Another Bush Credibility Problem

Bush keeps telling us that the economy is doing great and in a small way Bush isn't consciously lying for once; for Bush, his campaign contributors, friends and other wealthy people like him, the economy is just fine. But Bush has always been a member of the powerful elite, even in his wayward youth when he so obviously was taken care of.

Tonight, on CNN, Wolf Blitzer showed us what the good life is like in Dubai; as I was watching the incredibly well-appointed rooms, the swimming pools, the expensive art work and the indoor ski slope, it just wasn't hard to to see why Bush is so attracted to the United Arab Emirates: they're rich like he is. And just like Bush, they didn't exactly work for that wealth. Bush hasn't a clue what life is like for most Americans. But he identifies with the wealthy of Dubai.

Paul Krugman in his most recent column in the New York Times writes: "Why doesn't Bush get any economic respect? I think it's because most Americans sense, correctly, that he doesn't care about people like them. We're living in a time when many Americans are feeling economically insecure, but a tiny elite has been growing incredibly rich."

Well, Jack Abramoff and Duke Cunningham were getting a taste of a Washington Republican's good life before they made the mistake of getting caught. I'm sure even a fair number of honest Republicans are wondering who these guys are in Washington that call themselves Republican these days?

It's not hard to understand that policies have consequences. A blind belief in greed as an economic virtue has consequences. Selling off American know-how, resources and jobs has consequences. Talking in simplistic terms to the point of dishonesty has consequences.

Here's an article originally from the Associated Press that has some interesting points, not all of which I agree with, but the last paragraph in the excerpt is worth discussing a moment:

WASHINGTON – You lost your job. It’s probably one of the most dreaded things you’ll ever hear from your boss. Then you find out that your white-collar position moved to the other side of the globe – to India. President Bush says he feels your pain and that education – not trade protectionism – is the answer to deal with the increasingly globalized world in which we live and work.

Bush discussed the politically sensitive issue in New Delhi on Friday, wrapping up a three-day stay in India. The country’s rapid growth has created anxiety among Americans, especially as they have seen call center jobs, back-office administrative work, software programming and other white-collar jobs move there.

“It’s painful for those who lose jobs,” Bush said. “But the fundamental question is, how does a government or society react to that? And it’s basically one of two ways. One is to say, losing jobs is painful, therefore, let’s throw up protectionist walls. And the other is to say, losing jobs is painful, so let’s make sure people are educated so they can find (and) fill the jobs of the 21st century,” he said.

Bush talks nonsense so frequently that I'm not sure what to think these days. And I think we're all tired of Bush's rich man's pout and his either/or mentality. There are many solutions besides setting up protectionist walls which, of course, is not a solution. One thing Bush could do is to sit down with business and seriously talk about ways to increase American jobs. Another way would be to stop the hemorrhage of our know-how and infrastructure. Another way would be simply to keep the jobs that we all consider vital to our long-term economic and national security. Another way would be to demand that other countries start doing a better job of paying more wages to their workers and making sure that fundamental changes are made in protections for all workers. Another way is to underwrite leading-edge technology in environmental protection and alternative energy so that America will be the leader in these areas for decades to come. Another way would be medical insurance coverage for a much broader percentage of Americans while also taking that burden off of business (and we should be pushing our trading partners to do the same).

The so-called rising tide that is supposed to be the effect of globalization is too often more of a one-way street in favor of the wealthy no matter where they live; and hundreds of millions are being left behind, including millions of hardworking Americans.

Globalization, on one level, isn't that bad an idea though more respect should be paid to the integrity of cultures around the world. If we're all economically interconnected, the use of nuclear weapons is self-defeating for anyone; that alone can make globalization useful. The real problem is leaving the definition of globalization in the hands of wealthy conservatives who have no interest in the rest of us. That's something I doubt that Thomas Friedman fully understands, if at all.