HOW HE SEES IT Bush's presidency: 'All hat and no cattle'
By PAUL CAMPOS
SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE
Last September, New Republic senior editor Jon Chait caused something of a stir when he announced in a cover story in that magazine that he "hated" George W. Bush. The piece provoked a predictable round of chin-scratching from journalists, and an even more predictable barrage of conservative complaints regarding the supposed irrationality of liberal media reactions to Bush.
In fact, Chait's piece was full of eminently reasonable objections to the current administration's policies and tactics. (Chait is a friend of mine, and we recently spent an evening in Washington discussing the upcoming Michigan football season and 2004 presidential election, in that order of interest and intensity.)
Panderer
Bush, in Chait's view, is an anti-New Deal radical masquerading as a moderate Republican, whose domestic agenda is dominated by two goals: making the richest Americans richer, by shifting the nation's tax bill toward the middle class and pandering to whatever interest group will help him get re-elected.
Regarding the first point, a new report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office confirms Chait's charge: Bush's tax policies have decreased the percentage of taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans by about 10 percent, while increasing the percentage of the overall tax burden paid by those earning moderate incomes.
As to the second, the decision to fight the Iraq war on credit, along with the gargantuan prescription-drug bill and the continual feeding frenzy of K Street lobbyists at the fiscal trough, provide ample evidence that the Bush administration is happy to jettison conservative principles whenever it's buying votes, which is often.
Much of Chait's criticism, however, wasn't focused on Bush's policies: It was directed at Bush's qualifications to be president, or rather his lack of them. This was the piece's most valuable point -- and it's a shame it got lost in the subsequent rigmarole about whether liberals hate W. because he has a Texas drawl (in my view, Chait made a mistake when he emphasized his visceral reaction to such cosmetic matters). Chait's basic point was that Bush is a man of no real talent or accomplishments who, through a combination of the injustice of the American class system and a bizarre series of events, has ended up in the most important job in the world -- a job for which he was almost completely unqualified by any rational measure.
Unlike Chait, I don't hate George W. Bush, and I find much of the vitriol aimed at him sophomoric and annoying. But Chait's basic point is, I believe, absolutely correct.
Unambiguous failure
Until well into middle age, Bush was an unambiguous failure. A beneficiary of endless unearned privileges -- admissions to the best schools, soft military service during Vietnam, plum business deals during the oil boom -- he squandered the many opportunities that were handed him because he was his father's son, while partying his way through large sums of other people's money.
That he decided to sober up and finally get a real job is to his credit. That this job was governor of one of America's most populous states is disturbing. His rapid ascension from failed crony capitalist to president of the United States has created a remarkable overall r & eacute;sum & eacute; -- one that's "all hat and no cattle," as they say in Texas.
Republicans point out that John Kerry keeps harping on his military service because of his undistinguished senatorial career. It's a valid point. Still, compared to Bush in 2000, Kerry looks like Abraham Lincoln and Alexander the Great rolled into one.
Has his subsequent performance vindicated the decision to appoint a man with almost no achievements to the world's most important job? You don't have to hate George W. Bush to ask that question.
X Paul Campos, a law professor at the University of Colorado.