George Bush’S Great America [EN]: Chapter 65

< Episode 64 >

It’s well-known that the Democratic Party favors public works projects, with ‘Obamacare’ being a prime example of their enthusiasm.

Obamacare, a combination of ‘Medicare’ and ‘Obama,’ mandated that all American citizens subscribe to health insurance. While its outcome diverged from its original intent, my focus here isn’t Obamacare itself.

Instead, I want to discuss the Democratic Party’s deep-seated inclination towards public works and welfare policies.

“In the most successful and powerful country in the world, the United States, how long must we endure the sight of dilapidated wooden telephone poles?”

Ostensibly, it was the initial step in modernizing outdated infrastructure. This ‘telephone pole replacement project’ also encompassed the replacement of telephone and internet lines. Bush aimed for the latter but, to justify it, presented it as a ‘large-scale infrastructure replacement project.’

This was Karl Rove’s brainchild. His persuasive skills allowed him to quickly estimate costs and propose ‘shortcuts’ that Bush hadn’t considered. Drawing upon his extensive experience, Rove’s ideas consistently elicited a pleased smile from Bush.

Theoretical frameworks can always appear flawless. However, practical implementation subjects ‘policies and laws’ to a myriad of unpredictable variables. These elements are in constant flux, and even minor adjustments can drastically alter their interpretation and impact.

That’s the story from Bush’s perspective. But what about the other side?

“What? What about the budget?”

The inevitable question of funding echoed through Congress. Regardless of the US budget’s robustness, the expenditure was substantial. The US maintained its functionality through relative efficiency.

This was especially true for the Republican Party, which felt uneasy about allocating significant government funds to infrastructure. This stemmed from their belief in small government, a libertarian principle advocating ‘no government intervention in the private market!’

“We need to encourage private capital participation.”

“How?”

“We should make a significant portion of equity investment tax-exempt. Guaranteeing profitability will attract private investment.”

“That’s unproductive! It only benefits Wall Street executives! If we proceed like that, attracting private funds will fail, and the reform plan will collapse!”

Their concerns extended beyond mere telephone poles.

They encompassed essential services like drinking water supply, roads spanning the vast American landscape, water transportation, airports, and even sewage and water treatment facilities. Some even contemplated public education or health insurance reform.

Again, this wasn’t just about replacing telephone poles; it was about defining how the Bush administration would ‘address aging infrastructure’ within the federal government.

With a high probability of re-election, the debate over policies that would shape the next ‘approximately 7 years’ was more intense than ever.

State and local governments were diligently investing in infrastructure, but the limitations were becoming increasingly apparent. Experts warned of a potential downward trend within one or two years. At the regular 발표 [presentation] held every four years, the American Society of Civil Engineers bluntly criticized, ‘Fuck the Government!’ emphasizing the lack of timely budget investment from 1988 to 2001.

However, a common sentiment prevailed across party lines. Neither the Democratic Party, advocating for a large government, nor the Republican Party, favoring a small government, wanted the infrastructure reconstruction project to become a bottomless pit. They demanded clarity on expenditure, efficiency gains, and project timelines.

However, even with careful planning, the outcome depends on the approach taken. Will it reinforce the structure or shatter it?

The Democratic Party favored a cautious, hands-on approach, while the Republican Party preferred a comprehensive, potentially destructive overhaul.

In essence, the Democratic Party aimed to facilitate future infrastructure projects, while the Republican Party sought to minimize them.

Bush, having closely observed the situation, responded with:

“These fucking bastards!”

“You’re cheerful as always.”

The chief of staff’s heart, though outwardly listening, was far from cheerful (明朗) but more like Myeongnyang (鳴梁) [referencing a famous Korean naval battle, implying turmoil], but what did he know? Bush was even considering a massive split within his own Republican Party, so how could his heart not be troubled?

‘I can see what you’re thinking.’

With even a basic understanding of the situation, some things are self-evident. As expected, the chief of staff was thinking, ‘The President will take care of it,’ and was thoroughly embracing his role of 맞춰주기 [going along with], one of his duties as chief of staff.

Still, his popularity was reminiscent of President Reagan’s resurgence, wasn’t it?

‘Oh, right. That guy’s not dead yet.’

He nearly prematurely declared a living person deceased.

Upon calmer reflection, Bush realized that former President Reagan was not in perfect health. He was suffering from severe dementia, often failing to recognize his beloved wife.

He considered meeting him as a junior colleague, but deemed it inappropriate given Reagan’s condition. Bush abandoned the idea of meeting the most popular president in the United States. Furthermore, Ronald Reagan passed away in 2004 after a long life and ascended to heaven.

‘Anyway, I’m glad I have Rove.’

In reality, 2001 was not an ideal year for internet investment due to the dot-com bubble. However, Karl Rove subtly adjusted the strategy, making things significantly easier.

As I always say, the size of a bubble is like a malignant tumor, and the larger it grows, the more excruciating the removal process becomes.

To illustrate how the entire IT industry resembled a pink flower garden, like a 소녀만화 [shojo manga – a manga marketed towards young female audience] in the 80s and 90s, one phrase suffices. At the time, it was casually dismissed, but now, no other phrase better captures the expectations that intellectuals held for the internet.

It was the hopeful notion that ‘Netizens have no ethnicity, skin color, gender discrimination, or wealth gap, so it is a perfect democratic world!’ Even though it originated from a cartoon drawn by a professor considered an expert, according to Kim Gap-hwan’s memory in 2019, one of these ideals should have materialized, but none did.

After the bubble burst and reality proved to be a 시궁창 [sewage ditch], almost no one wanted to invest in the IT business anymore. Of course, investors analyze the numbers, but the numbers need a solid foundation.

The primary appeal of IT stocks lay in the dreams and hopes fueled by novelty and the unknown. However, as reality set in, the foundation began to crumble. Meanwhile, the dot-com bubble, marred by a massive scandal, swept away the solid foothold of high-수익 종목 [high-profit stocks], culminating in a 와장창 [crash] ending for IT, like a broken window.

That occurred in 2000. It was challenging for Congress to alter its perception of the internet in just one year. The upward trend would resume around 2003, but Bush was unwilling to wait.

“Hmm, 2003.”

“Yes?”

“Chief of Staff, do you recall the iPod that was released this year?”

“Yes, I’m aware of it due to its popularity. Wasn’t the catchphrase ‘1,000 songs in your pocket’?”

‘Everything is still lacking.’

Steve Jobs’ experience was limited, Apple’s stock price was low, and the development of hardware components and supporting know-how was severely underdeveloped. In short, everything was deficient.

‘But I can accelerate the process.’

Given the inevitable rise of IT and Silicon Valley, there was no reason not to support them. However, this type of business doesn’t flourish rapidly simply by injecting funds.

‘Wait a minute.’

“Chief of Staff.”

“Yes, Mr. President.”

“I’m considering slightly altering the direction of the Land Warrior project. What are your thoughts?”

“In what way?”

“Increase the total battery capacity, lighten communication equipment, and strengthen the network.”

“Ah, so the focus is on weight reduction.”

“According to the report, the weight of the equipment hinders effective combat.”

They were carrying assault rifles, but the weight was comparable to a 경기관총 [light machine gun]. The heavy battery packs on their backs had a short lifespan and were cumbersome. By the time they engaged in battle, the batteries were often depleted, rendering them mere sandbags that impeded movement.

“We need to prioritize the battery aspect. We’ll allocate more budget to the battery development, fulfilling their requests. Instruct them to develop both lithium-ion and zinc-air types.”

So, why the sudden mention of Land Warrior? It was due to ‘battery’ technology.

Fundamentally, the technology used for rechargeable portable batteries was the same as lithium-ion batteries, which also powered smartphones. However, the US military favored zinc-air batteries over lithium-ion batteries due to their significantly lower risk of fire and explosion and their lower cost.

Of course, if you instructed the Pentagon to develop military equipment using lithium-ion batteries, they would dismiss you. But what could they do when the person who extracted half the budget from China instructed them to do so? In a way, it was a legal form of embezzlement.

‘I’ve secured battery technology development with this move.’

Bush chose to cultivate the technology that would be used in smartphones in advance, piecing together the puzzle.

‘I’m determined to introduce a smartphone to the world in 2004, regardless of the manufacturer.’

Whether it was Apple or BlackBerry, it would be beneficial if anyone could release a smartphone. However, while BlackBerry was the closest to a smartphone, it was a Canadian company, making it prudent to nurture Apple’s growth.

“If you instruct them to develop both simultaneously, the backlash will be significant. How do we address that?”

“Give them more money.”

“Ah.”