What do you think?
Rate this book
Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy
George W. Bush came to the presidency in 2000 claiming to be the heir of Ronald Reagan. But while he did cut taxes, in most other respects he has governed in a way utterly unlike his revered predecessor, expanding the size and scope of government, letting immigration go unchecked, and allowing the federal budget to mushroom out of control.
Despite their strong misgivings, most conservatives remained silent during Bush’s first term. But a series of missteps and scandals, culminating in the ill-conceived nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, has brought this hidden rift within the conservative movement crashing to the surface.
Now, in what is sure to be the political book of the season, Bruce Bartlett lays bare the incompetence and profligacy of Bush’s economic policies. A highly respected Washington economist—and true-believing Reaganite—Bartlett started out as a supporter of Bush and helped him craft his tax cuts. But he was dismayed by the way they were executed. Reagan combined his tax cuts with fiscal restraint, but Bush has done the opposite. Bartlett thus reluctantly concluded that Bush is not a Reaganite at all, but an unprincipled opportunist who will do whatever he or his advisers think is expedient to buy votes.
In this sober, thorough, and utterly devastating book, Bartlett attacks the Bush Administration's economic performance root and branch, from the "stovepiping" of its policy process to the coercive tactics used to ram its policies through Congress, to the effects of the policies themselves. He is especially hard on Bush’s enormous new Medicare entitlement…and predicts that within a few years, Bush's tax cuts and unrestricted spending will produce an economic crisis that will require a major tax increase, probably in the form of a European-style VAT.
Bartlett has surprisingly kind words for Bill Clinton, whose record on the budget was far better than Bush’s. Whatever else one may think of him, Bartlett argues, Clinton cut spending, abolished a federal entitlement program, and left a budget surplus. By contrast, Bush has increased spending, created a massive entitlement program, and produced the biggest deficits in American history.
In fact, Bartlett concludes, Bush is less like Reagan than like an arch-conservative Republican, bitterly hated by liberals, who vainly tried to woo moderates by enacting big parts of the liberal program. It didn't work then, and it won't work now—and may have similar harmful effects for the GOP.
Despite their strong misgivings, most conservatives remained silent during Bush’s first term. But a series of missteps and scandals, culminating in the ill-conceived nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, has brought this hidden rift within the conservative movement crashing to the surface.
Now, in what is sure to be the political book of the season, Bruce Bartlett lays bare the incompetence and profligacy of Bush’s economic policies. A highly respected Washington economist—and true-believing Reaganite—Bartlett started out as a supporter of Bush and helped him craft his tax cuts. But he was dismayed by the way they were executed. Reagan combined his tax cuts with fiscal restraint, but Bush has done the opposite. Bartlett thus reluctantly concluded that Bush is not a Reaganite at all, but an unprincipled opportunist who will do whatever he or his advisers think is expedient to buy votes.
In this sober, thorough, and utterly devastating book, Bartlett attacks the Bush Administration's economic performance root and branch, from the "stovepiping" of its policy process to the coercive tactics used to ram its policies through Congress, to the effects of the policies themselves. He is especially hard on Bush’s enormous new Medicare entitlement…and predicts that within a few years, Bush's tax cuts and unrestricted spending will produce an economic crisis that will require a major tax increase, probably in the form of a European-style VAT.
Bartlett has surprisingly kind words for Bill Clinton, whose record on the budget was far better than Bush’s. Whatever else one may think of him, Bartlett argues, Clinton cut spending, abolished a federal entitlement program, and left a budget surplus. By contrast, Bush has increased spending, created a massive entitlement program, and produced the biggest deficits in American history.
In fact, Bartlett concludes, Bush is less like Reagan than like an arch-conservative Republican, bitterly hated by liberals, who vainly tried to woo moderates by enacting big parts of the liberal program. It didn't work then, and it won't work now—and may have similar harmful effects for the GOP.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published February 21, 2006
About the author
Bruce Bartlett
25 books15 followersLibrarian Note: There are multiple authors on Goodreads with this name.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
August 25, 2010
I hate Dubya as much has the next good liberal, but I found this book to be a bit tough to get through due to its focus on economic issues. Cleary, he can be similarly criticized for straying from conservative positions on a whole host of other issues, but the author never strays from economics (but to be fair, that is his area of expertise). At the end, he even veers off on some VAT tax tangent that has nothing to do with Bush.
February 16, 2010
This is an interesting work. Many of the critical analyses of the Bush II Administration (George W. Bush as opposed to George H. W. Bush, referred to as Bush I below) have come from journalists or those on the left or from Democrats. This book is fascinating precisely because it is authored by a conservative, one who served in the Reagan White House and in the Bush I Treasury Department. In that, it is akin to Francis Fukuyama's critical analyses of neocons and the Administration's Nation-Building efforts. And, indeed, Bartlett paid a personal price for his criticisms--he lost his job.
He suggests that the Bush II Administration was simply not conservative. In fact, the first chapter's title exemplifies that theme: "I Know Conservatives and George W. Bush Is No Conservative." Among his contentions: the Bush II administration simply did not care about serious policy analysis; it was more concerned with attaining its goals. The chapter, entitled "The End of Serious Policy Analysis," quotes part of Ron Suskind's interview with a top Bush official (some opine that this quotation may have come from Karl Rove himself): "You guys, the aide said, are 'in what we call the reality-based community.' Such people are defined, the aide went on, as those who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernable reality.'" The aide went on, quoting Bartlett: "That's not the way the world works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. Any while you're studying that reality--judiciously as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities. . . ."
Other chapters question the Bush II Administration for its tax cuts, its trade policy, why Enron serves as metaphor for Bush's economic policy, the budget (mirabile dictu, Bartlett suggests that Bill Clinton's policy is preferable to Bush II), and so on.
Precisely because this is a critique from the right, this is a very interesting volume to reflect upon. While sometimes the critique becomes a bit shrill, this is still worth looking at and thinking about.
He suggests that the Bush II Administration was simply not conservative. In fact, the first chapter's title exemplifies that theme: "I Know Conservatives and George W. Bush Is No Conservative." Among his contentions: the Bush II administration simply did not care about serious policy analysis; it was more concerned with attaining its goals. The chapter, entitled "The End of Serious Policy Analysis," quotes part of Ron Suskind's interview with a top Bush official (some opine that this quotation may have come from Karl Rove himself): "You guys, the aide said, are 'in what we call the reality-based community.' Such people are defined, the aide went on, as those who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernable reality.'" The aide went on, quoting Bartlett: "That's not the way the world works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. Any while you're studying that reality--judiciously as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities. . . ."
Other chapters question the Bush II Administration for its tax cuts, its trade policy, why Enron serves as metaphor for Bush's economic policy, the budget (mirabile dictu, Bartlett suggests that Bill Clinton's policy is preferable to Bush II), and so on.
Precisely because this is a critique from the right, this is a very interesting volume to reflect upon. While sometimes the critique becomes a bit shrill, this is still worth looking at and thinking about.
October 7, 2023
Most of us paying attention saw it as it was happening, but this book lay out well how George W. Bush was simply a big government conservative happy to use the power of government when it served his purposes. Like all hypocrites.
February 19, 2013
I agree with Bartlett on some things and disagree with him on others, but this much is clear: he knows what he's talking about and he's not afraid to upset people. He does a masterful job of explaining and documenting exactly what was wrong with G W Bush from a domestic/economic/fiscal point of view. (I'm sure others have done the same thing with his disastrous foreign policy.) Anyone who wants to talk about economic or fiscal policy needs to know exactly how we got where we are today. This book is a big help in that pursuit.
He also draws a useful distinction between policies that promote the free market and policies that promote the rich getting richer. Mot of the debate seems to be between those who want to make sure the richest 1% get a larger and larger share of the pie, and those who want to undermine the free market. This is a false dichotomy. Many of the reforms we need government to impose on big business are not so much interfering in the free market as they are corrections of distortions of the free market.
He also draws a useful distinction between policies that promote the free market and policies that promote the rich getting richer. Mot of the debate seems to be between those who want to make sure the richest 1% get a larger and larger share of the pie, and those who want to undermine the free market. This is a false dichotomy. Many of the reforms we need government to impose on big business are not so much interfering in the free market as they are corrections of distortions of the free market.
September 15, 2009
A valuable and prescient book. It lays out a case for the notion that tax cuts won't be enough for the Republicans to win elections in the new century, and why the W Administration ran in ways that ensured its failure. The sections about the differences in operation between the Reagan and Bush White Houses are very instructive and make strong suggestions about the differences in result that we all saw. This Republican can only hope that the next administration pays attention before the party cements its reputation for not governing well.
I should also make a note about Bartlett's VAT proposal. He proposes, and I agree, that the optimal level of taxes is not always less than it is today no matter what it is today, and that the way that taxes are collected matter. There is nothing anti-conservative about this--at least, if there is, than the conservative movement has badly lost its way. If you can't adjust to changing circumstances, you can't govern.
I should also make a note about Bartlett's VAT proposal. He proposes, and I agree, that the optimal level of taxes is not always less than it is today no matter what it is today, and that the way that taxes are collected matter. There is nothing anti-conservative about this--at least, if there is, than the conservative movement has badly lost its way. If you can't adjust to changing circumstances, you can't govern.
Read
August 2, 2013'Although modest in scope, Impostor is a critically important book. Bartlett demonstrates that Bush is no conservative. He notes: “I write as a Reaganite, by which I mean someone who believes in the historical conservative philosophy of small government, federalism, free trade, and the Constitution as originally understood by the Founding Fathers.”
Bush believes in none of these things. His conservatism, such as it is, is cultural rather than political. Writes Bartlett, “Philosophically, he has more in common with liberals, who see no limits to state power as long as it is used to advance what they think is right.” Until now, big-government conservatism was widely understood to be an oxymoron.'
Read the full review, "Counterfeit Conservative," on our website:
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
Bush believes in none of these things. His conservatism, such as it is, is cultural rather than political. Writes Bartlett, “Philosophically, he has more in common with liberals, who see no limits to state power as long as it is used to advance what they think is right.” Until now, big-government conservatism was widely understood to be an oxymoron.'
Read the full review, "Counterfeit Conservative," on our website:
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
April 10, 2015
Bartlett makes a compelling case that the Bush socio-economic policy (gimmicky tax cuts, protectionist steel tariffs & bilateral agreements, Medicare Part D, etc.) owed far more
to short-term politics than (supply-side, free-trade) principles. Bartlett expects the
US to reap a fiscal whirlwind from Bush's policies, making benefit-cuts and/or tax-hikes
(perhaps even a VAT tax) inevitable. A provocative read.
to short-term politics than (supply-side, free-trade) principles. Bartlett expects the
US to reap a fiscal whirlwind from Bush's policies, making benefit-cuts and/or tax-hikes
(perhaps even a VAT tax) inevitable. A provocative read.
January 4, 2009
He is right in his criticism of Bush and the long term ramifications of "compassionate conservatism" and other Bush policies to the Republican party and conservatism. But, his idea of raising taxes shows that Bartlett doesn't really understand what the Goldwater/Reagan conservative movement is about.
January 8, 2013
Written in 2006, Mr. Bartlett certainly predicted what was to come - including the most recent tax increase enacted with the fiscal cliff legislation.
Bottom line: If you loved R Reagan, you should have hated G W Bush.
Bottom line: If you loved R Reagan, you should have hated G W Bush.
March 1, 2015
Bruce Bartlett shows off some of his economic expertise to devastating effect. The book's main flaw is that Bartlett sometimes lets his bitterness over some of Bush's actions color his commentary to the point that he loses the thread.
Want to Read
January 29, 2008Ronald reagan advisor
December 8, 2009
If you weren't paying any attention during the past 10 years, this is a great primer into why everyone hates/hated G.W. Bush (conservatives and liberals alike).
December 9, 2010
On Target. Aim. Fire. BOOM!
October 20, 2015
Scurrilous and that is the best I can state! Read 20 pages or so...closed the book.
Jim
Jim
October 14, 2008
Read this when it came out, how apropos for the now.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews