From the Seattle PI. Which is not in the habit of giving President Bush (or any other Republican) credit for anything.
President Bush's great achievements in fighting the HIV pandemic need an early, decisive extension by Congress. That would send a strong signal to world leaders to join more decisively in their own efforts.
. . .
When he committed to PEPFAR, Bush set in motion dramatic progress. Dr. Wendy Johnson of the University of Washington said PEPFAR already has spurred a 20-fold increase in HIV clinics and the numbers of people treated in Mozambique, where she worked in 2004-06. Similar gains are occurring across Africa. It's a change that this country, which has so often ignored Africa, must sustain.
Incidentally, these achievements are recognized in much of Africa, but not in the much of the United States. And I think that almost any political consultant would have told President Bush that his efforts to fight AIDS in Africa would do him little good here in the United States. Bush knew that, but decided to go ahead with the program anyway, because he thought it was the right thing to do.
Imagine that, a politician doing something because he thought it was the right thing to do. That's almost as startling as finding this editorial in the Seattle PI.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
Posted by Jim Miller at April 28, 2008 02:17 PM | Email ThisHow do you know he didn't? Why assume that he didn't donate some of his own personal income to this or some other worthy cause? I don't know one way or the other- just saying.
Posted by: David on April 28, 2008 03:01 PMThe article above says nothing about reducing the rate of new HIV infections. All it says is that government money went to building more clinics and treating more people. But the treatment could be as little as a bandaid.
The liberals are happy to pat a Republican on the back for spending more money, and making bigger welfare programs. They seldom measure their success in ways that make sense, only in "numbers of people treated" or clinics opened, instead of the actual number of AIDS cases, which I think are still growing.
Where are the conservatives? They seem to have left the Republican Party. We should not be applauding the fact that Bush is getting credit for starting these wasteful and ineffective programs, we should be opposed to the principle of wasting money on corrupt, African governments and spending the taxpayers' money in ways not authorized by the Constitution.
Bush is a big-government liberal, and it is surprising to me that Jim sees more taxpayer money wasted as good news for Republican values.
Look, if you want to help the crisis of AIDS in Africa, (a worthy cause) give to private organizations. They are vastly more effective, and don't tend to corrupt government officials who then oppress their own people. And don't force your neighbors to support your charitable causes via government taxation. That's not Republican. Persuade them instead. Forced charity isn't even charity. It is a contradiction in terms.
And government programs tend to do a better job of helping government officials than helping victims of disease.
But it's not about helping sick people. It's about partisan politics. Right, Jim? As long as Bush looks good, that is all that matters... Sheesh.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on April 28, 2008 03:08 PMI haven't decided which was more startling, the fact of the claim itself or that someone had the courage to publicly voice it.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 28, 2008 03:41 PMI'm all for helping them.. Gov funds? No. Still a lib bent which is wrong...
Gezzz people. Tell it like it is.. AIDS kills 'period'
We have NEVER have a fix for a virus!
NEVER... \\By the way.. 30+ year in medical with my BS and maybe soon masters. Not that it matters, and soon to retire.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 28, 2008 05:10 PMI heard Jack Valenti speak in DC the night of Bush's second inaugural and he pointed out that no President in history has ever approached doing what Bush has done for AIDS victims. And that was only after his first term -- he did so much more during his second.
It takes a very accute strain of cynicism to think this is a negative... :)
The right thing for a president to do is not give money to african governments to build clinics. The right thing for a president to do would have been to veto such a bill and explain to congress that it does not have the constitutional authority for such expenditures.
Do you agree?
Posted by: Lysander on April 28, 2008 07:02 PMAlso, I get irked when people like Travis Pahl emphatically (arrogantly?) state that such programs are unconstitutional. Well, luckily we have an institutional method for determining constitutionality of such government programs. They seem to have spoken, case closed!
Pahl and the Ronulans have taken to saying off-hand that 99% of government programs are unconstitutional, as if the fact that they say it ipso facto makes it so. Welcome to a pluralistic society, guys! You can have your OPINIONS, that's great, but the FACT is (until SCOTUS tells us otherwise) that these programs are perfectly constitutional.
And stop being so ashamed/outraged that your country is saving millions (literally millions) of lives abroad. I know you'd much rather get the cash direct deposited in your bank account, but grow up.
Posted by: AD on April 28, 2008 11:31 PMI am not being arrogant, I am being realistic. Do you really think our framers had in mind funding clinincs in africa as a legitimate function of congress?
If yes please tell me where in the constitution you think they granted that.
Yes we live in america and we are granted the right to an opinion. You have stated yours. Now lets see you back it up. Just because the SC has not invalidated it does not mean the constituion does grant congress that power.
Posted by: Lysander on April 29, 2008 05:43 AMYou inadvertantly prove my point. We're talking about the AIDS crisis here. And no, the framers did not have AIDS in mind at all, did they? In fact, 99% of the problems we now face would have blown them away because they're so outlandish and crazy. Why? Because they lived in the 18th century and are dead. They were great, brilliant men who risked everything to start a revolution, but they're DEAD. I don't worship them. The world has changed. So it's no shame congress has, too.
Posted by: AD on April 29, 2008 04:56 PMYou seem to agree that the constitution as written does not grant congress the power to fund clinics in Africa because at the time the framers had no idea about aids. Is that a fair assessment of your position?
I agree completly. The framers certainly did not forseen the aids crisis (here or in Africa). However they did forsee that the world was not static and that their constitution might not handle all situations that arise. That is why they in the constitution outlined the requirements for an amendment.
If we really think it is a good idea to grant congress the power to build health care clinics here and in Africa wouldn't we be better off if we at least demanded our congress amend the constitution and our president veto bills until they do? Otherwise why have an amendment process? Why have a constitution at all?
Posted by: Lysander on April 29, 2008 06:14 PMBut the real thing he misses is that the net effect of our spending in Africa is probably negative on human welfare on the continent. That is because their main problem is not disease or poverty, it is the dictatorships that make both of these inevitable. As long as we give money via the government, it has to pass through local dictatorships, and this corrupts them and ensures that they stay in power to oppress their populations.
One African economist said: "For God's sake, stop the aid!"
Yes, some Africans might be aware that the money came from the US government, but most aren't. Can you buy friends? Not loyal ones. But if NGO's did the work, the money would be spent more effectively, and the US would get just as much credit.
But what do you really care about, helping the poor of Africa or making the US government and the Republicans look good?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on April 29, 2008 09:30 PMThe greatest gift our founding fathers gave us was the gift of a political system that was both responsive to the public AND stable. Part of that stability comes from its institutional rigidity. I'd certainly love it if our constitution could be updated daily so as to deal with the unending changes we face. But that doesn't happen, does it? Well that sucks because the world didn't get that memo and does actually change on an accelerating and regular basis. And I think you reflexively take that view ONLY because you DO know how hard it is to change the constitution. Am I right? :)
I used to have the same ideas you did. And really, it wasn't based on any principles, but rather a desire for ideological purity and simplicity. It was political fundamentalism and dogma. I don't worship the founding fathers and I don't bow down before the constitution. I realize that the ideas they represent ONLY have value in their practical applications. And to have any practical application, they have to be practically applied. You'd rather we had an impotent government because your chosen political ideology dictates that government is always and forever a generally malevolent force.
I'd rather rip the constitution to shreds and save millions of human beings in the process than blindly worship a piece of paper and deliberately let them die. There, I said it! :)
Posted by: AD on April 29, 2008 09:41 PMIf distribution of antiretroviral drugs to AIDS patients is an effort on our part to "build a vast empire" then I say build away! I think that's just hyperbole on your part, though. :)
And I'm well aware of government's limitations. I know a lot of aid money is misspent and mismanaged.
But let me get this clear: are you saying that PEPFAR has NOT helped Africans? Are you saying that the African continent would be a better place today if PEPFAR had never been proposed and implemented?
Posted by: AD on April 29, 2008 09:50 PMCan you explain how ignoring the requirement for amendment process keeps the system stable?
Yes the world is changing but not anywhere near a rate where the amendment process could not be followed.
Oh and thanks for being honest about wanting to rip the constitution to shreds. Unfortunatly I do not think that will ever result in saving millions of lives. The more likely result is it costing millions of lives.
Posted by: Lysander on April 30, 2008 04:06 PMYou and the other 1% of Americans in the Ronulan movement can continue with the constitutional idol worship. I will say that if I chose to make any piece of paper my Deity, that one would be on the short list. :) But me and my government will continue saving human lives around the world. yay pepfar
Posted by: AD on April 30, 2008 06:29 PMSo your position is that if you support the constitution, you are best off supporting the RP wing of the GOP. If you think the constitution should be ignored, then support the McCain wing?
Posted by: Lysander on April 30, 2008 06:38 PMWould you agree that two people can look at the same piece of information and come to different conclusions as to what it means? Do you agree that different people can have different opinions AND it is the RESPONSIBILITY of civilized people to RESPECT the opinions of people they disagree with?
Because the constitution is not something people wake up in the morning and just decide either we support it or we don't support it. WE ALL SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION. There is just a healthy debate over precisely how the document's meaning should be applied. You do NOT have a corner on the truth in this matter. To say that you do is arrogance and I'm sure it makes matters very simple and fun for you, but it annoys people like me who believe in pluralism. :)
Posted by: AD on April 30, 2008 10:06 PMWe do not disagree on the documents meaning, nor do we both support the constitution. You have made it clear that you do not think it needs to be followed and in fact if it to implement a policy you like you will shred the constitution.
So yes we are in two distinct camps and all people fall into one of them. I think it should be followed, you think it should be followed when convienent. There are going to be differences within the camp but I do not think anyone is outside of one of those two camps. In my camp there are people that disagree on interpretation. In your camp there is disagreement on when it should be ignored.
And yes... within the GOP there is two camps as well and they are best represented by McCain and Paul.
It is not a religion or some time of wierd dogma as you protray it, it is a healthy respect for a limited government (something that is impossible if we through out the supreme law of the land whenever inconvienent.
Posted by: Lysander on April 30, 2008 11:17 PMLysander and I are suggesting that there is no Constitutional authorization to send humanitarian aid to foreign nations. All you have to do to prove us wrong is to point out the exact phrase in the Constitution that authorizes that action.
We patiently await your considered reply.
PREPFAR may have helped some Africans, but the question is, on balance would Africans be better off with a policy of US government aid being funnelled through local corrupt governments, or for Americans to be taxed less so that they wind up giving more money to NGO's. I think it is the latter. So in answer to AD@17, yes, I think Africans would have been better off had PREPFAR never been implemented.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on May 1, 2008 10:41 AMHe already already agreed it is not authorized and that the foriegn aid to build clinics in africa is more important than the constitution.
I appreciate his honesty regarding his lack of respect for the constitution.
Posted by: Lysander on May 1, 2008 12:16 PMAs it stands now though, I obviously hate the constitution. HATE HATE HATE. You totally exposed me! :D
Posted by: AD on May 1, 2008 06:27 PMWe did not expose you. You exposed yourself when you said you would happily shred the constitution in order to build clinics in africa.
And you are right I see people as being in one of two camps. Those that think the constitution should be supported and amended when necessary (This would include, me, Bruce, & Ron Paul amongst millions of others), and those that think the constitution is not important enough to follow or ammend (this would include you per your statement above, Clintons, Bush, and McCain amongst millions of others). Do you disagree with this paragraph? If so, how?
Posted by: Lysander on May 1, 2008 07:34 PMIt's all psychological and this is a common social/political phenomenon. We see it on the left just like we see it with you guys on the pseudo-right. You create for yourself this dramatic, urgent conflict along with a breathtakingly simple (and myopic) solution which you cling to as an Article of Faith. And through the act of clinging to your dogma and through aggressively demonizing those you perceive to be the agents of the apostasy you accomplish something very important. You create for yourself a purpose. A reason for being. You are not just Travis Pahl, average American. You are Travis Pahl, Defender of Freedom and Happy Warrior for All Things Good and Perfect, thank you very much and you have your signed copy of ron paul's manifesto to prove it (I bet).
It's fun, I know. Everyone who's interested in politics and has strong opinions flirts with the same emotions. But, God. Libertarians take the cake. :D
Posted by: AD on May 1, 2008 09:07 PMI did not create a camp of angels and a camp of demons. I made no judgement calls at all. My two camps are,
"Those that think the constitution should be supported and amended when necessary"
and
"those that think the constitution is not important enough to follow or ammend".
Do you not agree that people must fit into one of these two groups? Can you give an example of a person that would not fit into either or a person that would fit into both? Do you disagree with the people I put into the one of the two groups?
Or is your only concern in that you think one is evil and the other is angelic?
Posted by: Lysander on May 2, 2008 10:10 AM