Crossposted from Moral Questions Weblog.
Last night I wrote a post that suggested Bush’s speech was a major victory for Liberalism in America, that it was an ideological concession from a conservative president which will open the door to a reemergence of activist government in America. It sparked an important conversation, and I think it would be worthwhile to review some of it. Then, I would like to respond and, I hope, make my point more clear.
Many of the people who disagreed with me felt I was being overly optimistic because the Bush administration are unlikely to carry out the Katrina relief with anything resembling competence or integrity. Jerome Armstrong of Mydd wrote:
It means nothing. It’s empty promises. Go back and read it in a year, and see how little of it pans out.
And Shock wrote:
As for Bush, the rest of his term will be dominated by one of the biggest domestic spending programs in our history.
As Meteor Blades’ diary points out… this might insead be perhaps the biggest period of looting in history.
Bush’s real “base” should love it!
As for the “victory”, if you’re right and it does turn out to be one, please don’t forget that the price was very high.
Finally, Chicagochristianleft writes:
Perhaps one could argue that Bush’s speech is a victory for liberal rhetoric, i.e. the reason Rove and Hughes put those words in his mouth was because they recognize the popular appeal that using government to lift fellow Americans from poverty and despair holds. After all, it was simply the addition of the “compassionate” to the conservative that proved the winning advantage for Bush over the scary convention of 1992 with Pat Buchanan scaring the shit out of Americans with his hard-edged speech.
Unfortunately, Bush has no intention of letting all that juicy cash get into the hands of poor people. It is yet another opportunity for Bush and Cheney to funnel US tax dollars into their own private bank accounts.
On the other side P J S commented in the thread and wrote this in his own diary:
“As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action. So let us restore all that we have cherished from yesterday, and let us rise above the legacy of inequality.”
I gasped in disbelief at this statement coming from Bush. This comment undermines the central argument (“individual responsibility”) conservatives have been making for 20 years. Bush just eloquently made the argument for affirmative action and other poverty fighting measures. This should be the lead in every newspaper article in the country. (I won’t hold my breath waiting for the corporate media to pick up on it).
Elrod writes:
Philoguy writes this:
Bush’s motives in this thread are missing the point of the diarist. Think of politics as a conversation where there are unspoken rules governing what can be said and what cannot be said. There are certain things that if said change the rules of the entire game. For instance, if I’m involved in a romantic relationship with someone this relationship can proceed for quite some time without commitment or even referring to itself as a relationship. However, if one evening I happen to say “I love you”, the rules of the game between me and this other person suddenly changes and certain things that previously were excluded from our communication now become possible to say. It doesn’t really matter whether I meant it, whether it was a moment of weakness, whether it was off the cuff, whether I was calculating in saying it. Things now have changed.
The diarist seems to be saying that something similar happened with Bush’s speech last night. Regardless of Bush’s intentions, regardless of whether he’s being cynically manipulative (no doubt), regardless of whether or not he’ll follow through, what Bush said last night had the effect of changing the political landscape and of redefining what it’s possible to say and not say, and what the American people are entitled to expect and not expect. What’s important here is not whether or not Bush will follow through (I find it unlikely that he will), but that he’s opened a door for those of us on the left and Democrats to put certain things on the table, to reformulate issues, and to reformulate the basic assumptions governing American politics today. This is an opportunity, and the far more effective strategy is not to dismiss Bush’s proposals, but to take him at his word an hold him up to what he’s said. Clearly he’ll fail in living up to what he’s said. That opens the door for democrats to follow through where the right fails.
Finally, I replied in the comments:
What I’m trying to say is that rhetoric and the way in which policy is approached matters a great deal. Over the past 25 years, the American politic debate has shifted progressively further to right. This is most clearly demonstrated by the experiance of the Clinton administration, which was forced to govern far further from the right than anyone in the Democratic party would have liked. What Bush is proposing for Katrina is similar to the positions Clinton was forced to take after the 94 midterm elections. Katrina has created a political environment in the United States that is beginning to be favorable to activist government again. True, the speech itself is nothing more than rhetoric. But its signifies that there has been an ideological shift in America.
And not just that, but the policies he is proposing are significant also. Yes, I know it will revolve around cronyism and corruption, and that is tragic for those it is meant to help. But this will be an ongoing victory for Liberalism, politically. Imagine hearing the news reporting the Bush administration pushing through program after program of social welfare for the gulf region. Imagine the divisiveness this will engender in the conservative base and how bad their party will look for being unable to provide unified support to such a popular agenda.
This is truly the biggest opening Liberalism has had possibly since the Clinton administration’s botched attempt at realignment after the ’92 election. If conservatives fight this, they’ll face political defeat. If they accept it, they will face losing much of the central rationale for their ideology over the last 25 years. As I said before, I don’t see a downside.
