<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type> <META content="MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hi all,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I was struck by a passage in a mesage sent by Doug (pasted below) where Colin Powell is said to be upset by the ideological nature of the Bush administration. This got me thinking about a problem I've been trying to sort out in my head: is the current Bush administration radically different from other presidencies?  Or does GWB just represent a continuity of longstanding trends, going back to at least Reagan if not much earlier (either FDR/Truman or even Theodore Roosevelt's imperialism of spectacle)? Leaving aside issue of competence, some would agrue that GWB is simply a cruder version of longstanding American imperialism. And it does seem that many of the elements of GWB's reign replicate stuff we've seen under Reagan. On the other hand, why does GWB seem much scarier than any other recent US leader?</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Here is the passage I was thinking about:</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Powell's mentor from the National War College, Harlan Ullman on Powell's<BR>discomfort with the Bush team: "This is, in many ways, the most ideological<BR>administration Powell's ever had to work for. Not only is it very<BR>ideological, but they have a vision. And I think Powell is inherently<BR>uncomfortable with grand visions like that ... There's an ideological core<BR>to Bush, and I think it's hard for Powell to penetrate that."</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>