Bush must step up to responsibilities

Election season is dead ““ there is no doubt whatsoever
about that. The signs have been plucked from tidy lawns and
stickers peeled from otherwise lifeless automobiles.

The convincing fireworks of the winners and the ever-unconvinced
moans of the losers are now mute. Even Bruin Walk is eerily without
clamor. And, in the end, America seems uninspired again.

But the respite in excitement has bestowed upon us an important
new sentiment ““ whether winner or loser, we are no longer
impelled to defend our hopelessly mediocre candidates.

Democrats can now publicly denounce the faults of John Kerry and
Republicans can be open with the shortcomings of Bush’s
policies. In this brief period, self-criticism doesn’t
matter.

The self-critical Democrat comes off as an intelligent and
introspective model loser, while the self-critical Republican
appears to be a mild-mannered winner, accepting the trophy but
wishing his foe a genuine “better luck next time.”

By criticizing our own candidates now, we will be more
influential when we support them later.

This inter-seasonal time will help columnists like me feel
honest and fair ““ virtues we do not experience unless
dreadfully intoxicated or in the presence of a politician.

So, in all honesty and fairness, President Bush’s victory
has landed him some heavy work and no excuses.

The slowly ending Iraq War ““ whether measured in energy
spent or in public attention paid ““ demands that the
president address several key domestic issues.

With majorities in the House and the Senate, a lame-duck
president, a sympathetic Supreme Court and a cooperative set of
governors, Republicans must set the national agenda and take it
on.

Their chance to prove themselves is now, as is their chance to
expose their worthlessness. Reform in public education and social
security will be useful indicators of the Republicans’
progress in the next four years.

Americans agree with emotive ardor that a national religion is
detrimental to society, but what they fail to understand is that
federal control of education is equally detrimental for precisely
the same reason ““ one set of ideas should not be imposed upon
everyone.

With public education, the federal government has the ability to
spread its ideas as well as a captive and impressionable audience
on which to spread them.

There is no mention of a Department of Education in the
Constitution. Originally, there were no public schools, and, in
later years, the decision was left up to the states.

But in the mid-20th century, education became a nationalized
matter, with the federal government’s increasing control over
the curriculum. The National Defense Education Act of 1958 and the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 started the trend; a
bill increasing the level of federal aid per year and other 1994
statutes furthered it; and, though sugar-coated in impressive
language, the No Child Left Behind Act signed by Bush advanced
federal control even more.

Since 2001, federal spending (and thus control) on education has
increased by $15 billion.

Whether the opposition lies in economic or moral grounds, there
is ample reason to stand against federal public education, even if
one supports local public education.

The commander-in-chief must meet similar expectations in
reforming our social security system.

According to Ed Crane, the president of the Cato Institute,
“In less than 15 years, social security will begin running a
deficit, spending more on benefits than it will take in through
taxes. Overall, social security faces unfunded liabilities of more
than $26 trillion in constant 2004 dollars. That will require much
more than a tweak to fix. And the longer we wait to fix it, the
worse the problem becomes. In fact, every two-year election cycle
that we wait costs an additional $320 billion.”

So what is the solution proposed by the president? It includes,
according to Whitehouse.gov, “helping future generations to
achieve the American dream” and “spurring national
saving and economic growth.”

This is all groovy, but a stronger stand might be necessary. To
his credit, the president proposed the creation of individual
accounts within the social security system.

But he needs to go further and give hard-working citizens full
control over their own income. For, in an adaptation of an ancient
Republican slogan, “individuals can save their money better
than the government can.”

Republicans believe in property rights, individual choice and
individual responsibility ““ which means, by extension,
limited government. Yet under Bush, federal spending increased by
the fastest rate in 30 years. This regression is most apparent in
the continuously floundering public education system and the ailing
social security system.

And it is in these venues that the president must take decisive
action to restore the values of his party. If he cannot do it now,
I doubt any Republican will do it in the future.

If in four years Bush leaves America unchanged, you can pin me
with my own column and ask me why I still vote Republican. But
you’ll probably forget, and I’m feeling rather fair and
honest right about now.

Hovannisian is a second-year history and philosophy student.
E-mail him at ghovannisian@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *