Serious scholarly support for Bush?

[DialecticMaterialist]

I'm interested in seeing if any of our more right-wing, Bush supporting skeptics here can show me any serious scholarly sources that support president Bush's controversial decisions.

So far as I can tell on the internet, there seems to be a lot of Bush supporters out there, but most of them seem to base their opinion on the words of mere pundits, like Mike Savage and Bill O'Reilly, i.e. people I don't take seriously. I imagine the people on this forum can do much better, as I believe far more educated/intellectual discussion takes place here then on other forums.

So my question is, what serious scholarly sources are there that supports the Bush administration or its controversial policies? (i.e. abandoning Kyoto, the war on iraq, failing to socialize healthcare, massive tax cuts, etc.)

 

[Ed]

I'm interested in seeing if any of our more right-wing, Bush supporting skeptics here can show me any serious scholarly sources that support president Bush's controversial decisions.

So far as I can tell on the internet, there seems to be a lot of Bush supporters out there, but most of them seem to base their opinion on the words of mere pundits, like Mike Savage and Bill O'Reilly, i.e. people I don't take seriously. I imagine the people on this forum can do much better, as I believe far more educated/intellectual discussion takes place here then on other forums.

So my question is, what serious scholarly sources are there that supports the Bush administration or its controversial policies? (i.e. abandoning Kyoto, the war on iraq, failing to socialize healthcare, massive tax cuts, etc.)

Failing to socialize healthcare and abandoning Kyoto are controversial?

 

[corplinx]

My guess is that you if you do some searching, you may find scholars who support one decision, scholars that support another, and so on.

If you are looking for some intellectual that supports every decision the president has made on some sort of scholarly grounds, then I think you are setting your goal posts too high.

Has there been a president that some reputable scholarly source has supported every action of?

Being a president is about making lots of compromises. Many times the bills that get passed are far from the clean bills a scholar wants to see. Bush will get criticized by the CATO institute on any bill he spearheads since it will invariably get laden with something that offends them.

 

[LostAngeles]

My guess is that you if you do some searching, you may find scholars who support one decision, scholars that support another, and so on.

If you are looking for some intellectual that supports every decision the president has made on some sort of scholarly grounds, then I think you are setting your goal posts too high.

Has there been a president that some reputable scholarly source has supported every action of?

Being a president is about making lots of compromises. Many times the bills that get passed are far from the clean bills a scholar wants to see. Bush will get criticized by the CATO institute on any bill he spearheads since it will invariably get laden with something that offends them.

Exactly.

I'm sure there's some out there that are at last close to what you're looking for. Backing President Bush doesn't equate with stupidity or ignorance, just like being against him doesn't equate with intelligence, compassion, and being a better human being. I personally think he's a son of a b****. However, I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't cherry pick all of the research and that there are a few things he has a good solid ground to stand on.

 

[Ion]

...
Backing President Bush doesn't equate with stupidity or ignorance,...
...

It does.

Including your grandfather who voted for him.

Bush is responsible for killing and maiming people in Iraq.

 

[Ziggurat]

So my question is, what serious scholarly sources are there that supports the Bush administration or its controversial policies? (i.e. abandoning Kyoto, the war on iraq, failing to socialize healthcare, massive tax cuts, etc.)

This doesn't exactly answer your question, but I think you're partly barking up the wrong tree. By "scholarly" I'm guessing you mean accademic, as in universities. But looking to accademia for guidance on political issues is a dubious proposition. Accademics can and do fail regularly. Particularly on one of the most controversial issues, what to do in the middle east, the accademic community is worse that useless. Even aside from problems with political bias (which abound and are quite serious), from a purely practical standpoint, Middle Easter studies departments and professors have a track record of failing to predict (or mispredicting) pretty much every significant change in the middle east. What good, then, is the support of those who so manifestly cannot master their own putative field of expertise? Niether its absence or pressence are of much use.

 

[LostAngeles]

It does.

Including your grandfather who voted for him.

Bush is responsible for killing and maiming people in Iraq.

It's difficult to compose a short and concise response to that without flying in the face of all the listed unacceptable behavoirs in the Membership Agreement. I'm not sure if I'm sick of Ion or if it's simply an extension of my irritation with both sides of the political platform.

Every president can be blamed, if you like, for people being killed and maimed in places both domestic and foreign. We can blame G.W. Bush for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan, Clinton for Bosnia, Iraq, and Rwanda, G.H.W. Bush for Iraq also, Regean for those that died at the hands of the Contras, Lebanon, Grenada, Carter for his Rose Garden strategy and the deaths from the invasion of Afghanistan, Ford for the Marines lost trying to rescue the crew of the Mayaguez, and he, Nixon, LBJ, and Kennedy can all take blame for the lives lost in Vietnam and Southeast Asia. What about the kids living in violence in the cities at home? The people paralyzed from stray bullets? The Kent State incident? Plant accidents? Can't we blame these on our presidents' failed policies?

Let's clear the water here. People voted for Bush for different reasons. Not all of them bought into 9/11 + Saddamn or the "fags are ruining America" crap that was floated around. Not all of them believed the Swift Boat Vets. Not all of them belived that a vote for Bush was a vote for Jesus. Some prefer the fiscal and tax policies of Republicans. Some prefer the social conservatism. Some simply didn't like or have any faith in Senator Kerry. Some looked at the race and saw a giant douche and a turd sandwich. Some vote along party lines. Like all things, there are almost as many reasons for believing or doing something as there are people, give or take about five-thousand.

A person's vote says nothing about whether they are stupid or ignorant. They may have voted a certain way because they are, but that doesn't work the other way around. You presume that everyone who voted Bush in is stupid or ignorant of the issues facing the world and the current status of global and social affairs.

Are you trying to convince me that people who believe that the "liberals" are running the media are any less stupid or ignorant than people who are convinced that a "vast right-wing conspiracy" is running everything in this country? Are people who believe you can pray away gay any more stupid or ignorant than the people who believed that they could save the spotted owls?

Seriously, Ion. You mean to tell me that my grandfather who has had Kerry as his junior Senator for years, knows how Kerry operates in the legislative branch, knows that he's better off under the Democrats than he is the Republicans, and believes that Bush is a twit, still voted for him because he could not believe that Senator Kerry was capable of running the country any better than Bush is stupid or ignorant, while I've watched you get your hate on the Republican party simply because they are Republican and latch on to any bit of dirt you can get on them and expect me to believe that you might not be stupid or ignorant yourself?

Well, to be frank and as polite as possible, I don't think you're quite with it. I think you've let your hatred blind you and polarize you, making your nick quite appropriate. This, I think, has made you an idiot and a Democratic crybaby.

I would appreciate it, then, if you would keep quiet and not bring my family members into these discussions again.

 

[LostAngeles]

Alas, the spirit of the stairway strikes me.

I should have simply informed Ion that I was going to momentarily believe in God, the Devil, Heaven, Hell, simply so I could tell him/her to go to Hell.

Would have saved some finger work that Ion probably didn't deserve.

 

[Grammatron]

Alas, the spirit of the stairway strikes me.

I should have simply informed Ion that I was going to momentarily believe in God, the Devil, Heaven, Hell, simply so I could tell him/her to go to Hell.

Would have saved some finger work that Ion probably didn't deserve.

On the other hand that's the longest "Go to hell" I've seen. Perhaps there's a record of some sort you can claim.

 

[Ed]

It's difficult to compose a short and concise response to that without flying in the face of all the listed unacceptable behavoirs in the Membership Agreement. I'm not sure if I'm sick of Ion or if it's simply an extension of my irritation with both sides of the political platform.

I would appreciate it, then, if you would keep quiet and not bring my family members into these discussions again.

Very well put. You have pretty accurately encapsulated my attitude toward those who will pick up on virtually anything that GW does and critisise. It gets really old and is basically stupid.

There really is not much difference between an ardent GW basher and a fundementalist: they both know "Truth".

I don't care for an awful lot about GW but I do not believe that he is the devil either. The funny thing is that when called, most of these folks whose lives seem to revolve around a game of gotcha don't really have very many ideas of their own except for "blank is wrong".

Good post.

 

[Ion]

...
Every president can be blamed, if you like, for people being killed and maimed in places both domestic and foreign. We can blame G.W. Bush for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan, Clinton for...
...
...while I've watched you get your hate on the Republican party simply because they are Republican and latch on to any bit of dirt you can get on them and expect me to believe that you might not be stupid or ignorant yourself?

Well, to be frank and as polite as possible, I don't think you're quite with it. I think you've let your hatred blind you and polarize you, making your nick quite appropriate. This, I think, has made you an idiot and a Democratic crybaby.
...

I blame Bush for Iraq, and not Clinton.

Because from 2000 to 2004 he ruined US and the world.
Clinton wasn't President from 2000 to 2004.
Bush was.
And Bush ruined the world with his 'knowledge' of WMDs in Iraq.
That killed people.
Now he calls the search for WMDs off, without discovering any WMD.
Bush the goof who kills...

November 2nd it was a chance to not be a turn coat on human values and boot the greedy clown out of the office.

But turn coats in US like your grandfather elected him.
They sold their values to the world's killer who is a senile man.

As for my hate of Republicans and support of Democrats, it's even not true, I am an immigrant here, I don't lean for a party, I look at Bush individually, and he run the US consumer economy into the ground with a war in Iraq funded by taxes from a consumer economy collapsing into recession.

 

[Skeptic]

Well, there are quite a few. The NATIONAL REVIEW (in politics) and the NEW CRITERION (in arts, popular culture, and the media) take a usually pro-Bush line, although neither one is above serious criticism of Bush when they think he's wrong. You can also try COMMENTARY magazine.

There is also a large variety of conservative, generally pro-Bush, think-tanks which publish various reports, analyses, and opinions on the subjects of the day. Their academic and intellectual quality varies enormously, in my opinion. But some of them are good and have intelligent, interesting people.

 

[LostAngeles]

I blame Bush for Iraq, and not Clinton.

Because from 2000 to 2004 he ruined US and the world.
Clinton wasn't President from 2000 to 2004.
Bush was.
And Bush ruined the world with his 'knowledge' of WMDs in Iraq.
That killed people.
Now he calls the search for WMDs off, without discovering any WMD.
Bush the goof who kills...

November 2nd it was a chance to not be a turn coat on human values and boot the greedy clown out of the office.

But turn coats in US like your grandfather elected him.
They sold their values to the world's killer who is a senile man.

As for my hate of Republicans and support of Democrats, it's even not true, I am an immigrant here, I don't lean for a party, I look at Bush individually, and he run the US consumer economy into the ground with a war in Iraq funded by taxes from a consumer economy collapsing into recession.

You clearly don't read or aren't aware that after the first Gulf War, bombing runs were run on Iraq fairly regularly by both G.H.W. Bush and Clinton. In case you're not aware, bombs kill and maim people. I'd also like to inform you that George Walker Bush, while a son of b****, is not responsible for the following things: Racism, tribal hatred, world hunger, war orphans in Africa and Asia, religious intolerance, other governments oppression of their people, natural disasters. That list is just off the top of my head of the many things that are wrong in this world and have been since the dawn of civilization.

Now here's another big point that you clearly don't understand. Voting for someone does not make you a turncoat. I don't know where you're from, and frankly it doesn't matter. Here in the United States, you're allowed to put a son of b**** in office, if this is who gets the most electoral votes.

I'm not a big fan of Bush's tax policy, but blaming him for the recession? It's called an economic cycle. There was also the popping of the dot com bubble. You do remember the economic prosperity enjoyed by a fair amount during the 1990s don't you? And the recession before that? And the economic prosperity before that? And then the recession before that? Do I need to keep going? It's not as if you're actually going to read this. You can blame Bush for his handling of the recession, not for the recession itself.

You know, if you're trying to provoke me by constantly bringing my grandfather into this, it's only slightly working. I'm quite angry, but I'm still composing semi-coherent and polite responses to you.

Now I ask you again, leave my family out of this, please, and stop trying to use that to tick me off.

 

[Ziggurat]

You know, if you're trying to provoke me by constantly bringing my grandfather into this, it's only slightly working. I'm quite angry, but I'm still composing semi-coherent and polite responses to you.

Now I ask you again, leave my family out of this, please, and stop trying to use that to tick me off.

Unfortunately that won't likely work. Ion was on a kick a while ago where he kept implying I'm jewish because of my support for the Iraq war, despite the fact that I've never discussed my religion or personal history on this board. Oh, and he threw in a really classless and jeuvenile antisemitic joke to go along with it all. Ion is a worm, nothing more. His scorn is closer to a badge of honor than a mark of shame.

 

[LostAngeles]

Unfortunately that won't likely work. Ion was on a kick a while ago where he kept implying I'm jewish because of my support for the Iraq war, despite the fact that I've never discussed my religion or personal history on this board. Oh, and he threw in a really classless and jeuvenile antisemitic joke to go along with it all. Ion is a worm, nothing more. His scorn is closer to a badge of honor than a mark of shame.

Odd, you're clearly Sumerian from what I can tell. Maybe Mayan.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's just going to descend into me telling Ion to go to Hell. Do I at least get a T-shirt for incurring his scorn or should it be my grandfather who gets it?

 

[WildCat]

In case you're not aware...

Don't waste your time. Ion is not aware of much of anything. He's a self-loathing loser who makes up stories about his feats and accomplishments. He's quite pathetic, really. Don't let him bait you w/ his insults aimed at your grandfather.

 

[Ion]

...
He's a self-loathing loser who makes up stories about his feats and accomplishments.
...

Prove it.

In the thread about the election by Kevin_Lowe I challenged anyone to contest my accomplishments 1.), 2.) and 3.) over there.

You were in that thread but didn't raise to the challenge.

You run away from the challenge.

You are the loser:

you gossip here, but when I challenge you on the spot on the facts of 1.), 2.) and 3.), you run away.

I challenge you one more time, here:

prove it, loser.

 

[Ion]

You clearly don't read or aren't aware that after the first Gulf War,...
...
Now here's another big point that you clearly don't understand. Voting for someone does not make you a turncoat...
...

The first Gulf War doesn't matter in between 2000 and 2004, but the wrong war in Iraq (as per U.N. Secretary Annan on September 2004) matters when November 2nd 2004 Bush is elected President by U.S. people.

Voting for Bush -like your grandfather did, like crimreserach does apologetics for people in U.S. with relatives in Iraq who voted for Bush- that makes anyone a turncoat to the value of not attacking to kill for self interests, and makes anyone a bed fellow to Bush, the stupid murderer.

There is no excuse in voting for Bush, there is complicity when voting for Bush.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

So far as I can tell, there is yet one serious scholarly source that is in support of Bush. All I have yet to see so far is excuses, mainly in the form of accusations of blind faith in academia.

Skeptic I should note came the closest, with his presentation of certain magazines, however I don't really see magazines as very serious. Sometimes I do if I know there are extremely credible writers there like (Skeptic) but usually when it comes to politics I tend to more rely on journals like Foreign Affairs. Magazines like The National Review I see more as the political equivalent of a tabloid, such as The Nation, certainly worthy of consideration, but hardly something I would change a serious viewpoint on the basis of.

Now onto some criticisms/comments:

LostAngeles:

Let's clear the water here. People voted for Bush for different reasons. Not all of them bought into 9/11 + Saddamn or the "fags are ruining America" crap that was floated around. Not all of them believed the Swift Boat Vets. Not all of them belived that a vote for Bush was a vote for Jesus. Some prefer the fiscal and tax policies of Republicans. Some prefer the social conservatism. Some simply didn't like or have any faith in Senator Kerry. Some looked at the race and saw a giant douche and a turd sandwich. Some vote along party lines. Like all things, there are almost as many reasons for believing or doing something as there are people, give or take about five-thousand.

I am not saying people vote for the president for one reason. I am asking if any tend to vote for Bush based on scholarly reasons.


People can likewise go by creationism, or belief in psychics for many reasons: and millions do, in fact most of america (with regards to some paranormal/supernaturalist belief) everyday.

I am asking though if anyone here can give me some serious evidence, some scholarly sources that support many controversial policies followed by Bush. Because I as a skeptic cannot accept a policy or group thereof based merely on pundit commentary or because people vote for Bush for many reasons. In other words, want good reasons.


Ziggurat:

By "scholarly" I'm guessing you mean accademic, as in universities. But looking to accademia for guidance on political issues is a dubious proposition. Accademics can and do fail regularly.

So basically you think we should base our political ideas on hunches and random guesses? Are you seriously saying that its better to base opinion on untested data, then on tested data?

You can say the above with regards to just about any subject, from science, to history, to medicine- and in fact the paranormalist community does do this all the time. Simply saying academic support is not necessary does not make it so.

Accademics can and do fail regularly.

Yeah so do doctors and scientists, does that mean we abandon hospitals and evolutionary theory?

Particularly on one of the most controversial issues, what to do in the middle east, the accademic community is worse that useless.

I'm going to need more evidence then just your word for a claim as serious as that.

Even aside from problems with political bias (which abound and are quite serious), from a purely practical standpoint, Middle Easter studies departments and professors have a track record of failing to predict (or mispredicting) pretty much every significant change in the middle east.

Irrelevant, the fact is they can still present data which is pertinent to the subject at hand.

The fact also is historians and economists fail to predict much, does that mean we shouldn't rely on historians to inform us of history, or economists economics?

Literary professors likewise fail to preict much, does that mean you don't take them seriously?

And in any event, how bad is their (as a general profession) prediction rate to begin with? Can you give me any data on that?

To give a specific example, many foreign policy scholars state that China's industry is in trouble due to its Industrial-Strategic culture that creates redundant enterprises (hurting overall economic growth/productivity) and note that China imports 98% of its technology. Given this data, most foreign policy exports state that we have nothing to fear from trading with china, at least with respect to our economic dominance.

Now given the above reasoning given by chinese scholars, would you merely discard their testimony and data as worthless?

The specific article with data can be found here:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040...j-gilboy/the-myth-behind-china-s-miracle.html


Another example of how academics can infer conclusions from data comes from a study that shows how long-term economic trends in third world democracies show more stable economic growth then autocracies.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040...-morton-h-halperin/why-democracies-excel.html


Would you likewise say such data was completely worthless when discussing political matters?

Do you really think a person who examines and tests socioeconomic data for years is no more informed or weighty with regards to testimony then someone who looks at an issue for a few minutes and comes to a snap judgment?


I am not btw saying that the experts are always right, or in total agreement, and that the layperson is always wrong. What I am saying is all things being equal, I would take the testimony of an expert over the testimony of a laymen, especially if the expert presents peer reviewed data. And I am also saying that while its true experts may disagree, usually a general consensus can be reached.

To make an analogy, if someone recommended a cure, and presented no scientific testimony or testimony from the established medical community, I doubt you would use it, or advocate it. That is because you realize experts dealing with tested data are more reliable then dubious cures developed by laymen. The practice is then unreliable, and more of a risk to use then not use. Now doctors are not always right, the food pyramid put forth by the medical community has now be revealed to be seriously flawed due to attempts to over-simplify it. But generally, I would still at least want a doctors opinion before I started drinking a potion said to cure an ailment.

With regards to politics then, experts are not always right, but isn't it better to look at them for opinions, instead of some quack pundit?

 

[SezMe]

It's difficult to compose a short and concise response to that without flying in the face of all the listed unacceptable behavoirs in the Membership Agreement. I'm not sure if I'm sick of Ion or if it's simply an extension of my irritation with both sides of the political platform.

Every president can be blamed, if you like, for people being killed and maimed in places both domestic and foreign. We can blame G.W. Bush for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan, Clinton for Bosnia, Iraq, and Rwanda, G.H.W. Bush for Iraq also, Regean for those that died at the hands of the Contras, Lebanon, Grenada, Carter for his Rose Garden strategy and the deaths from the invasion of Afghanistan, Ford for the Marines lost trying to rescue the crew of the Mayaguez, and he, Nixon, LBJ, and Kennedy can all take blame for the lives lost in Vietnam and Southeast Asia. What about the kids living in violence in the cities at home? The people paralyzed from stray bullets? The Kent State incident? Plant accidents? Can't we blame these on our presidents' failed policies?

Let's clear the water here. People voted for Bush for different reasons. Not all of them bought into 9/11 + Saddamn or the "fags are ruining America" crap that was floated around. Not all of them believed the Swift Boat Vets. Not all of them belived that a vote for Bush was a vote for Jesus. Some prefer the fiscal and tax policies of Republicans. Some prefer the social conservatism. Some simply didn't like or have any faith in Senator Kerry. Some looked at the race and saw a giant douche and a turd sandwich. Some vote along party lines. Like all things, there are almost as many reasons for believing or doing something as there are people, give or take about five-thousand.

A person's vote says nothing about whether they are stupid or ignorant. They may have voted a certain way because they are, but that doesn't work the other way around. You presume that everyone who voted Bush in is stupid or ignorant of the issues facing the world and the current status of global and social affairs.

Are you trying to convince me that people who believe that the "liberals" are running the media are any less stupid or ignorant than people who are convinced that a "vast right-wing conspiracy" is running everything in this country? Are people who believe you can pray away gay any more stupid or ignorant than the people who believed that they could save the spotted owls?

Seriously, Ion. You mean to tell me that my grandfather who has had Kerry as his junior Senator for years, knows how Kerry operates in the legislative branch, knows that he's better off under the Democrats than he is the Republicans, and believes that Bush is a twit, still voted for him because he could not believe that Senator Kerry was capable of running the country any better than Bush is stupid or ignorant, while I've watched you get your hate on the Republican party simply because they are Republican and latch on to any bit of dirt you can get on them and expect me to believe that you might not be stupid or ignorant yourself?

Well, to be frank and as polite as possible, I don't think you're quite with it. I think you've let your hatred blind you and polarize you, making your nick quite appropriate. This, I think, has made you an idiot and a Democratic crybaby.

I would appreciate it, then, if you would keep quiet and not bring my family members into these discussions again.

If I can figure out how, I'm gonna nominate this for Merc's language award for January.