Time magazine named George W. Bush as the person of the year.
Fine.
But look at the cover. These words are in the corner:
quote:President George W. Bush: American Revolutionary
The story argues, loosely in my opinion considering it's prominance on the cover, that Mr. Bush has bent the political powers to his will and in doing so deserves to be called a revolutionary.
quote:For sticking to his guns (literally and figuratively), for reshaping the rules of politics to fit his ten-gallon-hat leadership style and for persuading a majority of voters that he deserved to be in the White House for another four years, George W. Bush is TIME's 2004 Person of the Year
Still the question that has been turning over in my mind since I saw the cover is does Mr. Bush deserve to be described as an American Revolutionary.
My thoughts as to the competence of Mr. Bush should surprise no one here, but I keep coming back to this line of thought:
Mr. Bush is very conservative
Mr. Bush's policies are very conservative in nature
He should be considered a Conservative Revolutionary
Conservative Revolutionary is an oxymoron
Mr. Bush�s policies are about eliminating or curtailing aspects of the New Deal and the Great Society. They are about returning power to the old elites and represent, to me anyway, a constriction in power structures. His policies are rather anti-revolutionary in their result.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
The ultimate goals of the current Republican leadership may speak to a sort of ancient core of values, but I think it's obvious that they, especially within the White House, are in fact extremely radical.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Is radical revolutionary?
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Revolutionary? That's not normally a word linked to right-wing Christians.
I'd like to know who owns Time, and how is he related to Bush.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
It's not Rupert Evererterett?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Uh, yeah, I'd say so. Sure. I mean, whether you are in favor of them or not, I don't think you can say that current policies represent a return to anything that's come before, as far as actual laws go. I mean, you could say, for instance, that a sort of ideological rejection of the Great Society stuff is in the air, but it isn't coupled with a return to the actual laws and policies which predate it. I mean, take Rumsfeld, for instance. Again, actual quality of the ideas aside, his vision for the 21st century military represents a pretty significant departure from the status quo.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Needless to say, I think that a backing away from the New Deal and Great Society represent a regression and not a revolution.
And I think that is the case regardless of any return to any specific pre-existing law. In other words, I don�t think that Mr. Bush needs to bring back particular laws that pre-date these milestones to say that a regression is taking place.
I think that Mr. Bush and his conservative cadre want to eliminate, as much as possible, the regulatory power of government and return to the pre-Upton Sinclair days of an industry honor system. You can see it in their rhetoric as they implement clean air and other environmental regulations that are voluntary.
Admittedly one can argue about the rightness or wrongness of the level of government regulations, but I don�t think that one can really dispute that regulation acts as part of the will of a people united in a wide-ranging, federal, multi-state system. A citizen of California in such a system can not, with any real due diligence oversee the production of widgets in Maine, but can, be harmed by the widget if the manufacturer decides to cut corners.
Which brings us to the �let the market decide� argument. I agree with that to a point. However, the United States, in the heyday of Robber Baron capitalism decided to use the combined power of the people in their constituted governmental institutions to act for them in instances where they are unable to act for themselves. In doing so, they hoped to prevent the loss of life that a callous widget maker might bring about in order to make profits bigger at the expense of safety.
As to Mr. Rumsfeld, I don�t think there are many people who every really doubted that the American military would win a military conflict with Iraq. However, his idea about using a small, light force to win such a conflict seems somewhat less successful when using such a force as an a occupying power.
At any rate, I think Mr. Bush is radical to hand as many sops to the American corporate structure as he can, but in doing so, he is not revolutionary.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
A revolutionary is just someone who makes an extreme change. It doesn't have to be leftist/progressive.
And let's not forget that past Men of the Year have included Adolf Hitler, Ruhollah Khomeini, and, twice, Josif Stalin. Granted, since Khomeini, Time have intentionally failed to choose "bad guys". But, still, the title isn't exactly an honorific.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I do think there needs to be a certain progression to truly call something revolutionary.
Change, in and of itself, is not.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Dot bitch- it was either Bush or Arafat for the cover...and fuck Arafat
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Revolutionary, perhaps they are refering to how much spin this admin. produces as opposed to actual substance.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay the Obscure: Needless to say, I think that a backing away from the New Deal and Great Society represent a regression and not a revolution.
While I agree with you, the majority of voters -and probable magazine buyers- would not. Thus they print what sells.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I put it to you that the creation of a modern conservative American state is as much a revolution as anything the 1960s produced. Someone more well-read than I would/should draw connections to the roots of the neoconservative movement and the origins of modern Christian fundamentalism.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I would write a lengthy post on the origins and actions of the New Right, but I can't really be bothered.
The dominance in the Bush administration of the neo-conservative element of the New Rights (as opposed to the neo-liberal element dominant in Reagan's time) could be described as having led to an attempted revolution, I suppose, if one were going by the dictionary definition. Admittedly the political connotations of revolution make the description harder to sustain, but you have to remember that from the point of view of neo-conservative, the New Deal and stuff are the regressive measures.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: I put it to you that the creation of a modern conservative American state is as much a revolution as anything the 1960s produced. Someone more well-read than I would/should draw connections to the roots of the neoconservative movement and the origins of modern Christian fundamentalism.
Or possibly the decline in education standards in the US...and the rise in hate crimes, increase in TV violence, the invention of Internet and just about anything else.
Not that I dont agree with you, just that drawing parralells to make an argument is very subjective.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Uh. . . I wasn't going to do that. The modern conservative movement is a direct outgrowth of those two things, both of which represent, in my opinion, radical reinterpretation.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hmmm...I ont think they're a "radical reinterpertation" so much as they are a throwback to 1950's mentality.
You know, back when there were no gays and no need for any social reform, environmental protection, overtime pay, job security... Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
OK, I don't think we're on the same wavelength here. My point is that, for instance, Christian Fundamentalism as a theological movement redefined a number of terms in novel ways. Like, a 100% literal reading of the Bible seems old fashioned, in the sense that its goal is apparently to get to the "roots," as it were, but the policy as a policy was in fact not a common Christian practice even for the early Church Fathers.
So, OK, there's a reactionary element here. The rush of science and Darwin in particular in the mid to late 19th century scared up a lot of this sentiment, but the reaction took the form of radicalism in the name of conservatism. So you get a sort of conservative theory backed by radical acts.
And I believe the same holds true for modern political conservatism.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The Right is kooky.
I recall when they were confined to psychos like Jerry Falwell....then somewhere between the conservatism of the PMRC and the current administration they became the biggest political factor in the US.
It's creepy- they have so many people in both parties beholden to them that we saw Kerry skirt many topics for fear of offending them.
The next election will probably Kang and Kodos saying the exact same message for fear of Christian Coallition reprisals. ...or we'll see them run their own candidate- mabye a minister.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)