Hamilton Professors Alan Cafruny, Yvonne Zylan, Peter Cannavo, Theodore Eismeier, Barbara Gold and Mack Mariani addressed the Hamilton community in a November 30 panel discussion titled, "Bush: A Failed Presidency?" Each faculty member on the panel offered remarks regarding Bush's record in office and an evaluation of his presidency.
Alan Cafruny, the Henry Platt Bristol Professor of International Affairs, began the discussion, commenting that "cracks are obviously appearing in the structure" of the Bush administration. He cited the war in Iraq, hurricane Katrina, the investigation of certain Republican Party members, and the loss of international authority as areas where these cracks currently show through.
Hurricane Katrina, Cafruny said, offered us a "glimpse into the inner-workings of the administration" and revealed Bush's policy of cronyism and also his detachment from real American people. Similarly, Bush's concentration of power has allowed his administration, when making decisions, to bypass and thereby marginalize established institutions, such as the FBI, the CIA, and on an international level, the UN. This concentration of power, according to Cafruny, makes it unlikely that Bush can or will change his administration's course.
Yvonne Zylan, an assistant professor of sociology, followed Cafruny's remarks, focusing specifically on the Bush administration's role in the judicial realm. If his administration is "judged by [his] administration's metric," she said, then it is hard to see the current judicial situation as "anything but a success." As there is "no room for Democrats to do anything about the Alito nomination," Zylan maintained that the only place for resistance to the Bush administration lies in that administration's executive influence on judicial matters. Zylan specifically mentioned issues like secret tribunals that "could really set the Republicans back."
Speaking next was Peter Cannavo, a visiting assistant professor of government. Cannavo stated that, based on such standards as the environment, science, and long-term national security, the Bush administration has been a failure. The administration has tried to "sow doubts" regarding science and objective truth, specifically as it affects the environment and health issues. This creation of doubt, Cannavo maintained, serves a political agenda.
The climate change debate, according to Cannavo, is one example of the Bush administration's "assault on truth." Bush acknowledges the problem of global warming, but refuses to take significant action. Even further, certain government reports have tried to make the problem seem less severe than it is. The administration, Cannavo stated, has repeatedly made efforts to undercut environmental regulations, based on a faulty ideology that holds that economic growth is as important or more as environmental protection, and also that the market will achieve the optimal outcome. "I'm seriously concerned about the future [with regards to this administration's legacy]," Cannavo concluded.
Theodore Eismeier, professor of government, also brought up the question of how to define success or failure. One way to determine the success of the Bush administration, he said, is to compare Bush to other world leaders. This comparison would probably "make Bush not look so bad," as there has been a growing "democratic distemper" in many industrialized nations. Another way to determine the administration's success, for Eismeier, is to compare Bush to Democratic presidents, many of whom were defeated in reelection or were impeached. Next to these presidents, the Bush administration looks more successful.
Eismeier also described a comparison of presidential legacies, in terms of both electoral and policy results, as another way of determining success. Bush, he said, was successful in electoral results, as he gained 11.5 million more votes in his 2004 election than he had in 2000. As for his policy legacy, Eismeier said that "the jury's still out," but noted that such issues as the revamping of intelligence agencies, the war in Iraq, and the composition of the Supreme Court are all likely to factor into this legacy. Eismeier cited the necessity, in American politics, to "not criminalize but to have a civilized debate about foreign policy."
Barbara Gold, professor of classics, began her remarks by recounting Bush jokes, and said that "they would be funnier if they were not so close to the truth;" for Gold, the administration "has sunk deeper and deeper" and its list of problems is "long and alarming." As specific problems on this list, she described the use of torture, the existence of secret prisons, low pollution standards, favors to the rich, the use of white phosphorus in Iraq, and the damage to American families caused by freezing the minimum wage. She also contended that Bush is dishonest and is willing to say almost anything to maintain his popularity; he shows a disdain for governing and would rather campaign. Gold cited Representative Murtha's account that Iraq represents "failed policy wrapped in an illusion," saying that this statement "summarizes for me not only Bush's war policy but his entire administration."
Closing these initial remarks from panel members was Mack Mariani, a visiting instructor of government. Mariani maintained that it is "too soon to say" whether Bush's administration is a failure. From the perspective of foreign affairs, success or failure will probably depend on Iraq. Mariani noted that while the number of U.S. casualties is painful, it is a significant gain to have moved from a brutal dictatorship to drafting a new Constitution in just three years. On an economic level, Mariani stated that the administration is likely to be viewed as a success, given the steady growth in GDP, new home construction, and low interest rates. In terms of Bush's legislative agenda, his presidency has been relatively successful; Bush has an 82% success rate regarding his legislation being passed in the House and the Senate, a much higher percentage than other presidents'. From a political standpoint, Mariani conceded that Bush's public opinion numbers are terrible. Ultimately, though, "much hinges on the outcome of Iraq and Afghanistan," he said.
Following the panelists' remarks, the professors responded to questions and comments from the audience. The panel was sponsored by the Hamilton College Democrats and was introduced by the organization's president, Jon Kuhl '06.
-- by Sarah Lozo '06
Alan Cafruny, the Henry Platt Bristol Professor of International Affairs, began the discussion, commenting that "cracks are obviously appearing in the structure" of the Bush administration. He cited the war in Iraq, hurricane Katrina, the investigation of certain Republican Party members, and the loss of international authority as areas where these cracks currently show through.
Hurricane Katrina, Cafruny said, offered us a "glimpse into the inner-workings of the administration" and revealed Bush's policy of cronyism and also his detachment from real American people. Similarly, Bush's concentration of power has allowed his administration, when making decisions, to bypass and thereby marginalize established institutions, such as the FBI, the CIA, and on an international level, the UN. This concentration of power, according to Cafruny, makes it unlikely that Bush can or will change his administration's course.
Yvonne Zylan, an assistant professor of sociology, followed Cafruny's remarks, focusing specifically on the Bush administration's role in the judicial realm. If his administration is "judged by [his] administration's metric," she said, then it is hard to see the current judicial situation as "anything but a success." As there is "no room for Democrats to do anything about the Alito nomination," Zylan maintained that the only place for resistance to the Bush administration lies in that administration's executive influence on judicial matters. Zylan specifically mentioned issues like secret tribunals that "could really set the Republicans back."
Speaking next was Peter Cannavo, a visiting assistant professor of government. Cannavo stated that, based on such standards as the environment, science, and long-term national security, the Bush administration has been a failure. The administration has tried to "sow doubts" regarding science and objective truth, specifically as it affects the environment and health issues. This creation of doubt, Cannavo maintained, serves a political agenda.
The climate change debate, according to Cannavo, is one example of the Bush administration's "assault on truth." Bush acknowledges the problem of global warming, but refuses to take significant action. Even further, certain government reports have tried to make the problem seem less severe than it is. The administration, Cannavo stated, has repeatedly made efforts to undercut environmental regulations, based on a faulty ideology that holds that economic growth is as important or more as environmental protection, and also that the market will achieve the optimal outcome. "I'm seriously concerned about the future [with regards to this administration's legacy]," Cannavo concluded.
Theodore Eismeier, professor of government, also brought up the question of how to define success or failure. One way to determine the success of the Bush administration, he said, is to compare Bush to other world leaders. This comparison would probably "make Bush not look so bad," as there has been a growing "democratic distemper" in many industrialized nations. Another way to determine the administration's success, for Eismeier, is to compare Bush to Democratic presidents, many of whom were defeated in reelection or were impeached. Next to these presidents, the Bush administration looks more successful.
Eismeier also described a comparison of presidential legacies, in terms of both electoral and policy results, as another way of determining success. Bush, he said, was successful in electoral results, as he gained 11.5 million more votes in his 2004 election than he had in 2000. As for his policy legacy, Eismeier said that "the jury's still out," but noted that such issues as the revamping of intelligence agencies, the war in Iraq, and the composition of the Supreme Court are all likely to factor into this legacy. Eismeier cited the necessity, in American politics, to "not criminalize but to have a civilized debate about foreign policy."
Barbara Gold, professor of classics, began her remarks by recounting Bush jokes, and said that "they would be funnier if they were not so close to the truth;" for Gold, the administration "has sunk deeper and deeper" and its list of problems is "long and alarming." As specific problems on this list, she described the use of torture, the existence of secret prisons, low pollution standards, favors to the rich, the use of white phosphorus in Iraq, and the damage to American families caused by freezing the minimum wage. She also contended that Bush is dishonest and is willing to say almost anything to maintain his popularity; he shows a disdain for governing and would rather campaign. Gold cited Representative Murtha's account that Iraq represents "failed policy wrapped in an illusion," saying that this statement "summarizes for me not only Bush's war policy but his entire administration."
Closing these initial remarks from panel members was Mack Mariani, a visiting instructor of government. Mariani maintained that it is "too soon to say" whether Bush's administration is a failure. From the perspective of foreign affairs, success or failure will probably depend on Iraq. Mariani noted that while the number of U.S. casualties is painful, it is a significant gain to have moved from a brutal dictatorship to drafting a new Constitution in just three years. On an economic level, Mariani stated that the administration is likely to be viewed as a success, given the steady growth in GDP, new home construction, and low interest rates. In terms of Bush's legislative agenda, his presidency has been relatively successful; Bush has an 82% success rate regarding his legislation being passed in the House and the Senate, a much higher percentage than other presidents'. From a political standpoint, Mariani conceded that Bush's public opinion numbers are terrible. Ultimately, though, "much hinges on the outcome of Iraq and Afghanistan," he said.
Following the panelists' remarks, the professors responded to questions and comments from the audience. The panel was sponsored by the Hamilton College Democrats and was introduced by the organization's president, Jon Kuhl '06.
-- by Sarah Lozo '06
