It's fascinating to me that both Democrats and Republicans have very visceral reactions to President Bush -- conservatives love him, and leftists hate him. Both sides feel very strongly, but to a large extent he really doesn't fit the box that either group tries to stuff him into.
Leftists seem to dislike him largely because of three things: he's outwardly Christian, he likes to cut taxes, and he's willing to use American military power to further American interests. The first is, of course, anathema to all newthinking progressives. President Bush's belief in God -- particularly the Christian God of the Bible -- is the clearest demonstration of his idiocy. Doesn't he know that religion is the opiate of the masses? It's not for the elite, the rulers of the world, the intelligentsia. And so President Bush is clearly not one of them, but a bizarre, primitive outsider.
Secondly, only a heartless fool cuts taxes. Heartless, because those taxes are necessary to feed the poor, jobless, colored, ignorant, even opiated, masses who can't provide for themselves. Foolish, because government power depends on controlling the nation's wealth, and the power of the elite depends on the power of the government to spend, coerce, and regulate. Doesn't the President understand that the oppressed masses want the government to provide for them? Nevermind the fact that government domination of the economy is the direct cause of their poverty and oppression.
Finally, although the American government is a fine tool for enhancing the power of the elite -- those who know what's best for us all -- it still has a significant flaw: the focus of that power depends on the whim of the electorate, and the electorate is, by definition, not the elite. Sometimes the electorate chooses wisely and puts a quality aristocrat in office, but it also has an annoying habit of selecting people like President Bush. The only real, long-term solution is to subjugate American power to international control. The American government is far too restricted by its pesky Constitution and Bill of Rights, but the international concensus of the world's elite knows no such boundaries. Indeed, it would be abhorrent to limit the power of our benefactors to direct our lives in the best possible way.
Conservatives, on the other hand, largely see exactly what they want to see. Whether it's because President Bush is mostly concerned with an overwhelming foreign policy burden and can't spare the time to fight domestically, or because these policies truly reflect his ideals, many of his domestic endeavors have been quite contrary to standard conservative principles.
Certainly President Bush's tax cuts have been welcomed by conservatives, and his outward displays of religion are sufficient to excuse much in the minds of Christians. But behind that, President Bush has actively worked to expand the scope and power of government; although the number of civil servents has shrunk slightly, the number of people on the government payroll (including contractors) has increased dramatically. Most conservatives are willing to dismiss this swelling as it relates to national security, but that's not where all the money is going.
As this Presidential spreadsheet shows, although government revenue as a percentage of GDP is dropping (which conservatives will like), government outlays as a percentage of GDP are rising -- from 18.4% in 2000 to 19.5% in 2002, to an estimated 19.9% in 2003. Most conservatives don't worry much about budget deficits, but the overall increase in spending relative to GDP should be a cause for concern.
Furthermore, this spreadsheet shows that although defense spending as a percentage of total spending has increased from 16.5% in 2000 to 17.3% in 2002, human resource spending increased from 62.4% to 65.5%. "Human resources" include the expenditures that most conservatives dislike: education, health, medicare, and social security.
Even aside from spending, Bush hasn't done much to really push a conservative agenda domestically. He was mildly approving of affirmative action, eager to impose federal controls on education, and hasn't gone to the mat with the Senate over any of his blocked judicial appointments. The people he has tried to appoint have been generally praised by conservatives, but President Bush has done little to force the Democrats in the Senate to stop obstructing their nominations. One nominee, Miguel A. Estrada, has just withdrawn his own nomination due to frustration over the process, and a fear that the Senate would never even vote on his appointment. Rather than urging the Senate Republicans to require the Democrats to stage a true filibuster, President Bush has merely expressed outrage over the matter.
Overall, I don't think either group of partisans really recognizes President Bush for what he truly is: a politician. That's not to say that I don't like him and many of his espoused principles, but he's neither the Satan the left fears, nor the Savior the right is longing for. I believe that he is genuinely trying to do what he thinks is best for the country, but I certainly don't agree with every decision he's made, morally or pragmatically.
Update:
Moreover, if President Bush were really more concerned with homeland security than with re-election, he would be treating the illegal immigrant situation in California more seriously. If undocumented, uneducated, peso-less migrants can sneak over the border seemingly at will, it's not stretch of the imagination to think that terrorists could sneak a bomb or missile into America the same way. But President Bush is intent on wooing misguided Hispanic voters, and taking effective action against illegal immigration would tend to alienate them, no matter the explanation given.
For what it's worth, as a leftist who despises Bush, my reasons for doing so have nothing to do with the three reasons you offer here. I go into lots of detail on my site about the things I despise Bush for; you can click on the little "hooting chimp" icon associated with any of the Bush items to get the appropriate category page and read all day.
You'll find a very long list of things that in my view render him unqualified to be president, but nowhere, as far as I'm aware, will you find me ragging on him for being Christian, cutting taxes, or being willing to advance US interests via military action.
You might maybe find some stuff that comes somewhat close on the last item; I do despise him for most of the military actions he's undertaken, but in each case it's because I believe, quite sincerely, that those actions will actually serve to harm US interests over the long run.
Just wanted to point that out. I'm not all leftists, to be sure, but I think I've got a clearer handle on the things we hate about Bush than you do, at least based on this post.
Yeah, but you just think Bush is a lying monkey. I mean, your "Bush" icon is a "hooting chimp".
You obviously think he's an idiot. You don't think tax cuts help poor people. You don't think we should have fought in Afghanistan (right?) and Iraq. That's the thrust of my three main points.
I'm aware that Bush is a human being, obviously. I've also written that in a certain sense his "lies" are not the same sort of thing as the lies that Clinton told. And when I'm being serious, rather than flippant, I've said that he's not an idiot. He's not a deep thinker, true; he's profoundly ill-educated and incurious, especially for someone who's received the expensive education he's received, but he's not an idiot.
Yes, I would say that his tax cuts have not helped poor people. Further, I'd argue that that was never the intention of those tax cuts. Very much the opposite: they were intended to help rich people. The assertion that they would also help poor people was just a sales pitch.
But the tax cuts themselves are not really significant in terms of my personal dislike of him.
I personally don't think we should have fought in Afghanistan in the particular way we did, but I don't think the Afghanistan campaign was responsible for my dislike of Bush. And there are many others on the left who, like me, despise Bush, who nevertheless supported the Afghanistan invasion. Howard Dean, for example.
Yes, I think the Iraq war was a horrible mistake, but not because I object to the use of the military in pursuit of US interests. I object to it because I think it quite clearly has served to _harm_ US interests. That's a very different thing from what you said in your original post.
There, you wrote:
Leftists seem to dislike him largely because of three things: he's outwardly Christian, he likes to cut taxes, and he's willing to use American military power to further American interests.
That's not really subject to re-interpretation, as you've tried to do above. It's a flat statement of reality. And it's not correct, at least in my case. Nor do I think it's correct in the case of most other leftists. There are some specific things about Bush that really do piss us off, and we're not shy about stating them.
But they're not the things you mentioned in your post.
I suppose it all hinges on how you define "to further American interests", and I'm not sure we'd agree on that.
Few of the anti-Bush types I have met come from Mr. Callender's thoughtful mold; they are hysterically anti-Bush for reasons I cannot fathom beyond some odd form of mental disease. They cannot honestly say he is a worse president than Clinton, whom most of these types love.
As you know, Michael, I consider religion to be irrational and support a full separation of church and state, while despising the persecution of religion that communists indulge in. That is the reason I have never voted Republican; they pander to the religious among us who stealthily attempt to establish religion and prosecute incessant wars on vice "In God We Trust" has no place on our currency,(and never appeared there before 1862), the Bible has no place in our courtrooms, and vice prohibitions are unconstitutional. Of course, I know I am in the minority on this issue--I'm a heretical native of the Bible Belt--and have simply lost the battle. I at least take satisfaction in knowing that my intellectual opponents blithely subvert the principles of freedom they supposedly espouse.
So I do not support Bush insofar as he continues that pandering.
Tax cuts, however, are always good. Those who consider themselves my moral superiors because they support government financing of those they choose to be deserving of the largesse are simply thieves; they are easy to dismiss.
Bush's pandering to the center and left by expanding government programs in education, agriculture, and the coddling of illegal immigrants, besides being bad policy, will not gain him any votes from those groups, as they are viscerally against him no matter what he does. Combine that with the alienation from his conservative base these policies entail, and he has put himself in a very weak electoral position. This is most unwise. Dean may pull a 1992 on him unless national security fears override all others in 2004. (Speaking of Dean, I never want to be ruled by any physician. Doctors are deeply, but narrowly educated, and seem to see themselves as the wisest people on earth; most of them recognize no political science save tyranny; they are so superior to the common run of course they are competent to direct our lives. Feh.)
Where domestic and foreign policy converge, Bush has been remiss in protecting the borders against illegal immigration and punishing the practice. Once again, he seems to believe that by pandering to a Democratic constituency, he can gain votes. I really don't understand why he systematically alienates his own base.
I give Bush high marks on taking the war to the enemy since the September 11 massacres, though he has tried to pussy-foot with that one, too. I am skeptical that kinder, gentler war gains us lasting advantages. I note that the U.S. has been most successful in defending itself and creating a postwar enviroment more conducive to its interests when it has ruthlessly, totally, defeated the enemy. I offer for your consideration the years 1865 and 1945. I do see that the country is so hopelessly divided that such a strategy may be impossible, which troubles me. A nation so unsure of the necessity of defending itself may not deserve survival. It will certainly invite further attacks.
So I find Bush to be a mixed bag, thrust by historical incident into an important role as a wartime president. Unfortunately, approximately half the electorate doesn't think this is a war; they believe it to be an overreaction to criminal elements among Muslims prosecuted in the interests of turning the U.S. into an authoritarian fascism for the benefit of a few capitalists and Republicans. Many would believe this even if one of our cities were lit up by the barbarians, blaming it on the administration's defense of the nation.
For those who miss the Big Dog, I will note that it took Bill Clinton and Al Gore to make Richard Nixon, whose resignation I considered merited, look classy. Nixon resigned at the threat of impeachment; had Clinton done that right thing, Al Gore would have been an incumbent President in 2000 and very likely have clearly won the election. Nixon could have turned the country upside down in 1960 when he lost out in an election in which the margin of victory was within the margin of error. He refused to do that wrong thing; had Gore followed suit, our nation would not be so perilously divided.
While there is much to criticize in the Bush administration, most of the criticism from the left is just bunk.