Bush Continues to Abuse Presidential Symbolism
By Byron LaMasters
We spent some time in one of my government classes today discussing today's Paul Krugman op-ed piece in the New York Times.
By my count, this year's budget contains 27 glossy photos of Mr. Bush. We see the president in front of a giant American flag, in front of the Washington Monument, comforting an elderly woman in a wheelchair, helping a small child with his reading assignment, building a trail through the wilderness and, of course, eating turkey with the troops in Iraq. Somehow the art director neglected to include a photo of the president swimming across the Yangtze River.
It was not ever thus. Bill Clinton's budgets were illustrated with tables and charts, not with worshipful photos of the president being presidential.
The issue here goes beyond using the Government Printing Office to publish campaign brochures. In this budget, as in almost everything it does, the Bush administration tries to blur the line between reverence for the office of president and reverence for the person who currently holds that office.
Very true. Krugman goes on to compare this abuse of presidential symbolism to Opperation Flight Suit, etc., but the idea of putting dozens of pictures of the president in the budget is very distasteful. This is a federal document, not a piece of campaign literature. George W. Bush has shown time and time again how he, as Krugman writes, has more reverence for himself, than for the office of the Presidency itself. So much for returning dignity and honor to the White House...
Posted by Byron LaMasters at February 13, 2004 03:26 PM
| TrackBack
Byron,
Who actually reads the Federal Budget? Besides the people whose jobs involve reading it, hardly anyone, and hardly any swing voters. Presidential photos or not, the visual layout of the budget will do nothing to help or harm Bush's re-election chances. So why gripe about it?
Sherk