Looking ahead to Bush's second term...

Mid-East Conflict


I hope so too, but I see little to make me optimistic. The 'Roadmap' was, as you know, coincident with British demands for some movement on the Israel/Palestine problem as there was a broad consensus among foreign affairs personnel that this situation was a key element, if not the key element, in the rise of Muslim anti-western extremism and hatred. The likelihood that beginning a war with Iraq would make this situation worse was pretty cavalierly ignored by the Bush administration. Further, if Bush maintains his Defence Department lineup, then he will maintain a group of folks (Wolfowitz, Perle, and others) who hold connections and allegiances and philosophies with Likud. If those allegiances remain as they appear to have been, then American policy may well continue to reflect Israeli preferences to the likely detriment of Palestinian desires. Still further, anything like a Palestinian political or civic infrastructure seems clearly to have been a target of Israel policy, and this doesn't bode well for anything like a functioning Palestinian state or for Israel's desire that there be one. Two new factors...Arafat and the recent vote in Israel. I'm not optimistic.

Gay Marriage

This election is over, but not the next one. One of the first steps Rove took in preparation for 2004 was to deny the possibility that any rightwing third party might arise to take votes from Bush. The growing threat of a rightwing third party is no longer from Buchannan, but from the radical religious element, such as was in the air when Moore was not, in the view of the radical religious right, adequately supported. Also, this element is now far more cohesive and more powerful within the party than is the libertarian wing. Continuing Republican power in both houses and for the presidency is now utterly dependent upon the religious right. Of the issues this element will continue to demand of the Republicans, two probably stand at the fore: gay issues and abortion. If Bush were to back down on gay marriage, a religious third party becomes a much more real possibility. He won't back down on this. He'll push it hard.

Government Spending and Taxation

I think Krugman has this one dead on. This administration is not fiscally conservative. Remember that Bush vetoed zero spending bills, and has driven the debt to unprecedented levels, and that he has pledged to cut taxes further and that the war will cost god knows how much. For those who have been reading about Grover Norquist, a key figure in the Bush/Republican team, the notion of 'starving the beast' will be clear - the bankrupcy of the government to facilitate the dismantling of New Deal social arrangements. Krugman speech to London School of Economics April 2004

Post 9/11 Government Freedoms

I doubt the latter very much indeed. Though there are Republican voices in the Senate and House that have spoken up and voiced traditional libertarian concerns about privacy and civil rights issues related to the Patriot Act, this is not an administration that brooks a lot of discord, particularly when they feel the issue is important, whether that importance relates to operations or re-election. Nor is it an administration that considers legal precedent to be much of a concern (Abu Ghraib, etc). Nor is it an administration who will feel terribly queazy about using the tools provided in the Act for other purposes (eg finding lost legislators, or, more frighteningly, the recent FBI statement that the main terrorist threat internally arises within the environmental movement). So the question becomes, how important will the administration actually consider the Patriot Act and its tools in order to procede as they desire and to facilitate re-election in 2008. We can hope that mature Republican voices will temper, but we can't be confident that will happen.

Bush doesn't have to satisfy anybody's demands now. He's a free agent.

-Staying the course in the worldwide war on terror

-Making the tax cuts of his first term permanent and then tax code reform to simplify it

-Social Security reform

-Medicare reform

-Respecting the value judgment of the citizens re: the importance of morals

Will the Dems also heed the will of the majority of the electorate or ignore the will of the voters and continue to attempt to obstruct their agenda?

I agree. But not listening to the voters, or even worse listening to them and then trying to change their minds with a contrasting message, and insulting them as ignorant when they don't buy it, is political suicide.

Larry,

Democracy isn't just about winning elections. That is populism, not to be confused with Democracy.

And if representatives simply adapt their positions to the will of any majority a great deal of the citizens will lack a representative of their positions.

Larry, I don't personally see any profit in continuing this, I think you are convinced of this particular way of detracting from Democrats so I'll not likely pursue it further here.

The election is over, and now I hope we can focus on policies and positions (as opposed to personalities and parties).

Mid-East Conflict

One of the things I was hopeful about with Bush is what seemed to be a willingness to make bold moves in the mid-east conflict.

Some of that was very likely related to trying to sell the war in Iraq but he did set some precedents and went on record as saying America supports a two-state solution.

He even set a goal for statehood in 2005.

The Palestinians have had too much political instability for much movement on this front, and this administration seems to have forgotten about the mid-east once the invasion of Iraq got underway, but maybe Bush will go for legacy and actually put some weight behind a resolution.

I hope he does, I hope he makes an earnest effort at pushing both sides toward a teritorial resolution.

The only way that Bush could have become more involved in the Israeli/Palestinian dispute without throwing gasoline on an already burning Middle East would have been to come down on the side of Palestine. While there are many who would have applauded such action, there are many who would have been disappointed, to say the least. Generally speaking, those who would have been pleased, would not have been Bush supporters to begin with and such a move would probably not have gained him any of their votes. On the other hand, it is quite possible that a shift towards the Paletinian side of the issue would have cost him the votes of those American Jews who have moved to the right, because of their support for Israel and their concern for Islamic facisim.

As a matter of fact, there has been a confluence of events that bode well for advancement of a solution in the short term:

1) A second term US President can focus on the situation with less concern for domestic politics
2) Sharon has demonstrated his committment to the withdrawal from Gaza plan. Whether or not one believes this to be a sincere and viable component of a peace plan, the Israelis do and while it may not constitute the vast unilateral concessions those who favor the Palestinians may be seeking, it is a concession of significance and can be a major step toward some form of peaceful resolution.
3) Arafat is on death's door and the world will soon be clean of him. Symbolically, and through his own devices, he has been a major obstacle to peace. The Israelis have always gagged at the prospective of having to deal with him (and rightly so) and Bush has made no secret of his negative feelings for the man. From what I can see, his death is unlikely to result in a new and greater wave of violence born of the Palestinian people. Without him in the picture there is at least the possibility of a good faith Palestinian engagement
4) Tony Blair has, thus far, really received very little in return for his stalwart support of the Bush Administration. A strong and perceptively fair American effort to resolve the matter is likely to be his reward.

BTW - The US should favor Israel in this matter. They are our ally and they are the only democratic nation in the region. The favor should not be so great as to make resolution impossible, but it should manifest itself in certain ways.


Gay Marriage

Now that the election is over, I'd like to see if this was election politics or if he really does want to push this issue.

Look at the margins of victory for the State constituional ammendments this election. This is no where as devisive an issue as some would contend.
It is also an issue that is very important to the Religious Right. When 60-70% of the American people are in favor of establishing, legally, that marriage is between a man and woman, and only a man and woman, Bush isn't going to have to spend any of his political capital to push for something in which he personally believes.

Government Spending and Taxation

Bush has been very agressive in forwarding a more fiscal conservative agenda with his tax cuts. With his increased spending and seeming lack of concern for the deficit it makes me wonder if he's setting a future administration up for the social cuts.

With an actual popular vote mandate and Republican control of the government I wonder if this will be pursued in this second term.

It's a given that he will push for his tax cuts to be made "permanent."

I think he honestly believes that a thriving economy, accompanied by some cuts in Government spending will result in overcoming the deficit. In theory it can. I don't, however, see him pushing significant cuts in social programs, however I appreciate that for some, the mere elimination of increase is perceived as a cut.

Post 9/11 Government Freedoms

I'm far less concerned than most here about these moves by this administration. But I am curious to see if they will be pursued even further or perhaps even reversed to some degree.

I doubt the latter.

I doubt the latter under any circumstances. I also doubt the former unless there is another major attack and the public clamors for safety.

The plan

If the first term was Iraq/tax cuts, then what will characterize the second term? I doubt that foreign policy in the second term will be as agressive, there are no targets as easy to sell and hit as Iraq and I think much of the "invade other countries" political capital was spent.

But this Administration is ambitious, so what do you think this upcoming term will be like?

Precisely what he has promised, unless unexpected events overtake us.

Tax Reform
Social Security Reform
Standing firm in Iraq

Bush isn't one to readily turn away from stated goals (for those about to protest relative his stated goals shortly after his first election victory, keep in mind that 9/11 occurred and drastically changed the picture - for him if for no one else.

I certainly hope he gets to stick to these issues not only because I believe they are vital to our future prosperity and security, but because I think only another catastrophe will cause him to change his focus.

The only way that Bush could have become more involved in the Israeli/Palestinian dispute without throwing gasoline on an already burning Middle East would have been to come down on the side of Palestine.

1) A second term US President can focus on the situation with less concern for domestic politics

2) Sharon has demonstrated his committment to the withdrawal from Gaza plan. Whether or not one believes this to be a sincere and viable component of a peace plan, the Israelis do and while it may not constitute the vast unilateral concessions those who favor the Palestinians may be seeking, it is a concession of significance and can be a major step toward some form of peaceful resolution.

3) Arafat is on death's door and the world will soon be clean of him. Symbolically, and through his own devices, he has been a major obstacle to peace. The Israelis have always gagged at the prospective of having to deal with him (and rightly so) and Bush has made no secret of his negative feelings for the man. From what I can see, his death is unlikely to result in a new and greater wave of violence born of the Palestinian people. Without him in the picture there is at least the possibility of a good faith Palestinian engagement

4) Tony Blair has, thus far, really received very little in return for his stalwart support of the Bush Administration. A strong and perceptively fair American effort to resolve the matter is likely to be his reward.

BTW - The US should favor Israel in this matter. They are our ally and they are the only democratic nation in the region. The favor should not be so great as to make resolution impossible, but it should manifest itself in certain ways.

Look at the margins of victory for the State constituional ammendments this election. This is no where as devisive an issue as some would contend.
It is also an issue that is very important to the Religious Right. When 60-70% of the American people are in favor of establishing, legally, that marriage is between a man and woman, and only a man and woman, Bush isn't going to have to spend any of his political capital to push for something in which he personally believes.

It's a given that he will push for his tax cuts to be made "permanent."

I don't, however, see him pushing significant cuts in social programs, however I appreciate that for some, the mere elimination of increase is perceived as a cut.

Quote:

But this Administration is ambitious, so what do you think this upcoming term will be like?

Precisely what he has promised, unless unexpected events overtake us.

Tax Reform
Social Security Reform
Standing firm in Iraq

According to Suskind, 'The (White House) aide said that guys like me were `in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' '' The aide told Suskind, ``That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality.''

You're supposed to stand for something . . . to generate sound ideas, support them with real evidence, and present them to Congress and the people. We didn't do any of that. We just danced this way and that on minute political calculations and whatever was needed for a few paragraphs of a speech."

The Iraq issue nearly killed this administration in the election and they aren't going to be adding to the risks of electoral loss in two years and again in four by another Iraq-style adventure, because electoral success trumps all else, regardless of claims to principle and integrity as motive forces.

Can you say Parliamentary Government? The United States of America doesn't have one. You do. They are quite different...
We have a rather unique Constitutional Republic.