Table of Contents

One of the emerging motifs of this presidential election is President Bush's audacious effort to construct a parallel universe remote from the real condition of the world and this country. In this parallel universe, the president lives a kind of fantasy life: He's not responsible for the domestic and international problems that have characterized his first term; things are rapidly getting better on every front; he's got a practical and even visionary plan for addressing the challenges he's failed to deal with over the last four years; and his opponent is a cartoon-character pre-Clinton liberal who wants to disarm America, raise taxes on everybody, and expand big government.

Since the Bush-Cheney campaign has moved heaven and earth to make the incumbent's character his trump card in this election, it's about time everybody asked whether simple honesty is a character trait that should be valued in a president.

The strange nature of Mr. Bush's parallel universe has been especially apparent in four areas: national security, the economy, health care, and the federal budget.

National security. It's no secret that Bush has largely staked his re-election on the argument that he is the indispensable man in keeping Americans safe in a dangerous world. But that argument depends on a series of surreal claims about the incumbent's record, his strategy for fighting terrorism, the current conditions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and his opponent's national security credentials.

In Bush's parallel universe, he has been unwavering in taking every possible measure to destroy terrorists and protect Americans. In particular, this has become his rationale for the mess in Iraq: Unwilling to take chances about the alleged Iraqi WMD program or vague suspicions of an alliance between Saddam and al Qaeda, the president put the safety of Americans first.

In the real world, the president has flip-flopped on a vast array of issues related to the war on terrorism -- the Department of Homeland Security, the 9/11 Commission, and intelligence reform, to name but a few. Bush launched military operations in Afghanistan but then failed to take advantage of a chance to capture Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora. The president opposed seeking international support for the invasion of Iraq, then made a half-hearted effort that culminated in a largely token (aside from Great Britain) "coalition of the willing." He went into Iraq without a plan for what to do after Saddam was deposed, and without the forces necessary to stabilize the country.

In Bush's parallel universe, the president's determination to fight terrorism unilaterally and preemptively has made America more respected than ever. In the real world, U.S. prestige and influence are at an all-time low, especially in the greater Middle East. We are clearly losing the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world, where our most important allies remain anti-democratic regimes with little intention of addressing the thwarted aspirations for political and economic freedom that breed terrorism.

In Bush's parallel universe, the alliances and international institutions that the United States built during the Cold War are useless relics that simply restrain our ability to take forceful action against terrorism. In the real world, these alliances and institutions provide the foundation for a new collective security system focused on the war against terrorism. But that's if, and only if, the United States is willing to show leadership and challenge civilized nations to do their part.

And most dangerous of all, in Bush's parallel universe he has intimidated terrorists into fearful inaction by "taking the fight" onto their home turf. In the real world, gaps in our homeland security structure and our intelligence systems, and painfully slow progress in the "wider war against terrorism" through diplomacy and trade, have made us persistently vulnerable to another attack. The administration's sluggish attitude about securing nuclear materials around the world has exposed us more than ever to the ultimate nightmare of a nuclear 9/11.

The economy. Bush's stewardship of the U.S. economy is a central issue in American life, and in the presidential contest. The incumbent has pursued a consistent economic strategy based on the monomaniacal idea that reducing or even eliminating federal income taxes on high earners, big heirs, and dividend coupon-clippers is the key to long-term economic growth. It's a dumb, discredited strategy, but it's a strategy nonetheless.

The Bush-Cheney campaign is trying to construct a parallel universe that distorts both candidates' records, philosophies, and agendas. The incumbent's economic message is that the administration has turned the economy around from the failures it inherited, and that the challenger wants to "go back" to the failed policies of the past.

In Bush's parallel universe, the 1990s boom was nothing more than a speculative bubble that created imaginary economic gains and then a sharp recession. In the real world, most of the economic gains of the Clinton years were tangible and enduring. Real wage income -- not just stock market windfalls -- went up across the board, year after year, for the first time in three decades. The country made the greatest sustained gains against poverty since the 1960s, at the same time as we created the first mass upper-middle class in human history. The "ownership society" that the president likes to talk about as the centerpiece of his second- term agenda actually began to emerge during Clinton's presidency, with record levels of homeownership and middle-class capital investment. America became the unquestioned economic leader of the world. And of course, a generation of budget deficits turned into budget surpluses.

In Bush's parallel universe, the economic record of the 1990s was the result of the public policies of the Reagan administration and had nothing to do with the Clinton administration's policies. In the real world, the Clinton administration had a very explicit and consistent economic strategy -- fiscal discipline, support for innovation and small business ownership, a commitment to U.S. international economic leadership, and investment in the public infrastructure necessary for growth, and in the skills and knowledge of the American workforce.

In Bush's parallel universe, the economic policies of the 1980s, and the economy of the 1980s, are the bright shining stars that should guide America's course. In the real world, the economy of the 1980s was a mixed bag of success and failure, with one period of growth shoehorned between two deep recessions. The only constants were the unprecedented and ever-growing levels of budget deficits and debt, along with rapid deterioration in nearly every social indicator from violent crime to teen pregnancy to homelessness to welfare dependency. Real incomes for wage earners were stagnant, even during the periods of growth and relatively high employment.

In Bush's parallel universe, the administration's tax cut program is simply a matter of letting Americans "keep more of their earnings." In the real world, Bush's tax cuts have been aimed obsessively at reducing income taxation for the wealthiest Americans, while shifting the tax burden from income derived from wealth to income earned by work.

In Bush's parallel universe, American success in an information-age global economy is all about reducing the cost of doing business through tax cuts, corporate subsidies, lower labor costs, fewer policies to support basic labor rights and environmental goals, and a happy complacency toward the offshoring of jobs and foreign government practices that violate international trade laws.

In the real world, a good business climate also means support for innovation, public investments in basic scientific research, a highly skilled workforce where workers' rights are respected, an emphasis on new environmental and energy technologies, and a focus on creating the kind of high-end jobs and industries that draw on America's distinctive strengths.

Health care. The strange nature of Mr. Bush's parallel universe has been especially apparent in his campaign's attempts to frame the debate on health care policy. On the campaign trail, the president says that John Kerry "has got a massive, complicated blueprint to have our government take over the decision making in health care." The Bush-Cheney campaign has run ads that not only repeat the "big government" charge about Kerry's health care plan, but also assert that "President Bush and our leaders in Congress have a practical plan." Both claims are laughably out of line with reality. Consider these characterizations of Kerry's health plan from the official Bush-Cheney website:

"The Kerry Health Care Plan Will Lead to Government-Run Health Insurance. John Kerry's health care plan amounts to little more than the same government-run health insurance schemes proposed by Hillary Clinton in the 1990s. The Kerry health plan will ration care and place significant restrictions on the services and medicines that doctors can prescribe. Meanwhile, it will displace Americans with quality coverage and force them to accept a government- run health care plan that is less effective, less efficient, and more restrictive."

It's hard to know where to begin in analyzing these four sentences of total nonsense. The "government-run health care plan" the Bush-Cheney webpage refers to is the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan (FEHPB), which provides health insurance options for public employees, including the president and Congress. Kerry, like many other policymakers from both parties, suggests that Americans be given the opportunity to voluntarily join the FEHBP system, benefiting from the purchasing power of the plan and its broad array of choices for individual coverage. Interestingly enough, the president himself proposed making FEHBP the centerpiece for Medicare reform as one of the many now-discarded promises of his 2000 campaign.

The general effort to identify the Kerry plan with Clinton Care is a deliberate distortion of both. The Progressive Policy Institute's Health Policy Wire put it well: "As an organization that opposed President Clinton's health care proposal because it violated the principles of managed competition by imposing price controls and government limits on health care spending, we can assure you that John Kerry's health care plan is not the same as President Clinton's." The Bush-Cheney claim that Kerry's plan involves rationing of health care or restrictions on services and medicines is literally made up out of thin air.

Here's another howler from that same Bush-Cheney webpage: "The Kerry health care plan will cause employers to drop existing coverage." In fact, the Kerry plan takes great pains to build on the strengths of existing coverage, especially employer- based coverage. The FEHBP buy-in proposal in no way encourages employers to "drop coverage"; in fact, it simply offers them the opportunity to provide their employees greater health insurance options at lower costs.

Bush's own plan, however, does undermine existing coverage. Its central thrust is to encourage the purchasing of individual health insurance policies, which are often far too expensive for middle-class employees, especially those with chronic health care conditions.

Moreover, the single biggest threat to existing employer-based coverage is skyrocketing premiums, which, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, have gone up an average of $3,512 per family since the incumbent took office. That's one of the reasons the ranks of the uninsured have gone up more than 5 million during the same period. And whatever you think of the Kerry health plan in general, its most striking feature is a determined effort to hold down rising health costs, especially through its proposal to subsidize coverage for the sickest and costliest patients.

The federal budget. In the parallel universe that the Bush-Cheney campaign is trying to construct, any bad news about budget deficits is expunged, while anything that could be construed, however dishonestly, as good news is shouted to high heaven. Hence, the president and the vice president expressed pride and joy at the September Congressional Budget Office report that projected the administration's proposals would produce $4.4 trillion in red ink over the next 10 years -- a figure only marginally less calamitous than earlier estimates had suggested.

All this evasion about the administration's own fiscal policies has not kept President Bush from attacking John Kerry for alleged fiscal profligacy. The president has routinely said his rival's proposals would add $2 trillion to federal spending over the next 10 years. But in the real world, a Washington Post analysis concluded that the president's election- year agenda would carry a $3 trillion price tag over the next 10 years.

In Bush's parallel universe, the president is a tough, corporate-style manager holding the line against big spenders in Washington. In the real world, the president's party completely controls a federal government that is boosting spending at a rate almost three times higher than in the 1990s.

In Bush's parallel universe, fiscal responsibility does not involve any tough, tangible choices; we can have deep tax cuts on high incomes, on investment income, and on big inheritances; more spending both at home and abroad; and a big fat government with no real priorities. In the real world, fiscal responsibility requires both tough choices and real priorities, as Kerry's detailed plan for deficit reduction reflects, along with his commitment to pare back any spending proposals that the country cannot afford.

Americans actually live in the real world, where rhetoric and spin and wishful thinking do not balance budgets or fulfill the government's basic moral responsibility for honest accounting and proper stewardship of public dollars. We need a real-world debate on national security, the economy, health care, and the federal budget. Then we can give voters a real-life choice about the leadership of our country over the next four years.

Ed Kilgore is policy director of the Democratic Leadership Council.