Gay Patriot Header Image

Bush: Economic Centrist

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 7:48 pm - January 13, 2009.
Filed under: Economy

Every now and again you read an article or column which well summarizes an issue of the day, a campaign theme or helps us to define a public figure. Rarely do you find such pieces which help us define two elected officials, indeed, two very different politicians.

Such a piece was Michael Gerson’s December 3, 2008 column, “Closet Centrist” on the president-elect’s early picks for his cabinet. So insightful did I find this column that I intend to devote two posts to it, this one to what he says about his former boss, the outgoing President of the United States, the second to what it implies about that good man’s soon-to-be successor, the incoming President of the United States.

Impressed with Obama’s initial appointments, Gerson found they ratified, to a certain extent, the policies of the incumbent the president-elect so regularly attacked in successful White House bid:

Obama’s appointments reveal something important about current Bush policies. Though Obama’s campaign savaged the administration as incompetent and radical, Obama’s personnel decisions have effectively ratified Bush’s defense and economic approaches during the past few years. At the Pentagon, Obama rehired the architects of President Bush’s current military strategy — Gates, Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. Raymond Odierno. At the Treasury Department, Obama has hired one of the main architects of Bush’s current economic approach.

This continuity does not make Obama an ideological traitor. It indicates that Bush has been pursuing centrist, bipartisan policies — without getting much bipartisan support. The transition between Bush and Obama is smoother than some expected, not merely because Obama has moderate instincts but because Bush does as well. Particularly on the economy, Bush has never been a libertarian; he has always matched a commitment to free markets with a willingness to intervene when markets stumble.

Emphasis added.

This continuity makes clear that the incumbent president has been anything but a conservative on the economy. Thus, to blame conservative economic policies for the current mess would misstate his record.

While I am glad that Obama seems to be emulating the most successful aspects of the Bush Administration, I am concerned that he is building on the least successful ones.  If big government defines economic centrism, what then defines left-of-center policies?

I fear the answer.

Share

10 Comments

  1. Impressed with Obama’s initial appointments, Gerson found they ratified, to a certain extent, the policies of the incumbent the president-elect so regularly attacked

    As regards domestic and economic policy: That’s an indictment of Bush.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 13, 2009 @ 9:04 pm - January 13, 2009

  2. [Gerson] Particularly on the economy, Bush has never been a libertarian; he has always matched a commitment to free markets with a willingness to intervene when markets stumble.

    A stinging indictment!

    Markets represent the voluntary operations and agreements of free people. They don’t stumble, except by (and because of) government corruption and distortion of market operations. Politicians stumble. Anti-market types destroy human freedom, opportunity and integrity.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 13, 2009 @ 9:20 pm - January 13, 2009

  3. [...] Bush: Economic Centrist [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Obama Chameleon — January 14, 2009 @ 2:43 am - January 14, 2009

  4. Ha! Under the Democrats’ first tax increase, The poor get their taxes hiked, and the proceeds go to pay for health care for the affluent. Hope and change, baby!

    Comment by V the K — January 14, 2009 @ 7:03 am - January 14, 2009

  5. I can’t believe that poor (in both senses) voter I saw during the campaign who said, “I’m voting Obama because he’s going to give me help paying my bills”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 14, 2009 @ 9:48 am - January 14, 2009

  6. What really caused the economy to fall down go boom? It wasn’t entirely Bush. No, to screw up an economy this large this badly requires a bi-partisan cluster-frak.

    The actual causes of our financial troubles were unusual monetary policy moves and novel federal regulatory interventions. These poorly chosen policies distorted interest rates and asset prices, diverted loanable funds into the wrong investments, and twisted normally robust financial institutions into unsustainable positions.

    Comment by V the K — January 14, 2009 @ 2:17 pm - January 14, 2009

  7. #5 – Two words, V: Barney Frank.

    That’s what’s wrong with our economy. That, and his lack of oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    FYI – Chris Cuomo of ABC took Nancy Pelosi to the woodshed this morning in a VERY no-softball interview. Would that he would conduct that type of interview more often with Dhimmicrats.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 14, 2009 @ 2:31 pm - January 14, 2009

  8. I think what CATO is sort of getting it is that as a matter of policy the government socialized financial risk while privatizing financial rewards; i.e. the banks and mortgage companies made risky loans because the Federal government implicitly promised to bail them out if things got tough.

    Comment by V the K — January 14, 2009 @ 2:38 pm - January 14, 2009

  9. The Bush Prescription Drug Plan ain’t centrism. Not yet.

    Comment by Ignatius — January 15, 2009 @ 1:19 pm - January 15, 2009

  10. #5: Barney Frank makes me embarrassed to be gay.

    Comment by Attmay — January 16, 2009 @ 2:27 am - January 16, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.