[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar
Nov. 3rd, 2004 11:38 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bryantWhat, then, are the fair expectations? How do I judge the next four years?
Things I do not expect of Bush:
- Peace in Iraq. Not because I think he's incapable of it, but because I think it's an incredibly difficult problem. I wouldn't have expected Kerry to make Iraq work either.
Things I am willing to judge him on:
- North Korea. He needs to make progress. I define that as North Korea reducing the number of nuclear weapons on hand. He said he could do this with his approach, and he needs to follow through.
- Iran. See above. If Iran gets nukes in the next four years, I'll count that against Bush.
- High school graduation rates. They need to be better, over the next four years, than they were during -- let's be fair, let's say Clinton's second term.
- Homes. 7 million new, occupied homes within the next four years. It's part of his platform.
- No new draft.
- Reduction in terrorism. More US citizens died in terrorist attacks in 2003 than died in 2004. On the other hand, fewer people overall died in terrorist attacks in 2003 than in 2002. I'm gonna use two numbers as the benchmark, as reported by the State Department -- overall deaths and overall number of people wounded.
- Deficit halved by 2008. Again, it's part of his platform.
- Men on Mars. This is kinda cheaty of me, but hell, he promised and I'd like to see it.
What am I missing? I'm trying to keep it to things he's said he could do and things that are reasonable to expect. And are any of these unfair?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 06:00 pm (UTC)Things I do not expect of Bush:
* Peace in Iraq. Not because I think he's incapable of it, but because I think it's an incredibly difficult problem. I wouldn't have expected Kerry to make Iraq work either.
I expected Kerry would do a better job of it than Bush, because he was willing to accept the premise that things had been badly screwed up over there, while Bush was not.
Things I am willing to judge him on:
* North Korea. He needs to make progress. I define that as North Korea reducing the number of nuclear weapons on hand. He said he could do this with his approach, and he needs to follow through.
He's wrong. Clinton's approach was working. Bush drove the North Korean leadership back into their bunkers.
* Iran. See above. If Iran gets nukes in the next four years, I'll count that against Bush.
It'll make a fine excuse for an invasion. I, for one, can hardly blame the Iranians for wanting nukes, given what happened to Saddam.
* High school graduation rates. They need to be better, over the next four years, than they were during -- let's be fair, let's say Clinton's second term.
Every Child Left Behind.
* Homes. 7 million new, occupied homes within the next four years. It's part of his platform.
True, but four years ago he promised a lot of things too. I'm sure his plans for this one (if he even has any) involve cutting taxes for the rich again, and more trickle-down voodoo.
* No new draft.
Iraq's a quagmire, and Syria and Iran await. Or, there'll be some new threat that we actually need troops to handle.
* Reduction in terrorism. More US citizens died in terrorist attacks in 2003 than died in 2004. On the other hand, fewer people overall died in terrorist attacks in 2003 than in 2002. I'm gonna use two numbers as the benchmark, as reported by the State Department -- overall deaths and overall number of people wounded.
This would require him both making actually catching terrorists like OBL a priority, spending money on actual security here at home, and not giving more and more people in the world a reason to want to blow us up. None of these things will happen.
* Deficit halved by 2008. Again, it's part of his platform.
Yes, but he expects to accomplish it while at the same time leaving in place his current tax cuts (which will somehow magically cause a huge amount of growth in the economy) and conducting wars around the world. It's not happening. It won't even be close.
* Men on Mars. This is kinda cheaty of me, but hell, he promised and I'd like to see it.
See above. There simply won't be the money for this, and I don't think Bush really cares enough to fight for it anyway.
Frankly, Bush has done nothing during this campaign to make me think that his next term in office will see any fundamental changes in the way he does business (at least not for the better). Why? Because he doesn't believe he did
anything wrong
during the last four years.no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 07:07 pm (UTC)3 or 4 years from now, when Bush screws the pooch, I'd like to be able to point back at this post and say "look, I'm not making these criteria up on the fly. This is what I said I'd demand of Bush in 2004."
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 06:03 pm (UTC)Jobs/Economy. Admittedly, it takes several years for politics to effect economic realities, but he will have had 8 years in office to promote his economic policies. A reduction in outsourced jobs, increase in domestic jobs and corresponding drop in unemployment (at least to the level it was when he entered office 4 years ago), and actual evidence that the 'recession'/'correction' is really over.
New Military Actions. I fully expect to see troops in N. Korea, Iran and/or Cuba within 8 months. Quite frankly, I'd rather not see that. Although these could be rolled into your first 2 points.
Social Security. Most likely it will be in, or on its way to, Private hands by the end of Bush's administration. However, there are better ways of handling the transition and ensuring SS's existence in 50 years.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 07:10 pm (UTC)Heh. Yes indeed.
... and corresponding drop in unemployment...
I thought about this. I actually don't think I know how to measure it accurately. I have not yet figured out what a payroll job vs. a non-payroll job vs. a seasonal adjustment vs. etc. is. If I could figure out the detailed criteria I'd add this.
New Military Actions
Agreed, but I can't honestly make this a point of judgement. Bear in mind that I was pro-invading Afghanistan -- there are situations in which it's legitimate to use force. And making the decision about legitimacy is subjective, even when I know I'm right.
Social security
Can't judge his success based on policy decisions. I wanted stuff that everybody could agree would be good.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 06:26 pm (UTC)Ooh! Ooh! I've got one - it starts out "Congress shall make no law..." and goes from there. Not that I think Bush's record thus far has been as abominable as some people make it out to be, but I don't have a lot of hope for the next four years.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 07:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 07:42 pm (UTC)Don't forget...
Date: 2004-11-03 07:09 pm (UTC)Your list is fair, I think. The environment is going to get worse, we're going to be more isolated in the world, we're going to see more jobs outsourced, our civil liberties will be further curtailed, industries will be deregulated up the waz -- but he never said any of that wouldn't happen, so we can't really hold it against him when it does.
Oh, I have one -- how about a more secure Israel? Certainly a lot of American Jews are expecting him to deliver that. Do we count it against Bush when a nuke goes off in Tel Aviv?
btw, was this a list of things you actually want to happen, or a list of things he's expected to do? There's a couple other things he is expected to do but we obviously would rather he didn't...
For example, abortion and gays. They were big election issues ("values" was cited by some large percentage of Bush supporters as their biggest reason for voting for him) even though they weren't mentioned in the campaign much. I'd think it'd be fair to judge him on whether he appoints justices who reverse Roe v Wade -- he didn't address it explicitly but it's obvious his supporters expect him to do this, and they should consider him a failure if he doesn't deliver.
And there's also all the constitutional amendments he's proposed. Banning gay marriage, banning flag-burning, permitting teacher-led school prayer, and at least one other that I forget at the moment. Should we hold him to getting those into the Constitution and count him a failure if he doesn't?
Re: Don't forget...
Date: 2004-11-03 07:13 pm (UTC)Snicker.
Hm. I like a more secure Israel. Oh, damn, that's the one I forgot... he needs to somehow take the opportunity offered by Arafat's impending death and do something with it. I'll think about how to judge that one. Good call.
This is things I think anyone reasonable will expect him to do. I'm not going to criticize him for failing to do things I want him to fail on, even if he promised to do them. Cause, you know. Only fair.
He'll get slammed enough by his own if he fails to get Roe v. Wade reversed.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 07:52 pm (UTC)Re: Don't forget...
Date: 2004-11-04 03:51 pm (UTC)Reduce the number of induced abortions in the US. Say that Bush is successful on this count if he reduces the number of induced abortions per 1000 women of childbearing age per year below the level in, say, 1996. (Want to make it hard for him? Choose 2000 as the baseline year)
The tough part about evaluating this is going to be finding accurate statistics. All evidence points to the CDC discontinuing its annual abortion survey results after the 2000 numbers were released. I can't find more recent national stats anywhere, despite the frequent claim that abortion rates have been on the rise the last four years. Isn't there some sort of "abortion policy information center" that publishes this kind of information?
Re: Don't forget...
Date: 2004-11-04 04:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 12:43 am (UTC)