
History will record that George W. Bush made one critically important contribution to our country -- and to the entire world. He and his administration provided unquestionable proof of the bankruptcy of radical-conservative ideology, and set the stage for a qualitatively different progressive era in American politics.
History is not linear. It is not gradual or evolutionary. Human progress proceeds in fits and starts like a volcano, where pressure gradually builds over years and then erupts with enormous power.
Very often those explosions of progress -- periods when we expand the realm of democratic values, human dignity, economic opportunity and optimism -- are precipitated by periods of domination by the forces of privilege, inequality and selfishness.
By assuring that all of the fruits of the growth of productivity in our economy went to the wealthiest 2% of our population, the Bush administration set the stage for the current economic collapse.
By actually putting into practice the Neo-Conservative theories of pre-emptive war and unilateralism, George W. Bush demonstrated their failure more persuasively than could the most articulate progressive critic.
By abandoning our historic commitment to due process and sinking into the dark world of torture, George W. Bush and his partner Dick Cheney isolated themselves from the growing worldwide commitment to human rights.
A brilliant new book by Democratic strategist and author Mike Lux documents the other periods in our history when conservative domination led to progressive renewal. The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be, describes the five "big change" moments in American history since the American Revolution: the Bill of Rights, the ending of slavery, the Progressive Era, the New Deal and the civil rights movement.
He argues that big changes have never occurred gradually -- nor have they been spread randomly over our history. Rather, they have been concentrated in these periods of "big change.". In each, a cascade of progressive innovation took place over a short period of time, after years of right wing opposition.
Lux writes:
Progressives invented the American ideal and inspired the American Revolution. Conservatives, then known as Tories, opposed it. Since then, every major advancement in American freedom, democracy, social justice, and economic opportunity has been fostered, fought for, and won by progressives against conservative resistance. Now who's anti-American?
We've already seen previews of the new progressive era, but the curtain will really go up next Tuesday when Barack Obama is inaugurated the 44th President of the United States. The next few years could be a transformational period -- if we all make it so.
As for Bush, he will be remembered as the man who set the stage. He has played the Hoover to Obama's Roosevelt, the James Buchanan to Obama's Lincoln.
Lux's study also makes something else absolutely clear. In American history, the pendulum has not swung inevitably back and forth between conservative and progressive periods with some form of historic equivalency. Instead, the changes emerging from periods of progressive success, once made, remain a permanent feature of our society.
Conservatives fought against the ending of slavery, women's suffrage, Social Security, collective bargaining, Medicare, and the end of segregation. After the progressive period that brought them to life was done, a conservative backlash often tried to limit the scope of these important advances -- with Jim Crow, assaults on Labor, or attempts to privatize Social Security. But conservatives have never been successful at eliminating them.
Once enacted, progressive change is hard to dislodge. That's because progressive change is progress. Progressive values are the most adaptive trait human beings have yet created to ensure our success and survival on this small planet.
The Right battled for decades to take complete control of the levers of power in Washington. The election of George W. Bush finally gave them the ability to combine the power of the presidency with their control of Congress to make their program the law of the land.
Ironically, their very success may assure that George W. Bush is remembered as the president whose failures created the conditions we needed to craft a new bottom-up economy, to pass universal health care and to create new international institutions that bring us closer to a world where we no longer rely on war to resolve our differences.
Of course nothing is inevitable. We cannot afford to squander the opportunity that history and George W. Bush have provided us. It is time for all of us to report for duty in the battle to turn this historic opportunity into the next great period of progress in America.
Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist and author of the recent book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I wish I could be more optimistic, but I've seen how much young people today have been "Reaganized", accustomed to sound-bite politics, seeing the world in terms chosen by mainstream media. One thing that has been lost is a consciousness of just how connected we all are, perhaps most strongly in economic matters. Consider one issue here: American poverty. Since the Reagan administration, media messages concerning the poor (in the US) grew increasingly negative. Then, for 8 years, we absorbed Clinton's sound-bite politics. By the time Clinton wiped out AFDC, we had a generation convinced that people struggling on sub-poverty aid were living lives of lazy luxury. Today, even otherwise-progress media no longer deems the poor worthy of mention. They'll mention "the working poor," but don't acknowledge those who no longer have jobs. Even with so many of our jobs gone, even with the real life issues that can cause poverty (illness, etc.), and with our economy collapsing, we consider poverty merely a "lifestyle choice".
Think: The life expectancy of America's poor has fallen below that of most Third World nations, while the infant mortality rate among our poor now exceeds that of most Third World nations.
This could be reversed by reversing our welfare "reform" policies, covering the costs by ending corporate welfare (tax "relief", special grants, etc.) We won't do this because we've been "programmed" to believe that aid for the poor is bad, aid for the rich is deserved.
You do understand that you are essentially arguing for the point which Ralph Nader was (wrongly) accused of promoting in 2000?
Namely, "it had to get worse before it could get better."
It certainly seems true that Americans will not listen to progressives when they sound the alarm. We have been expressing our concerns since 1980 at least.
As for things getting better: I'm going to wait to see real results before I declare that American politicians and voters are stepping back from the jingoistic, plutocratic abyss. It attracts us so much, like a death wish. I can't say I understand why.
The conservative mantra has been revealed.
Churchill famously said: "Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few. ..."
Modern conservatives reverse that message to say: "Never have so few prospered so much from the endeavors of so many."
Very insightful argument! Obama must embrace the big change needed after the disastrous Bush years and not try to appease conservatives too much. This is a day progressives can get their agenda passed and should work hard to do so. Universal health care, green jobs, etc. will lay the way for our future propserity, as many of the New Deal reforms has until now.
I think Bush's failures are mostly due to his attack on science. He sees science as the enemy, being a person who relies on feelings and that, supposedly, gives him direct communication with God. He favored business interest over science interest, making science the enemy of business, instead of the servant to business. This approach will lead from one disaster to another, and it did. Reality kept impinging on Bush's woud be world view. If he was one to question, we would think he would be baffled by the failures. "God told me this is the answer and look at what has happened." He is apparently spared from looking at actual results. From the Katrina double disaster, first taking money out of the budget to repair the levees before Katrina and failing to provide support to the city afterwards, Bush cherry picks his response. "We plucked 30 thousand people off of the rooftops." That was the guard that was well in place before he came into office. He did not look at how he decimated FEMA. That was what he played a role in and his actions caused more death, suffering and caused people to lose faith in his administration. Other entities in the area had to scramble around and deal with this and they lacked substantial support. They were also not given any credit, due to Bush being on the defensive due to his substantially failed response. This happened in so many areas during his two terms.
bush can secure his legacy as the president who successfully defeated terrorism by finally getting Osama bin Laden. Beginning next Wednesday, this guy won't have that much to do. If he had any guts, as "Joe Citizen," he would announce that he's personally going after the guy; that he's going over to Afghanistan/Pakistan to call-out bin Laden. Boy, that one single act would certainly endear the masses of Americans in his favor. Do it Mr. bush! You get bin Laden and I'll start spelling your name again with a capital "B." It would be the honorable thing to do.
I think you miss the point.
Bush and the neocons are neither new or conservative.
"They call you the elite, I call you my base", bush said.
The shadow goernment of international bankers are who are
REALLY in charge and in control both parties.
Just because Obama is democrat doesn't mean their plans aren't still moving forward.
We need to WAKE UP, realize who is really pulling the strings, like the Federal Reserve and friends (see Bilderberg, CFR ect) Until we face the problem, nothing will change that much, and we will continue in war, having our currency debased, and loosing our wealth to a group of forign bankers.
Whenever a 'contributor' to this "arena" misspells "LOSING" and "FOREIGN" in the same sentence, suspicions arise as to the competence of his "arguments"; moreover, this your "contribution" has the mephitic scent of yet another, "Tri-lateral Commission" recrudescence...... Even Henry Ford was made the fool for pub. it.....
This is likely a good point in some ways. Rather than lumping republicans and democrats all together however, I think it is more helpful to look at those who are what I will now loosely call "developer." You see locally how developers get into governing roles and then start to develop in ways which benefit them, but mostly are out of sync with the real needs of the people at the deeper level. There is no thought to sustainability, the impact on the environment, social concerns, and the general need to promote a sense of community. Rather than breaking things down to Republicans and Democrats, it might be more useful to look at what is driving the politician to get into power. I think there are politicians who are motivated by a desire to create better communities and there are the ones we know well, the ones driven by the desire for wealth. When Reagan said "Greed is Good," we should have been nervous. That is code for I am going to embrace development at any cost and in fact, the costs will be ignored. So, if we voted environment, likely we would end up with a much better government that factors science and the well being of humans as a part of the environment.
Well, we now know how to tell the two presidents Bush apart. No more name confusion. There is George Herbert Walker bush, and then there's George Herbert HOOVER Bush.
The thing Bush did right was to unite a major portion of the nation against him and the Republican party of endless greed and devotion to the secular dollar, mammon. He united us against stupidity, against anti-intellectualism and sadly, against religion. No one wants his kind of vicious, politicized, and greedy religion. Big Religion is just as bad as Big Business, they're are both totally self serving and politically corrupt and have proven themselves, beyond a shadow of a doubt against democracy.
Killing others for corporate profits and political power is NEVER the right thing to do. And the religions associated with the Bush administration have proven themselves to be as foul as he and the Republican party have always been. Those religions knew that about the Republican party and choose to align themselves with it.
It seems safe to say that as the Republican party goes, so goes Big Religion. They have been complicit in each others downfall. Religion is supposed to remind us of better ways to behave and of higher values, instead it has done the exact opposite. It, like the Bush family and the Republican party, have dragged us all down into the abyss and slime of Republican party greed and Republican party politics.
Greg, I think you are missing an important point that you are making. Being progressive isn't about getting stuck. It is about moving with the changes, adapting to the adaptations, being able to observe accurately and making the proper response. It is not about ideology and rigid notions about how things "should" be. That is conservatism. Getting stuck on certain things in an ever changing world is a disaster. We saw an extreme example of how conservatism works with Bush II. He has ideas which are so fixed, it makes him totally predictable. Being predictable is being controllable. Also, operating out of a model, is not operating out of reality. Reality is ignored in favor of implementing a fantasy which one imagines will magically work. Such as, with Katrina, apply less government. What happens? People die and little is done to restore the lives for the survivors, causing displacement and chaos. In fact, less government was even responsible for making the disaster much worse. The engineering changes that were deamed necessary were not put in place. Conservatism placed business interests over environmental. Science became the enemy of business instead of the servant of it. Progressives would have it the other way around. As more is learned, changes are made. That is progressive
For what they did, Bush's forebears should have become very famous, or infamous. They remained obscure figures, managers from behind the scenes. But their actions--including his father's role as a banker --had tragic effects for the whole planet. This is a quote from an author: George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography --- by Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin - Responsibility does not mean you buy the scoreboard and not play the game to win. George Bush simply bought the score - as a person never in charge of anything, a roll of quarters well executed on a flip could have had better rabbinic consequences if life were the chess piece he was using.
7:22 PM 1/16/2009
In his farewell speech last night, George W. Bush showed the world what a pathetic pityful creature he really is.
The premise that his administration kept us "safe" is absurd on the face of it; a good case can be made that, in fact, his and his gang's adventures are responsible for the messes the U.S. and the world are in, on practically all fronts. Security-wise, economically, geo-politically, the world is in a mess, and George W. Bush and his gang should take the "credit" for it.
One thing he did accomplish, as he promised he would: he did unite the world against him.
So, in a sense, he turned out to be the big uniter after all.
Let's all help the new President and the new Administration pick up the pieces and straighthen out the Augian stables George W. Bush is leaving them.
NOSMAVAN.
What will you do once Bush leaves... no one to pick on, maybe Palin can be the source/target of your hate?
W did keep us safe and made decisions that he thought were best for the US, that's what leaders do... not look and the pols then decide ala Clinton and probably BO... that's the kind of thing that gets us killed.
There's no 'mess' that can't be corrected and it amazes me that the liberal congress just stands there and blames Bush and sheep like you believe it! Amazing... wake-up sir.
Are you being funny? Probably you are just as delusional as your leader. I betcha voted for him and twice. Thanks for helping him ruin the world. If you are awake you need to drink more coffee because you are not alert of what is truly going on. Your Bush put this country in worst jeopardy. The only reason the U. S got no bombing at home for the past few years is because he (with your approval) send young soldiers to be killed over there. In other words, he made it easier for the terrorists who wanted to kill "Americans" They didn't care if they had uniforms on or tourist outfits. The only hate I see is from Palin supporters...like you.
See what you don't get wake up is that we don't need targets like you and we aren't in dire need to hate like you do. Why don't you take your hate to the Limbaugh blog. Oh yah, he doesn't have one. He can't take opposition.
We'll still have you to kick around. You and the other conservative nutbags who keep insisting that everything isn't all screwed up, and Bush isn't responsible for any of it. Ask yourself this: If the nothing the President does makes any difference, then why do you want a conservative president?
You look outward, and you frame things in terms of hate. But the frame is you.
Wake up indeed. Did W keep us safe ? thats a matter of opinion. Bush/Cheney/Rice were all advised in a written memo in - Aug 2001- before 9/11..that " Al quaida was ' determined to hit inside the US " That was ignored !! And we knew that .Arab men were taking flying lessons in Fla- but not asking to learn how to LAND ! Bin laden & his followers have caused terror and bombed innocents all over the world. None of this caused any alarm to W. Cheneys Halliburton made billions in Iraq-some for work never even done. Please DO some serious reading..the whole truth is starting to come out. .W & Cheney / Rice all failed us miserably. If we do not wake up to that. fact- it could happen again. Thats why it's necessary to know who did what. and hold them accountable.
I was very enthused by this article, mostly by the description of how progressive changes ratchet themselves into permanence. But upon reflection, I am now less enamoured of the premise.
For example, consider just three important changes from the "Progressive Era" (1890-1920)Â : prohibition, voter initiatives, and primary elections. Prohibition was, obviously, repealed, so so much for the permanence of progressivism. As for voter initiatives, they have become much more important for conservatives than for progressives: Prop 13, the Governator, Prop 8, ..., so the "progress" here is at least questionable. As for primary elections, as they have been implemented today, they effectively disenfranchise the majority of American voters during the pre-nomination process. It is possible that the idea of a primary election could be salvaged, but it doesn't seem likely, so I also question the "progress" aspect of primaries.
On the other hand, many of the advances of the Progressive Era are still with us and are unquestionably "progress", for example, women's suffrage. And I also agree that the Bush years have dealt a pretty major dose of counter-evidence to the radical conservative/neoconservative ideology and agenda.
But I think that the article is perhaps too rosy. Yes, we still have some of the most important progressive successes, but others were not so successful, and not only because of the attempts of conservatives to dilute or eliminate them.
To me, the most important message from all this might be stated as:
Progess, but verify.
Greg Shenaut
Prohibition was not clearly a liberal initiative since it was passed by conservative state governments and repealed by the Democrats when they next assumed authority. Popular choice and the primaries process did not overwhelm the mechanisms of the national parties. John F Kennedy was the first candidate to win nomination from a major party by his victories in the primaries, and opposition by seeded delegates could have switched the Democratic choice from Obama to Clinton in 2008. Popular initiatives have shown a tendency to be used by reactionary elements.
Progressive liberal victories have been more modest. For example, a policeman who drew his gun and shoot a civilian lying face down dropped out of the force and has to stand trial for murder. Except that this was caught on camera, the police officer could have expected to get a pass. Modern American slavery is restricted to prison labor, the sex trade, and exploited immigrants, but all of this seems on an increase. Voting rights have been extended to women and eighteen year olds while being taken from former felons even while more people are being sent to prison and this amounts to disenfranchising about 40% of the younger African American males. Employer funded pensions are vulnerable to attacks by equity investors and in "bankruptcies" that cause them to vanish in a moment, and the Social Security payments are about half what they would be before 1982 changes in the calculation of the GDP.
Greg, I think you are missing an important point that you are making. Being progressive isn't about getting stuck. It is about moving with the changes, adapting to the adaptations, being able to observe accurately and making the proper response. It is not about ideology and rigid notions about how things "should" be. That is conservatism. Getting stuck on certain things in an ever changing world is a disaster. We saw an extreme example of how conservatism works with Bush II. He has ideas which are so fixed, it makes him totally predictable. Being predictable is being controllable. Also, operating out of a model, is not operating out of reality. Reality is ignored in favor of implementing a fantasy which one imagines will magically work. Such as, with Katrina, apply less government. What happens? People die and little is done to restore the lives for the survivors, causing displacement and chaos. In fact, less government was even responsible for making the disaster much worse. The engineering changes that were deamed necessary were not put in place. Conservatism placed business interests over environmental. Science became the enemy of business instead of the servant of it. Progressives would have it the other way around. As more is learned, changes are made. That is progressive.
Well said & well written.
HOW TO START January 20th WITH A POSITIVE OUTLOOK
1. Open a new file in your computer.
2. Name it 'George Bush'.
3. Send it to the Recycle Bin.
4. Empty the Recycle Bin.
5. Your PC will ask you: 'Do you really want to get rid of 'George Bush?'
6. Firmly Click 'Yes.'
7. Feel better?
GOOD! In a hour or so we'll do Dick Cheney
Cute!
Thats very good Thanks
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
