Nicholas Lemann writes a sketch of Bush in the New Yorker that better defines the way liberals see him than anything else I've read. It's presented as an objective portrait and he puts this over by giving us the likable Bush first and then hitting us with the two-timing double-crossing rackin' frackin' Bush as the article proceeds.
One of the Left's favorite arguments is that Bush has divided America. Of course it ignores how divided the country was when Clinton was President. Do you remember any media people accusing Clinton of dividing the country? Anyway, it's well documented that Bush reached out to Ted Kennedy before 9-11 to write the education bill. He spent a bunch of money on it and conservatives were none too happy with the results. It certainly hasn't kept liberals from moaning about the levels of education spending. Kennedy is now complaining about the bill he helped to create. Luckily for him, Lemann steps in and blames the whole thing on Bush.
By supporting Bush, Kennedy and Miller were doing him a big favor, and taking a risk, because they were going against the natural inclinations of one of the most important interest groups in the Democratic Party, the teachers’ unions; for Kennedy and Miller, supporting No Child Left Behind was what supporting a new tax would be for Bush. They went along because they believed that the bill, by setting tougher national standards for public schools, would help children; and, more to the point, they came away from their talks with Bush believing that he was going to pour new federal funding into the schools. They could tell the unions that they had got a lot more money for education in exchange for the standards and the extensive new testing regime that went with them.
Once the bill passed, there were no more chummy phone calls from Bush or invitations to the White House for Kennedy and Miller, and then, when the next federal budget came out, in January, the amount allotted to No Child Left Behind was ninety million dollars less than Kennedy and Miller felt they had been promised. Subsequent budgets brought the same pattern: no contact with the White House, and funding far below what Bush had indicated he would commit. The Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, has referred to the biggest teachers’ union as a “terrorist organization.” Today, the public-school world is up in arms and Kennedy and Miller have to take heavy, constant fire from their old allies.
This is expert level spin. Somehow Kennedy and Miller were doing Bush a big favor. Here are two guys in a minority party that have no power to create any legislation that they can hope to pass. Kennedy has been in the Senate since 1962 and Bush the big rube, as they like to paint him, somehow tricked brilliant Kennedy in supporting this.
What Lemann doesn't even consider is that Bush could pass any education bill he wanted without the help of Kennedy. If the Senate filibustered Bush’s education bill, Bush could point to Democrat obstruction. Bush was trying to de-politicize the issue with a bipartisan agreement. Who benefits more from this compromise, the just elected President whose party controls both houses of Congress or an aging Senator that doesn't even hold a leadership post? Bush knew that by reaching out to a famous liberal he could help quell the partisan bickering. Kennedy would get actual power to participate in the process. All Bush had to gain was goodwill of which he received none. It was a real chance to take education out of politics and look for solutions to the failing system.
Kennedy's complaint that Bush promised more money in the future is nothing but a great way for Kennedy to get more spending on education at that time without having to praise Bush around election time. How in the world was Bush going to spend enough money to please Kennedy? Too much spending on education is never enough to the leftwing. But standards according to them are impossible to implement and difficult to decipher and unfair to minorities.
Lemann should ask himself how good the New Yorker would be if the writer’s weren’t held to some standard, because he thinks Kennedy is a brave man for allowing the President to impose such things over the complaints of the labor unions. Maybe Lemann should further ask himself if a system in which government workers can dictate their own efficiency levels will self-correct. Does Lemann think that adding a magical amount of money to that system will change its nature?
The whole issue of Kennedy saying Bush promised more in the future neglects the simple fact that Kennedy is taking the reactionary stance on American education and Bush is taking the progressive one. Somehow this unusual and bold bipartisan move by Bush is derided because Kennedy didn’t get something in writing.
Anyway, the Lemann piece is full of this kind of thinking and a wonderful read for any rightwing person that can’t figure out why liberals hate Bush and love government programs.
No comments:
Post a Comment