quote:

---

George and Jack

Presidential flashback: In policy and words, Bush is sounding a lot like JFK

By Chris Matthews
MSNBC

WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 — This week, I finally figured out who George W. Bush is. He is a classic New Frontiersman. If you doubt me, just run through the guy’s policy blueprint — higher defense spending, tax cuts, a call to national service. Add to that his commitment to free trade and his push for prescription drugs for seniors and you see the outlines of the John F. Kennedy agenda.

LET’S FACE IT. This first Republican president of the 21st century champions the same signature policies that Democrat John F. Kennedy did in the early 1960s.
Here’s Bush in his State of the Union:
“History has called America and our allies to action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom’s fight.”
Here is JFK in his Inaugural:
“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

SIMILARITIES ABOUND
Both young presidents backed up their martial call to duty with a military budget hike.
Kennedy’s rationale was the “missile gap” between the United States and the U.S.S.R. “We have not maintained our position and our prestige,” he argued in his 1960 debate with Republican Vice President Richard Nixon.
Bush’s rationale is the dangers implicit in the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. Where Jack wanted more missiles, George wants a strategic defense system to neutralize enemy missiles. To get it, he wants the largest defense boost in 20 years.
Both presidents are foreign-policy activists, uncomfortable in a defensive posture. Just as JFK wanted to help countries defend themselves against the Soviets and the Chinese, Bush wants to destroy the capability of countries such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea to attack their neighbors.
“We cannot merely state our opposition to totalitarian advance without paying the price for helping those now under the greatest pressure.”

A CALL FOR VOLUNTEERISM
On the call for national service, Kennedy created the Peace Corps while Bush has created a Freedom Corps.

Another glaring similarity: Both leaders advocate the role of young volunteers in selling the American way overseas.
Kennedy created the Peace Corps to show how a “free society” can compete for the hearts and minds of those in the Third World.
“Every young American who participates in the Peace Corps — who works in a foreign land — will know that he or she is sharing in the great common task of bringing to men that decent way of life which is the foundation of freedom and a condition of peace.”
Bush has created a Freedom Corps at home, and wants to expand the Peace Corps overseas.
“I believe that one thing we must do,” he told a North Carolina audience the day after his State of the Union, “is to expand the Peace Corps, revitalize the mission, encourage the Peace Corps to go into the Islamic world to spread the message of economic development and really share the compassion of a great nation, and that is America.”

TAX CUTS, HEALTH CARE
A third area of common purpose is cutting federal taxes.
Kennedy pushed a tax cut as a way to lift America out of recession and slow growth rates. Like today’s supply-siders, he told us that cutting taxes was a more powerful way to achieve that goal than increasing government spending.
“To increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government’s most usual role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.”
Another example is the focus on health care for seniors. Kennedy pushed the legislation that would become Medicare, while Bush campaigned with the desire “to give seniors a sound and modern Medicare system that includes coverage for prescription drugs.”
Ultimately, both men believe in free trade. Kennedy went to battle with the unions over it in the 1960s, while today, Bush is doing the same. “Good jobs,” Bush said last Tuesday night, “depend on expanded trade.”

STRIKING A BALANCE
JFK’s greatest achievement was his successful handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis; Bush has a chance to replicate that feat with Iraq.

It’s currently an open question whether Bush will match Kennedy’s restraint in foreign policy, or his conviction on the domestic front.
Without a doubt, JFK’s greatest achievement was his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, when he successfully stood up to both the Soviets to his left and the U.S. military to his right.
George W. Bush has a chance to replicate that feat with Iraq. To do so, he must contain not just Saddam Hussein, but also the rightists within his own administration who are pushing for an all-out U.S. attack on that Arab country.
If Bush does that, he may well claim a role in history as powerful and heroic as the unforgettable John F. Kennedy.

---

[ February 12, 2002, 17:58: Message edited by: First of Two ]
 

---

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Aw, what do you know? Rob and Omega voted for a Democrat.

Of course, Kennedy was president many decades ago. But, hey, the Democrats of today are always the Republicans of tommorow. It's just how the political ideology goes: both parties are constantly moving farther to the left, and have been since they've been around.

The Republicans are just going really slowly.

[ February 12, 2002, 22:21: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
Blah, blah, blah.

Basically Mr. Bush's speech writers are taking rhetoric from the past and re-wroking it. He can't even be original in that. He's a cold copy of a copy of a copy of a political consultant's re-imagining of Reagan only without out the speaking skills and the cemented hair.

Mr. Bush is much more like red-ink Ronnie than Kennedy on defense spending and the other issues. Saying that Kennedy wanted to cut taxes without citing who they were for, since we know that Mr. Bush's tax cuts are gifts to the wealthy, isn't saying much. This is the first time anywhere that I have heard Kennedy called a supply-sider. Given to total lack of support for that statement in the article, it means absolutly nothing. Much like the concept supply-side itself.

Somehow I don't think that the diplomatic maneuvering of the cold war some 40 odd years ago means all that much in light of the ever changing and much more interconnected world of today. Furthermore, I don't think that Kennedy calling Nikita Khrushchev an evil person would have been considered 'restraint,' would have done much to defuse the situation, or would be considered a real forward in foreign policy. Perhaps Mr. Bush's rhetoric team could take note of that difference.

Another thing is, I've heard several conservative types syaing "what did Kennedy do?" I find it interesting that now they want to compare Mr. Bush to him.

Oh, and on volunteerism, there's also similarities to Clinton volunteer programs. I know we don't miss out on that comparison.

[ February 12, 2002, 23:34: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
red-ink Ronnie

*sigh*

ONE MORE TIME: Tip O'Neil declared all of Reagan's budget's DOA as soon as they hit the Democrat-controlled Hill. If you'd care to look at the numbers, you'll see that while revenues nearly doubled during the Reagan administration, the part of spending that went to the military went up by something like three percent of total. Military spending did NOT lead to the deficits, nor did tax cuts: it was uncontrolled spending on the part of the Democratic party in control of the House.

This is the first time anywhere that I have heard Kennedy called a supply-sider.

He believed that, in most cases, tax cuts = better economy = more revenues. Which it does, as evidenced by the above-mentioned revenue increase of the eighties. That'd make him a supply-sider.

I've heard several conservative types syaing "what did Kennedy do?"

Kennedy was a decent president, from a policy POV, but he doesn't deserve the kind of aura that some people grant him. "Oh, Kennedy, he was GREAT!" That's the context that you usually hear people saying what you quote.
 

---

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
it was uncontrolled spending on the part of the Democratic party in control of the House.

Eh? Omega, you seem to forget that the Republicans controlled the senate. While true that budgets are sent to the House first, they must also pass the Senate (an equal player).

quote:

---

Both houses of Congress have committees for appropriations and aggregate spending. Both houses of Congress vote twice on the budget: once on the original version, and again after the conference committee hammers out a compromise version of the two competing bills.

With Reagan wielding the veto pen in the White House, any budget standoff between House Democrats and Senate Republicans would have been tipped in the Republicans' favor. In other words, the GOP controlled two of the three bodies required to pass a budget. Therefore, Republicans dominated the budget process, and they deserve a larger share of responsibility for whatever deficits were passed on their watch.

---

quote:

---

He believed that, in most cases, tax cuts = better economy = more revenues

---