Bush Things I Like

I had dinner the other night with a friend from Texas. He is one of the few people to have actually left tracks here on occasion, and he was needling me a bit, suggesting that I had become boringly predictable in my constant Bush bashing. I'm not sure it's really as bad as all that, but it is true that I have rarely had much good to say for Georgie. So, as a change of pace, let me confess that there are a number of Bush's ideas I do support. There may be more, but here are five that jump immediately to mind:

Invading Afghanistan: This is probably the no-brainer in the bunch. Immediately after 9/11, when talk about going into Afghanistan first started circulating, I was appalled. Not by the idea, mind you. I shared with most people the sense that the United States had to take effective action in response to the 9/11 attacks, and, given the despicable nature of the Taliban in general and its support of bin Laden in particular, nothing would have pleased me more than to take the bastards out. No, it was not the concept that horrified me, it was the "obvious" impracticality of an invasion. After all, the Soviet Union at the height of its power had tried the same thing and had failed miserably despite having a common border with the country. Not only did the United States not have a common border, it did not even have any friends or vassals that had a common border. And the country was completely landlocked, so invasion forces could not even be supplied by sea. An invasion seemed to me to offer only two possible outcomes, one very bad and the other even worse. Either it would turn out like Viet Nam, getting us permanently bogged down in a war we could not win and in so doing vitiating the international sympathy support that the 9/11 attacks generated. Or, worse yet, it would turn out like Reagan's foray into Lebanon or Bush's/Clinton's foray into Somalia, with the US turning tail and running, an outcome that would only serve to make us look helpless and scared and to further embolden Al Queda. The only practical option for "punishing" the Taliban appeared to be bombing and cruise missiles. But in a country as backward as Afghanistan, could anything be more futile? Indeed, Clinton had already tried this, and the net result was to make us look silly and impotent.

But Bush had the courage to act despite the odds and he and his administration had the diplomatic and military skill to pull it off. Had he stopped there and focused on building a working country in Afghanistan, he would have been my hero. Instead, the success of the Afghan operation, which probably surprised even Bush, gave him and his administration a bad case of megalomania, and they decided that if they could do it in Afghanistan, then they could do it anywhere. Thus, we took our triumph in Afghanistan and threw it down the rat hole of Iraq. That is so sad. (For a description of what I think might have been, see this). But, the aftermath should not blind us to the remarkable courage and skill involved in the Afghan operation itself.

Israel/Palestine: I am slightly more ambivalent about Bush's actions with respect to Israel and the Palestinians. The ambivalence stems from Bush's April 2004 letter to Sharon, saying that "[i]n light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949." That statement, which appears to endorse Israeli retention of at least some of the West Bank settlements represented a major shift in US policy and is something I believe the United States will come to regret. Having given that prize to Sharon, though, enabled Bush to continue to pressure Sharon to follow through on the Gaza withdrawal (an truly wrenching event for Israel) and to pursue a policy, with which I whole heartedly agree, of providing financial and political support for the Palestinians. As I have argued elsewhere, the threat to US interests posed by radical Islam cannot be won by force of arms alone. The US must also address some of the causes of Arab antipathy to the US. And, while the plight of the Palestinians is not the only one of those causes, it is probably the single most important of them. Nothing would do more to improve US relations with the Arab world than for the Arabs to begin to see the US as an honest broker, as concerned about the Palestinians as it is about the Israelis. Bush seems to be moving in that direction, and, as such, this is another area in which he has my support.

Clean Air Act Reform:This one is a bit esoteric, but it is something I know a bit about, since I have been working with the Clean Air Act for over 25 years now. With the possible exception of his rejection of the Kyoto Treaty, Bush's efforts to reform the Clean Air Act's "new source review" programs have been the most wildly controversial of any of Bush's environmental policies. See, for instance, NRDC's attack, which is (believe it or not) one of the milder of the distortions leveled at Bush's proposals. I am not going to bore you with a point-by-point rebuttal, but virtually every statement made by NRDC is simply wrong as a matter of both fact and law.

The NSR program was originally designed, not to force reductions in emissions, but to prevent new sources and significant modification to existing sources from causing significant increases in emissions. Requirements for reductions needed to meet various health-based standards are contained in other provisions of the Act. Until the mid-90s, the NSR programs functioned fairly well in this regard, although there was widespread recognition that there were elements of the NSR program that needed to be changed. Indeed, EPA conducted NSR reform proceedings and rulemaking for nearly two decades. However, late in the Clinton Administration, USEPA's enforcement branch decided that it could use the NSR programs to produce emission reductions by initiating lawsuits and launching extraordinarily burdensome administrative investigations based on a theory that entire industries (refining, electric utilities, paper, etc.) had systematically violated NSR requirements for over 20 years. This claim appealed to environmental groups, who are readily inclined, even eager, to accept the notion that all companies are scofflaws. But anyone other than a dedicated conspiracy theorist would have realized, had he actually thought about it, that a claim that entire industries were ignoring the law is preposterous. It's like arguing that the entire Army is out of step. When everyone is out of compliance, no one is. Nevertheless, EPA launched its various NSR "enforcement initiatives" basing its claims on interpretations of the rules which were at least arguably at odds with EPA's own prior interpretations and which were clearly at odds with the common understanding of those rules that had emerged over the 20 or so years they had been in effect. Purporting to have "discovered" widespread (actually universal) noncompliance, what EPA actually did was to create it.

Not surprisingly, industry cried foul, and when Bush/Cheney were elected, industry gained an audience willing to listen. The result has been what the environmental mafia characterize as a sell-out. What Bush/Cheney actually proposed, though, was nothing of the kind. First, they adopted changes to the NSR rules that served to clarify what was required and to return the NSR program to its original purposes: assuring the significant new projects would not result in significant increases in emissions. Far from gutting these rules, the Bush changes are in a number of respects more stringent that what at least two courts have determined is required under the pre-existing rules. Second they proposed legislation that would have directly mandated significant emission reductions in nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides and mercury -- exactly what the enviros had said they wanted from NSR.

The enviro response: they opposed both. They want EPA to keep the NSR rules and continue to pursue emission reductions through enforcement actions. And, they oppose Clear Skies because it doesn't do enough.

This position is absolutely perverse. Despite almost ten years and millions upon millions of dollars, EPA has achieved almost nothing in it's litigation efforts. And, after a couple of early favorable judicial decisions, it has now lost three straight cases. In one of these, the 11th Circuit declared part of the Clean Air Act unconstitutional. And, in the two others, district court judges adopted interpretations of the "old" NSR rules that have been advocated by industry for years and that are actually substantially less stringent that the "reformed" rules the enviros so despise. And, by opposing Clear Skies because it didn't go far enough, they have successfully assured than nothing would be done in terms of mandating additional emission reductions.

I am very, very skeptical of the need for significant additional emission reductions. So, I am not alll that unhappy that the enviros have been so effective in preventing them. But, this is a case study in why liberal willingness to vehemently oppose "anything Bush just becuase it is Bush" is so totally counter- productive to the liberals' own interests.

Private Accounts For Social Security: For reasons discussed in more detail here, I agree with Bush that private accounts should be a component of Social Security reform.

CAFTA: While I must confess to knowing little about the details of CAFTA, I am a true believer when it comes to reducing trade barriers. So, I support anything which moves in this direction.

It's true, I do not believe Bush's "virtues" make up for his "vices." However, neither to I oppose everything he is doing.