Bush The Liberal?

Another Volokh Conspiracy post. Eugene Volokh discusses how social factors help explain why homosexual marriage probably won't lead us on a slippery slope to polygamy. Randy Barnett looks back a few hundred years for support toward gun rights and judicial review. See also, here. David Bernstein's criticism of "Bush does nothing right" liberals bears an in depth discussion.

David Bernstein takes liberals to task for not accepting that President Bush supported "objectively liberal programs," in part comparing such slanted criticism to that suffered by President Clinton. He has a point (Bush and Clinton ironically are alike in many ways, including their selective use of language. Also, overcriticism is counterproductive, as the Right learnt a few years back. These guys are bad, but they are not the anti-Christ.) though Bernstein is a bit selective, since some have been more balanced in their criticism. I emailed him to compliment the valid point, one that follows my "balanced attack" principle, but to explain in various ways liberals have a reason to be skeptical.

He briefly responded by suggesting liberals are basically concerned about the administration's insincerity, but as a cynical libertarian, he doesn't think many politicians are sincere. I think it's more than that, but I noted that as a cynic, he should be sympathetic to those who are wary about opponents who are insincere. Laura Flanders would suggest a difference in tone should not blind us to a sameness in what they are trying to promote. The same would apply to tossing some bones to the center to cloud the rest of their intentions. Is the President "trying to govern from the center while placating their parties' base?"

Some obvious examples that come to mind are (1) the new Medicare drug entitlement; (2) the massive increase in federal education spending; (3) increased funding (proposed) for the National Endowment for the Arts; (4) the general huge increase in discretionary federal spending, including spending on infrastructure projects (what Bill Clinton called "investment"); (5) close attention to affirmative action concerns in executive appointments.

Advocates focus on the negatives of the other side and are loathe to trust those they generally dislike. Many of his programs, a penchant for secrecy, heavyhanded treatment of opponents, and certain character aspects legitimately concern Democrats. They also make one question about the President's alleged Clintonian attempt to govern from the center. All the same, how about the individual examples supplied? Flanders in particular would particularly be cynical about the fifth one. The administration selectively highlights particular traits of their picks, but opposes affirmative action per se, and criticizes Democrats who focus on traits over merit. Are we to praise their hypocrisy?

Prof. Bernstein attacks criticism of the Medicare bill as hypocritical, coming from free spending liberals. It might be imperfect, but it is after all an entitlement bill. He has a point, but the opposition of the other side surely is not too cynical, is it? Actually, it is a backhanded compliment because traditionally liberals know those on the Right served as a valuable fiscal conservative check. Now, they suddenly are free spending, and mainly for political reasons, which threatens the future solvency of social spending as a whole. This joins quite well with their questionable tax policies.

Opponents of the No Child Left Behind law are not just new converts to the concept of "unfunded mandates," nor are the critics truly selective in their criticism of federal laws of this sort. Liberals have criticized Democrats as well for not properly supporting the money and effort needed to fully honor social welfare programs. Also, Bernstein slyly ignores that the law is opposed by educators on the ground as well. Finally, criticism is focused in part on alleged broken promises the President made as to funding. Libs also are somewhat upset at his fraudulent "Texas Education Miracle" rhetoric. So, no, his educational "reforms" doesn't impress much.

As to spending as a whole, the fact the administration isn't as bad as some suggest really doesn't prove too much. It is somewhat akin to those who aren't too impressed that the President didn't bend back various environmental laws as much as he could have. Finally, let's ignore the (proposed) aspect of the NEA funding. There are any number of other things people are concerned about these days, so this seems a bit trivial to me. Still, okay, his NEA appointee appears to be a good one, and so forth. All the same, the administration's anti-porn efforts, covering up the breasts of the statue, and selective support of religious doctrine [traditionally, this is a threat to artistic freedom] are but three ways that suggest he is no "NEA President." So, again, I am not impressed too much.

Prof. Bernstein also suggested liberals are mainly concerned with motivation, which was ironic to me, given many are quite concerned with discriminatory effects. Those on the other side blame them for this, saying the result is innocent actors are attacked. Liberals apparently can't win. He talks about "Democratic propaganda," but he might not be totally free of such slanted arguments either.

As someone who tries not to fit in any single cubbyhole, criticism is useful. Is not skepticism and nuance, which includes criticism from all sides, good things, after all? And, yes, Republicans in DC these days strategically and in some cases ideologically are in various cases more moderate than some give them credit for. So, I welcome this sort of questioning, but on some level it also too often seems a bit biased and too cute. But, then, we all are to some extent. So, hopefully, the end result will be a healthy medium. And, a Kerry Administration.*

---

* Sen. Kerry was wise to meet with Nader, say that he is not asking him to drop out, but that a Kerry candidacy is the best way to defeat the President. Salving Nader's ego is probably a good idea, and ultimately many swing voters want to know why they should support Kerry, not why they should not vote Bush or Nader. Also, I repeat my sentiment that (cynical) libertarians like the good professor should understand this administration is far from truly supportive of true libertarian principles.