Posted by
J. R. Maddux on Sunday, September 07, 2008 8:35:26 PM
Barack Obama and the Democratic left have seized on the "failed policies" of George Bush
and his Republican adminsitration to make the case for change. To sort out the factual wheat
from the partisan chaff, a closer examination of the claim and the use of the term are
warranted.
Understand that EVERY administration has had "failed policies" -- things that seemed
a good idea at the time, but just didn't work. No president in history, Republican or Democrat,
has been spared from the ravages of outrageous fortune when it comes to things that just
never got off the ground. In understanding the issue, it may be helpful to know just what
constitutes a "policy," and how that differs from "execution." Policy is the strategy, the
ordering principle by which governance occurs. There are often as many "policies" as there
are sectors to be goverend (i.e., taxes, foreign affairs, the environment, energy, the economy,
etc.). But those who implement the policies, or are charged with their execution, are as
responsible for whether the policy works or doesn't as is the policy and policy maker him or
herself. When execution goes awry, it is all too easy to indict the policy and the policy maker
which, sadly, often leads to "throwing out the baby with the bath."
A case in point is the current U.S. fiscal deficit, which has now reached record proportions.
The Democrats argue forcefully that the Bush tax cuts are responsible -- that his policy of
taxing uniformly and at the lowest possible rates has failed, resulting in the sea of red ink.
A closer inspection, however, calls such a conclusion into question. The real culprit is not
the conservative approach to taxation, but the "drunken sailor," pork barrel, earmark
spending of an irresponsible congress. In fairness, Bush has tried to limit these boondoggles
through the veto, but for every one he shot down, congress hatched four more. The policy --
the consrvative philosophy of lowest possible taxes -- will not work unless it is accompanied
by extremely frugal spending. The Democrats don't want to limit spending. In fact they
are some of the biggest pork barrelers. But they do want to raise taxes to support that
spending. There is nothing proveably wrong with a policy of low taxes and frugal spending.
But the problem has arisen in the execution of the policy, much of which was out of the
president's hands.
Another example is the war in Iraq. The Democrats regularly assail the Bush doctrine
(policy) of pre-emptive war. What puts wind in their sails, however, is the shoddy execution
of the current war in Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction or not, getting rid of Saddam
Hussein was a good idea. An object lesson to dictators everywhere that America could
and would depose them if they posed a threat, it lent an appealing credibility to the policy.
Enter Donald Rumsfeld and his notion that such a war could be fought quickly, cheaply
and easily. Apparently having learned nothing from the strategic blunders of the WWII
Nazis when they bypassed Bastogne and other allied strongholds in their drive to the River
Merz. It was Rumsfeld who ordered the military not to engage in meaningful combat at
Fallujah, and in other pockets of resistance in Diyala and Anbar provinces, but to drive
straight to Baghdad with all possible speed to depose Saddam. As a result, Fallujah,
Mosul, Kirkuk, Ramadi and other outposts became breeding grounds for armed insurrection
and a growing al Qaeda presence which, in combination, claimed the great majority of
American military casualties. One could argue the policy either way, but it was Don
Rumsfeld's execution that caused disaster.
The sub-prime mortgage crisis is yet another example, and one in which the policy itself
can genuinely might be said to have "failed." The conservative notion is that the economy
should be regulated as little as possible. There's nothing wrong with that IF the government
keeps a watchful eye out for abuses and moves swiftly to avert crises through timely
intervention when it is present. In this case the government (the Bush administration) did
not maintain such vigilance. Millions of "liar loans," adjustable rate mortgages and down-
right fradulent home purchase schemes leveraged people into homes they could not afford.
When the house of cards came crashing down, it cost mortgage company and bank collapse,
job loss, foreclosures and an economic down spiral. The policy, apparently, was "hands off."
Every policy has one or more points of vulnerability. And it is at those points that vigilance
and quick response determines the difference between failure and success. That is to say that
execution is just as important as policy. The failings of the Bush administration are far more
failures of excecution than of policy, which weakens the case for discarding the policies out-
of-hand, and strengthens the case for voting the incumbent out, if he was not already
subject to term limitation. It means that the blanket condemnation of the "failed policies"
of the current administration is largely a confusion between bad strategy and bad tactics, and
not a valid reason to discard conservative policies. The telltale concession that suggests in
the Democrats' heart of hearts they know this is the recent statement by Obama that in light
of the recession, obliteration of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy may have to be delayed. He
understands that tax increases are not good for a reeling economy, but tax cuts are.
As a conservative, I have more concerns about liberal policies such as those Obama
advocates than I do about changing the execution of poorly overseen conservative ones. But
I like John McCain's notion of finding bi-partisan solutions to things the two sides do agree
on, and appointing Democrats to some cabinet positions in order to enlist the best minds from
both camps in finding the best policies, and then executing them properly. Maybe there's some
light at the end of the tunnel.