A BIRD IN THE BUSH: Failed Policies of the George W. Bush Administration doc

A BIRD IN THE BUSH

A BIRD IN THE BUSH:

Failed Policies

of the

George W. Bush Administration

Dowling Campbell, Northern Arizona University

John Kemoli Sagala, Northern Arizona University

Zachary A. Smith, Northern Arizona University

Sayuri Guthrie-Shimizu, Michigan State University

Jaina L. Moan, Northern Arizona University

Don Rich, Delaware and Montgomery County Colleges

Douglas Becker, University of Southern California

Jerry F. Hough, Duke University

Preface & Introduction

by Dowling Campbell

Algora Publishing

New York

© 2005 by Algora Publishing in the name of Raymond Monsour Scurfield

All Rights Reserved

www.algora.com

No portion of this book (beyond what is permitted by

Sections 107 or 108 of the United States Copyright Act of 1976)

may be reproduced by any process, stored in a retrieval system,

or transmitted in any form, or by any means, without the

express written permission of the publisher.

ISBN: 0-87586-340-X (softcover)

ISBN: 0-87586-341-8 (hardcover)

ISBN: 0-87586-342-6 (ebook)

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data —

A bird in the Bush: failed policies of the George W. Bush administration / Dowl￾ing G. Campbell, editor.

p. cm.

Summary: “In eight studies by history and political science specialists, Bush's

policies are examined, from taxes to employment, the environment, sex education,

social security, health care and the war in Iraq”

Includes bibliographical references.

ISBN 0-87586-340-X (soft: alk. paper) — ISBN 0-87586-341-8 (hard: alk.

paper) — ISBN 0-87586-342-6 (e-book: alk. paper)

1. United States—Politics and government—2001- 2. Bush, George W. (George

Walker), 1946- 3. United States—Foreign relations—2001- 4. United States—Eco￾nomic policy—2001- 5. United States—Social policy—1993- I. Campbell, Dowling.

E902.B555 2005

973.931—dc22

2005012337

Front Cover: President George W. Bush delivers remarks at the 20th anniver￾sary of the National Endowment for Democracy at the US Chamber of Commerce

on November 6, 2003 in Washington.

Image: © Brooks Kraft/Corbis

Photographer: Brooks Kraft

Date Photographed: November 6, 2003

Printed in the United States

One epigraph for each of the last six centuries —

“As for Marcus Aurelius, even if we grant that he was a good emperor — … there

can be no doubt that he did more damage to the state by leaving such a son behind

him than he ever benefited it by his own rule.”

— Desiderius Erasmus, The Praise of Folly.

(Sixteenth century; trans. by Clarence H. Miller)

“Notwithstanding the fact that what the old man told us a little while ago is pro￾verbial and commonly accepted, yet it seemed to me altogether false, like many

another saying which is current among the ignorant; for I think they introduce

these expressions in order to give the appearance of knowing something about mat￾ters which they do not understand.”

— Galileo Galilei, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences.

(Seventeenth century; trans. by Henry Crew and Alfonso de Salvio)

“A little learning is a dangerous thing;

Drink deep or taste not the Pierian Spring.”

— Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism.

(Eighteenth century, written in English)

“Oh my dear friend, would you like to know why genius so seldom overflows its

banks to make its wondrous way down the valley, where it would enrich all the

downstream soils and plants with nutrients and life? It is because of the conserva￾tive gentlemen who live downstream and have built their winter mansions and

summer cottages, complete with flower gardens and tulip beds behind white picket

fences, right next to the river, and who know how to damn up such threats to

progress and new thinking in good time.”

— Wolfgang von Goethe, The Sorrows of Young Werther.

(Nineteenth century, translation paraphrased by Dowling G. Campbell)

“Many races, like many individuals, have indulged in practices which must in the

end destroy them.”

— Sir James George Frazier, The Golden Bough, III. VII. p. 196.

(Twentieth century, written in English)

“I just know how this world works.”

— George Walker Bush, during a debate with Senator John Kerry.

(Early twenty first century, gobbledygook)

9

PREFACE 1

INTRODUCTION: BUSH’S SECOND INAUGURAL ADDRESS IN A “REPUBLICAN”

PERSPECTIVE 3

by Dowling Campbell

CHAPTER 1. GEORGE W. BUSH POLICIES — THE HEIGHT OF FOLLY 19

by Dowling G. Campbell

CHAPTER 2. GEORGE W. BUSH AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH

AND HIV/AIDS POLICY 55

by John Kemoli Sagala and Zachary A. Smith

Abstract 55

Introduction 55

Bush and the 2000 Presidential Elections 56

Historical Analysis of Abortion Law and Policy 57

Executive Appointments and Reproductive Health Policy 59

Bush’s Judicial Appointments and Reproductive Health 60

Contraceptives, Emergency Contraception and Pregnancy Prevention 61

Teen Sexual Health and Sex Education 62

Family Values, Strong Marriages, Infertility and Child-Adoption 63

Bush on Human Cloning 64

The HIV/AIDS Pandemic 64

Bush: International HIV/AIDS Policy 66

The Use or Misuse of Science 68

The Bush Policy: Our PostScript 68

CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENTAL UNILATERALISM: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S

WITHDRAWAL FROM THE KYOTO PROTOCOL ON GLOBAL WARMING 71

by Sayuri Guthrie-Shimizu

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A Bird in the Bush

10

CHAPTER 4. BUSH AND THE ENVIRONMENT 81

by Jaina L. Moan and Zachary A. Smith

Introduction 81

Bush and Water 82

Deregulation and the Clean Water Act 83

Transfer of Regulatory Power to States 85

River Management Policies 87

Bush, Air and Climate Change 88

Deregulation and the Clean Air Act 88

Climate Change and “Sound” Science 91

Bush and Energy 92

National Security and ANWR 93

Bush and Public Lands Policy 95

The Roadless Rule 95

Snowmobile Bans 96

Healthy Forests Restoration Act 97

“Sound” Science and National Security 98

Conclusion 99

BUSH’S FISCAL POLICY: THE SHORT AND THE LONG OF IT 101

Don Rich

Plan of Attack 104

General Overview of Bush’s Tax Cuts 106

Comparative Perspective on Budget Deficits 108

General Observations About Budget Forecasting and Fiscal Policy 110

Security and the Budget 117

No Veto 121

Long Term: The Entitlements 122

Conclusion 127

CHAPTER 6. THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT 131

by Douglas Becker

Introduction 131

The Rome Statute and its Purposes 133

American Opposition to the ICC 135

American Servicepersons Protection Act of 2001 (ASPA) 138

Article 98 Agreements 140

The Campaign at the UN 144

Conclusion: Possible Scenarios for the ICC in light of US Opposition 149

The Bush Administration’s Record on the ICC 152

Table of Contents

11

Appendix 1: The American Servicepersons Protection Act — Full Text 154

Appendix 2: The US-Proposed “Article 98” Agreement Template 168

Appendix 3: UN Security Council Resolution 1422 170

Appendix 4: UN Resolution 1593 (2005) 171

CHAPTER 7. NATIONALISM AS THE NEW CULTURAL ISSUE 175

by Jerry F. Hough

The Republicans and the Red-State Strategy 178

The Possible Democratic Responses 185

The New Democratic Suburban Strategy and the Republican Problem 189

The Erosion of the Old Cultural Issues 194

The Issue of Nationalism 198

George W. Bush and Nationalism 202

The 2004 Election and Beyond 204

CONTRIBUTORS 211

1

PREFACE

The need for A Bird in the Bush: Failed Domestic Policies of the George W. Bush

Administration was sparked by what many informed and responsible Americans

have seen as serious blunders committed by President George W. Bush during

his first term of office. Especially troublesome is the 2005 Inaugural Address.

This second inaugural address illustrates how “Bush II” is derailing the purpose

of America as a nation. (It is analyzed in the introduction.)

Bush II could not perform this derailing all on his own. He had help. Both

the introduction and the lead article, “The Height of Folly,” present a framework

of Republican activities covering a wide range of conservative thinking reaching

back to the Nixon era. The remaining articles then show how various additional

individual policies have failed.

It is this conservative thinking that has undermined the roadbed and

allowed for Bush II’s distortion of the nation’s avowed stand for freedom and

democracy. The perspective of Republican activities also helps show why

various Bush II policies that many see as blunders have been able to go unchal￾lenged.

Hopefully, this book will succeed in informing voters where other media

have failed. The intensity of the media, the demands of television time, along

with the limited space and hence brevity of magazine and newspaper articles

and editorials are three informational limitations which dictate that commen￾tators and analysts must be too brief to even approach an adequate presentation

of information for voters to vote intelligently, even when those commentators

A Bird in the Bush

2

and analysts have valid points and arguments. It doesn’t matter how much you

know, if that knowledge does not get across to voters.

Other books have attempted to describe these informational limitations.

Neil Postman’s Language in America rings as relevant today as it did when it

pointed out the problem of media intensity four decades ago. Three decades ago,

Alvin Toffler described the problem of time crunching in Future Shock. James

Gleick has reiterated both media intensity and time crunch dilemmas in his

book, FSTR: Faster, the Acceleration of Just about Everything.

Books themselves, with their more deliberate and hopefully more cognitive

and in-depth research capabilities, are no panacea, either. Special interests, per￾sonal prejudices, religious leanings, and outright dishonesty can slant books just

as easily as they do other media programs and presentations. Also, books are just

as susceptible to logical fallacies and propaganda devices as other media forms

are.

The writers represented in A Bird in the Bush: Failed Domestic Policies of the

George W. Bush Administration have attempted accuracy and honesty, above all else.

I am most grateful to all the scholars who have contributed so generously of their

time, talent, and yeoman effort, to say nothing of their love for and dedication to

their country, in preparing these articles. They join me in one of the most

patriotic efforts imaginable — responsible, constructive, and caring criticism of

our government.

When Vice President Dick Cheney and Attorney General John Ashcroft

intimate that critics of the Bush II administration are committing treason (the

same argument was made during the Nixon and Reagan presidencies), they need

to recall a statement from The Arrogance of Power, written by one of America’s and

the world’s most distinguished thinkers, the late Sen. J. William Fulbright. Ful￾bright not only approved such dissent but called it a duty. Unfortunately, this

duty promotes anger from the targets of that criticism, which can result in

threats from them and create fear among the public. “The discharge of the duty

[Fulbright’s italics] of dissent is handicapped in America by an unworthy ten￾dency to fear serious criticism of our government.” (p. 27) This “threat and fear”

process was once again illustrated by Bush when he contended that those politi￾cians who opposed his social security legislation would be sorry.

3

INTRODUCTION: BUSH’S SECOND INAUGURAL ADDRESS IN

A “REPUBLICAN” PERSPECTIVE

by Dowling Campbell

With his second inaugural address, President George W. Bush trans￾formed the office of the President of the United States into a personal “mission”

that serves his individual needs and agenda rather than the needs and agenda of

the nation that elected him. A self-appointed “apostle of freedom,” Bush has

made the world a more dangerous rather than a safer place. His stated intention

to bring freedom and democracy to oppressed people throughout the world,

while idealistically laudable, remains impractical, dangerous, and inappropriate,

far outside the parameters of a President of the United States. Such an approach

can easily lead to more violence than terrorists now create.

Throughout his first term of office, intimations of a personal agenda

colored by his religious “rightist” leanings, appeared in various speeches and pol￾icies, such as Bush’s canceling the $34 million authorized in 2002 by both houses

of Congress for the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, his with￾drawing the US from the Kyoto Protocol, his widespread appointment of conser￾vative judges, his refusal to even consider alternative energy sources, or, most

heinous of all, waging an unnecessary and unjust war. These intimations coa￾lesced in his second inaugural address into an unmistakable agenda that fits, not

national or international needs, but a personal “mission” that has nothing to do

with the presidency. Bush hid from his unjust war behind a false crusade that he

created, Merlin-like, not with the wave of a wand but of Old Glory. And he got

away with it!

A Bird in the Bush

4

Nobody appeared to recognize or object to the transformation. It is fright￾ening enough that we have a president who defines himself as filling an indi￾vidual rather than a national agenda; it is equally, maybe more, frightening that

an entire national cadre of newscasters dutifully reported Bush II’s personal

mission without sounding so much as a counterpoint.

Short as it was, the speech reflected the vagueness, confusion, and contra￾dictions that many astute listeners have come to expect. Of course, a certain

amount of vagueness and generalizing must occur when speaking of national

and international issues in such a truncated time frame, but the confusion and

contradictions can also be used to obfuscate and beguile, rather than lead and

explain..

“After the shipwreck of communism, there came a time of quiet, years of

repose, years of sabbatical…. And then there came a day of fire.”

The reference to “fire” went unexplained. If the fire referred to the attacks

on the World Trade Center and elsewhere with hijacked airliners, the metaphor

was appropriate, within limits. The fire could equally be, however, the fire that

Bush himself has created with the war in Iraq.

Then came his cue for world salvation. “The best hope for the world is the

expansion of freedom in all the world.” Overlooking the repetition, which was a

tactic in the first presidential debate, this “hope” is vague, to say the least.

“The survival of freedom in our land increasingly depends upon the success

of freedom in other lands.” What does that mean?

Before long, Bush’s divine “mission” began to creep in. “Every man and

woman has the right to freedom because they bear the image of our maker.”

Well, as Ronald Reagan might well say, there you go again! — a philosophical

dispute and a religious perspective has no place in such a speech. This is the

cloak of the religious right that he donned so effectively during the election.

Soon, however, Bush took confusion to a new level.

“Now it is the requirement to seek and support the growth of freedom…

with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. Not by arms. Freedom by

nature must be chosen.” If tyranny is not to be ended by arms, what is going on

in Iraq? If freedom must be chosen, why has the spreading of freedom been retro￾actively offered as the US objective in its war on Iraq? A “requirement” that

“must be” is not a choice at all. Who does the choosing? Do they get to choose

their own time?

“My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people from the

threat of attack.” As Senator John Kerry pointed out during the debates, Iraq did

Introduction: Bush’s Second Inaugural Address in a “Republican” Perspective

5

not attack the US. There was no threat of attack from Iraq, in spite of Wash￾ington’s efforts to find one. By attacking Iraq, Bush has actually increased the

danger for America — and directly, for those Americans fighting and dying there.

Bush mused upon a time “When the captives are set free.” Which captives

did he have in mind, those at Guantanamo? Some clarification would have been

helpful.

“Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and to every soul.”

Did he mean to include Saddam Hussein? That unproven generalization either

needed more thought or it was intended as a hyperbolic bit of poetry. In times of

war, people expect something more substantive in an inaugural address.

Then things took an even more revolutionary turn. “When you stand for

your liberty, we will stand for you.” Whom was he talking to? Was he issuing a

revolutionary call for the populace of third world nations to rise up against their

governments? Was he trying to stir up trouble within relatively peaceful

nations? Isn’t this rather like the call that terrorist leaders make for their recruits

to rise up against the United States (also in the name of God)?

Does the call include the Kurds? The Kurds stood for their liberty, but the

United States betrayed them. Does it include Tibet? If Tibet rebels — possibly a

worthy but certainly an impractical cause, right now — will Bush go to war

with China? Do God and Billy Graham and the electorate want Bush to take up

the rights of Buddhist monks in the Himalayas at the risk of launching a third

world war? Is that in the budget?

It was disappointing, but not surprising, that the President of the United

States would create such a crusade, thinking (as he apparently does) that he is a

spokesman of God, despite having won his position on such a small margin.

Perhaps Bush does think he’s a spokesman of God. As Professor Brian Bosworth

of the University of Western Australia contends (along with Diodorus, Quin￾tilius, Arian, Plutarch, and many moderns), Alexander the Great actually

thought he was God.

Bush’s second inaugural address was a falsely patriotic and dangerous

whitewashing. It would have been far better had the President remained gra￾ciously silent than to have announced a personal crusade that this country does

not need, cannot afford, and for the most part does not want.

The inaugural speech would have been rather comical were it not for the

fact that Bush had just been re-elected as commander-in-chief of the world’s

mightiest military force. Surprisingly, none of the NBC newscasters pointed out

Bush’s apostleship or his intimation for revolutionary uprisings.