President Bush might be a space cadet, after all.
Some of his most recent policy proposals, intended as grand gestures, instead come off more like transparent political moves to sway key constituencies in an election year.
Start with his grand space exploration plan, which aims to eventually send astronauts to Mars. It’s a visionary, spirited measure (recalling JFK’s 1961 announcement that the U.S. would put an American on the moon within 10 years), but it’s an expensive one. With the country already struggling to meet financial obligations at home–and around the planet–it hardly seems like the right time to earmark billions for NASA’s budget.
More Top Picks Best Massage Chairs For Cardiac Rehab Recovery
Bush isn’t worried, though, because he’s not planning to pay for it–just earn the political capital from it. More than 80 percent of the spending would occur after he has left office, even if he’s re-elected this fall.
Also this week, administration officials said they’re planning to dedicate $1.5 billion to “promote marriage.” Without coming out and saying it, the proposal makes clear the president’s views on gay marriage, a hot button issue for this election. The measure will appease conservative groups that, after a recent string of pro-gay rights developments, are looking for Bush to affirm marriage between a man and a woman.
Then last week, Bush offered up a program to provide temporary work visas to illegal immigrants, many of them Mexican, but steered clear of anything resembling amnesty. As long as the details remain vague, the president can court Hispanic and conservative voters, while also supporting business leaders who rely on these foreign laborers.
Funny how things crop up as elections draw near. Bush discussed immigration reform during his 2000 election campaign. It was one of the first issues he addressed in his presidency, and his first state visit was with President Vicente Fox of Mexico. But after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, talk turned to securing U.S. borders instead, and relations withered between Fox and Bush.
Am I naive? Maybe. I suppose such shallow politics shouldn’t surprise me. Still, I’m irritated that these problems–all credible issues Americans are concerned about–weren’t substantively addressed before the campaign maneuvering got started.
To be fair, all of the proposals have some merit. After last year’s shuttle disaster, and with the success of the Mars rover, NASA deserves a vote of confidence. Also, the money allocated to promote marriage will benefit low-income couples who need counseling to weather financial strain. And the immigrant work visa is a step in the right direction.
But it would be a travesty if people decided to vote for or against Bush just because of splashy announcements, rather than the actual outcome of the proposals or his record on the issues.
It’s not that campaigning is evil. How else would we learn about candidates? In the Democratic race, each time the presidential hopefuls have explained their views, debated each other or proposed new solutions to national problems, I’ve picked up a little more information about who they might be as leaders.
By Election Day, no voter can know what the candidates would do exactly, but hopefully we’ve gleaned a sense of their characters and gauged how they will approach decisions. Is the raw aptitude and intelligence there? Then, OK. Learning on the job applies to U.S. presidents too.
Bush, however, is a known quantity. The Republican presidential candidate is in office.
And love him or hate him, as president he shouldn’t be floating vague proposals that just pander to key voter groups.
At least that’s what it looks like he’s doing. Keep your feet on the Earth, rocket man.
———-