Conservatives - would you please read this and comment?

Question

There have been a number of articles recently that portray President Bush as someone who strayed from the path of true conservatism. Republicans, these articles say, need to return to their roots.

Well, I don't know what true conservatism is, but while doing research for my forthcoming book I spent a lot of time studying the history of the American political movement that calls itself conservatism - and Mr. Bush hasn't strayed from the path at all. On the contrary, he's the very model of a modern movement conservative.

For example, people claim to be shocked that Mr. Bush cut taxes while waging an expensive war. But Ronald Reagan also cut taxes while embarking on a huge military buildup.

People claim to be shocked by Mr. Bush's general fiscal irresponsibility. But conservative intellectuals, by their own account, abandoned fiscal responsibility 30 years ago. Here's how Irving Kristol, then the editor of The Public Interest, explained his embrace of supply-side economics in the 1970s: He had a "rather cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit and other monetary or fiscal problems" because "the task, as I saw it, was to create a new majority, which evidently would mean a conservative majority, which came to mean, in turn, a Republican majority - so political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government."

People claim to be shocked by the way the Bush administration outsourced key government functions to private contractors yet refused to exert effective oversight over these contractors, a process exemplified by the failed reconstruction of Iraq and the Blackwater affair.

But back in 1993, Jonathan Cohn, writing in The American Prospect, explained that "under Reagan and Bush, the ranks of public officials necessary to supervise contractors have been so thinned that the putative gains of contracting out have evaporated. Agencies have been left with the worst of both worlds - demoralized and disorganized public officials and unaccountable private contractors."

People claim to be shocked by the Bush administration's general incompetence. But disinterest in good government has long been a principle of modern conservatism. In "The Conscience of a Conservative," published in 1960, Barry Goldwater wrote that "I have little interest in streamlining government or making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size."

People claim to be shocked that the Bush Justice Department, making a mockery of the Constitution, issued a secret opinion authorizing torture despite instructions by Congress and the courts that the practice should stop. But remember Iran-Contra? The Reagan administration secretly sold weapons to Iran, violating a legal embargo, and used the proceeds to support the Nicaraguan contras, defying an explicit Congressional ban on such support.

Oh, and if you think Iran-Contra was a rogue operation, rather than something done with the full knowledge and approval of people at the top - who were then protected by a careful cover-up, including convenient presidential pardons - I've got a letter from Niger you might want to buy.

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration's efforts to disenfranchise minority groups, under the pretense of combating voting fraud. But Reagan opposed the Voting Rights Act, and as late as 1980 he described it as "humiliating to the South."

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration's attempts - which, for a time, were all too successful - to intimidate the press. But this administration's media tactics, and to a large extent the people implementing those tactics, come straight out of the Nixon administration. Dick Cheney wanted to search Seymour Hersh's apartment, not last week, but in 1975. Roger Ailes, the president of Fox News, was Nixon's media adviser.

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration's attempts to equate dissent with treason. But Goldwater - who, like Reagan, has been reinvented as an icon of conservative purity but was a much less attractive figure in real life - staunchly supported Joseph McCarthy, and was one of only 22 senators who voted against a motion censuring the demagogue.

Above all, people claim to be shocked by the Bush administration's authoritarianism, its disdain for the rule of law. But a full half-century has passed since The National Review proclaimed that "the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail," and dismissed as irrelevant objections that might be raised after "consulting a catalogue of the rights of American citizens, born Equal" - presumably a reference to the document known as the Constitution of the United States.

Now, as they survey the wreckage of their cause, conservatives may ask themselves: "Well, how did we get here?" They may tell themselves: "This is not my beautiful Right." They may ask themselves: "My God, what have we done?"

But their movement is the same as it ever was. And Mr. Bush is movement conservatism's true, loyal heir.

Answer 1

I've been a conservative for many years and do know what conservatism is and stands for. Bush is no conservative. Not only is he no conservative, he's also a globalist.

Answer 2

I read your link. I hope you will read mine. The Capital Times - your "progressive" news source? Certainly you would agree that the author of this editorial has a bias, would you not? If there is one thing that "progressives" dislike, its a difference of opinion. Certainly one that differs from their own. The editorial offered nothing more than the rantings of a former news director (not as you describe, a "conservative talk radio insider") and every liberal stereotype of conservative talk radio. Hardly a hard hitting expose on the "seedy underbelly" of the voice of traditional America. If this reply has shown one thing about the difference between conservatives and liberals, I hope that it would be that conservatives are willing to show where you are wrong not just scream at you that you are. By the way, you are wrong! Better luck next time.

Answer 3

I don't know how old you are, but I remember all of those things well. From President Nixon up to President Bush. More then thirty years of watching politics, especially republicans because I have never agreed with their philosophy. It used to be just guns, taxes and large government. Today it includes gays, abortion, christianity, patriotism and religion. Can anyone tell me in what way are republicans conservative? From Nixon to Bush, not a one has balanced the budget. In fact every one of them grew the national debt, with President George W. Bush setting records for spending. Roe v Wade still stands, their hatred for anyone not "christian" god fearing people is obvious with their stance about gays and lesbians. They talk about communism and socialism constantly, while writing and passing laws such as the patriot act. Cry incessantly for more oil production, more wells, more drilling, with nary a thought of conservation. Fight tooth and nail against any kind of social program for Americans while giving away hundreds of billions to Iraq. In my opinion, in the over thirty years that I have watched republican politics, there is nothing conservative about them.

Answer 4

Talk about liberal hippie hand-wringing! I could write a diatribe as long as that about Clinton and LBJ, but you wouldn't read past the first sentence. Shall we talk about Vietnam, Bosnia and Kosovo? Or shall we talk about affirmative action, or shall we talk about 8 years of moratoriums on thinning and control burning creating so much fuel in our forests that they almost burned to the ground by the time Bush took over and started allowing them to be administrated again for their own protection? WHERE DO I BEGIN?

Maybe I should bring up the fact that Clinton allowed the government to be shut down before signing the legislation the Republican Congress put through that ultimately led to a balanced budget, and then TOOK CREDIT FOR IT WHEN IT WORKED. Naw, I won't bring that up because it might hurt your feelings, and we wouldn't want that.

Answer 5

OMG, don't you know by now that when we go to the polls to elect a president (or anyone for that matter) we have to choose between the lesser of 2 evils. I'd rather have Bush in the White House than Gore or Kerry any day! Ugh, perish the thought!

Answer 6

And, most importantly, political conservatism is as vaguely defined as ever to preserve deniability which some of the other responders are attempting to fully take advantage of to dissociate themselves with its shameful past.

Answer 7

GWB always liked to compare himself with Ronald Reagan. Thank you for doing it for him. Although, you were kind of a windbag.

Answer 8

ok... I read your preview. I doubt that you actually want a real answer to your speech (there was no question in there). If I am mistaken, contact me and I will fill you in.

Also, if your letter from Niger were so important, why would you resort to selling it?

Answer 9

You are right. There are a lot of parallels.

People are complaining about Bush's spending but had Clinton kept up with the needs of this country, his spending could have been greatly reduced.

Instead, it only appears greatly exaggerated.

Answer 10

You need to keep researching, because the same people who say Bush strayed from conservatism also say that Reagan did too. The fact that Bush and Reagan are unlike all other conservatives we know in regards to fiscal policy should inform you that they are not following typical conservative ideals. You claim to research conservatism and compare it to Bush and Reagan (the two most non-conservative presidents ever) and then you devolve into a rant against Bush. I hope you weren't trying to be intelligent because you totally failed.