September 18, 2005
SMACK DAB IN THE MIDDLE OF THE THIRD WAY:
A Bushian Laboratory (DAVID BROOKS, 9/18/05)
On Oct. 5, 1999, George Bush went to the Manhattan Institute and delivered the most important domestic policy speech of his life. In what was mostly a talk about education, he made it quite clear he was no liberal. But he also broke with mainstream conservatism as it then existed.He distanced himself from the cultural pessimists, the dour conservatives who were arguing that America was sliding toward decadence. Then he bluntly repudiated the small government conservatism that marked the Gingrich/Armey era.
It's not enough to cut the size of government, Bush said, or simply get government out of the way. Instead, Republicans have to come up with a positive vision of "focused and effective and energetic government."
With that, Bush set off on a journey to define what he called "compassionate conservatism" and what others call big government conservatism. [...]
On Thursday, President Bush went to New Orleans and gave the second most important domestic policy speech of his life. Politically it was a masterpiece, proof that if the president levels with the American people and admits mistakes, it pays off.
But in policy terms, the speech pushed the journey toward Bushian conservatism into high gear. The Gulf Coast will be a laboratory for the Bushian vision of energetic but not domineering government.
Bush proposed an Urban Homestead Act, which will draw enterprising people to the area, giving them an opportunity to own property so long as they're willing to work with private agencies to put up their own homes. He proposed individual job training accounts, so much of the rebuilding work can be done by former residents. Children who have left flooded areas will find themselves in a proto-school-choice program, with education dollars strapped to each individual child.
This is an effort to transform the gulf region, which had become a disaster zone of urban liberalism. All around the South, cities are booming, but New Orleans never did. All around the country, crime was dropping, but in New Orleans it was rising. Immigrants were flowing across the land in search of opportunity, but as Joel Kotkin has observed, few were interested in New Orleans.
Now the Bush administration is trying to change all that. That means trying to get around the corruption that made the city such a rotten place to do business. The White House is trying to do this by devising programs in which checks and benefits flow directly to recipients, not through local agencies.
That means challenging the reigning assumptions.
With the Left insisting there's no role for anyone but government in the recovery and the Right insisting there's no role for government, the President could hardly be positioned better. Posted by Orrin Judd at September 18, 2005 1:40 PM
Come now, this is not a yes/no, all-or-nothing issue. My disappointment with Bush on this is that, as usual, he hasn't even made token gestures toward fiscal discipline. E.g., it would have been nice if, while promising goodies to hurricane victims, he threatened to aggressively prosecute any fraud and corruption. Or if he asked Congress to delete some pork from the last highway bill to help pay for all this.
Posted by: PapayaSF at September 18, 2005 1:57 PMPapaya:
People who quibble over a billion or two here or there aren't being serious. They object to the principles, not the prices.
Posted by: oj at September 18, 2005 2:00 PMYes, we know what kind of girl you are.
Posted by: joe shropshire at September 18, 2005 2:22 PMRe quibbling over billions, I invoke the late Senator Dirksen: "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money."
And again, it's more than a principles vs. prices issue. In principal, I'm in favor of lots of things, but it doesn't mean I'm not serious if I am reluctant to see infinite amounts of tax money committed to those things.
Posted by: PapayaSF at September 18, 2005 2:58 PMPapaya:
Yes, fifty years ago a billion mattered. In a $12 trillion economy the idea that stopping a highway project or two would make one fiscally responsible is risible.
Posted by: oj at September 18, 2005 5:21 PMjoe:
Exactly. Getting your price after agreeing to whore doesn't restore your virginity.
Posted by: oj at September 18, 2005 5:23 PMWho is "you", white man? We never agreed to no whorin'.
Posted by: joe shropshire at September 18, 2005 10:19 PMYou're one of the extremists?
Posted by: oj at September 18, 2005 10:49 PMActually, Bush can have the best of both worlds now: he can preside over the relief and reconstruction spending (as he sees fit), and use the veto and the bully pulpit on pork, knowing that no Democrat would dare call him on it (because he is restoring fiscal discipline). He can bash Don Young, for example, and get support from John Spratt and Byron Dorgan - right?
And maybe even Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Reynolds.
Posted by: jim hamlen at September 18, 2005 11:11 PM