Welfare reform,NAFTA.... could they have been accomplished by a Republican President?

The steel tariffs, Bush's readiness, before 9/11, to open up the Mexican border and the fact he is growing federal spending at the fastest rate since LBJ. Would a Democratic President have gotten away with this?

As much as Clinton and Bush draw the ire of opposition party members is not it a fact they are both populists.

The Oxford Dictionary defines "populist" thus:



If a president were not a 'populist' he would then be accused of being an 'elitist' - or someone only interested in say - uh - er - 'tax breaks for the rich.' So he is damned either way.

I live about 30 miles or so from the border with Mexico - there are a great many border issues that heavily impact this area. Though I am a thorough supporter of President Bush, I have found that neither Republican presidents nor Democrat presidents have undertaken to truly deal with border issues on any level - economic, political, official, social, environmental, agrarian, water, - well, you name it.

Uh oh - is this worthy of another thread?

Is there something wrong with being a populist? Isn't that exactly what we elect them to do, represent our interests? To be anything else as a president is simply political suicide.

But does it serve the interest of the partisans when the President usurps the other parties program? It seems to me that Bush has made a career out of talking conservative while acting moderately liberal. Clinton was pushing a liberal agenda until he learned his lesson in 1994. He quickly repositioned himself.

Bush is more of a log cabin president than a populist. He talks folksy and appeals to the tastes of the people in terms of style. Reagan was similar but able to do it more presidentially.

Bush's administration is almost all CEO, that is hardly populist.

I am not calling Bush this, but what is the difference between a populist and a demagogue? (I have a dictionary)