Posted on 01/08/2005 4:12:28 AM PST by snopercod
The Republican Party now seems to have it all: possession of the U.S. presidency and expanded control of Congress. Ironically, however, President Bush’s victory might destroy American conservatism. The GOP and conservative movement have lost their souls.
Modern American conservatism grew out of the classical liberal tradition that birthed the U.S. For years Republicans emphasized their commitment to individual liberty and limited constitution government. They believed Washington to possess only specific enumerated powers. The most important domestic issues were matters for the states.
Internationally American needed to be strong but responsible: War was a tool to protect U.S. security, not remake the world.
Most important was recognition of the limitations of political action. Economist Thomas Sowell observed how the right had a “constrained” view of mankind: No amount of social engineering could transcend humanity’s inherent imperfections. In contrast, modern liberals held an “unconstrained” view, that is, they believed in the perfectibility of human beings and institutions.
Although GOP operatives and their conservative supporters often placed political expedience before philosophical purity, most at least criticized expanding government power. And occasionally - during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, for instance - they actually rolled back one or another program.
In 2000 candidate Bush ran within this conservative tradition. But he has turned his party into another vehicle of modern liberalism, little different from the Democrats.
Federal spending has raced ahead at levels more often associated with the Democratic Party. Even as administration officials preached restraint to the lame-duck Congress, they demanded increased outlays on their priorities amid the pork-filled budget bill. The administration has pushed to nationalize local issues, expanding federal control over education, for instance.
Bush engineered the largest expansion of America’s welfare state in decades, a poorly designed and hugely expensive pharmaceutical benefit. And Bush’s officials shamelessly lied about the legislation’s cost.
The president is not without good ideas. But the GOP’s spending excesses threaten to undo his most important success, income tax cuts, and undercut his proposal to create private Social Security accounts.
The administration terms its expansion of government as “empowerment.” But this is just another name for nanny-state regulation. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card explained that Bush “sees America as we think about a 10-year-old child,” requiring Washington’s benevolent guidance.
In foreign affairs Bush most dramatically diverged from traditional conservatism, advancing an international agenda breathtaking in its arrogance. First, he launched a preventative war based on bad intelligence, but offered no apologies for his mistake.
His substitute justification, that of promoting democracy in a recalcitrant Islamic society, harkened back to liberal was making in the tradition of President Wilson. Abandoning traditional Republican skepticism of foreign aid, Bush sought to win Iraqi hearts and minds by providing garbage trucks and creating a postal ZIP Code system. Such social engineering seemed more apropos of liberal Democrats.
Equally disappointing was Bush’s commitment to executive prerogative. Supporters explicitly and administration members implicitly questioned the patriotism of anyone who criticized the president’s Iraq policy. He brusquely dismissed fiscally responsible members of Congress who advocated trimming the Iraqi aid program.
Although a decent person, Bush represents the worst anti-intellectual caricature of religious conservatives. He admits that he doesn’t read or “do nuance.” He believes in presidential infallibility and exhibits an irresponsible, juvenile cockiness (“bring ‘em on,” he said as U.S. soldiers were being killed in Iraq). He holds no one in his administration accountable.
Alas, he has influence much of the Republican Party and conservative movement. Leading GOP congressmen have given up attempting to eliminate even the most wasteful programs. Some conservative intellectuals also want to make peace with Leviathan.
Although the GOP long has violated conservative principles, there once was a difference between the philosophies and parties. No one could make the governing philosophy of Reagan and Jimmy Carter.
That difference is no longer discernible. Under Bush, modern conservatism has become a slightly fainter version of modern liberalism. Both groups believe the right application of spending, regulation and war can perfect people and their institutions.
Conservatism was the main political repository of the classical liberal commitment to individual liberty in America. But Bush has gutted the right’s opposition to the growth of statism in the U.S. By embracing Bush, conservatives have won power, but they have sold their souls - along with the individual liberty that is so integral to the American experience - for a mess of pottage.
Any typos are mine.
Sad, but true. The old GOP traditions of fiscal responsibility and limited government died somewhere along the way. We'll never see them back again.
Ah, what a bunch of crap.
Are you saying that my statement that the GOP used to believe in limited government and fiscal responsibility is crap? Or are you saying that the current GOP IS practicing limited government and fiscal responsibility? Which?
I'm a realist. When you compare both sides I can't see guys like me, a conservative, would change.
Speaking as a despised moderate, it seems that conservatives are only about abortion.
So do I.
Thanks for pounding it out so we can read it.
You may not have changed, but what if your party has without you?
Great article. Where do you think the country is headed because of this? Since both sides have moved to the left where do we turn for conservatism?
I must be either Chinese, Indian or Mexican, then. I guess I can't be an American of German and Polish descent or I would be despised by you, too.
Best regards - I write this only as a bit of education.
Why not just come out and say you think Americans are jerks - be honest. This little bit of condescension is boorish.
And in a few short years all we have sought to build will go by the wayside and the republican party will fall into corruption as the dems of the 1960's and 1970's did.
There are mechanisms with which we can lance out the lesions and the cancers before they spread -- FR has helped bring the republicans to power and we can try to help police them.
We need to fearlessly speak of what is right and wrong within the party and help frame the debate around the issues of our time. Bush's plan for worker amnesty is bad. So we need to make a lot of noise. But noise is not enough we need to speak in clear terms of what is right and wrong about it.
The republican party is beholden to the hispanic vote so they fear touching the third rail of imigration. We need to make a lot of noise about this but as I said before noise is not enough concrete plans and Ideas to stem the flow pf illegals need to be done, Move an army post on the border along a main corridor and let the military perform its own sercurity. That is a no brainer that will take some pressure off the politicians and not have the oborder patrols stretched so thin. Erect some sections of fence like israels along some othe key sections 10 -20 mile sections. One giant fence proabably wouldn't pass but smalle sections in targeted areas would.
With prodding and the selective voting in of true conservatives we can bring back physical conservatism term limites and other things that have been cast asside in the last few years.
All is not lost -- but if we sit back and let the party run us all will be lost, and all too soon.
And where then will we turn to to save us the dems? not on your life. We built this thing and breathed life into it when there was none, we can not let this be pissed away in a few short years.
Weed and Feed!
What makes Cato think there was a mistake? There is far, far more at stake in the Iraq war than keeping WMDs away from terrorists.
In American politics there are Conseravtives and Liberals, not Republicans and Democrats. The only difference between the our two political parties is which one has the most Conservatives or Liberals.
The Republican party has more Conservatives than Liberals (which we call RINOs), and Republican Conservatives dominate the Republican electorate as we've seen in the last election But, the Republican leadership has strayed away from Republican's basic principles under Bush due in part to the Iraq war and to win over traditional Democratic voters.
That being said, the Conservative movement is far from dead, and certainly hasn't "lost its soul". Unlike Democratic Liberals whose basic principles rely on a "government down" philosophy Conservative principles of "the least government is the best government" still underlie the Conservative electorate, and they will make their voice heard in the voting booth if things get too far out of hand. Democrats have just woken up to this fact.
We are doomed, DOOMED I say.
WRONG!
Maybe they're mad because Pres. Bush didn't legalize drugs and pedophilia.
One solution - TERM LIMITS.
There was an astute FReeper who posted that he thought that when the RATs went away for good, that the GOP would split into two parties. I'm trying to find that post and ping the guy (or gal).
A little? The guy has yet to meet a spending bill he did not like. No the problem is that Bush is taking his religious beliefs to the extreme. He never challenges or calls into question anything anyone says about him, even in the debates. This turn the other cheek crap has to go. Real leaders are not complacent. Personally its time to use the war leader status onto the domestic front.
FWIW, I disagree with that statement as well. I have never thought that the WMD were the reason we went in to Iraq.
But hey, I'm just an old country boy. Revenge for 9-11 was good enough for me.
This is just sour grapes from Cato libertarians when things don't go exactly their way. Why didn't they author mention social issues? Bush is more of a social conservative than Reagan.
Bush is showing signs of addressing the first - I read on a thread a couple of days ago that Bush wants a spending freeze. But IMO he's going the wrong way on immigration, and it threatens to peel off large chunks of the GOP base in 2008 into a third party.
That is true. And Republicans couldn't get elected assistant butt wiper at a diarrhea epidemic.
So the Republicans began to adopt the political philosophy held by a majority of Americans. After doing so they began to win races on both the state and local levels. By 1994 the Republicans, for the first time since 1928, were the majority party.
As expected he losers on the right demand the Republican party go back to its far right losing positions. That would only allow the LEFTIST Democrats to again win nearly all elections.
People on the right fringe are always surprised when political parties do what a majority of the Voters want.
If the conservative right ever discovers the answer is not so called principled leaders, but voters, and convinces a majority of voters to their views, they will have no problem finding a majority party and elected candidates willng to do their will. The far right is always looking for a charismatic leader to impose their "superior political" philosophy on the public.
They never figure out principled candidates never get elected. Of course they never understand that principled candidates do what they believe is right and not what a majority of the Voters think is right.
They can't figure out in the united states we elect public servents not public rulers... so their fantastic principled leaders never get elected to any major office. Principled candidates are always a disaster...
The compound failures of Alan Keyes are a case in point. Keyes is the best friend the left has ever had.
As long as the Conservative right is a minority in the USA, minor parties that share their views will get very few votes and the major parties will ignore them.
That's the big question, isn't it? I voted for Bush this time because the alternative was unthinkable.
What I am really worried about is 2008. I fully expect the National GOP to nominate Arlen Specter (or someone just like him) to run for President.
Bandow oughta know better. It was the right thing to do to go in Iraq. It's the right thing to do to spread freedom. The Al Qaeda and Taliban were demoralized about not being able to derail the election in Afghanistan.
The only arrogance is coming from the ostriches on both the Left and the Right that won't do what needs to be done.
I think you will appreciate this.
I think Bush is being misunderestimated. He'll pull through with privatized social security accounts, tax reform, tort reform, better energy policy, and conservative judges. Whether Bush wants it or not we will have tougher immigration measures passed, though no wall will ever be built and the measures will hardly do anything to stop them from coming.
Hopefully Bush's plan to transform the Middle East calls for a gradual transformation through Iraq and Afghanistan with the possibility of clandestine ops or surgical strikes on nuke or terrorist sites in Syria and Iran. While I think Iraq will be a success and well worth the effort, we would have to be the biggest fools to attempt another occupying war any time soon. First, Iran and Syria have probably been preparing for an invasion and an insurgency for 2 years now. Second, we aren't going to accept a few blurry satellite photos as proof of WMDs. Third, it really screws up our plans to modernize the military.
My main gripes with Bush are that he doesn't punish people or confront criticism upfront. Hell he gave George Tenent the Medal of Freedom.
Clinton ruled by focus group - giving the people what they deserved, good and hard. (hat tip to Menken)
Do you think that's the way to go?
The remarks on immigration are darn straight! Hopefully, there will be a revolt of congressional Republicans who will bring our President back to sanity on this issue.
Can you think of any issue more important than the right to life? What difference does any other issue make if you're dead?
ping
I honestly hope you're right on all counts.
OR
GOP Principles Remain Strong As Democrats Assume Majority.
Conundrum?
To address the last first, if & when you locate that post, give me a shout. As for the first, I've always been a Goldwater-era conservative-- "a government powerful enough to give you anything can take away anything, too." Like fire, government is a good, but dangerous servant, and a terrible master.
I'll give you a hometown example on the micro level-- in our city, taxes have quintupled since we moved here 18 years ago. The County has a new, multi-million dollar "safety complex" at the old Glynco NAS-- and you, who paid for it, can't visit it, the security is so tight.
When a hurricane or other disaster strikes, our bureaucrats are well-situated and equipped to survive.
We, who paid for all their toys & boats, planes & helicopters?
We're told to evacuate, and by the way, once you do, you can't return to the biggest single investment you own- you home- until they clear it.
Parallel to this, blocks of money in 8, 9, 10, and 11 million dollar blocks have been vanishing from the various "authorities" that control them-- and Grand Jury investigations go nowhere.
Meanwhile, "for the children," perfectly good schools have been abandoned, and new ones built- with great fanfare. The Superintendent of Schools openly boasts ( or is that "throws in your face?" ) that he doesn't work for the parents ( who pay his salary, and the taxes ) but "for the children."
And the most disgusting thing of all? Most of the sheep around here are still asleep at the switch...
[/rant]
Maybe it's time to form the Conservative Party.
Let's face it. Bush sucks. But the alternative was worse. You want a crap sandwich, or a double decker crap sandwich with cheese? Welcome to Democracy.
I agree. The Republican party is almost as divided as the Democrats. I see this as being like one of those monopoly games where it's a matter of who lands on someone else first. We need to hold our coalition together long enough to obliterate the Dems(since the marxists and worse have chosen to roost there). Afterwards however, we need to as consider how to best take back ground we've lost. I heard somewhere that the difference between a conservative and a liberal is that the conservative does what the liberal does 20 or 30 years later. This isn't good enough.
First it was if only we had the House. Then if only we had the House and Senate. Then if only we had a filibuster proof majority plus the House, plus the Presidency. Then it's the Presidency, the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. Then it's governorships, etc. And yet, the Federal beast continues to grow. Both parties continue to champion paternal, micro-managed, leviathan government. It truly looks like we are stuck with socialism.
"folks look at me and see a certain swagger, which in Texas is called walking"
I certainly don't agree with the President on everything (the need for new immigration laws) but I remember a time when we had luxuries we don't have today; e.g., the virtual total protection of two oceans.
OR
"Democrats assume power and government get's bigger and more intrusive"
The end result is the same in either case, with the added "bonus" that those who believe in smaller government and more freedom are effectively silenced.
We're about many issues. Oh, and FWIW, I was convinced to take a pro-life stance from the writings of a liberal - Nat Hentoff.
Abortion isn't a conservative issue - it is about how we view human life. And, as Hentoff has pointed out, the language that makes a fetus into something less than human and therefore abortable is very similar to the language that made Jews (or other ethnic groups) less than human and therefore meriting extinction.
bump
What I am really worried about is 2008. I fully expect the National GOP to nominate Arlen Specter (or someone just like him) to run for President.
That's why we need to chose someone we can support now. If we canget behind one good candidate and give him support now, we have a chance to turn things around. If all we get is someone who might be okay on a couple issues but doesn't get it overall, we'll lose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.