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.
The enemy is the House and the Senate, not the President. The president gets the blame for everything and the elected legislature likes it that way. According to the U. S. Constitution the elected legislature that WE the PEOPLE elected are in charge. From George Washington to George Bush this has been the way it is. Yes, does the President ask for things that he thinks he need to conduct the day to operation of the Country, yes. The President signs the Bills into law that the legislature that WE the PEOPLE made. If he vetos them they can override the veto. If you don't like what is going on go after the real enemy, the House and the Senate. You and I put them in Washington, make phone calls and write letters and tell them they need to listen to us because WE put them there. If you don't like this okay, more people need to see that WE the PEOPLE put them there and we have to let them know that we can take them out and put others in especially some of those that have been there for twenty and thirty years. WE are the government not them, the elected legistlature are supposed to do what WE sent them there to do.
Big government borrow and spenders are not now and have never been conservative. They are neocons. Neocons are generally socially conservative, but are only fiscally conservative when it comes to tax cuts.
Note to Christians who voted for Bush: This is the end result of voting PRAGMATICALLY. Pragmatism is a secular-humanist methodology, not a Christian one. It is an attempt to manipulate the future (if we vote for Bush, this will happen, or this other thing will not happen, etc.) - to play god, if you will. But God and only God can control the future.
In a Republic such as ours, wherein God gave us the privilege of choosing our leaders, the blame for bad leadership falls squarely on the people who elected them. Will people learn from this? I am not optimistic.
Perhpas the Whigs were wondering the same thing in 1854...right before hopeless divisions destroyed that party forever. I am hoping for such a division in the Republican Party -- it may be just what the doctor ordered.
We have proved we can be better Democrats than the Democrats.
Bush has as much to do with small government conservatism as the Moon has to do with cheese.
And I fear that we will
Prepare for Clinton presidency Part Deux
Can you say "Madame, President? I knew you could"
NO WAY that Madame Clinton will be voted President.
Hopefully we will have a true conservative to vote for in 2008 instead of RINO "most popular politician to Republicans" McCain.
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.