Doug wrote:
> Because they really believed their own propaganda. Because they were
> a small, self-reinforcing circle of know-it-alls. They didn't listen
> to people who knew anything because they thought it was going to be a
> "cakewalk." Remember? I didn't think this was controversial, but
> evidently it is to some.
I remember that this was Bush administration propaganda: this was certainly how they sold it. But why assume that their idea of a 'cakewalk' is the same as yours? And why assume that was their first priority at any rate?
I don't doubt that there is an element of hubris, but this is not because of Iraq being divided and weak: on the contrary, this much has helped to delay the day on which they will be scampering for helicopters on the roof of the embassy.
> Huh? Federal nonmilitary spending is 2.3% of GDP, unchanged since the
> mid/late 1990s, and below what it was when Daddy Bush left office
> (2.5% - Clinton took it down to 2.1% in 1997, and it rose to 2.2% as
> he was heading for the exit).
Yep - hence the ensuing query:
> > Why the military Keynesianism?
>
> They want to build a lot of weapons, and threaten and kill people who
> get in their way. That's obvious. They haven't been very good at
> winning wars though, have they?
I'm happy that insurgent populaces have caused them such trouble, but you mustn't mistake this for something unique to the Bushies: Clinton didn't do terribly well in Somalia either, for instance.
But that's missing the point: the US government knows as have every government since world war two that massive armaments expenditure stimulates growth and also diminishes the tendency of profit rates to be squeezed by the overaccumulation of capital. This is a delicate balancing act, to be sure, especially since Vietnam bankrupted much of the capitalist class, but it was a technique revived by Reagan for some brief bursts of growth, and it is now being used by Bush.
Even if that's controversial, you already implicitly concede that the Bush administration accepts the principle of massive state involvement in the economy if it is for purposes that the US ruling class would find amenable.
They do not act as neoliberal ideologues, but as people consciously looking to transfer huge wealth to the rich. I bet there's a de facto incomes policy too.
> You certainly have an original view of US politics. Most people here
> think the Bush admin is crippled, and will not be able to accomplish
> anything on their agenda for the next two years. We'll see who's right.
I'd like to think that this is so: but who's going to stop them? Nancy Pelosi? The Democrats who voted for the Patriot Act and for war powers? The Democrats who voted for No Child Left Behind? Is there a difference of principle?
_________________________________________________________________ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d