Another Krugman article. Going for Broke
January 20, 2004
By PAUL KRUGMAN
According to advance reports, George Bush will use
tonight's State of the Union speech to portray himself as a
visionary leader who stands above the political fray. But
that act is losing its effectiveness. Mr. Bush's relentless
partisanship has depleted much of the immense good will he
enjoyed after 9/11. He is still adored by his base, but he
is deeply distrusted by much of the nation.
Mr. Bush may not understand this; indeed, he still seems to
think that he's another Lincoln or F.D.R. "No president has
done more for human rights than I have," he told Ken
Auletta.
But his political handlers seem to have decided on a
go-for-broke strategy: confuse the middle one last time,
energize the base and grab enough power that the
consequences don't matter.
What do I mean by confusing the middle? The striking thing
about the "visionary" proposals floated in advance of the
State of the Union is their transparent cynicism and lack
of realism. Mr. Bush has, of course, literally promised us
the Moon - and Mars, too. And the ever-deferential media
have managed to keep a straight face.
But that's just the most dramatic example of an array of
policy proposals that don't withstand even minimal
scrutiny. Mr. Bush has already pushed through an expensive
new Medicare benefit - without any visible source of
financing. Reports say that tonight he'll propose
additional, and even more expensive, new initiatives, like
partial Social Security privatization - which all by itself
would require at least $1 trillion in extra funds over the
next decade. Where is all this money going to come from?
Judging from the latest CBS/New York Times Poll, these
promises of something for nothing aren't likely to convince
many people. It's not just that the bounce from Saddam's
capture has already gone away. Unfavorable views of Mr.
Bush as a person have reached record levels for his
presidency. It seems fair to say that many Americans, like
most of the rest of the world, simply don't trust him
anymore.
But some Americans will respond to upbeat messages, no
matter how unrealistic. And that may be enough for Mr.
Bush, because while he poses as someone above the fray, he
is continuing to solidify his base.
The most sinister example was the recess appointment of
Charles Pickering Sr., with his segregationist past and
questionable record on voting rights, to the federal
appeals court - the day after Martin Luther King's actual
birthday. Was this careless timing? Don't be silly: it was
a deliberate, if subtle, gesture of sympathy with a part of
the Republican coalition that never gets mentioned in
public.
A less objectionable but equally calculated gesture will be
Mr. Bush's demand that his tax cuts be made permanent.
Realistically, this can't make any difference to the
economy now, and it makes no sense, given the array of new
spending plans he will simultaneously unveil. But it's a
signal to the base that any seeming moderation needn't be
taken seriously, and that the administration's hard-right
turn will continue.
Meanwhile, the lying has already begun, with the Republican
National Committee's willful misrepresentation of Wesley
Clark's prewar statements. (Why are news organizations
letting them get away with this?)
The question we should ask is, Where is all this leading?
Some cynical pundits think that Mr. Bush's advisers plan to
leave the hard work of dealing with the mess he's made to
future presidents. But I don't think that's right. I can't
see how the budget can continue along its current path
through a second Bush term - financial markets won't stand
for it.
And what about the growing military crisis? The mess in
Iraq has placed our volunteer military, a magnificent but
fragile institution, under immense strain. National Guard
and Reserve members find themselves effectively drafted as
full-time soldiers. More than 40,000 soldiers whose
enlistment terms have expired have been kept from leaving
under "stop loss" orders. This can't go on for four more
years.
Karl Rove and other insiders must know all this. So they
must figure that once they have won the election, they will
have such a complete lock on power that they can break many
of their promises with impunity.
What will they do with that lock on power? Their election
strategy - confuse the middle, but feed the base - suggests
the answer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/20/opinion/20KRUG.html?ex=1075606388&ei=1&en=1527353643d6666e
