Folks associated with old-time carnivals divided the world into two groups: the carnies, who get it, and the rubes, who get suckered. In Bush's world, the carnies are corporate bigwigs, capitalist ideologs (e.g., Norquist), and individuals of great wealth. They've bought the current power in Washington, from K Street to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Risks are taken and fights are fought for them: massive annual tax cuts and no regulations.
As folks opposed to Bush's agenda, we tend to regard ourselves as rubes getting suckered by Rove. True enough, but we are not the real suckers, just the ones who protest the carnival coming to town but will be cleaning up the mess. The real rubes are the religious right.
See discussion below the fold. This was suggested by the hoopla over this beliefnet.comarticle by David Kuo, formely of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Kuo sounds like he's dealing with the grief of betrayal, but is stuck between denial and depression and repressed his anger. Not healthy, friend; accept that you've been suckered and work to keep it from happening again.
What do the rubes want? Well, the carnies have been driving them over the moon for years with abortion, but have not actually managed to accomplish much. They have appointed conservative judges, but never so dominating (especially with Reagan/Bush I nominees) that abortion is actually in danger. They have passed anti-abortion laws, pretty clearly designed to fail the constitutional tests the court has laid out or get vetoed. During Clinton's term in office, he would have twice signed a `partial-birth' abortion ban if it had been clearly written (not hard) and contained exceptions for serious health risks to the woman; the carnies choose to pass a bill that did not do this. A Supreme Court decision also made this clear - the
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-830.ZS.html">Stenberg v. Carhart decision in 2000 reinforced this; subsequent bills have violated the tests laid down in that decision. It was not because they were morally uncompromising; the whole bill was a compromise (only one type of abortions.) It was because any partial ban would have shown Democrats to be flexible on the issue, encouraged complacency among the rubes, and maybe energized the left.
The carnies also know that its not enough to ask the rubes what they want; they get better results when they tell them what they want. There was no huge hue and cry for the government to give money to churches for charitable work before 2000, but it was a quick way to give something to the rubes that would incense the left in ways that the carnies could portray as insensitive. The best part of it was that it was easy and cheap. Easy, because a lot of it could be done by executive order, and cheap, because you just took money from other resources for the needy (and don't even fully fund it then) It also gives great propaganda opportunities; when the carnies are showing churches how to apply for grant applications they can keep mentioning the President (also in the literature.)
Gay marriage is another made up one: it is hardly is sweeping the nation, and present law prevents it from becoming an issue in almost anywhere. A constitutional amendment to ban it has the twin virtues of the appearance of strident action on behalf of the rubes and incredible odds against it ever actually working, keeping the issue alive for years and allowing the carnies to bray about dem `opposition to families.' However, it runs the risk of making Bush appear mean and turns off too many people, so the Bush folks gladly back-burnered the whole thing after the election, just in case it might actually go somewhere. (Note that there has also been no anti-abortion amendment, even though it would be easier to write.)
On the other hand, the carnies get everything. From a total lack of oversight in everything from the SEC (Donaldson is better than Pitt, but not by much) to forests to energy (Sorry, Mr. Cheney, but there was manipulation in the CA energy market in 2001.) They get massive tax breaks targeted at them. They get lax labor law enforcement (see the recent Wal-Mart case.) They get Trojan horse Social Security initiatives (watch when Bush abandons ship on this and insists on uncapped tax-free `retirement accounts'.) They get slashed capital gains and dividend taxes, so they can make money now, and elimination of inheritance taxes, so their progeny can stay wealthy and powerful and not become rubes.
The rubes pay for all this, of course. Bushes latest tax cuts (lose the AMT, and investment savings accounts) were proposed to be offset by eliminating the tax deductions for mortgages and state and local taxes and taxing social security income (effectively a benefits cuts transferring wealth from the regressive social security payroll deduction to the general fund.)
The rubes have not woken up yet, but a few of them are starting to show signs of life.
We can open some eyes, if we have the guts and the message. The David Kuo article shows disappointment, but we need to get people like him to accept that Bush is not about their values. We can disagree with folks like him on some issues, so long as we get the big things right. A compassionate society helps those who needs it, protects it elderly from the vagaries of life and markets, and helps even its disadvantaged young get an education. A responsible government does not burden a generation of children with massive deficits they will be unable to repay, so that its wealthiest can enjoy the good times today.