Dear Mr. Bush: I cannot support you in 2004

Mr. Bush:

First, let me introduce myself. I'm pro-life, pro-gun rights, not opposed to a healthy dose of unilateralism and American leadership, and I don't indulge in any of the crazy conspiracy theories that have motivated some of your other detractors. Am I the prototypical Reagan Republican? Well, not quite?-I consider myself a political moderate, and I could vote for either party?-but I would vote for a Reagan Republican in 2004 if I were given the chance, and I voted for you in 2000. Let me explain why you have lost my support for 2004:

1. Your fiscal policies are irrational and dangerous. We've seen an unprecedented spending spree in conjunction with unprecedented tax cuts. Some have likened your policies to the fiscal policies of Reagan?-is this fair? After lowering taxes on several occasions, Reagan also raised taxes on several occasions to reduce the burgeoning deficit. Reagan was actively pursuing a small government/low tax model. He vetoed several large spending bills, and his inability to significantly reduce government spending can be partially attributed to his lack of control over congress. Mr. Bush, do you have the same excuses? Congress is Republican, and you pass every spending bill that finds its way into your hands. Despite our deficit, you continue to propose expensive projects and equally expensive tax cuts. You have criticized Kerry as a tax-and-spend liberal, but, as many have noted, you've proven to be a cut-taxes-and-spend conservative. Does this make any sense? This isn't Reaganesque?-not by any stretch of the imagination; this is simply mortgaging our future and failing to control the budget.

You have asked Americans on several occasions to forgive the deficit on account of the recession and the war. Mr. President, I must remind you that this great country has seen far worse wars and far worse recessions than anything we have experienced in the last four years. We have never seen such a deficit. Neither does 9/11 explain this crisis. The cost of that tragedy was minor compared to the deficit. You have no excuses, and not surprisingly, few of our nation's economists support you, not even in you're your alma mater, Harvard Business. Harvard Business-Open Letter to the President. In fact, your ratings have been almost universally poor amongst professional and academic economists. The Economist-Poll of Economists (this link may not work. I don't know if you need a subscription). No, this isn't the leftist academic establishment ganging up on you. Please recall that President Reagan had quite a few supporters among professional and academic economists?-many of whom identify with the right. After all, the small government model made some sense, and it has quite a bit of clout in business and economic circles. What about your model, Mr. President? What is your model? Surely you don't think that cut-taxes-and-spend is sustainable? But you continue to stubbornly follow such a plan.

2. Your foreign policy was hopeful, and unlike many of your detractors, I think that your plan to liberalize and democratize Iraq was worth careful consideration. Terrorism is a major threat, and we need to find some way to curb it at its source. The best way to do this is to promote liberal and democratic ideals?-and yes, we should act unilaterally if need be. But you didn't pay enough attention to the facts, and you continue to commit this sin. War is a rough instrument for social change, Mr. President. There are times when we must use, and there are times when other instruments are more appropriate. Most importantly, if we plan to use the tool of war, we MUST commit the necessary resources. Your plan to strike quickly with few troops and let democracy spontaneously bloom was utterly naïve. There were many voices in this country that had considerable knowledge of Iraq and her populace?-you chose not to listen to them, particularly your own State Department. Instead, you focused on an a priori plan, and you were satisfied by scant and questionable empirical evidence. Yes, there were others that were fooled, but you are the executive, Mr. President?-you control the state department and the CIA, and you are our commander in chief. If you are truly the strong leader that you seemed after 9/11, you would accept responsibility?-it was not congress that constructed these intelligence reports, nor was it the UN, nor was it France?-it was the executive branch, and you are its head. Tenet failed you, but you failed us by dogmatically pursuing this war without a serious analysis of the situation. What should we expect in the next four years? Can we return to empiricism? Have you forsaken that discipline?

And what of unipolarity and unilateralism? Although many of my fellow Bush detractors will scoff at the idea, I personally believe that the U.S. after 9/11 had the moral capital, the political capital, economic dominance, and enough military dominance to assert some degree or unipolarity in world relations?-we might have led the world against terrorism (and other threats) if we played our cards right. We could have used our power for good?-but we used it irresponsibly. On your watch, terrorism did not decline in 2003, as initially reported, but stayed even or rose, even if we don't count the sharp spike in terrorist attacks in Iraq. CNN-Revised 2003 figures. Thus far, 2004 has been even worse?-terrorism has risen dramatically. MSNBC-2004 figures as of Sept. We have also witnessed a huge failure in nuclear non-proliferation (Iran/N.Korea). Instead of taking a balanced approach to our war on terrorism (i.e. dealing with already identified terrorist threats, strengthening rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan, and asserting a stronger anti-terrorist stance with regards to the regimes in Iran and Saudi Arabia), you focused our efforts almost entirely on Iraq, and you offered only weak evidence and a shifting rationale for the war on that country. You frittered away our political and moral capital. The unipolar dream, with a strong Amercian leadership of the world, has never been so distant since the cold war. We need to wipe the slate clean in this next election. Perhaps we can revive the dream of American world leadership, but the taint of this administration can only bury it.

3. Your treatment of internal dissent within your cabinet and agencies has not been healthy or productive. While you management style is refreshingly decisive, the downside of this decisiveness is that you appear to come to conclusions before you see the facts (or even the questions). Many have criticized your close-minded approach. Wash. Post-Bush's Leadersip Style: Decisive or Simplistic

But we don't need the often slanted approach of the media to see a disturbing trend. What happened to treasury, for instance? When you fired O'Neil, many came to your defense, including me (at first). We said: O'Neil was incompetent, and he needed to go. That much was true, but it begs the question: Why was O'Neil heading treasury anyway? He was a businessman, not an economist. With his extremely limited knowledge of macroeconomics, there was no reason to put him in treasury, unless you were more interested in having close allies than competent managers. In the end, your only misjudgment of Mr. O'Neil was his ability to stay quiet. Harvey Pitt's story at SEC looks, more or less, the same?-although he was an even more inappropriate appointment. And what of Treasury now? Mr. Snow is shockingly mum in the face of unprecedented deficits. What about the State Department? You didn't listen to them when they warned of looting and power vacuums in Iraq. You've nearly silenced Mr. Powell with regards to Iraq?-it seems that he's been relegated exclusively to Darfur, even though the facts suggest that he was more level-headed and sensible about Iraq than were you. And the EPA? When the EPA's research pointed to facts contradicting your policies, you silenced them instead of reevaluating your stance or allowing their research to continue. Knight-Ridder- Suppressing, Distorting Science; The Observer-Bush covers up climate research; CBS- W.House Edited Greenhouse Report. In keeping with the appallingly high-turn around in our agencies, Christine Todd Whitman left the EPA. It worries me that so many in your administration have resigned, been fired, or been muffled.

The clear message that you have sent to many (if not all) of the major agencies is "shut up or get out." To return to Mr. Reagan, he also had a strained relationship with his agencies, but this was partly because he intended to trim their budgets. Mr. Reagan had a coherent policy of deregulation. You have shown neither a desire to trim budgets nor any honest attempts to deregulate. Do you have any sort of coherent plan?

5. To conclude, let me emphasize this last part: You, Mr. Bush, are no Ronald Reagan. I don't know what you are. You're certainly not small government; you're not libertarian; you're not a Clintonian technocrat; you're not a uniter or a moderate (as you once claimed). You're a hodgepodge of incoherent policies, and you're unwilling to critically look at those policies.

I hope to see you on the ranch in 2005!

Yours Truly,
Steppenwolf