Excuse me, but what about Willie Horton? by MSW.
MGB: While for historical figures, you may eventually speak ill of the dead, but it is uncouth to do so before their funerals and even before they are in the ground. Yes, George H.W. Bush went along with his campaign staff (likely including George W. Bush and Lee Atwater - who later regretted his race baiting as he lay dying). Did it besmirch his character, may. Was it a sign of endemic racism? Probably just a tone deafness to how it would sound which is more endemic to his generation and those following (see MAGA) that is hopefully on the way out.
I would put it down to putting loyalty over moral courage. As a loyal Republican, he did make compromises because that is the nature of electoral politics. Some make the choice to go dirty, some do not,. It goes to who you surround yourself with and why. There has never been a time when everyone would play nice,. Indeed, most of America has a history of nasty political discourse. That Willie Horton and MAGA are seen as aberrations rather than the norm are a good side that the game is improving. It is also usually the reactionary side that goes negative because liberal and radical politics put their power and wealth at risk. They are also more likely to lie.
Blaming Bush's reversal of his "no new taxes" pledge was not the cause of his defeat in 1992. It was the perception that he could not relate or was not relateable. The fact that he had to state that he cared was evidence that this was a major problem, especially when running against the future Emoter in Chief, Bill Clinton. Indeed, Clinton's record was no model of political courage either. He went along with Gingrich in ending welfare as we know it and in supporting "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" which President Obama finally junked.
The prosperity that Clinton enjoyed started with Bush. The economic troubles on Bush's watch had more to do with the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings budget cuts than anything else. His tax policy was the start of the recovery, although Clinton's further increases fueled it. It is always good to raise taxes on the very wealthy because it takes money away from asset inflation (stocks, oil futures, speculation on bad mortgages, Bitcoin) and puts it into both governmental and family spending. This is why Bush called Reagan's policies Voodoo economics. He was right, but as a loyal soldier he backed his running mate, although his running mate was wrong. Blaming Bush for raising taxes is both bad economics and revisionist history to promote bad economic ideas. In the end, courage overcame partisanship. History will be kinder and gentler to President Bush than even his own party was.
No comments:
Post a Comment