Indignant supporters of President Bush call his critics “Bush-bashers” and unpatriotic. But he isn’t the first president to be “bashed.” It happens when core values of part of the public are radically threatened by an administration, while the interests of the opposing part are radically advantaged.

A friend whose father was a pastor in an affluent Chicago suburb in the 1930s told me his parents were shocked at the virulent personal criticisms of FDR by wealthy parishioners. FDR spent hugely, creating agencies to provide jobs for the unemployed, supported labor and the working class, secured enactment of Social Security and, in foreign relations, Lend-Lease. His opposition believed in private, not government, initiatives, the primacy of business interests – with “trickle-down” benefits for workers, not labor unions. And isolationism in foreign relations.

Since FDR, balance between these two positions has varied between administrations, but never critically.

Bush’s agenda represents the most extreme ideological shift since FDR. He would lessen or abolish established benefits in government-authorized health, welfare, labor and environmental programs domestically, and abandon multilateralism internationally. His supporters never criticize Bush-the-president and endorse some or all of his positions.

Neither of these positions can deny some virtue to the other. There will always be people, disadvantaged by circumstances, who need help from the rest of us. And there’ll be those who want, and are able, to go it on their own. A workable society and government must provide for the legitimate needs of both.

Dorothy E. Prince, Auburn