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-
Bush is a patriotic, evangelical liberal. It's kind of refreshing to know there are some of those around, but it's a sad day when that is what defines the Republican party:
He is for big government, big spending, interventionalism, no borders, illegal immigration, global domination by international alliances, government-mandated multilingualism, unfunded mandates, affirmative action and nation-building. Not to say I disagree with him on every one of these issues, just almost all. (I think in Iraq, his nation-building is justified by the fact that we destroyed the evil but incumbent power structure.)
Even if that were remotely true don't you think they would have been trotted out in 2000 and 04, via the media.
I agree, but perhaps it's great political strategy underway:
Hash out and thrash out the political negatives NOW and not in the 2008 election. If it was now 2008, the GOP would lose, is my point.
Best to get it all out of the way now and settle it with party/voter agreement behind another Republican candidate for 2008 afterward.
I really, really, really do not want to see the U.S. in a Hillary-Retrogressive Presidency in 2008, nor Hillary Presidency of any kind.
And, no shooting me here, but I also do not want to see Rice in the Presidency, either.
I hope the country does not go mad with the trend of gender-based voting for 2008 over character involved.
His problem is he has the heart of a Texan evangelical, but the mind of a Connecticut blue-blood.
I would agree that those issues are good and reasonable issues (borders and budget)...
Sure, Bush could be a more effective cheerleader on those issues. But we really need to take a hard look at congress... because that is where these thing lay stale.
Another freeper has debunked that.
Someone's been listening to Art Bell.
I disagree, I think the only difference is how the Liberals are reporting the news. They are almost orgasmic that several of the inside the beltway pundits have turned on Bush for nominating somebody that wasn't on the list they assembled, and passed around, while sharing Cocktails at the "Capitol Grille"
That's not it, because the list of people he could have nominated would have done the same thing as Ms. Miers is represented to be planning to do. It can't be only about abortion.
I agree, but perhaps it's great political strategy underway:
Hash out and thrash out the political negatives NOW and not in the 2008 election. If it was now 2008, the GOP would lose, is my point.
Best to get it all out of the way now and settle it with party/voter agreement behind another Republican candidate for 2008 afterward.
I really, really, really do not want to see the U.S. in a Hillary-Retrogressive Presidency in 2008, nor Hillary Presidency of any kind.
And, no shooting me here, but I also do not want to see Rice in the Presidency, either.
I hope the country does not go mad with the trend of gender-based voting for 2008 over character involved. Which is not to suggest a question as to character with C. Rice, just that she's far from conservative herself. Better than Hillary, but not Presidential to my preference.
And, I'd really like to see a new trend started that does not deal with Hillary-Rice issues for 2008. There are better plans to discuss than those.
I don't know, but if this is true:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1506447/posts
then someone is piling one big loser on top of another. And if Rove is indicted on top of all this, hoo boy.
Link.
And who would that be? McCain?
Also, the fact that Miers has a firmer grasp of business law and would be reliable on national-securities issues almost certainly weighed heavily in his decision.
Put me down as anti-state.
One can believe gun control is "frivolous" and yet not believe in the validity of court nullification of gun control laws. The way I can resolve his apparently contradictory statements regarding gun control (without making the cop-out suggestion that he changed his mind back and forth) is to suppose he believed gun control was unwise policy, but did not believe in the court's authority to overturn such bad policy... that kind of thinking is very consistent with his general philosophy.
Well, from what I've read about Bork, he went much farther on that issue than just deeming it "frivolous."
I'm not denouncing Bork, given that I regard him as a very intelligent fellow, a great intellect.
I just find his position on this issue mystifying. If he deems it "frivolous," (as he has), he's displaying more of that intemperousness that most find offensive (and alarming, not trustworthy) about him at time of significant decision. Too emotional an intellect, best in the classroom and in print, is my point.
Well, from what I've read about Bork, he went much farther on that issue than just deeming it "frivolous."
I'm not denouncing Bork, given that I regard him as a very intelligent fellow, a great intellect.
I just find his position on this issue mystifying. If he deems it "frivolous," (as he has), he's displaying more of that intemperousness that most find offensive (and alarming, not trustworthy) about him at time of significant decision. Too emotional an intellect, best in the classroom and in print, is my point.
I agree. Some conservatives have sounded like DU-ers: My version of conservatism or I'll destroy you with all possible ways--even if it means we're going to be 20 yrs under liberal-democrats.
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.