Politickal note

Excellent editorial in the Washington Post. It notes that Bush is a decent campaigner but very poor at running the government. That Bush is incompetent as a manager of government is obvious to anyone who's read news stories about:

* FEMA's response after Hurricane Katrina
* The confusion and inefficiency with which the Department of Homeland Security has been created and managed
* Our ongoing military recruitment woes
* Our ongoing military equipment woes
* The fiscal crisis in the federal judiciary
* The intelligence failures before the Iraq war
* The botched reconstruction of Iraq
* The Iraq war itself (no link required!)

A more important question, in my mind, is, "Why has this been allowed to happen? Why has Bush been allowed to spend so much time, effort, and political capital campaigning, and so little running the government?"

To me, it seems like a simple case of incentives. Bush simply has more to gain from campaigning than from governing becuase the Democrats are weak. A weak Democratic party means that Bush can gain measurable success from every day and every dollar he spends bashing Democrats and building himself up to the public.

A strong Democratic party, on the other hand, would force Bush to actually show that he's better than the Democrats, instead of just constantly saying it. That would mean things like body armor for the troops, a more efficient DHS, better emergency response policies, and a more flexible and responsive Iraq war strategy, not to mention more workable policy proposals on Social Security, stem cells, etc.

A strong, healthy two-party-system forces compromise and makes politicians put their money (and their time and serious effort) where their mouth is. We don't currently have a strong two-party system. Why, you ask? Well, if you read this blog, you know my answer to that...