Actually, I think the perpetual-rule worry is a red herring, and misunderstands the nature of the threat. Bush is not *personally* powerful or popular enough to pull it off, and his faction mostly wouldn't want him to try -- as he has vividly demonstrated, any given individual has a pretty clear sell-by date in politics.
No -- what they're trying to do (and Rove has long been quite explicit about this) is to set up a solid and self-perpetuating political dynasty. I don't think they collectively give a damn about it being within a single family (honestly, I see no likelihood that they're going to push Jeb this time around: his brother has rendered the family name damaged goods until memory fades), but they are almost certainly looking for people who share the same general outlook. Part of that outlook is the whole "muscular America" idea, and an Imperial Presidency goes hand-in-glove with that -- they want a President unfettered by such inconveniences like rule of law, that tend to be a nuisance for government policies.
I still think it's very unlikely that Bush will try to avoid stepping down, or that Jeb will come out as a serious candidate. I think it's *very* likely, however, that they will try to put forth another candidate who is similar to Bush in the ways that matter: instinctively statist, with a strong inclination to favor the monied interests that keep him in power.
(Jeez -- I can't believe I've wound up using the phrase "monied interests". But despite my personal pro-business leanings, it's pretty clear that things have been carried to a ridiculous extreme. I like keeping government out of business' hair, but I *also* like keeping business out of government, and the current situation is much too incestuous for my tastes. It is appalling that there hasn't yet been a serious investigation of Halliburton.)
Anyway, in short: I don't think that Bush per se is the real danger here. I think that the faction and philosophies he represents are -- a loose coalition that are essentially fascist in their outlook, and who want to *collectively* remain in power. That being the case, there isn't much likelihood of them changing the rules to keep Bush in power, but *quite* a bit of danger of them, say, rigging the next election to favor their desired candidate. (Which is why the Diebold thing scares me more than most of these mini-scandals.) Maintaining a facade of normalcy while perverting the spirit of government has been their consistent modus operandi, and I don't expect that to change...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-26 06:01 pm (UTC)No -- what they're trying to do (and Rove has long been quite explicit about this) is to set up a solid and self-perpetuating political dynasty. I don't think they collectively give a damn about it being within a single family (honestly, I see no likelihood that they're going to push Jeb this time around: his brother has rendered the family name damaged goods until memory fades), but they are almost certainly looking for people who share the same general outlook. Part of that outlook is the whole "muscular America" idea, and an Imperial Presidency goes hand-in-glove with that -- they want a President unfettered by such inconveniences like rule of law, that tend to be a nuisance for government policies.
I still think it's very unlikely that Bush will try to avoid stepping down, or that Jeb will come out as a serious candidate. I think it's *very* likely, however, that they will try to put forth another candidate who is similar to Bush in the ways that matter: instinctively statist, with a strong inclination to favor the monied interests that keep him in power.
(Jeez -- I can't believe I've wound up using the phrase "monied interests". But despite my personal pro-business leanings, it's pretty clear that things have been carried to a ridiculous extreme. I like keeping government out of business' hair, but I *also* like keeping business out of government, and the current situation is much too incestuous for my tastes. It is appalling that there hasn't yet been a serious investigation of Halliburton.)
Anyway, in short: I don't think that Bush per se is the real danger here. I think that the faction and philosophies he represents are -- a loose coalition that are essentially fascist in their outlook, and who want to *collectively* remain in power. That being the case, there isn't much likelihood of them changing the rules to keep Bush in power, but *quite* a bit of danger of them, say, rigging the next election to favor their desired candidate. (Which is why the Diebold thing scares me more than most of these mini-scandals.) Maintaining a facade of normalcy while perverting the spirit of government has been their consistent modus operandi, and I don't expect that to change...