I don't think it's anything to do with ideology, but pragmatism. This is a very pragmatic President. We have several factors that push Bush and the Congress to big budget, big deficit, and nation building.
First, the Republicans have captured power. The spoils go to the victor. I don't believe it is realistic to believe that any Party, regardless of ideology, would resist self-indulgence. Money consolidates power.
Second, big spending programs like the Medicare Bill are domestic political gimmes.
Third, the aftermath of 9/11 and the war costs alot. Costs which are unavoidable.
Fourth, the economy took a nosedive and the tax cuts (agree with the policy or not) were passed to prime the pumps. With revenues down, spending on the war and domestic political pragmatism, the deficit soared.
Fifth, the nation-building is by necessity. Bush was an isolationist coming in. He certainly wasn't a stealth-liberal on the issue. Rumsfeld sure as hell wasn't, nor Cheney. The Admin has concluded that to win the war, we have to change the environment that produces terrorists in the ME. That requires some nation-building. It is imperative.
So the percieved move to the left is less an ideological choice, IMO, than one born of the necessities of domestic party politics, and foreign policy. I don't think any other course could be possible, without failing completely. Gore would have been forced to the right by 9/11 and the faltering economy. Or he would have been a failed President. A Jimmy Carter - too stiff.
Derek |
