George W. Bush Was Right

Given that the above title is likely to annoy or amuse all 20 of my readers, I'll quickly explain why I believe it: part of the "Bush Doctrine" included efforts to reform authoritarian governments in the Arab world and to get them to grant more freedoms to political opposition in their countries. He was specifically targeting Egypt, the nation that now finds itself embroiled in large-scale demonstrations by its citizens.

The argument runs this way: America has involved itself in the affairs of the Middle East because of our need for the petroleum there. Political stability = economic stability because uprisings, terrorism, and the like make the price of oil head for low-Earth orbit. To ensure this stability, administrations both Republican and Democrat have tolerated "strong men" like Mubarak (or, once, Saddam Hussein) if they kept the oil flowing. This toleration has been especially important in Egypt because they are the only Arab nation to officially recognize the State of Israel. They're a major military power in the region. And, like Mubarak after him, Anwar Sadat for the most part kept the more radical elements in his nation under control. The fact that that control included a lot of very harsh prisons and torture was overlooked. Those who cling to a Wilsonian view of foreign policy believe that the U.S. should not just protect its own interests, but be a force for good, making the world "safe for democracy." As such, we should insist on good conduct from our allies--that they should behave like us.

Furthermore, there has been a view in some circles (especially just after 9/11) that the reason "they hate us" is that we have supported repressive regimes like Egypt or Saudi Arabia or (the pre-1979 Shah of) Iran. The first nation to take Bush's rhetoric about reform seriously was Lebanon, which had its "Cedar Revolution" in 2005, throwing out the repressive Ba'ath regime sponsored by Syria. Admittedly, it was another five years before another similar uprising occurred, this time in Tunisia, but happen it did, and the calls for freedom have been expanding elsewhere in the Middle East, most recently Egypt.

This will be an interesting and difficult test case for the Obama administration. Despite campaign rhetoric to the contrary, Obama has continued George W. Bush's foreign and anti-terrorism policies, albeit under a different "brand." American troops remain in Iraq and Afghanistan to support legitimate, if tenuous, elected governments. Perhaps lovers of freedom in the Arab world have gotten the message that the U.S. is not leaving anytime soon. This is why Iraqis started helping American troops openly: they didn't fear that they'd be killed by their enemies as soon as America left, as happened in Vietnam, because we aren't leaving. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has had the lead on this one. She has, probably wisely, taken a wait-and-see attitude toward the demonstrations, calling on restraint from the protestors and Mubarak alike. Tanks are in the streets as I type this, so odds are that Mubarak will take some sort of direct action soon. A violent crackdown is likely, as happened in Iran in 2009. However, unlike Iran, Egypt is a major--if not the most important--American ally in the region. Mubarak's actions reflect on the U.S., as the "Arab street" believes, perhaps rightly, that he does whatever America allows him to do.

But going back to my title here, George W. Bush had good reason to press for moderate reform among our regional allies after 9/11. We did not and do not need another radical state like Iran in the region, especially right next door to Israel. If moderate freedoms are not granted to the citizens of our allies, America will continue to be seen as a conquerer and tyrant, regardless of the freedoms now enjoyed in Iraq. Governments that continue to resist reform ultimately face revolution. We will see what happens next, but the lessons of history are there to be learned, from Louis XVI to Czarist Russia to the Shah's Iran to Tunisia. Whether authoritarians learn them or not remains to be seen.

Obama and North Korea

Anyone else find it a little odd that President Obama has decided to play it tough with North Korea over their missile program? This from a guy who criticized Bush for being too much of a unilateralist? A cowboy, if you will? Since the early years of the Clinton administration, the U.S. has engaged in six-party talks with Kim Jong-Il (N. Korea, S. Korea, Japan, China, Russia, and us). The talks have been multilateral, and the work has been pursued without violence or "cowboy diplomacy." It has also been an utter failure, just like the negotiations Europe has tried to pursue with Iran.

We talk and we talk and we talk. And then we bargain and offer incentives and carrots, and talk some more. The North Koreans listen and smile and talk back, and occasionally make promises and temporary gestures regarding their nuclear program. But then they go right back to doing what they damn well please, restarting their nuke plants and building and testing nuclear weapons. We know they've been building long-range rockets, and are poised to launch another one, perhaps as early as this weekend. Diplomacy has failed, despite years of castigating Bush for not using diplomacy enough.

And now Obama is out there threatening North Korea. Why the sudden urge to look tough? Is it because Obama hopes to "look tough" with some smaller opponent he thinks we can beat while giving over our financial sovereignty to other, stronger nations? I don't honestly know. But nuclear war on top of our current financial crisis is another way not to improve the general situation of the country. With any luck, this rocket will blow up like the other one, and we'll get another six- or twelve-month breathing space. But what happens if it doesn't? Well, then I guess we'll see what Barack Obama really is made of, and what his actions will do to or for this country.

The Mess That Was George Bush

Someone griped about the "lack of outrage" at how Bush, et al., have screwed up the country and our position in the world. My response is below.

I've been complaining about Bush for awhile now, and about the bailout since September/October because it was the wrong approach to take. It's a massive, unnecessary intrusion of government into an economic cycle, and I don't like it any better under Obama. I also didn't like his attempt to force amnesty down my throat. Or the No Child Left Behind Act he developed with Ted Kennedy. Or the Transportation Insecurity Agency. Or the prescription drug benefit expansion under Medicare. Or the insane increases in pork-barrel spending. Sorry if I haven't screamed loud enough, but there's plenty of outrage to go around. I blog and point out things I don't like, policy-wise.

As for our standing in the world, quite a few of the world leaders who didn't like Bush were totalitarians: Kim Jong Il, Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez, Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, Yassir Arafat, and Hu Jintao, to name some of the usual suspects. I would find it profoundly disturbing if anyone in that crowd actually approved of American policies (under Bush and sometimes Clinton), which have been pro-free market, pro-democracy, and anti-terrorism. If our "standing in the world" is based on getting nation-leading tyrants and corrupt, anti-U.S. bureaucrats in the UN to like us, I'll take a lower rating.

There are allies we haven't gotten along with as well as we'd like. Britain, France, and Germany come to mind, but they all continue to provide troops for Iraq and Afghanistan, as does Australia. (As an Aussie once put it, "Australia is the only ally south of the equator that you don't pay for.") They could just as easily refuse. They're not very happy with our financial system right now, because most of them were invested in it.

We could go back to the Community Reinvestment Act, which mandated that banks give mortgages to risky borrowers as a starting point for that. Now, the banks decided repackage those mortgages (polish the turds, if you will) as some sort of credit default swaps, which was legal under the law.

So what can Obama do to fix all this? A global New Deal is a nonstarter, in my opinion, because the original New Deal didn't work the first time. Quite frankly, I think much of the rest of the world wouldn't give a flip what Obama did if he'd just let America go back to making money, with a few extra rules added to the road. Government takeovers of businesses will not, Not, NOT make things better, and will in fact extend the depressed market.

I've been told that it's unfair to pick on Obama and "the mess he's inherited" less than 100 days after his election. Fine. But I'll ask again: when is he expected to be held accountable for results? If you're in a hole, you stop digging. Obama was dealt a bad hand. That doesn't mean you double down and make things worse. That's what his policies and budget are doing.

Another thing Obama could do is ease up on all the strings attached to bailouts. Governments do not know how to run businesses, as GM, AIG, etc., demonstrate. Suppose a company wants to fly the CEO down to a convention in Las Vegas in the corporate jet to announce a new product that will greatly improve the company's fortunes in the future? Well, right now, the jets are out, Vegas convention hotels are cutting staff, and the press will frown on any signs of public funds being invested in frivolities like food and beverage, which are a standard part of getting people to attend big publicity events. Some corporations would be better off just declaring Chapter 11 bankruptcy until they can get their collective heads back together. That has to be less painful than knuckling under all the "necessary" government controls and strings that come with a bailout.

What drives me up the wall most about Bush is that most of the things that flopped were liberal (read: neocon) policies--Bush "reaching across the aisle" to work with Kennedy, et al.--and if they had been done by a Democrat, they would've been seen as great legislative achievements. So, once more this needs to be said: George W. Bush was not a conservative, except on cultural and (some) defense issues. Invading Iraq wasn't a conservative act. All the stuff I mentioned in the second paragraph was not conservative. It was big-government liberalism with a GOP/neocon sticker on it. Basic conservatism, for those who have forgotten, believes in a few basic principles and policies:

• A common civil society, deriving its principles from Judeo-Christian, Greek, Roman, and Enlightenment notions of freedom of conscience, association and religion, individual liberty, private property, and personal responsibility.
• Respect for individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
• Limited government that provides law & order and basic infrastructure, alllowing individuals to prosper.
• A strong national defense capable of protecting America's vital national interests.
• Low taxes and a limited government sized to match limited means.

Bush did not favor limited government intrusion or spending, and neither did the GOP during most of this decade. Obama is increasing both. We are paying the price for that lack of vision now.

The Economy, Continued

George W. Bush handed off a bad economy to Barack Obama. I believe we can all agree on this. However, after that, the perception of economic reality between conservatives and liberals diverges. For example, Bush took the wrong step--after cutting taxes during the '01-03 recession--of attempting a massive government bailout/intrusion into the economy. The '08-'09 recession has been the result of a collapse in home prices, credit, and some of the financial and industrial concerns that depended on the credit markets. The bail-outs under Bush and Obama, administered by the Secretary of the Treasury, have not worked. Credit remains tight, more mortgages are failing, and credit remains tight. Enter Barack Obama.

It is time to stop blaming George W. Bush for the economy. This economy has been Obama's for a month now. Gone is the soaring rhetoric of "hope" and "change." Now we are treated to grim reality, "It's going to get worse before it gets better," and more excuses for the government to intrude into the private sector.

A jolt of government spending on private-sector products and services could temporarily juice the economy, though John Maynard Keynes himself said that incentives were necessary to encourage businesses to invest and expand. Those incentives generally include tax cuts and reductions in regulations. The Obama stimulus plan has not done this. It has focused on government spending on government-focused activities that increase the federal bureaucracy but does not increase private-sector productivity, which has always been more dynamic and profitable than government activity. It has increased taxes on the people with the most money, who would be the ones paying the most taxes and investing in the most profitable businesses. He has proposed a massive new dose of federal spending that the nation cannot afford, foreign investors do not want to subsidize (or want concessions to support), and which could inflate the currency in the long run.

Furthermore, President Obama and his party in Congress have attached regulations and strings to their version of the bailout money. President Obama has criticized CEOs for flying in private jets or going on business travel to expensive places, potentially damaging businesses and jobs in those industries. The more the government interferes, the less businesses are likely to take risks, for fear of being targeted or criticized for their attempts at success.

Obama has preached about a new "era of responsibility," but the government bailing out businesses and individuals who made bad decisions guarantees more irresponsibility in the future because somewhere, somehow, people believe that the government will always bail them out if they screw up. Indeed, the bigger the screwup (billions of dollars lost), the more likely it is that a company will get a bailout!

Obama wants more Americans working, but extending unemployment benefits or upping the benefits is an incentive to stay home and let the government take care of you. And so forth.

In short, I believe President Obama's policies and public statements are making the economy worse, not better. I want my country to be rich. Heck, I want to be rich! I want my 401(k) back. I've been told I need to "give Obama a break." At what point can the voters make him accept responsibility? When the Dow doubles down a couple more times? When unemployment hits 10%? 15%? 25%, as it did under Roosevelt? At what point can we stop blaming Bush? And saying things like "Well, Bush did X worse" is not helpful, nor is it a terribly effective defense of Obama. Bush is not president anymore, Obama is, and I want him to know what he is going to do that will be good for the economy.

I want the president to cut taxes. I want him to ease up on the private sector. I want him to stop telling businesses that it's not appropriate to travel to Las Vegas or Orlando for conventions. I want him to stop criticizing anyone able to afford a private plane. I don't want him to spend more in one year than most of the most expensive years-long projects in American history. If he's going to spend taxpayer money, let it be for basic infrastructure, basic research and development (including space exploration), quality academic and trade education, and temporary relief of economic hardship. If he really wanted to kick up the economy, he could cut the number of the federal regulations (and the bureaucracy responsible for increasing their number), bypass bailing out banks and other companies, and send every taxpayer $10,000. We would probably still come out ahead...plus, he'd stimulate consumer spending like nothing anyone has ever seen! I could get behind a program like that.

Heck, if he did all that, I might vote for him in '12!

Bowing to Obama

I'm supposed to be polite and "give Obama a chance" and show appropriate respect for the man and this historic moment. How dare I question the man before he's even sworn in? (I listened to his speeches and analyzed his policies, that's how I dare.) But nevertheless, fine. I will behave myself tomorrow. But I expect quid pro quo. I'll establish a moratorium on pounding the President-elect as long as the left stops blaming George W. Bush for everything wrong with the country, "crimes against humanity," and other foolishness. Oh, never mind...

I'm reading The Forgotten Man, a history of The Great Depression. The ideas and methods Hoover and Roosevelt tried to use to solve that problem are eerily familiar and, by the way, didn't work then, either.

The Shoe Thing















I know, a lot of media outlets today are just cheering happily about an Iraqi journalist calling President Bush a "dog" and throwing a shoe at him as "the worst possible insult" in Islam. (Funny, I thought humiliating a man naked was the worst possible insult--at least that's what I heard when Abu Ghraib happened.)

The cheering section has forgotten something. The guy thinks Bush is a tyrant, and now he's got people chanting in the streets as if he's some sort of folk hero. All well and good.

But consider an alternate scenario. Imagine the guy he'd thrown a shoe at was Saddam Hussein. What do you suppose would have happened in Saddam's Iraq if the most powerful man in that country had had a shoe thrown at him? Would he be alive today? Would there be crowds cheering in the streets? No. That man would have been captured by Saddam's secret police, beaten up, and slowly lowered into a wood chipper. There would have been no show of public support for fear of similar treatment.

Now, did we really need to go in there? Perhaps not. But imagine where that journalist would be if he'd had similar spunk with a very different leader.

I Thought Everybody Was Worried About the Bush Deficit

http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=arEE1iClqDrk&refer=home

This one deserves to be quoted:

U.S. Pledges Top $7.7 Trillion to Ease Frozen Credit

Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government is prepared to provide more than $7.76 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers after guaranteeing $306 billion of Citigroup Inc. debt yesterday. The pledges, amounting to half the value of everything produced in the nation last year, are intended to rescue the financial system after the credit markets seized up 15 months ago.
The unprecedented pledge of funds includes $3.18 trillion already tapped by financial institutions in the biggest response to an economic emergency since the New Deal of the 1930s, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The commitment dwarfs the plan approved by lawmakers, the Treasury Department’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. Federal Reserve lending last week was 1,900 times the weekly average for the three years before the crisis.

What other bright ideas will we encouter in the next year? The world wonders.

Too Much Government in the Economy?

Before President Bush starts lecturing the G-8 about abandoning capitalism and using government as a cure-all for economic problems, perhaps he should start by lecturing his own Secretary of the Treasury. Dude? Who the heck hired Paulson? Is it too late to give the guy some concrete guidelines on who or what warrants a bailout/handout/government takeover? Oy. But then, McCain wouldn't have done much better. He stopped his frickin' campaign in a grandstanding play to demonstrate that he was willing to put aside his political future to put government into action on behalf of the country. Sigh. Despite the current financial mess and boneheaded approaches to "fixing" it, I'm still going to Europe. I'm just wondering if I need to shop for real estate while I'm there. No, no...that'd be about as smart as moving to Iran to protest theocracy in America.

Losing a Bet

Awhile back, I wrote the following:

I'll take a bet on this: President Bush, being the stand-up guy that he is, will get on the tube and admit the bailout didn't work before the Democrats (the problem is, what's he gonna say next?).

Well, I stand corrected. President Bush has not backed down from the bailout or admitted anything of the sort. Instead, he's getting the leaders of the major industrial powers together to come up with an even bigger socialist "solution" for the current mess:

The president has backed the steps European nations have taken to stem the downturn, and wants the summit to include the Group of Eight industrialized powers plus other emerging economies like China and India.

Oy. I guess I should understand a fundamental fact about American politics: no leader will admit a failure unless cornered like a rat and no other solution presents itself. Apparently things haven't gotten that desperate yet.

I would like to remind my Democrat friends once again that George W. Bush is not, Not, NOT a conservative Republican. He might have support from the Christian Right on social issues, but when it comes to international or economic issues, Bush is a neoconservative (i.e. a "big government" guy). His stances on international issues (U.S. intervention and "transformation"/remaking of the Middle East) and economic issues (U.S. Government intervention into domestic affairs) are, again, NOT conservative!

One might rail against John McCain for voting for Bush policies 90% of the time, or whatever (somehow, it's still okay for Obama to vote 95% with his party--go figure), but I would also remind my liberal readers that John McCain is also not a conservative. The most conservative thing he ever did after several six-year terms in the Senate was select Sarah Palin for his running mate. And quite frankly, if McCain serves a full four-year term, Palin's influence will be close to zero, like most VPs before her.