With all due respect to a well-written, sourced and considered duary that made it to the recommend list, I have to say that I believe it is incorrect. That it perpetuates an all too common and far too easy critique of Bush that is an extension of the Reagan narrative and the critique of
globalism than has come since. Specifically, that George Bush is a tool of corporations, held captive to an anti-government free-trade-run-amok corporatist agenda.
Such a critique is easy, as it seems to flow seamlessly from Reagan in the 80s and the rise of the transnationals in the 90s. But the fact is that it's too easy. What we see in Bush is not an extension of the corporate dominance of the world. That is purtting the cart before the horse.
Because Bush is not a tool for the corporate agenda, the corporations have become a tool for his "holy" agenda.
Reagan was the patron saint of the right for several reasons, but at the core was his critique on government and his economic "trickle down," supply-side notions that situated him as the architect of the new corporatism. He also spoke in the language of the religious right, allowing him to be embraced by the Falwell crowd, eventually rising to the status of national pastor. It is through that status that he was sell balanced budgets and the destruction of welfare as articles of faith. This rhetoric held the right together like glue, and enabled the rise of hucksters like Ralph Reed who made a career of selling
laissez-faire capitalism as holy scripture to their own personal enrichment.
But at the end of the day, Reagan's core belief's were more articulated and expressed by the conservative Cato Institute than the Moral Majority. Common Dreams from 2002:
Reagan was the ideal political huckster for corporate America's profits-over-people philosophy of unbridled greed. He could put a nice face on the mean-spirited politics of fear and greed as he blamed "welfare mothers," "social programs," "government regulations" and the "evil empire of the Soviet Union" as causes for America's troubles. His divisive scape-goating of poor people and invective against government programs enabled him to deliver a giant tax break for the rich, roll back many health and safety regulations, and push through a gigantic military buildup for corporate defense contractors like General Electric. ..
...Like Reagan, George W. Bush was supported by big corporations
So if Bush is simply Reagan on steroids, why is there so much criticism from the Cato crowd?
To David Boaz, the notion of Reagan, corporate-enabling libertarianism is threatened by paternalistic attitudes such as this:
And once in a while politicians reveal the patronizing attitude toward the voters that underlies these promises. Vice President Al Gore told an audience, "The federal government should never be the baby sitter, the parents," but should be "more like grandparents in the sense that grandparents perform a nurturing role and are aware of what parenting was like but no longer exercise that kind of authority."
Bush's chief of staff Andy Card disagreed: The government should be the parents, he said; "this president sees America as we think about a 10-year-old child," in need of firm parental protection.
By any measure, this sort of perspective is not consistent with Reagan social theory -- in fact it runs directly contrary to it. This is the rhetoric of statism, pure and simple -- something that the corporatist movement was working very successfully at abolishing.
In the transnational world, states are anachronistic. Cobwebs to be cleared away. But in Bush we see a refocused centralization of power in the hands of the state -- and specifically the unitary power of the executive.
Again, it's the libertarian right that sees this clearly, as it is they who have had the rug pulled out from under them. This comment from a conservative joe-schmo commenter sums it up cuccinctly:
The big difference between Reagan and Bush is that Reagan was an advocate of free market capitalism and Bush is an advocate of state capitalism.
The Bush Administration is all about subsidies and handouts to corporations based on their level of giving to the GOP, not their competence.
Statist capitalism is the new GOP religion, and the hilarious part is that many Republicans are so blinded by ideology they don't realize they have become apostles of statism.
And he's absolutely right. By co-opting the religious right as a tool, the corporatists have bitten off more than they can chew. And sure, the Bush wars have been terrific for some big corporations -- Halliburton comes to mind. But the Reagan revolution was unrestricted growth for any corporation. The Bush regime rewards -- either directly or indirectly -- those corporations that it needs to further it's agenda of good-old fashioned imperialism, with an ecomomic twist.
Consider this analysis from the San Francisco Chronicle:
Has 'War' become a leading brand for United States?
How Bush's imperial policies are being linked to economic woes and CEO angst in America
Mark Engler
Breaking with the Clinton administration's advocacy for a cooperative, rules-based international economy -- a multilateral order known to critics as corporate globalization -- the Bush administration has fashioned a new model of imperial globalization, aggressive and unilateralist. This agenda, at best, benefits a narrow slice of the American business community and leaves the rest exposed to a world of popular resentment and economic uncertainty.
If Bush is an oil president, he's not a Disney president, nor a Coca-Cola one. If Vice President Dick Cheney is working diligently to help Halliburton rebound, the war he helped lead hasn't worked out nearly so well for Starbucks.
And if this isn't enough, consider the true architects of Bushism. The Project for a New American Century crowd.
Wolfowitz:
But most puzzling to some, perhaps, is the communion that Wolfowitz seems to have with George W. Bush. How can someone so smart, so knowing, speak--and even apparently think--so much like George Bush? Except for their manner of delivery--Wolfowitz speaks in coherent paragraphs and Bush employs an idiom that is particular to himself--the language used by the two men when discussing Iraq is almost indistinguishable. It is the stark tone of evangelical conviction: evil versus good, the "worship of death‿ and "philosophy of despair‿ versus our "love of life and democracy.‿ Alongside Bush himself, Wolfowitz is, even now, among the last of the true believers...
...In turn, the developing insurgency, which eclipsed the parades and the cheering throngs, prompted renewed focus on the Administration's geopolitical strategy--the transformation of the region--as a war rationale. This grand idea of liberalizing the Middle East one country at a time, beginning with Iraq, was associated particularly with Wolfowitz.
What about Rumsfeld? He's old-school yes? From the corporatist era? Try older-school than that -- the crusades, perhaps. Consider his resume:
Center for Security Policy: Longtime associate; winner of the CSP's 1998 "Keeper of the Flame" award
Hoover Institution: Member, board of trustees
Project for the New American Century: Signed PNAC's founding statement of principles as well as two policy letters on Iraq
Empower America: Board member
Freedom House: Board member
RAND Corporation: Board member
Committee for the Free World: Former chairman
This is the resume of a culture warrior.
Rumsfeld's and Wolfowitz's visions may have different qualities to them; Wolfowitz may actually see his cultural imperialistic tendencies in a positive light, while Rumsfeld just seems to want to kick the crap out of people who are different, but the share this transformational goal -- as does the President.
But Bush doesn't have the capacity for nuance of undertanding that his team members do. He can't follow the details, so he becomes uninterested in them, and as the world has become more complicated, his view of the transformational statism proposed by his comrades has simplified in response.
And that is the path of the religious right:
Bush also talks about God differently than most other modern presidents. Presidents since Roosevelt have commonly spoken as petitioners of God, seeking blessing, favor, and guidance. This president positions himself as a prophet, issuing declarations of divine desires for the nation and world. Among modern presidents, only Reagan has spoken in a similar manner - and he did so far less frequently than has Bush.
So make no mistake -- Bush is not in service to capitalism and the corporations, they are in service to him and his "god." Which, frighteningly, is also the god of Falwell and Robertson.
This means that the Cato institute is no longer his true constituency.
Want to know who is?:
He [Gen. William Boykin] tells the congregation that when he was a young captain, God actually spoke to him, telling him to join the Army's elite Delta Force: "There are times when God speaks to you in an audible voice. He spoke to me that morning because I said, `Satan is gathering his forces.' He said, `Yes, son, but so am I.' And I knew I was to be there."
However it started years ago, this is now statism, not laissez-faire corporatism. And it's goal is theocracy.
Know your enemy.