Posted on 10/20/2005 9:56:38 PM PDT by quidnunc
The bile accumulating on the right toward the White House has reached China Syndrome proportions and is starting to melt through the floor.
Suddenly, conservatives are starting to question whether George W. Bush is even a one of them at all. One of my heroes, Robert Bork, recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal that "George W. Bush has not governed as a conservative. This George Bush, like his father, is showing himself to be indifferent, if not actively hostile, to conservative values." Conservative columnist Bruce Bartlett opines: "The truth that is now dawning on many movement conservatives is that George W. Bush is not one of them and never has been." Even at National Review Online — where I hang my hat most of the time — several of our contributors have echoed these concerns.
I think this goes too far. Two factors contribute to this misdiagnosis: confusion and disappointment.
Let's start with confusion. Contrary to most stereotypes, conservatism is a much less dogmatic ideology than modern liberalism. The reason liberals don't seem dogmatic and conservatives do is that liberals have settled their dogma, so it has become invisible to them. No liberal disputes in a serious philosophical way that the government should do good things where it can and when it can. Their debates aren't about ideology, they're about tactics. Indeed, the chief disagreement between leftists and liberals over the role of the state is almost entirely pragmatic. Moderate liberals think it's not practical — either economically or politically — to push for a dramatic expansion of the role of the state. Leftists think it would be a good idea politically and, despite all the evidence to the contrary, think it would work economically.
Within conservatism, however, there are enormous philosophical arguments about the proper role of the state. This debate isn't merely between libertarians and social conservatives. It's also between conservatives who are "anti-left" versus those who are "anti-state." Neoconservatives, for example, are famously comfortable with an energetic, interventionist government as long as that government isn't run by secular, atheistic radicals and socialists (I exaggerate a little for the sake of clarity).
-snip-
The movement conservatives as ememplified by Rush Limbaugh and National Review have decided that their own particular orthodoxy is to become dogma for the whole conservative movement.
And they are willing to bring down this president to accomplish this goal.
A sticking point to my view is that Bork (lauded here as 'hero to the conservatives') is not in favor of individual gun ownership, says the reasons that anyone would even want to are questionable (anyone with specific quotes, please share them here about Bork's position on this because I've read it several times but not lately, so have no ready links as I write this)...while Miers actually defends the 2nd Amendment, moreorless in our traditional understanding of the individual's right to (own and) bear arms.
It's a very important distinction here as to who is conservative and in what context.
No, it appears there has been a serious change in the White House these last few weeks. Something's not right.
We knew Bush wasn't a hard core conservative when we elected him, so why do we expect him to turn into one now? We knew he had the best chance of defeating Al Gore, and therefore we chose him as our candidate in the primary (I will admit, however, that I didn't vote for him in that primary). In the general election, he was obviously the better of the two choices, and that hasn't changed. It is time for us to stop whining about Bush's lack of conservative ideals, and start planning to elect a real conservative in the 2008 election.
Less so Rush, who IMHO appears evenhanded on this nomination, but the President really failed to make his case on Ms. Miers.
Hillary showed W what she had in his FBI files?
IMHO the ONLY truly conservative and broad thing Bush has done is Cut Taxes...Is this enough to outweigh the radical spending increases ??...I give him a reluctant pass.
Bork, the gun control freak? That's why it's the 2ND AMENDMENT, not the 9th. It's that important in our founding.
I think that the rising Bush-hunta and Miers as hood ornament is being led by a personality fest.
Moreorless, it's a case of popularity and the louder voices trying to tramp out any debate or real discussion.
I am not promoting Miers here, nor Bush (to repeat, I voted for Bush and I've defened the Miers nomination before but within the context of 'name the specifics as to her deficits' rather than rely on an elitist, opinion-driven rejection of Miers based upon disrespect for Bush), BUT, I am losing faith as days pass in both Miers as nominee and Bush as representative of what us conservatives want and need in leadership.
I'm still not to any point where, if push comes to shove, I'd reject Bush in favor of any Democrat (just never going to happen), but the fact that it's been moreorless Libertarian Media heads doing the loudest denigration of Miers AND Bush lately, I'm suspect of the whole negation thing.
Bush's failures on border security seem to be the chief flaring point, in my opinion. That and his spending-a-holic behavior.
I think that the rising Bush-hunta and Miers as hood ornament is being led by a personality fest.
Moreorless, it's a case of popularity and the louder voices trying to tramp out any debate or real discussion.
I am not promoting Miers here, nor Bush (to repeat, I voted for Bush and I've defened the Miers nomination before but within the context of 'name the specifics as to her deficits' rather than rely on an elitist, opinion-driven rejection of Miers based upon disrespect for Bush), BUT, I am losing faith as days pass in both Miers as nominee and Bush as representative of what us conservatives want and need in leadership.
I'm still not to any point where, if push comes to shove, I'd reject Bush in favor of any Democrat (just never going to happen), but the fact that it's been moreorless Libertarian Media heads doing the loudest denigration of Miers AND Bush lately, I'm suspect of the whole negation thing.
Bush's failures on border security seem to be the chief flaring point, in my opinion. That and his spending-a-holic behavior.
I think that the rising Bush-hunta and Miers as hood ornament is being led by a personality fest.
Moreorless, it's a case of popularity and the louder voices trying to tramp out any debate or real discussion.
I am not promoting Miers here, nor Bush (to repeat, I voted for Bush and I've defened the Miers nomination before but within the context of 'name the specifics as to her deficits' rather than rely on an elitist, opinion-driven rejection of Miers based upon disrespect for Bush), BUT, I am losing faith as days pass in both Miers as nominee and Bush as representative of what us conservatives want and need in leadership.
I'm still not to any point where, if push comes to shove, I'd reject Bush in favor of any Democrat (just never going to happen), but the fact that it's been moreorless Libertarian Media heads doing the loudest denigration of Miers AND Bush lately, I'm suspect of the whole negation thing.
Bush's failures on border security seem to be the chief flaring point, in my opinion. That and his spending-a-holic behavior.
Ahh, the "bork is a gun control freak" charge.
"Slouching Towards Gomorrah" and found this passage at p. 167, after Bork denounces gun control as "frivolous":
Gun control proposals are nothing more than a modern liberal suggestion that government, which is unable to protect its citizens, make sure those citizens cannot defend themselves.
What's the latest on the Bush impeachment?
Will K-Lo be called?
Calm down.
In this I am a one-issue voter. The *only* thing that matters to me is effective continuing prosecution of the war on Jihadists. Everything else is window-dressing.
Harriet Miers is some kind of endoftheworld signal? Sorry... I just don't think it's all that bad. My hunch is that some months after she's confirmed, and a few opinions under her belt, we'll all be well into new and different issues and this little flame war will be forgotten.
Actually it's not bringing down the president, it's bring down the house and senate next year because if the public at large things the president needs a check that's the first thing they're going to do and I refer you to the clinton administration where the dems were voted out of office to keep a socialist healthcare system from being imposed on them.
President Bush's pick is nothing more and nothing less than putting someone on the bench who opposes abortion -- one of professed goals of the right for decades. I guess a lot of people are upset that someone actually stopped paying lip service to the values crowd and actually did something to reward their support.
IMHO of course.
". the would-be gun grabber . . "
The charge is repeated again. Yet:
"Slouching Towards Gomorrah" and found this passage at p. 167, after Bork denounces gun control as "frivolous":
Gun control proposals are nothing more than a modern liberal suggestion that government, which is unable to protect its citizens, make sure those citizens cannot defend themselves.
He's not looking for re-election, and quite honestly, if he wanted to let loose on Clinton, he could destroy him.
What's your suspicion?
Well said. There's a time and a place for everything. Conservatives are just now starting to gain a majority. Some will argue we have one, but not a true conservative majority. In time, if we don't kill each other, we'll have a strong, solid majority, we're just in the toddler phase. Just wait until we're that unruley teenage phase! Whoo Hoo~!
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.