The Ever-Changing Legacy

Elon Stricker
Lauren Holt Matthews
Political Rhetoric - English 101
December 1, 2008

George W. Bush will leave office on January 20, 2008. Bush felt the constant rise and fall of approval ratings during his eight year administration, and he will now leave office as one of the most unpopular presidents in United States history. Bush’s legacy was in constant fluctuation. Incompetence will forever stain Bush’s presidency, but so will sheer misfortune. The attacks of September 11, 2001, the War in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, and the financial crisis are the four events that stand out during Bush’s tenure. His incompetence merely exacerbated the misfortune each situation presented. Despite the level of incompetence that Bush displayed in handling each situation, history constantly proves that time defines a president’s ultimate legacy. History will remember Bush by the long-term effects of his policies as president, not by the state of nation during the time of his departure. The way history unfolds will determine the way in which historians and the world remember the legacy of George W. Bush.

Bush’s legacy went through transformations even during his eight years as president. He was famous for four things when he became president in 2000. A controversial supreme court decision awarded him his office, he quickly passed a huge tax cut, he enacted a major education bill, and most notably he was his father’s son. His presidency had no real direction. Bush had no true identity that would make him stand out in the American presidential chronicles. All of that changed on September 11, 2001. That day would have been the defining moment of any presidency, but for Bush it was also the opportunity he needed. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, it was a turning point in the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. FDR was credited with bringing the United States out of the depression. An impossible feat, Roosevelt’s New Deal helped bring about the recovery of the nation’s economy. However, on the day that “will live in infamy,” Roosevelt’s legacy changed. FDR instantly became the war time president that led the U.S. to decisively defeat its enemies in WWII and save the world from tyranny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgthakFtZQY

George W. Bush experienced a similar turning point in his legacy during his presidency. The terrorist attacks of September 11th, (the first attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor), provided Bush with the direction and sense of purpose he needed. "You have to view this as the seminal event of his presidency," said Norman Ornstein, a political analyst at the American Enterprise Institute. "It transformed him, it focused him and gave a sense of purpose to his presidency that really had not existed before" (Fox News 1). Bush went from being a president with no real identity, to a war-time president seeking to fight the war against terror and win it. In the immediate aftermath of the horrors of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, America rallied behind Bush and sought vengeance and justice. Bush promised to provide both. His approval ratings skyrocketed and there was little he could not accomplish with the power of public support behind him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMiqEUBux3o

Bush used that public support to start two wars in close succession. The first was the war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and the other was the war in Iraq. Bush’s combination of incompetence and misfortune in the War on Terror is another example of his legacy fluctuation. Osama Bin Laden was mastermind and leader behind the 9/11 attacks. Concerning his capture, Bush stated confidently, “We’ll smoke him out of cave and get him eventually” (Fox News 1). Although the War on Terror was a just cause and maintained the unwavering support of the American people, Bush’s incompetence impeded its success. He completely underestimated the difficulty of not only finding Osama Bin Laden, but also eradicating Al Qaeda. Bush assumed that although 9/11 revealed the potential vulnerability of the United States, the U.S. military forces could still defeat any enemy with ease. Bush’s incompetence in the War on Terror merely exacerbated his misfortune. He failed to view the perpetrators of 9/11 as a new kind of enemy.

The fact that Al Qaeda and the terrorism network became a new, unconventional enemy created Bush’s greatest misfortune. When FDR witnessed the attack on Pearl Harbor, the course of action was clear. He declared war on Japan, a sovereign nation, and defeated them through military strength and prowess. On 9/11, a new breed of enemy attacked America, one that carries no flag and recognizes no borders. There was no precedent in the fight against global terrorism, and that was Bush’s further misfortune. Bush, along with the entire U.S. military, produced no effective strategy to combat an enemy with no army, no borders, and no rules. Therefore, Bush’s presidency and eventual legacy experienced further turning points when he resorted to the invasion of Iraq.

The legacy of the Bush Administration took a permanent turn with the invasion of Iraq. As the War on Terror failed to capture Osama Bin Laden and eradicate Al Qaeda, Bush’s incompetence exacerbated his misfortune yet again. Bush should have evaluated the failures of the effort against terrorism, and recognized that new enemies required new strategies. Instead, his incompetence led him to invade Iraq under the pretense they possessed nuclear weapons. Barbara Kellerman is a political history scholar at Harvard University. She noted, “The level of incompetence after the initial 'mission accomplished' was so acute that my guess is, even if the decision to invade might be historically justified, the incompetence that succeeded it ... I think that's going to be very difficult to ever alter our negative perception of that" (Hornick 1). Not only did Bush use public support to invade Iraq as part of the “War on Terror,” he completely mishandled the Iraq War. His incompetence created a very unpopular war that has lasted longer than WWII or the Vietnam War. Despite the misfortune Bush faced as Islamic extremism posed novel, unprecedented threats, his incompetence produced the Iraq War which sacrificed American lives, American treasure, and the American international reputation

Like 9/11, Hurricane Katrina is another unfortunate event that occurred during Bush’s tenure. Bush’s incompetence yet again exacerbated his misfortune. On August 31, 2005, Hurricane Katrina struck the gulf coast and reeked massive destruction. Americans watched in horror as countless people died and thousands had no food and shelter. America also watched as the federal government failed to effectively respond. Paul Krugman of the New York Times writes, “But why should we be surprised by any of this? The Bush administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina — the mixture of neglect of those in need, obliviousness to their plight, and self-congratulation in the face of abject failure — has become standard operating procedure. These days, it’s Katrina all the time” (Krugman 1). Krugman implies that the Bush administration operates with the same incompetence in every situation, not just with Hurricane Katrina. Hurricane Katrina was undoubtedly an unstoppable, unfortunate force of mother nature. However, the same lack of judgment Bush employed during the War on Terror manifests equal failure when Bush applied it to Katrina. Today Americans continues to stake his reputation based on those failures.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf1D0A4JZNU

The final detrimental event of Bush’s presidency is the financial crisis. Bush’s incompetence in the economic sector in no way helped prevent this crisis. However, the financial crisis differs somewhat in its nature than the War in Terror and Hurricane Katrina. While equally unfortunate, the financial crisis and its negative effects do not immediately vilify Bush. President Elect, Barak Obama, gave a speech on the economic crisis on September 16, 2008 in which he blamed the Bush administration for decreased regulation of Wall Street. Obama then said, “We've had this philosophy for eight years. We know the results. You feel it in your own lives. Jobs have disappeared, and peoples' life savings have been put at risk. Millions of families face foreclosure, and millions more have seen their home values plummet” (Obama 1). However, while the republican platform generally promotes a smaller government with decreased regulation, there were many factors outside of Bush’s control that caused the crisis. The financial institutions such as Lehman brothers failed on their own. The housing market collapsed due to investment banks handing out terrible mortgage plans. Many people today owe more on their houses than the houses are actually worth. Greed on Wall Street set up this economic crisis. Bush did not create it in eight short years.

Bush’s incompetence exacerbated the misfortunes of the War on Terror, Hurricane Katrina, and even during the current financial crisis. Although the economic crisis had many intricate factors that most Americans don’t even comprehend, the public blames Bush for the country’s economic woes. After all, he the president when it happened. Therefore, they elected Bush’s opposite, Democratic candidate Obama, to succeed him. However, as Obama takes office and even after, American history will continue to evolve. The recent economic policy decisions of President Bush will affect the manner in which history unfolds.
After the financial crisis hit, Bush settled on the 700 billion dollar rescue package for the nation’s financial institutions. He then called a summit of the G7 finance ministers to discuss the world economy. Bush also continues to reassure the American people about the nation’s economic future. Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times writes, “It is, in short, an intensive public relations effort, designed, White House officials say, to keep Mr. Bush front-and-center in explaining the intricacies of a complicated and fast-moving financial crisis” (Stolberg 1). The current instability of the financial market suggest that most Americans and investors do not feel reassured by Bush’s many efforts. However, history could prove everyone wrong and change Bush’s legacy. What if the economy makes a complete recovery? What if historians credit, at least in part, that future recovery to the immediate actions Bush took following the onset of the financial crisis?

Just as Bush’s reputation transformed during his eight years as president, so could his legacy in the years to come. If the economy recovers and Bush receives partial credit, his legacy could slowly start to recover as well. Bush’s legacy may transform in a way comparable to that of President Harry Truman. Truman experienced the same sort of “roller coaster” presidency as Bush. According to CNN polling of the time, Truman enjoyed an 87 percent approval rating in June 1945, which later fell to a 23 percent approval rating in January 1952. Harvard’s political history scholar Barbara Kellerman remarked:

"One of the things that has been conventionally done is to compare George W. Bush to Harry Truman, both of whom had upon leaving office dismal approval ratings and of course as it is well known by now, Harry Truman's reputation has, by virtually every account, not only improved, but I would say escalated nearly to the top of the list of greater American presidents" (Hornick 1).

President Truman, like Bush, faced many foreign policy challenges such as the aftermath of WWII, the Cold War, and the Korean War. Truman received harsh criticism for sending troops into Korea, but history now supports that decision. The Iraq War is highly unpopular today. If in the future Iraq is a stable democracy and its citizens enjoy a relatively peaceful way of life, historians may praise Bush’s invasion of Iraq.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmQD_W8Pcxg

Bush’s legacy underwent transformations in his eight years as president. He went from a popular wartime president, to a target of blame for all the nation’s problems. His current legacy reflects his incompetence and its exacerbation of his misfortune. History may remember Bush for his failures with the War on Terror, Hurricane Katrina, and the financial crisis. However, Bush’s legacy may also undergo yet another transformation as history unfolds, and future Americans and historians could easily view his presidency differently than public opinion does today. The long-term effects of George W. Bush and his policies will determine his ultimate legacy, not his approval rating as he leaves office this January.

The Real Results

Please note: this paper is not meant to be an attack on Obama. The purpose was to closely examine proposed plans of politicians (in this case Obama) and note the actual outcomes of their proposed policies. Many politicians have made promises similar to those of Obama's. Obama's name was chosen solely because 1) I wrote about McCain on my last paper and needed a new person to write about 2) Obama proposed all the plans I wrote about, which allowed me to organize the paper more effectively. I am not, by any means, suggesting any other candidate is more competent than the current President-elect. When reading this paper, please focus on the issues, not the person who proposed them this past Presidential Election.

Jerry Xie
Mrs. Matthews
English 101

He appears to be the “dream president” that America has been waiting for. Barack Obama has elegance, composure, respectability, and the perfect plans to change the United States for the better—or does he? Barack Obama won the election by promising several plans and policies that would help the middle class “get back on their feet” and be able to afford basic needs in their lives. An old cliché states, “When something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.” Many of Obama’s plans have major flaws that the general public is unaware of. If Barack Obama’s tax, healthcare, and economic plans ever get passed exactly as proposed, they will affect the United States of America in very negative ways.

One of Obama’s major appeals to the middle class was his determination to fix the tax code in America to make it fair for everyone. On his official campaign website, Obama presented his tax plans as “responsible, fair, empowering all Americans to achieve the American dream” (“Responsible Tax Cuts for Ordinary Americans”). Assuming that the Obama tax plan works perfectly and exactly as originally proposed, a few calculations will show that it is in fact completely unfair. Assume there are two male, heads of households who have a wife and two kids. The first (named Bob) makes $200,000, and the second (named Rich) makes $300,000. Under the Obama tax plan, Bob would be in the 28% income tax bracket, and Rich would be in the 35% income tax bracket. However, Bob would be eligible for additional tax cuts and childcare payments, but Rich would not be eligible (“Responsible Tax Cuts for Ordinary Americans” and “McCain and Obama Tax Plans 101”). After taxes, social security, childcare, and other credits and payments are factored in, Bob would have a net income of $136,600, while Rich would have a net income of $150,300 (“New tax brackets for all taxpayers”). The difference between the two incomes before taxes was $100,000, but after taxes and additional benefits, the margin is down to less than $14,000. Does that sound fair? Rich, like many Americans, may have an incentive based job and get paid more for doing more work. If he can make almost the same amount of money by working less, why would he possibly want to work more? Not only is Barack Obama’s tax plan unfair, but it also discourages people from working harder and trying to earn more money.

Aside from being unfair, Barack Obama’s tax plan will not work because of all the external factors that can affect it. The Obama tax plan includes a benchmark. If one makes below that amount, one would receive a tax cut along with several other benefits. If one makes above that amount, Obama believes that one “should give back a portion of the tax cuts received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness” (“Responsible Tax Cuts for Ordinary Americans”). During the debates and other public appearances Obama emphasized that he would cut taxes for 95% of all Americans. That percentage has never been accurate, but it could decrease drastically due to several factors. Obama originally set the income cap to receive his tax cut at $250,000 a year, which meant that 93%, not 95%, of Americans would receive the tax cut. Then, it became $200,000 (82%).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SU0JTrJx-KY

Joe Biden hinted that it might be $150,000 (47.6%) (“A Tax Phantom is Stalking You” and “Obama’s tax-cut threshold shrinking?”). Finally, Obama blatantly stated that the middle class was anyone making less than $97,000 a year, and that this included 94% of the American population.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-SavgJlBLA

If Obama cannot even get the numbers straight on his own plan, how can he expect the plan to be successfully passed and enforced? Also, because the nation has never faced Obama’s type of tax cut (one that uses a benchmark), tax brackets will have to be redone. This could result in countless loopholes in the tax systems that individuals and companies will take advantage of. As a result, tax evasion will become an even bigger problem in the country. Finally, with the economy in distress and the national deficit increasing rapidly, the dollar will inevitably suffer from inflation. Obama has said, “the United States government should not worry about the deficit in the next few years” (“Obama says aiding economy trumps budget deficit”). If the national debt increases, the value of the dollar will obviously decrease. In a few years, $250,000 might only be worth $150,000 in today’s money. Overall, Obama’s tax plan is neither fair, responsible, nor realistic at all.

Another one of Obama’s strong appeals to middle class voters was his healthcare plan. Obama claims his healthcare plan will “increase quality, provide coverage for everyone, and save money” (“Plan for a Healthy America). Again, Obama’s plan sounds, for lack of a better term, amazing. But how exactly is Obama planning on following through on all these claims, and what will the long-term effects be? As for increasing quality, Obama is planning on requiring doctors and hospitals to prove they provide quality care. To implement this plan, an army of new officials will be hired by the government to keep a watchful eye on doctors and hospitals and collect information from them to insure that they are providing quality care for their patients. As a result, doctors and hospitals will have to spend money to hire staff that will collect and report this information to the government. Obama has also called for $10 billion in new healthcare information technology spending (“Obama’s Healthcare Plan”). First of all, how can doctors and hospitals provide better care for their patients when they have to spend so much money proving it to the government? Hiring staff to collect information will no doubt increase costs of operations for them. In order to keep their income the same, doctors will have no choice but to see more patients daily than they do at the current time. This means that there will be less time that can be spent on each patient. One does not have to be a doctor to see how this will actually decrease the quality of care for patients. Going back to the $10 billion on information technology spending, a study (http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/167/13/1400) published in the Archives of Internal Medicine showed that information technology did not make a difference in healthcare quality. Comparing practices that used an electronic medical record with those that did not, researchers found no difference in 14 quality measures, improvement in 2 outcome measures, and a worse outcome on 1 measure. $10 billion is a lot of money. It is neither smart nor good for the country to spend that much money on something that has proven to be ineffective.

As for providing coverage for everyone, Obama’s plan is to shift the cost of insurance to the government. Basically, anyone that is unable to afford private health insurance can sign up to be part of a government health insurance program at a reduced cost. Supporters of the plan claim that this is the fair, affordable healthcare plan that will finally allow struggling immigrants and other middle class Americans to get the medical care they are entitled to (“Plan for a Healthy America”). Those supporters could not be more wrong. First, “struggling immigrants” are not the ones that “cannot afford” healthcare. Of the 47 million uninsured residents in America in 2007, 38.8% (18.236 million) were White, 37.2% (17.484 million) were African American, 17.8% (8.366 million) were Hispanic, 2.8% (1.316 million) were Asian, and 3.4% (1.598 million) were classified as “Other” (“Argument”). The U.S. population’s distribution by race in 2007 was White 67.5% (202.5 million), Hispanic 14% (42 million), African American 12.1% (36.3 million), and Asian 6.4% (19.2 million) (“US Census Bureau”). So with simple division (number without insurance/total population of race), one can come up with the results that 9.01% of Whites, 48.17% of African Americans, 19.92% of Hispanics, and 6.85% of Asians were uninsured in 2007. The percentage of uninsured Hispanics and Asians (the two most likely to be immigrants) is less than half of the percentage of Whites and African Americans (the two most likely to be American citizens). Although not all Hispanics and Asians are immigrants, and not all Whites and African Americans are US citizens, the percentages vary widely enough to conclude that immigrants do not make up the majority of Americans who cannot afford health insurance. Also, simple calculations will show that there should be almost no one in America who cannot afford health insurance. For individuals working a minimum wage job, the net income after taxes, fees, and benefits is a little over $21,000 (“Wage and Hour Division”). The average annual cost of living for an individual (including food, water, shelter, and necessary supplies) is around $14,000 (“Cost of Living Adjustments”). Therefore, the individual has about $7,000 to spend on items and services of his or her choice. The average health care plan is only $4,400 annually meaning that the individual should easily be able to afford health insurance. For families of four, with two adults working minimum wage jobs, the net income after taxes, fees, and benefits is a little over $44,000 (“Wage and Hour Division”). The average annual cost of living is $23,00, and the average family healthcare plan is $12,100 annually (“The Cost of Raising Children”). Again there should be no reason that healthcare coverage is not attained easily for every member of the family. As for unfortunate circumstances such as single parent working a minimum wage job or handicapped family members, it would be much harder, if not impossible, to afford healthcare. However, only 10.1% of those who could not afford healthcare fall under those categories. The majority of the remaining 89.9% listed “inability to find a job” as the reason for not purchasing health insurance. There are more than 150 million available jobs in the Unites States today. 65 million of them are listed as requiring no prior training or experience (“Employment Situation Summary”). Allowing those that do not make a reasonable effort to get a job to enroll into a government sponsored healthcare program is irresponsible and unfair to those that have worked hard to attain it. Under Obama’s plan, the government will spend $130 billion a year to help make sure that everyone who wants health insurance can purchase it at a price that is affordable to them (“A Detailed Analysis of Barack Obama’s Healthcare Reform Plan”). Where is this $100 billion coming from? The answer is from taxpayers who have worked hard to earn money to provide for themselves and their families, yet are now forced to provide for those who simply sit back and wait for free aid (“Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?”).

In addition to being unfair to hard workers, Obama’s healthcare plan could also devastate the medical field. Look at it from a doctor’s point of view. The government is saying that one must provide quality care to everyone who seeks it because they are “entitled” to it. The doctor must hire staff to record data to report to the government. Because of this, he/she must see more patients everyday and work even longer hours. Now, the government will pay the expenses for those that “cannot afford” to cover medical expenses. Government payments never favor the doctor. A private insurance claim can bring in an average of $60 a patient. Medicare brings in around $40 a patient. Medicaid brings in, at the most, $35 a patient. Insurance payments to doctors under the Obama healthcare plan will be similar to those of Medicaid because both are paying for patients whose incomes do not allow them pay full price for medical insurance. Medicare and Medicaid payment have been on a steep decline ever since the late 90’s. Also, Obama has promised to cut the cost for American using private insurance plans. The insurance industry is a business. If the government forces them to lower their premiums, they will have no choice but to do so. However, there is nothing stopping them from reducing the amount they pay doctors so that they make the same profit. Doctors today must now see twice the amount of patients per day in order to receive the same income. As a result, they are often overworked and most lose their motivation. In a recent survey by The Physician’s Foundation, 60% of doctors said that they would not recommend medicine as a career. 90% have said the time they devote to non-clinical paperwork has increased, forcing them to spend less time with each patient. More than 55% say that they will retire, remove themselves from active patient care, or seek a new profession (“Many doctors plan to quit or cut back: survey”). Who can blame them? It takes at least seven years, plus hundreds of thousands of dollars and intense studying to become a primary care doctor. Specialists require even more time, money, and work. If the salary is not worth the schooling expense, time, and effort, the number of doctors will decrease. As a result, the quality of care will also decrease due to doctors having to see more patients in less time. Universal healthcare sounds very good to the untrained ear, but as one can clearly see, it is unfair to the majority of the people, including the doctors who work countless hours to provide patients with the best treatment possible.

Finally, Barack Obama has made it appear as if he has the perfect plans to fix the economy. A closer look will reveal just how unrealistic and dangerous some of his proposed plans are. Going back to tax cuts, Obama plans on raising taxes on “companies that ship jobs overseas”, yet not on “firms that create jobs here in the US” (“Responsible Tax Cuts for Ordinary Americans. What happens if a company ships a few jobs overseas but creates a few more here in the United States? Only Obama might know the answer to that question. But assuming everything goes as planned, corporations would have their taxes raised from 35% to 39.6%. Sole proprietors and partnerships (mostly small businesses) would have their taxes raised from 37.9% all the way to 50.3% due to the fact that they must also pay the Medicare component of the payroll tax. Many Democrats in Congress have proposed making all corporations also pay this 50-plus percent rate (“An argument against Obama’s tax plan”). Since corporations make billions of dollars a year, Obama believes that taxing them can bring in addition funds for the government to use. This is where he is wrong. It’s true that major corporation make big money, but taking away half of their income can be devastating for the economy. Corporations and other businesses create the majority of the jobs in America. If their income is cut, they will also cut the number of people they employ. Even Obama will agree that unemployment is a bad thing, but unemployment will be exactly what results if he decides to pass a major tax hike on corporations and other businesses. Obama also claims that his tax raise on the “wealthy” will help balance out the billions of dollars he has in proposed spending. That would be true if he did not cut taxes for the “middle class” and provide them with additional credits such as childcare benefits and employment bonuses. A study conducted by the Tax Policy Center found that Obama’s “tax plan will cost the United States treasury $6 billion a year not including tax evasion and fraud” (“Tax plan face off: Obama vs. McCain). Once again, Barack Obama’s tax plans have proven to be detrimental to the well being of the United States.

Another one of Obama’s plans to improve the economy is to raise the minimum wage. He claims that by raising the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour, “full time workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation, and housing” (“Plan to Combat Poverty”). First of all, most minimum wage workers are not “full time workers.” 75% of minimum wage workers are college students or teenagers, and 23% are seniors age 65 and over (“Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers”). And in order to “help” the 2% that is remaining, Obama is risking greatly inflating the value of the dollar. It does not take statistics to figure out why raising the minimum wage is actually a useless if not bad thing to do. If the minimum wage is raised, the salaries of migrant workers and other agricultural workers will go up. As a result, the farmer or factory owner must pay a larger amount in salaries. This will result in prices of the finished product going up due to the increased cost that is needed to produce them. $9.50 may sound like a good amount of money right now. But how good would it sound if a gallon of milk or a pound of tomatoes cost $9.50? With the economy in the condition it is in at the current time, America cannot afford having the value of the dollar decrease even further.

Obama has also made a naïve claim about how he will restrict trade with China until they improve human rights in the country. Instead of looking to the economic powerhouse for help like the rest of the world, Obama is willing to risk the well being of the US economy to combat an issue he knows nothing about, cannot do anything about, and has no business doing anything about. At the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, Chinese President Hu Jintao told the conference of world leaders that China “would work alongside the international community to strengthen cooperation and protect international markets” (“Obama sees long haul ahead, China offers help”). Dozens of world leaders have signed a global free trade deal to offset the economic crisis, but Obama wants to restrict trade with a country that exports $260 billion of goods to the United States every year (“Foreign Trade Statistics”). Just to prove how devastating this trade restriction can be, 80% of American flags are imported from China. The flags alone bring in $60 million annually in revenue for the companies selling them (“Even when Old Glory is Made in China”). Obama restricting trade with China will not only hurt the US economy, but maybe also damage the patriotism of millions of Americans.

Last, Obama promised countless times during his campaign that he would balance the budget. It does not take a genius to figure out that there is no possible way to do that with his proposed plans and programs. Obama’s major spending plans include $150 billion for energy efficiency research and $130 billion for healthcare. Yet his proposed plan for paying for the new spending, raising taxes on businesses and the “wealthy”, has already been shown to decrease the deficit even more. In fact, a study done by an independent agency shows that Obama’s plans will increase the national debt by over $3.7 trillion over the next four years (“Tax plan face off: Obama vs. McCain”). Again, increasing the national debt will not help the economy. The value of the dollar will inevitably decrease, and people will find that they need more and more money to buy the same goods and services.

The United States of America claims to be the richest country in the world. The American dream is all abut working hard and using the country’s abundant resources to accomplish one’s goals. Barack Obama’s tax proposals will not help deserving people achieve their dreams, but instead punish those who seek to better their lives through hard work and sacrifice. Barack Obama’s healthcare plan will not improve the quality and cost of healthcare, but instead cost taxpayers and doctors billions of dollars. Barack Obama’s proposed economic policies and plans will not help the country out of the recession, but instead put the country in risk of a serious depression. Barack Obama’s campaign emphasized the optimistic message of hope for America. Now the only thing one can hope for is that his proposed plans and policies never get passed.

(A Note About Sources: For my project, I used an incredible site that had a massive amount of archived campaign advertisements. Regrettably I was unable to upload many of these videos onto the blog. Although I managed to find some substitutions, I encourage all of you to follow along on the site in order to watch the videos as I discuss them in the paper.)

Nicolaas Dalton

Ms. Matthews

English 101- Political Rhetorics

23 November 2008

The Influence of Negative Campaigning

When the American people think about presidential campaigns, they generally maintain the same point of view; all politicians will say whatever they need to in order to acquire more votes. But beyond this shallow, pessimistic view of our election process, there are many subtleties to the ways that candidates discredit and invalidate their opponents. In recent elections, the American people saw the evolution of the art of negative campaigning. Each election season, voters are subjected to thousands of negative political advertisements. These small infomercials usually focus on a small piece of a candidate’s history or, for an incumbent, a blunder in their first term. Campaigns buy time on nearly every television station in an attempt to get their message to the American voters. As a result, television viewers are bombarded with political advertisements for months during election years. Although most studies found that viewers don’t like negative campaigning (Birmingham Political Examiner), none can deny that negative campaigning advertisements have played a massive role in deciding the last couple of elections. Throughout the last five elections, these ads took many different forms, but the lesson is the same: the campaign that uses negative advertising most effectively has the upper hand.

The most effective way for campaigns to get their advertisements to the public in recent years is through television. A study by MSN Money found that in 1992, 94.7% of American households had a color television. A more recent study conducted by Pew Internet and American Life Project found that 69% of Americans get their news from television. Put those facts together, and it is almost impossible to ignore the influence that television has on voters. Television advertisements are how most voters learn about the candidates. In a brief clip, the candidates can inform the viewer of their side of the story. These short, one-sided arguments can seriously effect the way that voters view the candidates. One thirty-second commercial during prime-time television can reach over fifty million voters. The effect of the influence, however, depends upon the content of the commercials themselves. The most effective negative campaign advertisements focus on a small part of the truth, and use this truth to tarnish a candidate. It is not uncommon to see advertisements that use a small piece of evidence to back up an emotional appeal. One candidate can often present their opponent as a poor choice to protect American ideals and values. The implication is that if such a candidate is elected, the American people will be at greater risk both physically and economically. Yet, no matter what issues take importance on election day, the results are the same. As Karen Harper of the Birmingham Political Examiner puts it, “negative campaigning works. . .The more mud one candidate slings at the other, the more votes he or she seems to get.” In short, the threats to America’s security and prosperity change overtime, but negative campaign advertisements seem to be a constant in American elections.

Looking back to the 1992 election, America’s main concern was adapting to a global economy. One of the reasons that this was at the forefront of the campaigns was that America experienced a recession from July 1990 to March 1991 (Encyclopedia of Business, 2nd Edition). George H. Bush, the incumbent Republican candidate, ran against Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas. When one examines the advertisements as a whole, one can easily see that Bill Clinton utilized negative campaigning much more effectively: placing the blame of the current economic situation on George Bush. In one advertisement, entitled “Better, Off” George H. Bush is shown saying “in four years, you will be better off than you are today” (Clinton Gore ’92 Committee).

(Read My Lips)
Then the advertisement points out that in Bush’s four years as president, family incomes fell, health care costs rose, and taxes increased by the second highest margin in history. This is a very powerful message, and this is exactly the kind of infomercial that influences voters’ opinions. According to the commercial, under George H. Bush, the government failed to meet its obligation to Americans. When the facts speak so clearly for themselves, it is no wonder that Bill Clinton won the election with three-hundred and seventy electoral votes.

(1992 Electoral College Map)
In retrospect, George H. Bush did not have many viable negative attacks that he could rely on. His tax increase went in direct contrast to what he campaigned for. While he tried to accuse Bill Clinton for being a flip-flopper in one advertisement entitled “Two Dots” (Bush-Quale ’92 General Committee), none of his efforts could erase the fact that his presidency had, to a certain degree, failed the American people. Another advertisement, entitled “Arkansas,” attacks Bill Clinton’s leadership experience, and criticizes the policies that he implemented. It notably mentions that under his governorship, Arkansas spending increased and so did its deficit. However, these accusations were not as meaningful because they did not occur on the National scale. In other words, Bill Clinton, from one perspective, might not have had the best Governorship, but his failures as a Governor cannot be compared to George Bush’s failures as President because the scales are completely different. Bill Clinton’s success in his first term towards balancing the national budget also gave him an advantage going into the next election.
(National Debt over time Democratic Presidents in Blue, Republicans in Red)

In the 1996 campaign, Bill Clinton, the incumbent democrat, ran against Republican Senator Bob Dole. The result of the election was very similar to that of the 1992 election: Bill Clinton winning a landslide victory of 379-159 electoral votes. While Bob Dole’s spent 9 million dollars on advertisements, the attack portion of his campaign relied only on the fact that Bill Clinton had initiated the largest tax increase in history (“Getting And Spending, Election Campaign Spending” Commonweal). In one advertisement, titled “At Stake” he responds to Clinton’s tax raises by saying, “You shouldn’t have to apologize for wanting to keep what you earn. Its your money” (Dole/Kemp ’96) By accusing Clinton of stealing the American people’s money for “wasteful spending” he points out one of the major flaws of Clinton’s time in the White House. However, the Clinton campaign did not have to work hard in order to repudiate these charges, his record as President largely stood for itself. In his first four years, he reduced the budget deficit from over $350 billion dollars to $100 billion, reformed welfare, and decreased the national crime rate. While the Republican’s tried to discredit Clinton based on his tax increase, Clinton already had many notable accomplishments.

One might argue that Clinton won the election solely based on the success of his first term. And while there is some merit to this argument, it ignores all the effort that Clinton put into his campaign. In 1996, the Democrats spent 22 Million dollars on advertising (“Getting And Spending, Election Campaign Spending” Commonweal). To be sure, there are not many Americans that would choose to discontinue with the economic prosperity, environmental protection, education improvements and reduced crime enjoyed in Clinton’s first term in office, but these are not the only reasons for Clinton’s overwhelming victory. Even though Bill Clinton managed an incredibly successful first term in office, he still used many negative advertisements to attack Bob Dole. John Buckley, Bob Dole’s Communications Director, noted that “there are 36,000 30-second clips against Dole” (“Bread & Circuses, Bob Dole’s Presidential Campaign”, Kate O’Beirne) One of Clinton’s attack advertisements, titled “Present” poses him as a protector of American values that Bob Dole and Nute Gingrich want to destroy (The Democratic National Committee). According to the advertisement, Bob Dole and Nute Gingrich want to take away the projects that help Americans. This advertisement is very similar to another advertisement entitled “Police” (Democratic National Committee). Not only does this advertisement show Bill Clinton’s success in lowering crime by passing The Brady Act, it also shows that Bob Dole and Gingrich voted against these bills. The implicit emotional appeal is that America will be a more dangerous place with Bob Dole in the White House. The Clinton Campaign’s ability to successfully target the weak points in Bob Dole’s history and use them in strong negative advertising contributed greatly to his victory.



(1996 Electoral College Map. Clinton beats Bob Dole with 379-159 electoral votes.)

The 2000 election, was completely different in results and campaigning. First of all, the result was much closer than the previous elections: Governor George W. Bush beat Vice President Al Gore only 271 votes to 266. Second, neither campaign implemented the same amount of negative campaigning as in other elections. There is a strong correlation between the disparity in the number of votes and the amount of attack ads. Much more of the advertisements were of the biographical sort that simply praised their own candidate’s policies. George Bush focused on his plans for American education, while Al Gore lobbied for his interests in the environmental protection. Surprisingly, only one-third of Bush’s ads even mentioned Al Gore, and only 1/5 of Al Gore’s advertisements attacked Bush. (To see examples of the Campaign Advertisements look on the site, particularly at the advertisements titled "Oil Man" (DNC) and "Expect" (RNC).) Because the candidates did not attack each other as much as in other campaigns, the voters did not view the negatives of the candidates. Invariably, voters did not exhibit the same clear-cut division as in other elections because the candidates never thoroughly distinguished themselves. They both promised to improve something in America; Bush promised to improve education while Gore promised to look after the Environment. However, neither candidate thoroughly revealed the weaknesses of the other candidate. It seems that when attack advertisements are not as common, there is not as big a distinction between the candidates and voters are less likely to flock to one side of the aisle.



(2000 Electoral College Map Bush Beats Al Gore 271 votes to 266)


The 2004 presidential race ended almost as the 2000 election had; George Bush won by a narrow margin of 274 to 252 electoral votes. However, George Bush’s campaign had learned several lessons since his previous campaign. Namely, the more negative campaigning, the better their chances were for winning the election. From looking at both the Republican and Democratic National Conventions’ advertisements, one can see that the Republicans outperformed the democrats when it came to discrediting Democratic Senator John Kerry. Not only did the RNC spend 48.5 million dollars to the DNC’s 24 Million dollars on advertising (Presidential Finance Summary, 2005), but the the RNC was also more effective in exploiting the opposition’s weaknesses. In advertisements such as “Outsource” (Kerry-Edwards 2004), John Kerry alludes to the fact that 2.4 million manufacturing jobs were lost during Bush’s four years in office, and many of those jobs were being shipped overseas to companies who evaded American taxes. The problem with this advertisement is clear; it does not effectively pin George W. Bush as the cause of the job loss.




(Electoral College Map 2004, George W. Bush defeats John Kerry 274 to 252 votes.)








Republicans responded to the Democrats advertisements with a foray of their own commercials, each one criticizing a policy of John Kerry’s or using his changes of opinion to show exhibit his inconsistencies. In infomercials such as “Optimist” (Bush-Cheney ’04), the Republicans use the fact that Kerry talked about the failures of the U.S economy to show that his pessimism was unlikely to bring America out of its economic instability. Furthermore, commercials such as “Blowing” (Bush-Cheney ’04) seemed to be a staple of the Bush Campaign. These advertisements revolve on Kerry’s changes of opinion in order to exemplify that a leader cannot be inconsistent on these issues. Almost everybody in America heard the cries of “flip-flopper” when John Kerry’s name arose.


("Kerry's Number 1 Flip-Flop", A multitude of clips with this quotation were made to discredit John Kerry)

If anything, the 2004 election is a testimony to the power of negative campaigning. How else could a President with only a 45% approval rating (Washington Post) abscond with nearly 60 million votes? The only way for Bush to win was for him to prove again and again that John Kerry was a lesser candidate. Consequently, the Republicans spent millions of dollars with the direct intent of smearing John Kerry.



In 2008, Democrat Senator Barack Obama won a huge victory over Republican Senator John McCain: 364 to 174 electoral votes. Barack Obama, largely due to the massive contributions that his campaign had received, was able to create many more advertisements than John McCain. Aside from trumping the Republican advertisements in terms of quantity, the Democratic commercials used more specific examples and critiqued more fully each aspect of John McCain’s Campaign. Consequently, the Democrats were able to create a cornucopia effective advertisements. In one such advertisement, entitled “Taketh” (Obama For America), Obama states the flaws of the John McCain approach to Health Care, and notes that “for the first time in history, [McCain] will tax your employer health benefits.” The advertisement ends with the question: “Can you afford the McCain Health Tax?”



The reason that the advertisement is effective is that it presents John McCain’s own voice and point of view, and then continues to poke holes in his logic. The McCain campaign did not put forward any advertisements that were as meaningful as the ones against him. While there were many emotional appeals that claimed that Obama was “too risky for America” in advertisements such as “Dangerous” (Republican National Committee). The commercial calls Obama’s desire to cut funding to Iraq dishonorable and dangerous. By using a small bit of the truth: the fact that Obama did not want to fund the war in Iraq, the infomercial implies that such behavior endangers the lives of the troops and is “too risky for America.”



It seems that most Americans were not persuaded by the fear of Obama, but were instead convinced by the many advertisements that proved McCain to be out of touch and similar to George W. Bush. Part of the reasons that Obama's advertisements were more effective is that his campaign used quotes that did not seem out of context. The "dangerous" ad does use a quotation to be sure, but the music and the general tone of the advertisement do not coerce well enough to instill a fear of Obama. It almost seems like a bad horror movie than a political cartoon. Invariably, in this election, fear of Obama did not compare to the confidence his economic plan instilled. To be sure, Obama’s success was largely due to his ability to raise massive amounts of money for his campaign. His prosperity only multiplied when he used these funds to create effective commercials to reach a variety of audiences.

The ability of the candidates to present their arguments through a viable medium is essential to their success. In each of the last five elections, voters chose the candidate based on their ability to attack and discredit the opposition. Each candidate can present their life story in a way that appeals to the traditional American values of family, public service, and self-sacrifice for the American people. Invariably, the biographies do not decide the President. When it comes to elections, the messages that resound in the voting booths are the ones that can prove the opposition most unfit for the presidency.As Karen Harper of the Birmingham Political Examiner states, “The more mud one candidate slings at the other, the more votes he or she seems to get.” That is not to say that Americans do not care about the issues, but we are constantly exposed to negative images of the candidates. Under constant bombardment, it is impossible to ignore the message completely. The most effective way to get these messages to the public is by using the most amount of air time to project a variety of short commercials that both tarnish the opposing candidate and give support for the challenger.

In each of the last five elections, the party that won spent more money on advertising. Needless to say, there is something fundamentally flawed about this system. When the Candidate with more spending power consistently wins, it spells trouble for our political system as a whole. Moreover, the smear tactics that these negative campaign advertisements use can seriously defame the candidates themselves. As John Buckley, Bob Dole’s communications director in the 1996 campaign, remarked "People forgive [candidates'] their shortcomings because they have lowered their expectations about what a President should be. We have to raise those expectations. It's a two-pronged approach, both recalling [the opponents’] weaknesses and highlighting [the candidates’] personal and public virtues.” Should we allow our elections to be tainted by the stain of negative campaigning and personal defamation? Or is this decrease in the expectations of a president reasonable? Either way, most people would agree that the election should not be influenced, at least in the current degree, by negative campaigning, but rather by the candidate’s ability to provide the leadership, wisdom, and strength that America needs.

Rhetorical Decisions and Political Satire

This is a space for the continuation of the conversation we've had on the rhetorical underpinnings of political satire. Feel free to pick up where we ended (how satire works, what kind of laughter it invites, how the satires and satirists engage with the political issues at hand, etc.) or to take us in an entirely new (but related) direction. Our conversations on these topics in class were very smart and on point; let's keep them going!

Here are links to the clips we watched in class:
SNL - Hillary + Palin
SNL - Palin + Couric
Daily Show - Stewart on Obama Gaffe
Daily Show - entire October 30 episode

Thomas Jefferson, provocateur?

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. - Thomas Jefferson

What do you all think? Do you agree? Make me an argument that supports this. Then make me another that refutes it. You've got 60 seconds...GO!

No BlackBerry for Obama?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/us/politics/16blackberry.html?no_interstitial

As this New York Times article illustrates, President-Elect Barack Obama may be forced to do away with his BlackBerry. For many politicians and Americans alike, the BlackBerry has become the closest connection to loved ones, business deals, email, and Chinese food at 2am. I find it ridiculous to ask a techno-savvy President to surrender this vital tool. I strongly believe that if Obama holds on to his BlackBerry, work will be conducted much more quickly and efficiently. though there are some security issues, let's try and rectify them before we immediately tell the President that he can no longer send emails and communicate with the world in a near instant fashion.

Obama says he wants to place a laptop on his desk in the Oval Office, which would make him the first United States President to do so, ever. Obama really wishes to be tied to the 21st century, and I believe that the addition of his BlackBerry will make him a much stronger leader, since he will have access to an endless amount of information at his fingertips, at all times.

And the Winner is...

Tuesday our country chose what will be our 44th president, Barack Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden. The election was a quick win with Obama holding 364 of the electoral votes to Arizona senator, John McCain’s 162. Obama will be the nation’s first black president. Also in a line of firsts Obama is the first President to be born in Hawaii, the first president elected from Illinois since Ulysses S. Grant, and the first Northern Democrat elected since Kennedy. (New York Times)

The transition for Obama is going to be easy with the aid of the Bush administration. As Bush said Wednesday, “[Obama] can count on complete cooperation from my administration as he makes the transition to the White House.” I think its finally time to see that maybe Bush is going to be positively known for at least one thing, aiding Obama to make his transition as easy as easy and smooth as possible. The Bush administration has been gearing up to make the new presidential changeover for about a year now.

But with everything the country is facing, the economy and foreign relation problems, will Obama be able to fulfill his promises he made to the country during his election. Many think the economy will interfere with his heath care plan and who really knows how long it will take to get out of Iraq. Is Obama going to be able to hold true to his promises that got him elected in the first place?

Your experiences at the polling place...

...or at home, for you absentee voters. Let's share them.

I voted this afternoon at 2:00. I thought the lines would be shortest either then or at 10:00 am because people who work 8:00 - 5:00 will be working (and not at lunch) (more about my feelings concerning this later if you're interested). To date, I habitually voted early or absentee because I didn't want to have to deal with the lines or Election Day chaos. I arrived at my polling place this afternoon in suburban Atlanta (so suburban, in fact, that the polling place was a subdivision club house) and thought I couldn't be in the right place. There was NO LINE. I signed in, showed my license, got my electronic ballot card, plugged it into the electronic voting machine (more later about my feelings on this if you're interested), and voted. The entire process took a total of 10 minutes. 10 MINUTES! On a day when journalists and election officials predicted long waits (and on a day when I took a book to make sure I had something to do while waiting incessantly), voting turned out to be totally and completely painless! Yay!

Now all that's left is tabulation and results watching tonight.

So let's hear about the rest of your experiences!

American Politics as American Idol?

An article in The Australian highlights the cult of personality surrounding the two Presidential candidates. What do you all think?