Anyone who's been following the systematic dismantling of environmental protection occurring in this country knows that the Bush administration is anything but incompetent. The people in power have very specific goals, and a lack of competence wouldn't have gotten them as far as they are today. Over on AlterNet, George Lakoff explains the philosophy that has brought about our recent failures and setbacks:
The conservative vision for government is to shrink it - to "starve the beast" in Conservative Grover Norquist's words. The conservative tagline for this rationale is that "you can spend your money better than the government can." Social programs are considered unnecessary or "discretionary" since the primary role of government is to defend the country's border and police its interior. Stewardship of the commons, such as allocation of healthcare or energy policy, is left to people's own initiative within the free market. Where profits cannot be made -- conservation, healthcare for the poor -- charity is meant to replace justice and the government should not be involved.
So the federal response to Katrina was actually a success:
One of the goals of Conservatives is to keep people from relying on the federal government. Under Bush, FEMA was reorganized to no longer be a first responder in major natural disasters, but to provide support for local agencies. This led to the disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina. Now citizens, as well as local and state governments, have become distrustful of the federal government's capacity to help ordinary citizens. Though Bush's popularity may have suffered, enhancing the perception of federal government as inept turned out to be a conservative victory.
And here's why Bush skipped straight from global warming denialism to "let's get beyond the debate and start implementing technologies":
Conservatives continue to deny the validity of global warming, because it runs contrary to their moral system. Recognizing global warming would call for environmental regulation and governmental efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Regulation is a perceived interference with the free-market, Conservatives' golden calf.
Finally, why it's counterproductive to call Bush incompetent (or any other more vulgar synonym):
The incompetence frame assumes that there was a sound plan, and that the trouble has been in the execution. It turns public debate into a referendum on Bush's management capabilities, and deflects a critique of the impact of his guiding philosophy. It also leaves open the possibility that voters will opt for another radically conservative president in 2008, so long as he or she can manage better. Bush will not be running again, so thinking, talking and joking about him being incompetent offers no lessons to draw from his presidency.
Comments
View as Flat
bookerly Posted 12:25 pm
03 Jul 2006
I am not sure I completely agree with this, but it certainly has a lot of good points that I need to consider. All this time, I've been calling Bush a moron, and I'm doing the wrong thing!!
Sigh. Time for me to sit down and rethink my own use of language about the man and his movement.
Thanks so much,
patrick
Permalink
Stentor Posted 10:13 am
04 Jul 2006
The GOP's agenda is twofold: to enrich the upper class, and to set up a moral hierarchy that punishes people who don't conform to certain notions of propriety and obedience. If big government is necessary for those goals, they will happily enlarge government (see corporate welfare and the flag-burning and marriage amendments). If smaller government serves those goals (undercutting environmental protection and welfare), they'll shrink government.
"Small government" is an innocent-sounding procedural cloak that the GOP pulls over its real agenda. If progressives are serious about framing, the first thing we need to do is to stop letting the GOP get away with calling itself the party of small government.
Permalink
Stentor Posted 10:16 am
04 Jul 2006
Permalink
makeswell Posted 2:03 pm
05 Jul 2006
Most likely, however, none of these metrics are what the Administration uses in order to measure success. The definition of success in this Administration's perspective is bettered defined by the following question: Are the finanicial supporters of the Administration being given a return on their investment?
To the extent that George Bush and his Administration can answer this qusestion in the affirmative will be the degree to which they see themselves not only as competent but as highly successful. Think about the most generous supporters and the MASSIVE amount of capital that has been rapidly shifted (and on a sole source no-bid contract basis) back to their bank accounts. Think of the big Oil companies and the (Carlyle Group funded) defense contractors of the world who stood to gain (and have gained quite a bit) with justified (or otherwise) war somewhere in the middle east. If anything, finding Osama would only justify pulling our troops out earlier and a drop in future oil prices...
I'm new to blogging so I don't know if its kosher to reference "The Daily Show" (June 14th show) as a news source, but Jon S expressed shock the other day (albiet sarcastically) that someone like George Tenet, who said the existence of WMD in Iraq was a slam dunk, earned a Presidential medal of freedom. http://www.medaloffreedom.com/GeorgeTenet.htm But is it any wonder he did? Was George being measured on his ability to provide for the nation's security or his ability (and sacrifice of his career) to provide key ingredients in the recipe for transfering wealth to the oil and defense industries? I would guess the latter.
This suggests to me that this Administration is not only competent but quite brilliant at achieving its goals.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 2:24 pm
05 Jul 2006
I think I was mostly attracted to the part about needing to be careful that we don't get the case in 2008 for a "competent conservative" (McCain anyone?).
On further thought.....
Lakoff has oversimplified the issue. Clearly, destroying US prestige around the world (and thus the ability to get our way) as well as weakening "brand America" was not the Administration's goal. Nor was getting stuck in losing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are issues of competence involved.
In terms of crippling the government to force it to be ineffective in providing aid to people is an interesting argument. It is dangerous, though, because it suggests that people will draw the conclusion that the conservatives want (government won't help, I'm on my own) and not others (liberals did a better job of helping people when times were tough).
It opens the door to loss of power. Even though Bush is not running again, the people behind him want to hold on to power. To that extent, both Katrina and foreign policy have hurt them.
Presidents tend to care about long term success (they don't want to be Hoover, they want to be Lincoln). Ask Mrs. Reagan (during her term, she sponsored many initiatives towards helping her husband secure a reasonable place in history).
Making fun of Bush's competence does not need to be seperated from attacking his ideology. It is possible to be inclusive and do both at the same time!
patrick
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 3:15 pm
05 Jul 2006
Well I know commpetence. Competence does not tear up a country and then leave it a mess for three years going on infinity with little hope for even getting the lights back on for another 5 or more years, let alone water. It took Truman less than three year to re-supply Japan.
Competence in administration is not continuing the building of more and more nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers to fight battles with super powers that no longer exist. Competence would build up those skills to re-build and re-store.
Competence in making this land of the free and home of the brave is not by holding people without charging them under due process, nor monitoring everyones' every move, nor making laws out of fear that take away our freedoms. Free people who are brave will not trade their liberty or that of its citizens out of fear.
No, competence is about doing that that is good and doing such things well. It is not doing that that is bad and the doing of such bad things well.
This is the double speak that we have all heard. It is not competent, it is a trick.
Permalink