I am angry about the nihilistic tax cut bill that just passed the Senate. I am humiliated every day by the thought that a con artist like Trump is president, much less by the stupid shit he says every time he opens his mouth. I am disgusted at the thought that a foreign power could materially affect our elections and there would be no accountability. I am tensed up every time I call home to talk to my Trump-supporting parents, because I worry that hints of the separate epistemological regimes we live in will crop up. But one year in, Bush was still way, way worse.
The Bush tax cuts were as arbitrary as those currently under consideration. Though there was the padding of a budget surplus to stave off immediate calls for entitlement cuts, the prospects for overturning them were made worse by the complicity of the Democrats in the process — something that is completely absent in our present situation. This latter will be a recurring theme.
Trump has made climate change denial official government policy and appointed a vandal to head up the EPA. But this is just a mopping-up effort in the wake of the Bush administration’s path-breaking work. Before Bush, environmentalism was not a partisan issue. His father presided over a cap-and-trade program that helped to limit acid rain, for instance. But the Bush administration was the Revenge of the Oil Industry, and while not openly embracing climate change denial, they brought the “teach the controversy” bullshit mainstream — and meanwhile literally approved tax credits for gas-guzzling SUVs.
People are horrified by Trump’s rhetoric and stated desire for more executive power. Yet when it comes to consolidating executive power, Trump is a rank amateur compared to Bush and Cheney. Trump has issued meaningless executive orders stating campaign goals, while Bush literally signed bills into law and appended a written notice that he would not obey the resulting laws. Trump admires strongmen, while Bush administration lawyers developed the theory of the Unitary Executive. There’s a reason people turned to Carl Schmitt to understand Bush, and there’s also a reason why there hasn’t been another Schmitt vogue in the Age of Trump.
In terms of the Electoral College technicality that brought us both of the worst presidents of the 21st century, Bush’s was “better” because it came down to good old domestic corruption and family ties in Florida, rather than foreign interference. Yet by this point in his misbegotten reign, Bush had presided over the biggest foreign terrorist attack in American history. I am not a 9/11 Truther, but I believe there is concrete evidence that the Bush administration could have stopped the attacks but failed to do so due to their belief that creating fake hostilities with China was more important than continuing the Clinton administration’s focus on terrorism. I have long believed that if Gore — whom you may remember as the man who won the part of the 2000 election where people showed up and voted — had been president, he would have continued Clinton-era policies and the 9/11 attacks would have been stopped.
At this point, Trump is the least popular president in modern history, while Bush was riding around 90% for existing while 9/11 happened (again, due partly to his negligence). To his credit, Bush was less likely to openly stoke racial resentment of American Muslims in the wake of 9/11 than Trump is in the wake of… basically no reason. And yet his advisors were already pushing for a criminal war that would kill millions and destroy the life prospects for an entire generation in the Middle East — which, again, the Democrats were complicit with. Democrats were also complicit with the suspensions of civil liberties in the childishly named USA PATRIOT ACT, which contributed to the development of a global network of torture camps. Compared to this, Trump’s consistently thwarted desire to ban Muslims from entering the country — as pointless and cruel as it is, and as much damage as it has done to individuals — seems less like an abberation.
Whenever I have brought up these and similar topics, the response is invariably: just you wait! Trump is clearly evil, he clearly wants to do evil things, and when he gets around to it, it’s going to be a doozy! And sure, Trump is a terrible person whom I hate with all my heart. But short of a nuclear exchange with North Korea, what is even available to do that would be worse than the Iraq War? And how could he top legalizing torture? He has claimed he wants to reinstitute waterboarding, but so far it doesn’t seem like that has happened — and if it did, it would just be a repeat of a Bush-era innovation.
Yes, your fantasy of the worst that Trump could do is always going to top the reality of the Bush administration. But that reality is pretty grim, and the consistent complicity of the Democrats has meant that efforts at unravelling that toxic legacy have been thwarted at every turn. By contrast, Trump is hated by the public, fully opposed by the Democrats and not fully supported by his own party, and apparently too stupid and capricious to achieve anything that doesn’t involve his hiring and firing power. Yes, he’s done real damage, and no, we probably don’t appreciate the full extent of it. But the case for Trump as a unique fascist threat is pretty hollow when we recall that we had a fascist president within most of our adult lifetimes — and everyone, including the opposition party, fell in line.
And now we’re nostalgic for good old grampa W., with his cute paintings, who reminds us of the good old days before our president had an ugly combover. It’s absolutely disgusting — but quintessentially American. After all, what would America be like if we were capable of clearly recalling events from over a decade ago?
10 thoughts on “The score after Year One of the Age of Trump: Bush was still worse”
Could you provide the evidence for the part about Bush stating in writing that he’d ignore the law he himself signed? Never heard that one before.
You make a good case, but we shouldn’t forget that what decides whether the Democrats “fall in line” or not is how much neoliberal crap their constituents let them get away with, and THAT has changed mainly because of Trump’s personal repulsiveness. The Trump era up to now is an aberration of the system.
That’s fair, but the “what could he do” is unpleasantly jinx-y
A Google search for “bush signing statements controversy” should give you all the info you need.
The only country in the US that has been called an “enemy” and that is not yet totally destroyed by the aftermath of Bush’s wars is Iran. Do you think it’s a jinx to suggest that a land invasion of Iran is unlikely under Trump?
I don’t want to say anything is likely or unlikely anymore for fear of being blindsided by a stupid absurd thing happening for a hundredth time
I’m not afraid to say it: a land invasion of Iran is extremely unlikely under Trump or any other president. To think it’s likely is to attribute magical powers to Trump, when in reality he’s an incompetent loser who everyone important hates.
One thing you neglected to mention is that even Bush’s incompetence was worse–it might be too soon to say, but the awful response to Hurricane Maria seems to have been significantly better than the response to Hurricane Katrina.
There are also the white supremacists and all the sexual assault, though. It seems important to factor in the effects that even the fact of Trump’s candidacy had on society.
The best chance to stop 9/11 — intelligence of Khalid al-Mihdhar’s US visa, and his and Nawaf al-Hazmi’s subsequent US travel in January 2000 — traverses the two administrations. We don’t know if Clinton appointee George Tenet was aware of this, but Richard Blee who reported to him was. This stuff was being contemporaneously tracked. So not sure you’re right.
I’m not sure about the details. All I’ll say is: maybe there was still a chance when the president received and ignored a memo about how Al Qaeda was determined to attack in the U.S., because he was on vacation the whole month before the attack, during the first year of his presidency.
Comments are closed.