Think that George W. Bush has nothing in common with FDR? Both were seriously mis-underestimated men, considered lightweights at the time of their elections, both of whom implemented radical agendas for reshaping this country, and both of whom triggered extreme partisan hatred for their actions.

That's the theme of an excellent new article from the on-line edition of The National Journal, titled \"The Accidental Radical\". The National Journal, publishers of the invaluable "Almanac of American Politics," is one of the few genuinely nonpartisan sources of political analysis and commentary out there.

The article is a thorough analysis of the Bush administration radically reshaping the Republican party, and an overview of the underpinnings of its domestic and international agenda. However, about two-thirds the way through the article, the author gives a very bleak, very biting forecast of all of the problems that could likely be stirred up if the agenda fails. This is a much more sophisticated analysis of the Bush policies of pre-emption, the Israel/Palestinian issue, and the tax cuts combined with spending increases, than you will hear from any of the yellowcake-obsessed annouced Democratic candidates.

The article is neither cheerleading for Bush, nor slamming him. The conclusion is even-handed:
I don't recommend the article for folks who don't want to read any analysis of the Bush administration more sophisticated than "Shrub LIED!!!!!!!!!!!!" But if you want an even-handed assessment of what's at stake with the current administration, it's worth a read.

[ July 27, 2003, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

I don't know that the author is that far off in his assessment. However, I would point out that the two men inherited completely different sets of circumstances when they took office. And their policies have produced polar-opposite results to date.

Perhaps one perspective is that neither had anywhere else to go -- FDR inherited an economy devestated by the Great Depression and a domestic agenda that involved a basically "do nothing" approach. Let the market correct itself was largely the Hoover administration's approach. So, it was hard for FDR to go any further in the tank.

However, his administration did not only get the economy rolling and give people hope for the future, it also created a number of mechanisms that we see under attack today. Some really monumental labor laws and public programs were initiated during the FDR reign. (He did face his own controversies, however. Most notably, his attempt to put two additional Justices on the Supreme Court bench. The legislature and judiciary branches had the good sense to stand up to him and prevent this. Not exactly what we have seen the past couple of years.)

President Bush inherited an economy that had cooked along for the better part of 4-6 years. It was starting to slow following the tech corrections, but was still substantially in the clear. He did come into office at a time where the natural cycle was turning slightly downward.

However, like the FDR administration, his jumped on the bandwagon and exacerbated the correction that was naturally happening. Unfortunately, this has been in a very negative direction rather than the positive effects of the FDR presidency. The inability for the Bush advisers to either read the situation correctly or restrain themselves from pushing through their personal agenda while they still had a chance has brought a much darker time to the country than expected.

In addition, the current administration would like to undo a number of the policies and programs that made the FDR presidency such a success. One can legitimately question whether those programs have outlived their usefulness. However, they are the current foundation on which a vast majority of the country's population have built their expectations. You cannot just starve them to death and leave people to restore order on their own. That is irresponsible.

While both Presidents clearly had/have strong visions for where they want(ed) the country to head, I believe their leadership styles and results are radically different. FDR's actions did not put the country at further risk, and helped propel it out of depression (with some help from the looming world conflict).

GWB's actions are radical in that they are more of a "go for broke" strategy, with the realization that if they fail, he will not be the one who has to clean up after himself. Remember that FDR's 12+ years in office were the catalyst for the Presidential term limits. Now, Presidents generally have a much shorter term focus and goals. Much like US corporations. The long-term health of the country is not necessarily what is at play here. That often creates skewed results.

It was a great read.
For the record, while I oppose Mr. Bush, and what I think is his agenda, one has to agree that the is some reason to respect him.
IMO the bleak out look is what I fear. I would rather be wrong, but it is where I think we are heading.

"The Radical" might be appropriate. "Accidental" implies once again that he doesn't know what he is doing. Though many on the left and the right might disagree, I doubt that that is true.

I would agree that he has not accurately thought out the consequences of what he is doing, but President is a tough job. Even with the resources at the office's disposal that is difficult. Still he will have to take ultimate responsibility for his decisions come what may.

I don't think people underestimated his ability. I do think most people underestimated his ambition and willingness to use his power for an agenda that goes against the course we have set for over 50 years.

I think he won his narrow victory in 2000 because too many people assumed he would be a safe option. Nobody expected him to authorize such wide-ranging policies. I believe that the minority who voted him into office thought he would keep the status quo and not be as "radical" as he and his administration have chosen to be in the end.

I believe his ability to so decisively impact the state of our economy and our standing in the world order really was not on the radar. Most of us who campaigned against him knew he was not the type of leader we wanted, but few of us foresaw what was to happen. I think that is what has caused the biggest uproar from those opposed to the President. That he has caused such a radical shift in our country in such a short period of time.

Perhaps people have underestimated W , beecause he appears to be so stupid. But few liberally-oriented progressives have underestimated the extremism (Cheney) and political cunning (Rove) of the people he gathered around him. Also I really don't think his radicalism, which was evident in Texas (with the tort reform, with his death penalty zeal, with his pro-business and anti-environmental policies, his religiosity and attempts to break the church/state wall, etc.) was unknown nor accidental.

The only "accidental" aspects I see to his presidency were the close election (but I won't go into the actual debacle) and the fact that for craven political reasons he has adopted a big-government agenda in several areas where it was not necessary (especially that "No Child Left Behind" bill and the farm bill).

One other point: FDR did have more government experience. He was a New York State senator; the Asst. Secretary of the Navy; and was the Democratic nominee for the vice presidency in 1920, twelve years before he won his first term.

CITT, thanks for posting the link!

[ July 27, 2003, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

I wanted to echo fantomas on FDR's preparation for the Presidency - he was an active politico and gained power within the Democratic party for many years prior to becoming governor. We must also remember some of his lack of office stemmed from the decade-long recuperation from polio and his attempts to walk again.

The other key difference between FDR and GWB is that FDR did not come into office with a set ideological agenda. He inherited a crisis so profound that doing nearly anything would have made the outlook better. His hundred days' work is legendary, but those were mainly stop-gap measures. The true value of his presidency came from his willingness to try new programs, and chuck them if they didn't work (although he let too many live too long after they were clear failures). Economically many of his policies don't make sense, but the very fact that he was trying put a more positive outlook on the country, and the economy is, at least, 50% mental.

What is also interesting about the article is their understanding of the potential negative ramifications of Bush's policies. In some ways he is fulfilling the 70-year-old Republican wish to dismantle the New Deal programs (not to mention the Great Society programs). Part of the drive to competition and privatization is caused by the conservative love of the free market and "efficiency." And they are right - markets are ruthlessly efficient in governing economic behavior. However efficient economies are always more unstable than more planned ones - that is the downside you take with efficiency. When you go beyond simple economics (and economists are rightly criticized for over-simplifing the discipline), you find that uncertainty can destroy much of the benefit of efficiency, and that could be the end result of many of Bush's economic policies. By making the system more competitive, he also ensures more people will "fall out" of the market - for instance, those who don't plan ahead and save correctly could lose much of their social security - and we could see rising poverty rates among the elderly. That kind of instability is problematic for the economy - because producers need a base of consumers who will continue buying.

I think his aggressive foreign policy of preemption (which will dominate the discussions of his presidency in the history books) definitely is "accidental." If 9-11 had never happened, I think this Bush administration would have been somewhat isolationist. We would have scaled back on the presence of U.S. troops around the globe. (Remember in the campaign he criticized the Clinton administration for wasting military power on "nation building"? He's now engaged in nation-building on steroids.)

Likewise, an FDR presidency in the 1920s would have been radically different (and less radical) from his actual terms in the 1930s and 1940s.

I think the public will give Bush a second term just to let this vision play out. See where it goes. If the economy is doing well by mid summer next year, it'll be a landslide. If the economy is sputtering, it'll be close. If the second term is a success (safer world, economy doing fine): the Republicans will dominate elections for the next generation. If the negative consequences foreseen in this article begin to appear, due to underfunding the government, and spreading the military too thin (especially if enlistments decline and there is talk of a draft), then the Republicans won't be trusted again with the reins of government for a generation. (Just like the failure of the Great Society and LBJ's Vietnam policy caused the Republicans to have a lock on the presidency for the next 24 years: interrupted only by Carter scandal-bequeathed single term and broken only when Ross Perot's third-party candidacy allowed Clinton to win an electoral college majority with only 43 percent of the popular vote.)

I think the article is dead on, in that regard.

[ July 28, 2003, 08:28 AM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

As the idiot-in-chief said himself:

"They misunderestimated me." (Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000)

"You Cant spell Bitter without the word Raze" GWB 2003....

Come on PhillyFan, you can do better than that.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[ July 28, 2003, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]

Raze, you are allowed to adress me as PF if you like so you dont have to type so much more...

I think the only thing radical about GWB is his bizarre assemblage of political advisors and the ability to disguise, confuse and confound the American public as to his personal political and economic philosophy.

There is such a lack of coherence that it easy to dismiss him as a simpleton. Those that are biased towards his side of the political spectrum, tend to regard him as some sort of mystical genius.

Although the article brings a fresh approach to many of the agenda items, it seemed more an exercise in mythologizing than a balanced political analysis.

The final portion of the article betrays the author's intent: why take the trouble to imagine the impact of a Bush presidency 10 years after the fact when the realities are pressing here and now?

We shouldn't have to look forward to some imagined future to make sense of this Presidency. Rather, we should ask that the President make sense of what he is doing now.

And as good Americans, we should hold him to it.