Posted on 10/10/2005 4:55:14 AM PDT by StoneGiant
Bush and the revival of small-government conservatism
By KATE RICK
Guest Commentary
AS PRESIDENT BUSH'S second Supreme Court nominee enters stage left with a large "kick me" sign on her back, outraged Republicans are finally facing a question we've kept on the back burner for years: In an age of so-called moderation, and with all of the compromises that politics entails, what exactly does it mean to be conservative?
Is the answer based on the social questions of the day? Is it abortion? Affirmative action? Gay marriage? Or is the answer more about American nationalism? Is it always conservative to be hawkish? Or pro-capitalist? What about the original definition of "conservative" as one who looks backward and prefers the status quo to change? Or the old American version of limited government, limited spending, no foreign entanglements and individual responsibility? Most importantly, do any of those possible definitions describe the Grand Old Party as we know it?
With a Republican President in office, the federal government has argued in favor of affirmative action. It has imposed tariffs, enlarged the welfare state, expanded government control of education and embraced a foreign policy that will continue to cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives. It has hindered industries it does not like and paid out millions of tax dollars to companies it prefers. And still, many conservatives have stood by President Bush, believing that somewhere in this morass of liberal policy a "conservative" heart still beats.
The Miers nomination, however, has made the flatline impossible to ignore, and now that the myth has been shattered, we are left to wonder, what exactly was it that we willed ourselves to believe he believed?
It wasn't his stance on any particular hot button issue, his religious persuasions or his hard line on national defense. Rather, it was a nearly forgotten tenet of American conservatism — the teeth of all of the countless moral, financial and military positions encapsulated in the term. It was the one thing that we do look backward to as a group, even if unconsciously: the limited government that we agreed to create. The Constitution is our big tent.
What unites the anti-Roe demonstrator and the homeschooler? The Constitution that gave no authority to the federal government over abortion or education. The anti-tax protester and the gun owner? The Constitution that expressly allowed only a few taxes and just as expressly protected the right to bear arms. What of the religious conservative and the business owner? You guessed it: the founding document that gave a handful of authorities to the federal government and retained the rest for the states and the people. The Constitution is what we are conservative about, and what's more, the Constitution is what makes conservatism the most free and legitimate ideology in the world.
We are conservative because we believe that there is such a thing as right. And we are free because a conservative view of the Constitution allows us each to live what we believe right to be. The Founders knew that no man could be forced to change his mind; the mind conforms to what it sees as truth. Thus, the free market of ideas — which cannot exist in a conformist, regulatory, anti-individualist atmosphere — safeguards God's second most generous gift: the gift of free will, without which we are automatons with pulses.
We as conservatives had nearly lost touch with this, our foundation. We've been distracted by the outcome of federalized issues, and we've forgotten to be outraged at the federalizing. Thankfully, President Bush reminded us that we are not just Democrats in sheep's clothing. We share a fundamentally different view of government, a view that would even allow our most vehement opponents to live exactly as they pleased as long as they made their choices for themselves only. That is what American government was designed to do, and re-achieving that goal is the business of true conservatives.
This is a watershed moment, and there are two legitimate but difficult choices. Either we must reclaim the Republican Party as the party of small government or we must abandon it. Both options will lead to cooperation with our long-forgotten brother, the Libertarian Party, with which we may disagree on outcomes, but must agree on the scope of legitimate government. If bridges are to be mended, it must be with our fellow proponents of American liberty, and not with our former compatriots who do not deserve the name "Republican." Perhaps, a generation from now, Americans will look at President Bush with gratitude, not for what he accomplished, but for what his failure inspired.
Both parties seem to be corporatist, global, and highly secretive.
We are presented with emotional, highly emotionally charged issues about which talking heads rant, (I can't say debate) endlessly on tv and radion, in the news editorials, and yet not much is reported. What about the CANAMEX superhighway that will effectively erase our national borders? What about Delphi fililng bankruptcy in the US but keeping its out-of-US plants out of bankruptcy and 65,000 workers paid peanuts employed?
(Yes, I know the UAW is greedy, blah blah blah, but how many of you want to work for minimum wage, which btw, is too high for the world, or less which is the way wage pressures are going.)
There are so many issues that the elites like to dub either "Nationalist," conservative or liberal.
I'd like to see some honest assessment. I'm really tired of the blather and luke warm sputum these politicians and media types are presenting.
Bush abandoned small government the day he took office.
Seems to be no middle ground with the PTB controlling the Republican party of late. The Regan democrats were useful at one time, now they are a burden splitting us. The repubs can no longer have the support of both, time to choose between big government or traditional small/limited conservatism.
FDR would be proud of Bush.
This sucks, but it is true. The purple stained lip types amongst us will slowly come around, hopefully.
I just want to go back to the way it was BB, before Bush.
Have we changed, has the party changed, or has President Bush changed it all?
Put down the crack pipe and back away slowly!!
You know you are in trouble when the only way you can force yourself to accept someone or something is by convincing yourself that it better than the alternative. We're in big trouble. Anytime someone posts a reply that questions President Bush the immediate response is to receive multiple messages pointing out how much better he is than Gore or Kerry would have been. I have come to learn that that is the nature of life and politics. But damn it, for once I would like to have someone in the office whom I support because of their beliefs and the stands they take, not because they're better than the alternative. Sad thing is, I think Dubya could be that person, but so far I'm seeing way too much compromise for my liking.
I don't think the prospect of impeachment charges is that unlikely if the dems regain the House. The way things are going that's not beyond the realm of possibility in 06.
So would Nixon.
To a conservative it is akin to saying do you want to be shot or hung, either way the conservative loses.
Total integration of national interests into a global economic system is the way of the 'humane' future wrapped up in 'free trade' to get the cooperation of conservatives and those darn independent Americans. On the flip side, civil control is advanced through international agencies with naked intent.
It's not sputum, it's a Punch & Judy show.
"Perhaps, a generation from now, Americans will look at President Bush with gratitude, not for what he accomplished, but for what his failure inspired."
I look at President Bush with gratitude now and I will from now on also. He has fought the Beltway Society in D. C. since he went into office. He is not failing, alot of people are not listening. Poll numbers don't mean much to him because he is trying to get people to wake up. People need to start understanding that GOD gave us our RIGHTS and FREEDOMS and the FOUNDING FATHERS put them in writing. I love America and what She has always stood for. People need to start seeing that waiting for your monthly government handout check is not what America is and start working and contributing to America's well being. Then the people that are not working that really can't can be helped, some by their own families and some by government help. More people need to start Defending and Helping America be the country She is.
Occasionally, I'll mention that I have a position that does not dovetail nicely with the more "Christian-Right" elements that reside within our big tent, and while I love and respect them, I don't always agree with them. I am immediately and vociferously labeled a "RINO" in a way that allows you to almost see the venom dripping from the word as you read it.
So I've been ruminating over the last few months as to whether or not I am actually a RINO. But as I read the above quoted paragraph, I realize that my original instincts were right - I am not a RINO.
When was a litmus test attached to calling oneself a Republican, anyway? Who defined this test? And why are there only 2 or 3 "key" issues that determine it's outcome?
I believe in small government and low taxes. I believe in the right to bear arms. I believe in state's rights. I believe Roe is a hideous example of rule by judicial fiat, and that the question should be thrown back to the individual states legislatures - where elected officials will create laws based on the will of the people that they govern. I wanted Michael Luttig nominated for the Supreme Court, and I wanted to shove him right down the throats of our liberal friends. I believe that Kennedy, Pelosi, Reed and other vocal Democrats are actually traitorous and should be prosecuted.
But I confess that I hold views that are not strictly planks in the Republican platform. So my question is this: does one have to agree with every position the party officially takes? And how many are you allowed to disagree with before you become a RINO?
Could you give some specifics on this? I would argue that the massive expansion of government AND spending render any statement of bush being "anti-beltway" moot.
You claim that people aren't listening..........what do you mean? I think the majority of people listen very intently, and are disappointed with what they hear.
Our current leadership has turned away from those God-given rights and freedoms in favor of a big government globalist bureaucracy.
I can agree with your point on entitlements, however the administration has successfully passed into law the largest government hand-out program ever!
If you want smaller less intrusive government. A government that puts Americans first....this bunch in Washington has got to go.
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.