GovernmentExecutive.com

In early August, President Bush did what all sensible Washington politicians do: escape. He headed to his ranch in Crawford, Texas, and embarked on what has become an annual ritual in reconnecting with the folks back in the real world.

In a speech before the American Legislative Exchange Council in Grapevine, Texas, the president outlined a whole bunch of things his government is doing: Fighting wars of liberation, countering terrorists, developing a new energy policy, enacting legal reforms and negotiating free trade agreements, to name just a few priorities.

But then Bush endeavored to put those accomplishments into perspective. When it comes to the big stuff, he said, Uncle Sam is a heartless old man. "We understand that government--government can't love," Bush said. "Government can pass law, government can hand out money, but government cannot put heart--hope in a person's heart, or a sense of purpose in a person's life. That's done when a loving citizen puts their arm around somebody who hurts and says, 'How can I help you? What can I do to make your life better?' "

Paradoxically, Bush's government-can't-love speech actually demonstrates how much he loves government. As his laundry list of federal accomplishments shows, this is a president who's seen few federal programs he doesn't like. Bush drives libertarian groups nuts with his relentless push for a huge homeland security bureaucracy, massive new benefits programs (such as prescription drug coverage under Medicare) and the push to increase the federal government's role in education.

President Bush's compassionate conservative philosophy - which he describes as "government if necessary, but not necessarily government"--includes a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. Virtually any government program can be defended on the grounds that it's "necessary"--especially in the post-Sept. 11 world, when people have decided that only the federal government can guarantee our security.

Of course, people want much out of government, but they also want not to like it. You'd have to go back to Lyndon Johnson in 1964 to find a successful presidential candidate who didn't run against the Washington bureaucracy. So Bush is reduced to making the case that the government that he has cultivated and managed since 2001 is more effective and efficient--even more "compassionate"--yet is incapable of, well, genuine emotion.

When you think about it, this is an odd, backhanded slam. Of course "the government" can't love. As far as I know, nobody has ever suggested that it could. Only people can. Luckily, the government employs lots of 'em. "Please tell President Bush that the love can be found in government at any VA medical center, where occupational therapists give hope to our nation's veterans every day," a VA employee e-mailed me after Bush's speech.

The address followed a recent pattern among administration officials, who--burdened with the rather large and unmistakable growth in the bureaucracy on their watch--now must hunt for innovative ways to burnish their anti-government credentials.

At an appearance before a group of federal interns in Washington in July, White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. had this to say about programs to encourage government internships, according to a Washington Post report: "There are many programs for young people to have employment opportunities, but the greatest employment opportunities in our society come through the private sector. And so I don't think that everyone who is looking for a job should expect or even want a job with the federal government or one of our agencies. In fact, our economy would not do very well if people just worked for the government."

Again, last time I checked, no one was suggesting that everyone in the country should work for the government. Card's questioner was simply asking about federal support for internship programs. The Bush administration's Office of Personnel Management offered an answer that was somewhat different from Card's just a week after his speech, announcing that it had put the finishing touches on an internship program designed to make it easier for agencies to hire new civil servants.

What OPM failed to mention is that those with the capacity to love apparently need not apply.

COMMENTS

• Yeah, well I lived in Kuwait but that doesn't make me Arab, Professor. You are talking about one "election," nothing is a given at this point. Bush is giving us nothing but fantasy - like we killed the number two Al-Queda guy in Iraq. Now, that makes a good press release and makes it seem like we're making progress but that "fact" has been disputed by an terrorism EXPERT. We were told that as soon as the Iraqi army is fully mission capable, we can leave. What he doesn't say is that changing an entire culture from the mindset of being told what to do, when to do it and how to do it for decades, will take decades. And, only if the Iraqi people want to make that change. We were told it would be quick and we would be welcomed with candy and flowers. Nothing they said about this war has been right so why should we believe that this "election" is going to matter. The Iraqis will only succeed when they come together because they want basically the same things. They don't. How much money are you willing to pay to stay until the different religious and cultural groups come together? How many of your children or grandchildren are you willing to let die or become brain damaged or to lose their arms or legs? Agree to reinstating the draft? No matter how bad the truth is, we've earned the right to know what that is. Write me in ten or fifteen years and talk to me about how history views your hero then. I doubt he'll be referred to as "The Great Liberator." More like "The Great Fabricator." GovExec.com reader Posted September 30, 2005 7:49 AM
• Typical liberal response. You were caught wrong on the facts but rather than address that, you respond with vitriol. Talk about distortion! If you think that people (including women who previously had no voice in that society) voting for the candidates of their choice for the first time in their lives (instead of a ballot with only Saddam's name on it) is something to ridicule, there's truly no hope for you. As for the election in 2000, your guy lost, so get over it already. And for the record, I was a history major in college, if you really want to know. GovExec.com reader Posted September 29, 2005 6:06 PM
• Well, bud, I haven't seen your credentials as a historical scholar either. I guess you guys spin everything into Pollyanna puke so often you actually believe the distortion you spew. The fact remains that they can have all the pseudo-elections they want but the minute we're not there to spoon feed them that "democracy is on the move" crap that you haters are constantly regurgitating by rote, like the good little Shrub automatons that you are, all bets are off. And, if you think the 2000 selection, a total mockery of our entire way of life, is a good thing to compare anything to, that explains a lot about you. I don't believe that every country on the planet has to be a democracy. If you really think that George Bush, who has failed at everything he's done his entire life, is going to be successful in this effort of forcing democracy on another culture where religion governs all aspects of life, you need to up your dosage. You guys don't do science but you clearly do science fiction! GovExec.com reader Posted September 29, 2005 1:06 PM