This is an article from the same site your article came from. It makes a reference to parts of your article.
It's a little long but well worth reading. The further into the article the better it gets.
I have italicized quotes which the author uses from others speeches.
__________________________________
THE RONALD REAGAN PLAYBOOK
Deficits And War Were Part Of The GOP’s Planned Platform
FEBRUARY 4, 2004 – "Suskind writes that O'Neill warned Vice President Dick Cheney of the consequences of a growing budget deficit, only to be told that Ronald Reagan's two-term presidency showed "deficits don't matter." – CNN (see article: Cabinet members defend Bush from O'Neill)
This statement, widely reported after Suskind’s book detailing former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil’s charges against the Bush administration came out, was a big surprise to many people. Could the Vice President have really said that? And what, if so, could he possibly have been thinking?
But for anyone familiar with Republican politics, the statement was not only not shocking, but a commonplace one you had heard many times before.
It was just after the Florida recount. The Supreme Court had just finished things off, it had been declared official that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney would be President and Vice President of the United States.
I was watching the news with a friend of mine who is familiar with Republican politics. First he seemed to take it in stride, but within a minute his face grew really somber and he put a hand on his forehead like he either might cry or suddenly had a headache.
"Maybe it won’t be that bad," I told him. "All we can do now is wait and see – maybe he will really act like the moderate he says he is."
My friend – and favorite Republican source – shook his head.
"You don’t understand," he said. "Now we’re going to be at war within the next four years. And not just a launching a few Tomahawk’s at Saddam. I mean a broad, widely-themed war like the Cold War that will last for years and years."
No, my friend was not a prophet. And no, he did not have any specific information about a plan to let terrorists hit the US in order to create a war.
Rather, he was just familiar with the people who were about to take office, how their minds worked, and the plan they were about to run, something he called, "The Ronald Reagan playbook."
The Clinton years were very tough on these Reagan/Bush Republicans. The are the military complex that Eisenhower warned us all to beware.
That point is lost on a lot of people: it was Eisenhower, a conservative Republican four-star General and President of the United States – not some obscure hippie – who said to us, in his farewell speech from the Oval Office:
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience.
"The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
Can you imagine any President – never mind a Republican one – saying this now? This is yet another reminder that the truth and spirit of truth is neither Republican nor Democrat but simply American.
In any case, this brings us to the Cold War. Through fear of Russian nukes, the American citizenry came to accept – even embrace – the growth and expansion of what had, in its infantile stages, frightened President Eisenhower so much that he felt compelled to say something about it in his farewell address, his last words to the nation after a lifetime of service in official capacities.
Then the Cold War ended.
Little by little the excuses for such massive military spending began to fade. Clinton was elected and made setting the financial house in order by paying down the debt a priority. For most of the next decade, peace and prosperity existed for many.
For the Cold Warriors of the Reagan era, the men (and a small number of women) who were used to living high on the hog, getting multi-million dollar government contracts on a regular basis, there was fury.
But that is just the beginning. There was something much larger missing.
Dick Cheney, in the Vice Presidential debate in Kentucky, held on October 5, 2000 said (C-SPAN: Presidential Debates 2000), with regard to the our military and the morale of our troops:
"When we don't give them the kind of leadership that spells out what their mission is and lets them know why they're there and what they're doing, why they're putting their lives at risk, then we undermine that morale."
This was a regular refrain among the Cold Warrior types. Who was going to be the next Soviet Union? With whom were we going to have the next Cold War? Without such an enemy, there was a basic void in their existence. Their world centered on rallying people around fear and hatred of a massive, permanent enemy. While much of the world was happy to have the Cold War end, the Cheneys and Rumsfelds were absolutely lost and demoralized – much like the supposed troops without a mission mentioned above.
China often surfaced in top defense circles as a likely candidate to have our "next Cold War," with, as they referred to it. Indeed, Bush/Cheney moved to make China an issue in the 2000 election, and not from a trade standpoint.
Look at how then-Governor Bush talked about China at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, CA, on November 19, 1999:
"This is different from the trumpet call of the Cold War. We are no longer fighting a great enemy, we are asserting a great principle: that the talents and dreams of average people – their warm human hopes and loves – should be rewarded by freedom and protected by peace. We are defending the nobility of normal lives, lived in obedience to God and conscience, not to government.
"The challenge comes because two of Eurasia’s greatest powers – China and Russia – are powers in transition. And it is difficult to know their intentions when they do not know their own futures. If they become America’s friends, that friendship will steady the world. But if not, the peace we seek may not be found.
"China, in particular, has taken different shapes in different eyes at different times. An empire to be divided. A door to be opened. A model of collective conformity. A diplomatic card to be played. One year, it is said to be run by "the butchers of Beijing." A few years later, the same administration pronounces it a "strategic partner."
You can see how the Cold War still dominated their mindset, and how "China, in particular," was front and center when they talked about the Cold War, even though China was not part of the Cold War. But in the Reagan/Bush Republican mind, China was the cause they held out hope they could rally the nation around to get back to what they considered the good old days of the Cold War, when money flowed freely and there was a hate-focusing mission to rally the nation around.
Don’t let the comment at the start of these quotes, "This is different than the trumpet call of the Cold War," fool you. It is a common rhetorical advice, in particular for the Reagan/Bushies, to claim they are not about to say exactly what they are about to say, and the fact that the Cold War is mentioned with regard to China is just a function of their mindset which had already started a sort of pre-Cold War against the Asian nation.
President Bush made this clear just a few lines later:
"We must see China clearly -- not through the filters of posturing and partisanship. China is rising, and that is inevitable. Here, our interests are plain: We welcome a free and prosperous China. We predict no conflict. We intend no threat."
Like we said, pretending they are saying exactly the opposite of what they are about to say. Now, get ready for the, "Yet…"
"Yet…"
Um hmm. Now he is about to actually say something he means:
"Yet the conduct of China’s government can be alarming abroad, and appalling at home. Beijing has been investing its growing wealth in strategic nuclear weapons... new ballistic missiles… a blue-water navy and a long-range airforce. It is an espionage threat to our country. Meanwhile, the State Department has reported that "all public dissent against the party and government [has been] effectively silenced" – a tragic achievement in a nation of 1.2 billion people. China’s government is an enemy of religious freedom and a sponsor of forced abortion – policies without reason and without mercy.
"All of these facts must be squarely faced. China is a competitor, not a strategic partner. We must deal with China without ill-will – but without illusions."
Yes, this sounds eerily like the charges President Bush would go on to make in rally the nation to war against Saddam Hussein.
But wait, he wasn’t done:
"By the same token, that regime must have no illusions about American power and purpose. As Dean Rusk observed during the Cold War, "It is not healthy for a regime ... to incur, by their lawlessness and aggressive conduct, the implacable opposition of the American people."
Yes, immediately after saying the case with China is "not like the… Cold War," the President, in talking about China, first builds it up into a Soviet-level sounding risk and then, right on cue, starts dishing out quotes from "during the Cold War," using them directly to draw parallels with China.
First look at the sickness of this commentary. "It is not healthy for a regime…" Notice the word ‘regime’ in there? Continuing, "It is not health for a regime… to incur… the opposition of the American people."
In other words, "China would not be smart to make the American people angry," because a ‘regime’ that makes the American people angry… well, just look at what happened to the Soviet Union, the place this quote was originally directed against.
So back to my friend.
When he said with simple realization that with Bush elected we would be involved in a long, Cold War-type conflict within the next four years, he was originally thinking it would be with China. He did not profess to be certain of that, but he was certain they would come up with a Cold War.
Why? Because it is one of the keys to them being able to keep a hold on power, one of the first steps in the Ronald Reagan playbook.
RONALD REAGAN PLAYBOOK RULE #1: Create a long-term war that won’t take place on American soil.
It is not difficult to see why they want this set up. It is because all the games they use to keep their hold on power – which we have seen played out ad nausea during the Iraq conflict – depend on having such an enemy in a state of continuing war. The patriotism card, the "Dems are weak on defense" card, the "the military is Republican" card, only we can keep you safe card, etc.
Many people blamed former President George H. W. Bush’s failure to get re-elected on his failure to deal with the economy. But not the Reagan/Bush Republicans. They blamed it on the fact that he let the war end, and they know enough not to do that again. Bush, Sr. gave the nation peace, let them feel secure, the line of thinking goes, and so the American people were free to vote for someone else.
And they were not going to make that mistake this time. They needed a good ‘ol Cold War style, generation long war.
When I have broached the topic of Iraq and 9/11, asking if there was any pre-mediation, if the War On Terror was part of what was planned, if Iraq was planned ahead of time and 9/11 was used as an excuse, my friend just laughs.
The issue of Iraq is irrelevant, he says. The issue of whether the President could have prevented 9/11 or used it as an excuse to attack Iraq is irrelevant. The simple reality is that this these people – the Cold Warriors of the Bush administration - were going to have America involved in a broad-based, long term war of one brand or another. September 11th simply gave them that opportunity. If it wasn’t for September 11th, we would still be fighting either the Axis of Evil or a Cold War with China or some other endless, relatively cold on the homefront type war. It is central to who the Bush/Limbaughians are, how they think. Without such a war, they feel weak, lost, and impotent. Without war, they are not sure how to keep a hold on power or sell themselves to the American people.
RONALD REAGAN PLAYBOOK RULE #2: Pass a tax cut you know is too big, intentionally creating deficits.
There are a couple of reasons for this move, which both Reagan and George W. Bush did.
The main idea is to set up the old blame and lie game whereby the Republicans create deficits with their intentionally oversized tax cuts and then proceed to claim the Democrats are creating them with their "tax and spend" mentality. When the budget was balanced, as it was at the end of the Clinton years, that sort of hate talk against the Democrats wasn’t possible.
So immediately President Bush set out to right that problem – the problem of a balanced budget. By passing his budget-busting tax cuts, he put back in play the setup that allows him to divert attention from anything he is doing by focusing constant, dishonest attacks on the Democrats based on the fact that there are deficits. This is vital in the Reagan playbook.
Some people have wondered if 9/11 was allowed to happen so the President had an excuse to create his massive War On Terror. While that seems not too likely, it is clear that he absolutely intended to create our current economic 9/11. Each of his tax cuts was an enormous blow to the World Trade Center of the American economy.
And true to form, they created the disaster and then told us we should be thankful we have them their to save us from it. This is actually originally taken from the Harold Hill playbook: "I’m going to solve this town’s problems," says Hill when he arrives in a small, calm Iowa town. "This town doesn’t have any problems," his friend replies. "Well," says Hill, "then I’m going to have to make one."
We witness exactly the clear awareness that they are just carrying out the Ronald Reagan playbook in the comments of Dick Cheney reported by Paul O’Neil.
When Cheney said, "that Ronald Reagan's two-term presidency showed "deficits don't matter," as reported in Suskind’s new book, The Price Of Loyalty, Cheney showed exactly this mindset in action. Reagan, by getting re-elected, showed not only that deficits don’t matter to the American public, but that they can be used as a great weapon to help keep your popularity up by using them to blame the Democrats. And so Cheney told then-Treasury Secretary O’Neil not to bother bringing up sound, conservative fiscal ideas like not running massive debts, but instead to sit there and shut up, because, for political reasons, they were going to go with the debt ballooning policies that worked politically for Reagan. How blatantly Cheney makes clear that he does not care about what is right or best for America - i.e. getting deficits in line - is truly startling. As long as he and the President can get away with it politically, as he said Reagan showed you could, he has no qualms with driving the nation into massive debt. This is the trademark, 'Us before America' attitude of the Bush/Limbaughians.
The problem President Bush is having at this point comes from something not accounted for in the Ronald Reagan playbook – that they would actually be so successful that there wouldn’t be any Democrats around to blame for things. This was supposed to be the part where the President, as Reagan did, sends a massive, deficit-ballooning budget to Congress but quickly blames the Democrats for it. However, now the Congress is now entirely controlled by Republicans. As a result, the fire he created is starting to burn his own butt.
So there are two plays from the Ronald Reagan playbook. The Bush administration came into office determined not to suffer the fate of his father, but instead to recreate the Reagan days of old. They set out to set up a new Cold War and to send the nation back into massive deficit spending.
Their potential downfall is that this is a different time. There are no Democrats to blame for the deficits – plus the current Democrats did a good job of making clear to the public that any deficits would be the result of Bush’s tax cuts. And this time, the call to war is not so believable or compelling.
But in addition, just like happens in the mafia, sometimes the new generation gets too greedy. Bush/Cheney et. al have gone after America with the blatant disregard of cold corporate raiders. They have spent too long in the corporate world and haven’t been able to distinguish between the American nation and America as the American Corporation. And so, as we detailed earlier, we see their actions directly parallel a hostile corporate takeover. (see article: The Bush Administration’s Actions Directly Parallel A Hostile Corporate Takeover)
And while the Bush/Limbaughians are imitating a number of Reagan’s steps, Ronald Reagan was actually in touch with his times and did not set out to implement his policies with the reckless disregard for America that President Bush and Dick Cheney have. Ronald Reagan above all seemed to truly care about America, even if he did so in a partisan way.
And so the Bush/Limbaughians are really missing the central play of the Ronald Reagan playbook – to care about America and do what you think is best for the nation. Their blatant disregard for the nation and its people – as well as the other nations and people of the world – are what is making even their once solid base start to stand up and say, "This Bush is no Ronald Reagan," and he is weakening and bankrupting our great nation for no other reason but to stuff the pockets of his friends and himself.
moderateindependent.com |
