The Political Significance of the George W. Bush Administration

Abstract

Abstract

Leadership and Politics: A Case for a Closer Relationship?

“…But for the political scientist at least there is a useful distinction to be maintained between constitutional forms -for example between presidential systems which concentrate formal executive leadership in a single individual, and ones which spread authority in theory either by use of a cabinet system or by some other mechanism. This preliminary emphasis on form is only a starting point because, of course, in many executives we have seen a transfer of real decision-making power especially to chief executives and a deliberate strategy of transcending constraints on decision-making power (Aberbach, 2005;Aberbach & Rockman, 2000).…”

President Bush and Social Policy: The Strange Case of the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit

“…Indeed, there is some evidence that ''the White House covered up legitimate cost estimates in an attempt to put through a more expensive program than many [Republicans] in Congress thought they were voting for.'' 109 When the higher cost estimates were eventually released after the enactment of the MMA, former Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott declared: ''I think I made a big mistake. I regret I didn't kill it [MMA] when I had a chance to kill it on a technical point of order … .…”

Conservative Ideas and Social Policy in the United States

“…Consistent with the compassionate conservatism blueprint, the OFBCI's aim was to increase the role of religious organizations in providing street‐level social services by allowing religious groups to compete for government grants. In order to construct the ‘need to reform’ the delivery of social services, the president argued that locally organized faith‐based groups were often better placed than government agencies to deliver on ‘valid public purposes such as curbing crime, conquering addiction, strengthening families and neighbourhoods, and overcoming poverty’ (quoted in Aberbach 2005: 142). Implicit in this depiction of the role of faith‐based organizations is the traditionalist assumption that, by giving more power to religious organizations, the federal government would help promote religious values in American society.…”

“…Furthermore, while the initial cost estimate was for expenditures of $410 billion over ten years, less than two months later that estimate had increased to $530 billion. A story then unfolded about how this higher sum was kept hidden during debate over the law so as not to jeopardize its chances in Congress, where many fiscally conservative Republicans were anxious about the long‐term expense (Aberbach 2005: 141).…”