Bush Is Not Incompetent.

[ClassWarrior]

by George Lakoff, Marc Ettlinger and Sam Ferguson

Progressives have fallen into a trap. Emboldened by President Bush’s plummeting approval ratings, progressives increasingly point to Bush’s “failures” and label him and his administration as incompetent. Self-satisfying as this criticism may be, it misses the bigger point. Bush’s disasters — Katrina, the Iraq War, the budget deficit — are not so much a testament to his incompetence or a failure of execution. Rather, they are the natural, even inevitable result of his conservative governing philosophy. It is conservatism itself, carried out according to plan, that is at fault.

More at http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/incompetent

NGU.

[redqueen]

1. Yes! Exactly!

I get so tired of reminding people that this is not incompetence, this is all part of the plan.

[Warpy]

6. I get tired of reminding them that while Bush is demonstrably

incompetent, he's just following the lead Reagan set and this is the inevitable outcome of those economic policies.

I refuse to let that party or even some of our own conservatives off the hook just because a boob is in the White House.

[redqueen]

7. Well put... this was started decades ago...

it has nothing to do with incompetence, and everything to do with ideology.

[ClassWarrior]

11. You let them off the hook when you call them incompetent.

Did you even bother to read the article?

NGU.

[ginnyinWI]

2. studied negligence

It's the priorities that are at fault. Some things are important to Conservatives, and some things just aren't. Even less well-off conservatives think it is wrong to ask your government to solve any of your problems. I'd like to see how well they survived if all of the programs created by Liberals that we now have in place were to simply disappear.

So they focus on helping business to thrive and look for the trickle-down. Their biggest fear is that government might interfere with the free markets. When a hurricane hits, they have no plan, even though that's something government is supposed to do--because their priorities are wrong.

I agree with Lakoff: *'s policies will cause trouble for the nation because Conservative policies are bad for the nation. Sure, he's less than competent too--but it is the ideology itself that is the main problem.

[Mr_Spock]

3. Conservatives/neocons want government to fail

Then they will have the power in their corporate fiefdoms where the common man is a slave to capitalism.

[jedr]

4. At the Pentagon Cheney is Known as "Bergen" :

As in Edgar Bergen, and GW as Charley Mc Carthy. GW is kept out of the loop on many things so he can actually say " I didn't know". GW isn't as dumb as we think . but he's no Clinton or JFK. The powers behind him are the driving force and each day they move us more toward the Necons' think tank dream of what america should be. We've all been drawn into many traps, but GW is not the master mind. (Sorry do not have the link as to the Cheney story, read it in the doctors office and think it was in NewsWeek, Can anybody help me?)

[indepat]

5. Holistically, it is the entire RW agenda, lock, stock and barrel, that is

at fault and there is not a single American alive of legal age and with a modicum of intelligence and a smattering of knowledge who does not realize the disasters being systematically heaped upon the American people, the people of the world, and the environment, in furtherance of RW objectives. Yet countless tens of millions Americans either support or do not oppose what is being wrought upon them.

[Skittles]

8. the conservative governing philosophy IS incompetence

there's no mistake here

[melissinha]

9. Precisely & lets GOP Congress off the hook

Congress' record and the parallels with the Administration's agenda paint a picture not of incompetence but of no oversight, and pure partisanship and corporatism.

[welshTerrier2]

10. conservatism versus corporatism

take a look at the issue of government oversight and attitudes to government regulatory agencies ...

one might argue that both conservatives and corporatists would both want to see less oversight and less regulation ... one could too hastily conclude that, by definition, conservatism is corporatism ...

but i disagree ...

if one were to argue that by promoting laissez faire capitalism, i.e. unregulated capitalism, the tide would lift all boats, implicit in one's argument would be the objective that "all boats should be lifted" ...

i strongly disagree with unregulated capitalism precisely because it does nothing but widen the gap between rich and poor and it leads to a survival of the fittest economy ...

HOWEVER, at least, for those sincere in this belief, and i call them conservatives, they are advocating for the general welfare ...

SUCH IS NOT THE CASE WITH CORPORATISTS ... by definition, the goal of the corporatists is nothing more than good old fashioned GREED ... they want "smaller government" because gutting oversight agencies weakens the public interest and strengthens their hand ...

Rockridge seems to acknowledge the massive gains made by corporate America under "conservative deregulation" but they seem to disassociate the result from the motivation ... Rockridge argues that conservatives seek deregulation because of their ultimate belief in markets - i think they are wrong ... i think Corporatists are seeking deregulation to aid their greedy pursuits ... they don't belief markets will make things better for America and Americans; they believe deregulation will make things better for them ... they don't want product safety laws; they don't want food safety laws; the don't want workplace safety laws; they don't want anti-pollution laws ... they don't want these things before they restrain their greedy intentions ... they know damned well that these laws benefit the public; they oppose the laws because they are costly for business to adhere to ... period ... conservatives may indeed see merit in less regulation and smaller government; corporatists, however, make the same arguments but for very different reasons ...

Rockridge also seems to miss the point on foreign policy ... I will TRUST NO ONE and no organization that fails to prominently disclose bush's MOTIVES for going into Iraq ... as far as i can see, Rockridge misses the point on Iraq ... while they recognize that huge profits have been made by Big Oil and others, they fail to recognize this as the sole motivation for war ... instead, they seem to be saying that conservatives use war too readily to achieve the national objectives ... again, i see Corporatists as using war to achieve THEIR GREEDY OBJECTIVES ...

look at this statement they made:

"Given this conviction, it’s no accident that administration policies have focused almost exclusively on the training of Iraqi police, and US access to the newly free Iraqi market — the invisible hand of the market will take care of the rest."

what do they mean by the phrase "take care of the rest"????? what Rockridge is saying is that conservatives believe free markets will make life better FOR THE IRAQIS !!!

but bush et al aren't just conservatives; they're CORPORATISTS!!! and they don't give a damn about the Iraqi people and Rockridge seems to miss this point ... it's not that "free markets" will achieve the goal of America helping Iraqis; it's that "free markets" will tie the hands of the Iraqi government and prevent them from interfering as BIG OIL walks off with their profits !!!!

this is an essential difference between what Rockridge is selling and the "enlightened left" ... and i repeat, those calling for even one more day of occupation JUST DON'T GET IT!!!! and the nonsense of another year, or more, is truly a lack of understanding about why we are in Iraq OR it is complicit with bush's objectives ... frankly, i'm not sure which is the case ...

[madmark]

12. I agree in part; disagree in part.

The Bush has shown great political competence; he has fucked up everthing else he has touched, especially national security which according to the author's tenets is a fundamental tenet of conservative philosophy (note that getting judges through congress I would classify as a political act as oppose to execution of national policy).

This duality of competence/incompetence could appear to some in the short term to advance the less gov is better tenet. But only if you were drinking Kool Aid; or a disingenous crony. Every dollar that enlarges the deficit is an increase in the governement's role in people's lives. Federal spending is at historical levels. The current federal government is micromanaging local marriage laws, drug laws and the operation of local schools, and seeks to pass federal laws restricting certain types of abortions across the fifty states. DHS is a bureaucratic disaster full of unqualified cronys as is Fema. The Administration has unilaterally abrogated the 4th amendment and the fisa statutes (both restraints on gov power). The Administration abrogrates all kinds of other laws (again checks on its power) with signing statements.

Grover Norquist is not starving any beast, he is a form of crony capitalist making money by being a cog in the political machinery currently controlling the federal government. Haliburton does not want market competitors for its military contracts (and neither do any of the other crony's feeding at the vast endless tax dollar trough that is Iraq). We do not see excesses caused by the invisible hand of the market; we see excesses caused by Bushco feeding its cronies the tax dollars of the US citizens.

The author list the following conservative tenets:

Conservative philosophy has three fundamental tenets: individual initiative, that is, government’s positive role in people’s lives outside of the military and police should be minimized; the President is the moral authority; and free markets are enough to foster freedom and opportunity.

I don't think the current regime and its cronies believes in any of them except maybe number two, and as long as the President has "authority" any need for the "moral" part is not necessary. The disregard of laws (both actual and the spirit)and cronysm, without regard to national interests, is the key difference between what the current regime is doing and how a pre-neo con actual conservative in my view would operate, and I guess I should no because I think am one. The closest model as to how the current group operates is that of the National Socialists in the early 30's and I am not saying that just to throw a bomb; its this extreme shift that has conservatives like me posting on DU.

[ClassWarrior]

13. But you see - this isn't about incompetent people, it's about an...

...incompetent philosophy. That is, the less-government-is-better philosophy you cite.

NGU.

[madmark]

14. i don't think it is an incompetent philosophy; look at Clinton, he did not

run up deficits, which in my view is the most substantial measure of a government's restraint, and essentially got out of the way of the functioning of the free market in this country and look at the prosperity the Country enjoyed during the mid-late 90's. Look at Nixon's price controls and spike in public spending caused by the continuation of the vietnam war and the resulting 70's stagflation. Look at reagan's deficits which led to the early nineties recession and necessitated the Bush 1 tax increases; increases coupled with Clinton's that later set the foundation for the later 90's prosperity and what crony capitalist Bush 2 has been squandering ever since.

Limited government and incompetence are not the same thing. Being circumspect when taking coerced collective action is a virtue. No circumspection whatsoever is taking place with respect to Bush 2's pissing away our collective tax dollars and national assets to his cronies.

[ClassWarrior]

15. You think their philosophy is about "limited governement??" LOL

Grover Norquist said it's about shrinking government till you can drown it in a bathtub.

Now what exactly that means depends on what kind of RWer you ask.

To the freeps, it means drowning the government for everyone - damn the consequences.

To the corporatists, it means drowning the government for business - but beefing it up for citizens to make them more pliant consumers.

NGU.

[madmark]

16. norquist is a crony and no, i do not think he is for limited government.

He supposedly represents taxpayers and watches the government issue trillions in debt and doesn't do a damn thing about it(he will however according to Congress' latest report apparently help Jack Abramoff and Ralph Reed move Indian Casino money). Anybody serious about reducing public expenditures would demand current accounts first.

[ClassWarrior]

17. .

[leesa]

18. I agree completely. This is Reaganism and conservatism carried to

its natural endpoint and it's as ugly as progressives have always said it would be. This is deregulated, uncontrolled corporate greed destroying our country. This is the Corporation destroying government by looting every penny we have put into it and leaving a shmbles. It's been the conservative goal as long as they have existed. Had Reagan had the degree of control Bush has now he would have done the same things.