The Tea Party is composed largely of Republicans who supported George W. Bush when he was the GOP standard-bearer, voting for him twice and criticizing him far less frequently than they defended him, only to rebel against his record at the end of his second term. At that point, partisan loyalty and shared hatred of liberals finally gave way to the realization that the GOP’s time in power was a disaster for conservatives.
Read more. [Image: Reuters]
In 1973, Arthur Schlesinger wrote about the tendency in American history for the president to assume sweeping powers in times of war and crisis. The balance of power established by the Constitution gets upended; Congress and the courts take a back seat; and the executive makes decisions about life and death largely unchecked. He called this “the imperial presidency.” Today, with President Obama turning to Congress to endorse a military strike on Syria, the imperial presidency is beginning to wane.
It’s about time. The 1990s seemed to presage a return to a more balanced government, with Cold War defense spending slashed and “the peace dividend” contributing to a more balanced budget. But then 9/11 happened; America launched a war on terror; and the rest, as they say, is history.
The imperial presidency has some justification in times of acute peril. The immediate aftermath of 9/11 certainly justified some degree of unilateral executive action, as did in its way the financial crisis in the fall of 2008. And few would argue that at times of all-out war, with the country fully mobilized to fight a genuine threat such as Germany and Japan during World War II, ceding powers to the executive branch is imperative.
Read more. [Image: Claudio Bresciani/Reuters]
Ten years ago this week, the United States invaded Iraq. These two stories by James Fallows are essential to understanding the consequences of that decision.
The Fifty-First State? (Nov. 2002): Months before the invasion began, Fallows warned of the difficult responsibilities America would face as an occupying power. Was the U.S. prepared for a long-term relationship?
Bush’s Lost Year (Oct. 2004): “As a political matter, whether the United States is now safer or more vulnerable is of course ferociously controversial. That the war was necessary—and beneficial—is the Bush Administration’s central claim. That it was not is the central claim of its critics. But among national-security professionals there is surprisingly little controversy. Except for those in government and in the opinion industries whose job it is to defend the Administration’s record, they tend to see America’s response to 9/11 as a catastrophe.”
The Republican Party needs a new message on foreign policy that is true to the conservative principles of the base and yet has a broad appeal to the American public. It so happens that one already exists, has a proven track record of electoral success, and is only slightly used: the ”humble foreign policy” that candidate George W. Bush espoused during the 2000 campaign but abandoned with the Global War on Terror and the Iraq invasion.
Bush’s wisdom during the October 12, 2000 debates is striking in hindsight. “If we’re an arrogant nation,” he warned, “they’ll resent us; if we’re a humble nation, but strong, they’ll welcome us. And our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that’s why we’ve got to be humble, and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom.”
Now, to a large degree, that’s platitude rather than policy prescription. But it’s the right mindset from which to approach policy analysis.
Read more. [Image: Reuters]
A Bloomberg poll released this week finds 49 percent of likely voters see Bush unfavorably while 46 percent see him favorably. That beats Romney’s results — 50 percent see him unfavorably and 43 percent view him favorably, as the Dallas Morning News' Tom Benning points out. This poll does not appear to be an outlier in showing Romney’s unpopularity.
Read more. [Image: AP]
We loved Maurice Sendak’s work, so it wasn’t without a little cringing that we read this excerpt from his soon-to-be-published interview with Gary Groth in The Comics Journal in which he fantasized about killing George W. Bush. Sure, Sendak was known to be a cranky old guy, but this is downright nasty stuff. From the interview:
SENDAK: Bush was president, I thought, “Be brave. Tie a bomb to your shirt. Insist on going to the White House. And I wanna have a big hug with the vice president, definitely. And his wife, and the president, and his wife, and anybody else that can fit into the love hug.”
Yikes. And then there’s this:
SENDAK: You would have forgotten about it. It would have been a very brave and wonderful thing. But I didn’t do it; I didn’t do it.
Read more. [Image: AP]
With a speedy apology following a half-day bloguproar, you can bet that the folks running HBO’s of Game of Thrones totally regret impaling the 43rd president’s head on a spike. Or at least, regret saying it was him on a DVD commentary track. ”We use a lot of prosthetic body parts on the show: heads, arms, etc. We can’t afford to have these all made from scratch… so we rent them in bulk. After the scene was already shot, someone pointed out that one of the heads looked like George W. Bush,” showrunners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss said in an apology statement picked up by The Hollywood Reporter's Lesley Goldberg. “We meant no disrespect to the former President and apologize if anything we said or did suggested otherwise.”
Read more at The Atlantic Wire. [Image: HBO]
- I want to raise $6.5 million to build and grow my new company: TheBoostle.com
During the last millennia, many popular new media properties have...
- Intellect, n.
The ability to use reason and other functions of the brain in human beings, including doubt and curiosity — in essence thinking. Not...
- “You will hate Los Angeles." That’s what English people said to me when they heard I was heading west, to the land of low-fat milk and sugar-free...”