Monday, December 06, 2004
What Bush Could Do
Ken asked me, in a comment below, what Bush could do which would get my approval, and yet be consistent with representing the viewpoint of those who voted for him.
It's a reasonable question, but the list still overran the thousand-character comment limit considerably. My answer to his question is here, instead, as today's post.
He could cease and desist his assault on the sciences and regulatory agencies.
He could acknowledge the data when his programs fail, or report proven falsehoods - such as the "abstinence-only" sex education thing - and change what doesn't work or is proven false.
He could be honest about the effects of his programs, for instance the tax cuts, instead of persisting in a program of disingenuity about their actual effects.
He could himself take on the lack of transparency in your electoral system, treating it as an affront to good sense. He could actively condemn hate campaigning and Swiftboating tactics, even when used on his behalf.
He could give up "yee-haw as a foreign policy" in favour of some kind - any kind! - of multilateralism. He could make the American people safer by pulling out of Iraq, despite his election platform; yes, I'd approve, it would be in his voters' best interests in the long term.
He could accept the Kyoto Protocol, the International Court, the Test Ban Treaty, and any number of other sensible initiatives of the international community. Especially the ones which his supporters, by and large, thought he supported when they voted for him.
He could acknowledge the poor track record of privatization in general, and the US health care system in specific, vis-a-vis cost vs. benefit, and take action on this score as well.
He could condemn censorship in the media, uphold your Bill of Rights (even for gays), and allow - nay, encourage - civilized dissent. He could acknowledge that out-of-earshot 'Protest Zones' and the Miami Model of law enforcement are illegal, punish those responsible, and strengthen the laws against them.
He could punish war profiteering and close corporate tax loopholes. As a side benefit he might be able to kill the deficit in doing so.
He could push a progressive income tax structure which would benefit, not harm, the vast majority of those who voted for him. He could extend that progressive scale to all 'people' under the law, including corporations. [Side note, my friend Tom Cantine is working on a brilliant defense of progressive taxation from libertarian first principles; I'll post it, or a link, here when it's done.]
He could acknowledge the current risks to the US dollar and make good-faith efforts with other countries to prevent it from sliding any further, up to and including raising taxes and/or limiting fossil fuel use if that's what it takes to prevent a currency collapse. See the above about not being obliged to hurt your voters, even if they voted you into office to do it.
He could (choose one) abandon protectionism and embrace globablisation, OR abandon globalisation and embrace protectionism. Frankly I'm not picky, that's a legitimate electoral issue, but the US should bloody well stop trying to have its cake and eat it too.
He could fund his own programs and promises properly. (Yes, most if not all politicians could use to work on this.) He could put his money where his mouth is and give NASA enough money to actually push for Mars.
He could condemn torture and uphold the Geneva Conventions.
He could condemn conflicts of interest between government and industry. He could shut down the lobbying industry. He could push a countrywide Clean Elections campaign such as Maine's or Arizona's.
He could stop trying to pressure his peaceful neighbours into spending their money on his military initiatives, against the clear wishes of those countries' voters.
He could use his bully pulpit to echo a brand of Christianity which can hear the Sermon on the Mount with a straight face and a clean conscience.
He could, in short, (a) acknowledge facts, even unpleasant ones, (b) be honest and transparent about his policies, and (c) actually work toward the economic and social best interests of his constituents - those who voted for him, those who voted against him, and those who did not vote.
Abuse, hate, and prejudice are not in the best interests of those who hold them. A skyrocketing Gini coefficient of wealth disparity, a shrinking middle class, and Wal-Martization are not in the best interests of the majority of voters.
He could show them that.
But he won't.
It's a reasonable question, but the list still overran the thousand-character comment limit considerably. My answer to his question is here, instead, as today's post.
He could cease and desist his assault on the sciences and regulatory agencies.
He could acknowledge the data when his programs fail, or report proven falsehoods - such as the "abstinence-only" sex education thing - and change what doesn't work or is proven false.
He could be honest about the effects of his programs, for instance the tax cuts, instead of persisting in a program of disingenuity about their actual effects.
He could himself take on the lack of transparency in your electoral system, treating it as an affront to good sense. He could actively condemn hate campaigning and Swiftboating tactics, even when used on his behalf.
He could give up "yee-haw as a foreign policy" in favour of some kind - any kind! - of multilateralism. He could make the American people safer by pulling out of Iraq, despite his election platform; yes, I'd approve, it would be in his voters' best interests in the long term.
He could accept the Kyoto Protocol, the International Court, the Test Ban Treaty, and any number of other sensible initiatives of the international community. Especially the ones which his supporters, by and large, thought he supported when they voted for him.
He could acknowledge the poor track record of privatization in general, and the US health care system in specific, vis-a-vis cost vs. benefit, and take action on this score as well.
He could condemn censorship in the media, uphold your Bill of Rights (even for gays), and allow - nay, encourage - civilized dissent. He could acknowledge that out-of-earshot 'Protest Zones' and the Miami Model of law enforcement are illegal, punish those responsible, and strengthen the laws against them.
He could punish war profiteering and close corporate tax loopholes. As a side benefit he might be able to kill the deficit in doing so.
He could push a progressive income tax structure which would benefit, not harm, the vast majority of those who voted for him. He could extend that progressive scale to all 'people' under the law, including corporations. [Side note, my friend Tom Cantine is working on a brilliant defense of progressive taxation from libertarian first principles; I'll post it, or a link, here when it's done.]
He could acknowledge the current risks to the US dollar and make good-faith efforts with other countries to prevent it from sliding any further, up to and including raising taxes and/or limiting fossil fuel use if that's what it takes to prevent a currency collapse. See the above about not being obliged to hurt your voters, even if they voted you into office to do it.
He could (choose one) abandon protectionism and embrace globablisation, OR abandon globalisation and embrace protectionism. Frankly I'm not picky, that's a legitimate electoral issue, but the US should bloody well stop trying to have its cake and eat it too.
He could fund his own programs and promises properly. (Yes, most if not all politicians could use to work on this.) He could put his money where his mouth is and give NASA enough money to actually push for Mars.
He could condemn torture and uphold the Geneva Conventions.
He could condemn conflicts of interest between government and industry. He could shut down the lobbying industry. He could push a countrywide Clean Elections campaign such as Maine's or Arizona's.
He could stop trying to pressure his peaceful neighbours into spending their money on his military initiatives, against the clear wishes of those countries' voters.
He could use his bully pulpit to echo a brand of Christianity which can hear the Sermon on the Mount with a straight face and a clean conscience.
He could, in short, (a) acknowledge facts, even unpleasant ones, (b) be honest and transparent about his policies, and (c) actually work toward the economic and social best interests of his constituents - those who voted for him, those who voted against him, and those who did not vote.
Abuse, hate, and prejudice are not in the best interests of those who hold them. A skyrocketing Gini coefficient of wealth disparity, a shrinking middle class, and Wal-Martization are not in the best interests of the majority of voters.
He could show them that.
But he won't.
<< Home