George Bush is Not Incompetent: George Lakoff,Marc Ettlinger,Sam Ferguson

George Bush is Not Incompetent
George Lakoff, Marc Ettlinger and Sam Ferguson

© The Rockridge Institute, 2006 (We invite the free distribution of this piece)
http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org

Progressives have fallen into a trap. Emboldened by President Bush's plummeting approval ratings, progressives increasingly point to Bush's "failures" and label him and his administration as incompetent. For example, Nancy Pelosi recently charged "The situation in Iraq and the reckless economic policies in the United States speak to one issue for me, and that is the competence of our leader." Self-satisfying as this criticism may be, it misses the bigger point. Bush's disasters -- Katrina, the Iraq War, the budget deficit -- are not so much a testament to his incompetence or a failure of execution. Rather, they are the natural, even inevitable result of his conservative governing philosophy. It is conservatism itself, carried out according to plan, that is at fault. Bush will not be running again, but other conservatives will. His governing philosophy is theirs as well. We should be putting the onus where it belongs, on all conservative office holders and candidates who would lead us off the same cliff.

To Bush's base, his bumbling folksiness is part of his charm -- it fosters conservative populism. Bush plays up this image by proudly stating his lack of interest in reading and current events, his fondness for naps and vacations and his self-deprecating jokes. This image causes the opposition to underestimate his capacities -- disregarding him as a complete idiot -- and deflects criticism of his conservative allies. If incompetence is the problem, it's all about Bush. But, if conservatism is the problem, it is about a set of ideas, a movement and its many adherents.

The idea that Bush is incompetent is a curious one. Consider the following (incomplete) list of major initiatives the Bush administration, with a loyal conservative Congress, has accomplished:

continued at:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/6/25/195750/611

Incompetence obscures the real issue. Conservatism itself is the villain that is harming our people, destroying our environment, and weakening our nation. Conservatives are undermining American values through legislation almost every day. This message applies to every conservative bill proposed to Congress. The issue that arises every day is which philosophy of governing should shape our country. It is the issue of our times. Unless conservative philosophy itself is discredited, Conservatives will continue their domination of public discourse, and with it, will continue their domination of politics.

It definitely does. Bush claims not to know about every disaster that befalls him--and people buy that. It's BS.

Michael Dukakis ran for president on a campaign based on his alleged superior competence to that of GH"Poppy" Bush, and that's why he (MD) is in the position he's in today.

Rather than trying to discredit what passes these days for "conservative philosphy", it would be far better for Democrats to answer the five word question ALL voters want answered: "What can you do for me?"

that many people vote their own self interests or at least for those who are best able to define their self interests. That's why "It's your money!" resonates so well. It's a simple sound bite that appeals to what people believe are their own self interests.Lower taxes. Dems should be countering with "It's your debt!" in a much bigger way.
Repugs have somehow convinced people that gay marriage is a threat to the family. How that is has not been made clear, but if they say it often enough, it must be so. They have done this with the war, convincing people that they are somehow safer with Bunnypants at the helm. And on and on.

THe GOP is the master of sound bites that answer the question: "What can you do for me?" They answer in lies, but folks aren't big on details if they think their best interests are being served.

Mz Pip
:dem:

And as Mr Young said, Dukakis/Bush was certainly illustrative.

Dukakis: This isn't about ideology, it's about competence.

Bush: LIBERAL-LIBERAL-LIBERAL! ACLU! Boston Harbor! Pledge of Allegiance! Prison furlough! LIBERAL!

I'd never seen, up to that time, a national campaign driven by so few issues of any consequence. I was agog and horrifically embarassed when it worked.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Incompetence is an excuse, they want the outcomes that have happened, it's part of the plan. As the article says it is the philosophy behind these decisions that is wrong, the dems should be pointing this out. The entire conservative movement is the problem and they should make it clear that being a conservative is nothing to be proud of.

the Rockridge essay hits lots of good highlights ... it is absolutely a foolhardy view to consider bush incompetent ... too many even here on DU get sucked into that ... we make fun of his oratory bumbles or how stupid he looks ... we do this at our own peril ...

the Rockridge boys missed a few of the most important issues ... they blame conservatism for bush's starting two wars ... frankly, it's not clear to me either "war" has a damned thing to do with genuine conservatism ... both of these "wars" were corporate wars ... they were fought to procure oil and create a justification to use America's blood and treasure to guard private corporate interests ... is that what conservatism is all about? not by my definition ... to me, the enemy bush embodies is not conservatism but corporatism ... the Rockridge boys talk about waging war as being "conservative" but never raised the issue of bush's motivation to wage these wars ... that's a most unfortunate oversight ...

the same goes for their point about putting industry officials in charge of regulatory agencies ... that's not conservatism by my definition; i call that blatant corporatism ... i also call it poor governance ...

and the beat goes on ... the Rockridge boys unfortunately omitted any reference to our bloated defense budget ... i'm for a very strong defense ... the defense budget is nothing more than a corporate welfare program for the military-industrial complex ... try shifting most of the budget to personnel and you'll see bush's real priorities ... GE, Boeing, Halliburton, Bechtel and the rest of them can't make any money on more expenditures for troops ... again, it's not conservatism; it's corporatism ...

and then, of course, there are bush's staggering budget deficits and a runaway national debt ... is this conservative dogma? hardly!! is the money being pumped into the "social safety net"? nope ... again, bush is not a model conservative - this is raw greed that i prefer to call corporatism ...

perhaps if we were fighting against genuine conservatism, we might not be quite as angry as we are and we might not be in as much trouble as we are ... what bush is doing is bankrupting the nation, starving the budget to destroy the safety net and the nation's infrastructure, antagonizing the rest of the world with perpetual war and arrogance for the sole purpose of enriching his greedy friends ...

the Rockridge boys hit lots of good points; it seems to me they missed some critical ones too ...

here's a previous post i made on bush's incompetence specifically focusing on Iraq: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/welshTerrier2/45

You might think about sending the text of your post in an e-mail to "the Rockridge boys."

:thumbsup:

though perhaps not as explicitly as they could have. For example, regarding the record national deficit, bloated defense budget, social program funding, etc.:



It seems to me that corporatism and conservatism are closely intertwined. Modern corporations are becoming (or have already become) the social institutions perfectly suited for their purposes. At the risk of repeating a reference from another thread, I've found this essay very intriguing:


http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html

Modern corporations (with their seperation of ownership and management as well as their rejection of the concept of social responsibility) are ideally suited to establishing and maintaining power for a privileged few. Meanwhile, the merging of the public and private reins of power (corporatism) is only natural to preserve the appearance of democracy while consolidating control of the nation. Underneath the deception, however, that's just another form of aristocracy. That's conservatism.

to pay for a new fleet of planes.

Will be in all areas and specialities. Wonder who will be flying and fixing all the new planes?

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/military/stories/MYSA062506.01A.afcrossroads.1b86cb7.html

we will keep missing the other "Elephant in the Room." David Sirota has pointed this out and he at least is a member of the "Center for American Progress." It's time our Dem Think Tanks stopped falling in bed with the Big Business interests and Wall St. "Rockridge" was supposed to be way left of "CAP" yet even they hope for support from Big Business and so stay "mum."

And, one wonders why "Rockridge" and "CAP" don't mention the Media Consolidation? Are they afraid to? After all this time...it would seem that anyone who turns on a TeeVee for any news would have noticed what's going on.

take a look at the issue of government oversight and attitudes to government regulatory agencies ...

one might argue that both conservatives and corporatists would both want to see less oversight and less regulation ... one could too hastily conclude that, by definition, conservatism is corporatism ...

but i disagree ...

if one were to argue that by promoting laissez faire capitalism, i.e. unregulated capitalism, the tide would lift all boats, implicit in one's argument would be the objective that "all boats should be lifted" ...

i strongly disagree with unregulated capitalism precisely because it does nothing but widen the gap between rich and poor and it leads to a survival of the fittest economy ...

HOWEVER, at least, for those sincere in this belief, and i call them conservatives, they are advocating for the general welfare ...

SUCH IS NOT THE CASE WITH CORPORATISTS ... by definition, the goal of the corporatists is nothing more than good old fashioned GREED ... they want "smaller government" because gutting oversight agencies weakens the public interest and strengthens their hand ...

Rockridge seems to acknowledge the massive gains made by corporate America under "conservative deregulation" but they seem to disassociate the result from the motivation ...

I will TRUST NO ONE and no organization that does not prominently disclose bush's MOTIVES for going into Iraq ... as far as i can see, Rockridge misses the point on Iraq ...

look at this statement they made:

"Given this conviction, it’s no accident that administration policies have focused almost exclusively on the training of Iraqi police, and US access to the newly free Iraqi market — the invisible hand of the market will take care of the rest."

what do they mean by the phrase "take care of the rest"????? what Rockridge is saying is that conservatives believe free markets will make life better FOR THE IRAQIS !!!

but bush et al aren't just conservatives; they're CORPORATISTS!!! and they don't give a damn about the Iraqi people and Rockridge seems to miss this point ... it's not that "free markets" will achieve the goal of America helping Iraqis; it's that "free markets" will tie the hands of the Iraqi government and prevent them from interfering as BIG OIL walks off with their profits !!!!

this is an essential difference between what Rockridge is selling and the "enlightened left" ... and i repeat, those calling for even one more day of occupation JUST DON'T GET IT!!!! and the nonsense of another year, or more, is truly a lack of understanding about why we are in Iraq OR it is complicit with bush's objectives ... frankly, i'm not sure which is the case ...

It is the issue. Since Lincoln's blood dried, Republicans have run on tax cuts and deregulation. Their very party philosophy exalts incompetence. The incompetence of Numbnuts is a testament to this idiocy. While it's not a winning issue in itself, I would like to hear a Democratic candidate one day ask the Republican why the GOP party line hasn't changed since Reconstruction ended. I would very much like to hear that.

neo conservative cult.

True conservatism is a good thing. So is true liberalism.

is another case of the same failed "centrism." Instead of telling the truth and taking an honest position, Kerry and Clinton and the rest actually provide cover for the lie.

Idiots? Opportunists? Collaborators? Not sure which, probably a mix, but that "mistake" garbage surely does more to help corporate fascism than to challenge it.

He spoke against the war before Bush attacked in March 2003. He has said that his vote which he gave to give Bush leverage at the UN was a mistake. His mistake was to trust that the President of the US would do what he promised to do.

Kerry said throughtout 2003 and 2004 that the war was WRONG. It was not a last resort. He also said that he would not have gone to war. Here, he and Harkin differ from most IWR voters who favored invasion.

The only difference from 2004 in his position was that in 2004, he insisted that HIS VOTE was correct but Bush misused it. Since then, he has conceded that he should not have voted as he did.

So, his position on the war is the same as when he said "Do not rush to war" in January 2003. His position on whether his vote was right has changed - he now admits it was wrong, and he profoundly regrets it.

he still does not say, or admit, that the plans for the war`were made long before that vote, and that those plans had nothing at all to do with any of the rationales, howver bogus, being put forward at that time. He is a fool or a knave or a coward. And for the record, he got my vote in the precinct caucus after Clark was disqualified. I had hoped he would use his knowledge of the opposition to wage a campaign that would expose them for what they were, but he failed that test as well.

I have read from the summer and fall of 2002, Kerry knew that Bush was intending to go to war. In the summer of 2002 he was one of the strongest voices against going to war. Bush was claiming he had authority he was CIC and saw a threat and because of the WoT authorization and the various UN resolutions. Kerry argued that it was wrong and (in a Sept 6 NYT op-ed) argued that he needed to work with the UN.

It seems to me that Kerry was trying to change the inevitable - the Democrats pushed many changes in language in the IWR. The original wording would have made what Bush did ok. The changes limited the resolution to Iraq and specically took out many reasons for going to war. In fact, if Bush were following the process he said he would, Bush and the world would have had a major success. By December 2002, the inspectors made clear there were no WMD. Iraq was even destroying weapons. This process could have continued longer and led to Iraq being declared free of WMD, the sanctions lifted - likely with some on-going monitoring. That would have happened with a rational President.

Kerry's mistake was to think that Bush would negotiate in good faith. Bush appeared to give up the things mentioned above - though those are the reasons Dr Rice now cites as why the war was good. What Kerry gave in return was his vote, which he says he regrets profoundly. This in spite of the fact that it didn't cause the war, Bush did. Kerry knew the amendment would pass - it may be that he chose to negotiate to make it less bad than it originally was.

The fact that Kerry was the main person fighting to get the WMD intelligence investigation, part 2 done and that he was one of the few to speak of the DSM is significant. It seems that he thought there was a possibility that they could push Bush to go to the UN and the world could do what the US Senate didn't have the power to do - which was to make war so obviously unnecessary that it wouldn't happen.

Remember in the summer of 2002, the inspectors weren't there. We in fact would never have known how much Bush lied without the inspectors. The end result of the IWR and all the Democrats arguing against it was the war was likely delayed 5 months. In reality, there was nothing that would have stopped it. Kerry is clearly neither a coward or a knave. I also don't think he was a fool - the degree to which Bush violates the law was not as obvious then and changing Bush's plan was the only way that could have worked. Kerry clearly realizes now that a vote saying no would have been better.

first, let me commend you for this statement: "His mistake was to trust that the President of the US would do what he promised to do."

truer words were never spoken ... those who voted for the IWR, whether we see it as a vote for war or otherwise, were dead wrong for doing so because they failed to understand just how evil bush was and is ... it is a good thing, not a bad thing, that Kerry and others now recognize the tragic mistake they made ... we should be more tolerant of the mistake they made and focus on the present ...

so let's look at Kerry's current position and determine whether it is "honest" ...

Kerry's basic position is that we should get "most" of our troops out of Iraq within a year ... fair enough?

my view of what bush is doing in Iraq is that he is using American forces, conscripted (i.e. stop loss) forces, to help Big Oil begin their development of new Iraqi oil fields for their sole benefit ... if you do some research on the PSA's that have already been signed, Big Oil now has contracts to control and profit from somewhere between 65% and 85% of Iraq's future oil production ...

still, the country is dangerously unstable and it would be difficult if not impossible to begin development of these new fields without a major presence of US military in Iraq ... we are NOT occupying Iraq to give the Iraqis their country back ... we are there to procure oil, billions upon billions upon billions of dollars of oil, for private multi-national corporations and their powerful shareholders ...

if this view is correct, and anyone is certainly free to not accept it, the next question becomes: should we remain in Iraq even one more day to help bush, and his oily corporate friends, achieve this goal or not?

to me, the honest answer is a big, fat, clear: NO WAY!!

again, one need not accept the premise ...

I know Kerry has talked about oil profits and i commended him for doing so ... but this does NOT state why bush is in Iraq ... in fact, once again, even a plan to stay another year, by default, "trusts bush" ... my view is that it's the exact same "deja vu" all over again ... been there; done that ...

for Kerry's position to be "honest", he either needs to clearly indicate he does NOT agree with the left that bush is in Iraq solely for corporate greed, or the regional exploitation that eventually enables corporate greed, OR he needs to explain how remaining in Iraq, even for one more day, does anything beyond helping bush fulfill his illegitimate objectives ...

if his position is purely political, i.e. if Kerry "gave away the store" by lurching off his May 22 deadline and now lurching off his 12/31 deadline to "build unity in the party", it seems to me he negotiated away his position and got absolutely ZILCH in return ... perhaps that still fits under the umbrella as "honest"; frankly, that would be about the only positive thing you could say about his latest give away ... and yes, the same goes for Feingold and perhaps Boxer as well ...

put simply, another year of war is a NON-POSITION ... i'm done with those who call for such nonsense ... perhaps the Iraqis will show the kind of leadership to end the war that these "honest" Democrats clearly have not ...

Brainwashing Scam is working all too well. 35% STILL sucking for the deal.

Taking public and government institutions destroying them through so-called incompetence is just as affective as other means


So they can be replaced by private contractors and businesses.
Your Voting machines are in the hands of private companies.
Public Schools are attacked fiscally and given impossible goals in favor of private
Social security is attacked, he borrowed from it and is asked to become more privatized.
The incompetence of their handling the disaster of New Orleans has changed voting and power in that region and not for the good.
The chaos of Iraq created 9 billion dollars to be raided and unaccountable behavior with profitable results for who?.

In their writings from their own think tanks they have described using chaos(incompetence?) to achieve their goals

and watch us react.

It doesn't mean that he is fit to be the president. Dumb shit freeper yahoos think that being shrewd is enough, since it's the only "quality" they can understand.

1. Fiscal conservatives are appalled by Bush's deficits.

2. Limited government conservatives are appalled by the consolidation of Presidential power, most noticeably by such attempts to redefine the Constitution as warrantless wiretapping, which led to criticsim from Norquist, who is portrayed as an unquestioning supporter in the article.

In other words, Bush has been effective in promoting his own brand of conservatism, but his brand is not universally adored by conservatives. To campaign against the ideology of conservatism without making such distinctions is politically dumb.

Also, there is nothing in Bush's personal history to suggest that he is competent at RUNNING anything. He is politically cunning, but once he gets the job, business tends to suffer. Iraq is the biggest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam, and the lack of postwar planning is now the stuff of legend. It's no surprise that his competency has been called into question.

What I like about the article is that it says Democrats need to put the critique of the ideology ahead of personal attacks. One is reminded how Reagan attacked liberalism and sold his brand of conservatism; he spoke in ideological terms as much as possible. Of course, Reagan was in no small part selling selfishness with a healthy dose of racism mixed in; just what the majority of white folks wanted to hear. It's debatable whether white Americans are ready to vote for those who present a sharp critique of "conservative" excesses, but we need to try if we are ever to break the logjam that we're in right now.

into a political system that is new in America:

* At its core, it's main energies are directed by an aggressive militarism that clearly overwhelms its rhetorical fiscal conservatism;
* It serves the interests of corporate globalism that undermines an expressed economic nationalism;
* and, it's major innovation is its incubation of a virtually unregulated domestic Intelligence-Industrial Complex that easily trumps any previous appeal to libertarian and law and order concerns.

Add to that the two opposing forces that underlie its foreign policy -- Israeli Neocons and Saudi oil interests --and one has a confused, self-devowering Leviathan that's neither this nor that. Its successes and failures simply can't be judged by the standards of traditional competence or conservatism. It is both highly successful at transfering wealth upward and outward, rewarding its base and allies, while weakening everything else.

It's a monster. Behold, 21st Century American Fascism.

Then that would mean the people aka Conservatives that elected him were a bit incompetent then wouldn't it? :shrug: If it was as you suggest Bush* would not be getting a rubber stamp on everything he proposes.

it says "competent at running anything." He's clearly competent at the political game. It's two different things.

definition be incompetent themselves. Conservatives are indeed incompetent probably even more so than their leader.

elected official or the two Dem spokespersons like Donna Brazille and Bob Shrum who mouthpiece all the time on cables ever "personally attack" Bush.

Yet during Clinton we were treated to constant laugh fests about his and Hillary's every move. We had Paula Jones and Monica 24/7.

Only here in the Chat Rooms do we go into laughing at Bush and he deserves our derision. The man insults World Leaders with his "chummy talk" and repeats "Kill, Murder, Terrorists, Rape, Torture, WMD constantly every time he gives a speech. He has no diplomatic skills and truly IS Incompetent.

Cheney and the RW Cabal and Think Tanks run America with the Bush as Stooge.

presidential abuses - ala the Republican controlled sentate/congress.

Indeed a dying breed of republicans are appalled by the things you note, but "todays republican party" went along for the ride - happily.

"Okay, I agree. He's not an idiot. He's just an asshole. Feel better?"

I think that most here at least suspect that the final "accomplishment" on the list is totally bogus . . . saying that Bush won re-election (or even election) is like saying Enron provided a nice return for investors . . .

He is the Sock Puppet for the Neo Fascists. Calling his Regime Conservative is not accurate. They are Neo Fascists doing the bidding for the Multi-Natls that are bent upon destroying the American Middle Class and turn all but the Uber Wealthy into serfs.

Even if Bush himself is incompetent (and I'm not sure that he is), his administration has certainly accomplished virtually everything they set out to accomplish. Of course they had a lot of help from a very compliant news media.

But competence is not the issue. It's their goals that are the problem. Lying does not equal incompetence. It is done purposefully, with specific goals in mind.

We are where we are in Iraq because our administration chose to invade Iraq for personal gain. Period. That is what caused the opposition against us.

We are where we are on the economy because our administration decided that it is more important to give tax breaks to billionaires than it is to provide safety nets for our citizens who are in dire need of help.

Katrina was a disaster because our administration did not WANT to help - not because they were incompetent.

"Katrina was a disaster because our administration did not WANT to help - not because they were incompetent."

That is such a sad statement about our government.

Wake up America.......You are being sold a bill of goods and it's name is Conservatism...

I BEAT THIS INTO THE HEAD OF EVERY INDEPENDENT I MEET

It is "neo-connism", for lack of a better term, or the notion of white male supremecy and domination that is truly destroying our environment and planet.

These individuals who are running roughshod over America know absolutely nothing about conserving or conservatism per se. They are the epitome of waste, throw away and consume. They are scavengers that value almost nothing except more power.

The word conservative, like that of liberal is a good term and it implies discipline and care. How could that be wrong?

I think Lakoff its the nail on the head with the "incompetence" points. This Administration is anything but incompetent. What they are is dangerous. What they do is intentional.

To conserve something means to protect and safeguard it. I don't think the cabal is conserving anything except massive piles of money for their friends.