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-
I completely agree.
Part of the problem was that the GOP never figured out how to be the majority party after the 94 revolution. It was a magical thing. 40 years of democrat domination of congress ended. They'd been the minority party for so long, and gotten stuck in the mold of accomodation... they didn't seem to realize that they could just *do* things.
The "contract with America" was possibly one of the most inspired political concepts in the history of U.S. politics. It was clear. It was concise. It was simple... and it *worked*.
But the GOP still governs as if they are the minority party.
I remember it but didn't see any of it because I don't think it was televised.
Bork was abrasive and condescending to the Senators.
That ridiculous beard he was sporting probably didn't help either.
Hahahaah, so completely right!
I note that the CA candidate McCain endorsed and campaigned for as to Representative recently didn't do so well. Better than expected but that McCain seems to be her only supporter is not a good omen, ha.
He could make a deal of a different kind by not supporting RINOs against conservatives, e. g., the last Senate race in Pennsylvania.
You're right --- MSM smell blood in the water: Rove, Scooter, Cheney and Miers came in handy.
Heard Pelsoi decry today "the culture of corruptiion and cronyism."
JR, if W signs on to a deal that will promote baby killing in exchange for favorable treatment of Miers, I do not want to estimate the extent of the damage that will be caused.
I don't understand...would you please explain "anti state conservatives"? The "anti left conservatives" I understand, given that I often feel that's my only position/opportunity as to candidate when voting here in CA and now nationally, too.
I don't understand...would you please explain "anti state conservatives"? The "anti left conservatives" I understand, given that I often feel that's my only position/opportunity as to candidate when voting here in CA and now nationally, too.
1. He didn't have the votes in the Senate to override a veto or change the rules.
2. There is not the overwhelming anti-immigrant sentiment among Americans as anti-immigrant activists would like us to think there is, and cracking down on Mexican immigration the wat activists want would drive Mexican-Americans straight over to the Democrats.
Toomey would not have been elected.
My opinion is the anti-states want significant reductions in the size and scope of the federal government back to something resembling Constitutional constrainst - I am in that camp.
The anti-left conservatives, and maybe it would be more fair to let one of them define it, is to me one that just wants to beat the left, size of govenment be damned.
I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice.
A good thing, too.
These people are servants, not mastheads.
And now is the autumn of our discontent.
Let it rock.
If that's true, and remember that Santorum got more votes than anyone in 2000 including Bush or Gore, then we'd have 54 Senate seats and 10 pro lifers on the SJC and Kyl would be chairman.
The Pubbies got snapped back after the '94 mid-terms when Clinton was re-elected. The whole '94 election wasn't about Newt, it was about HillaryCare. In the balance, the Pubbies didn't have a mandate as much as a check again Hillary. When BJ came around it was more about the economy. He was re-elected. Our control at that time was tenuous at best. Now, were are more entrenched as the Dims seem to have to no real vision for the country. NONE whatsoever.
He didn't even do that. By not only refusing to cut spending to match the "tax cuts", but rapidly increasing it, Bush has absolutely guaranteed much higher taxes, with interest, in the future to whittle down the monstrous debt he's dumped on us.
"Tax cuts" are fraudulent politician lies if spending isn't cut to match.
So, you're explaining (yes?) that Bork's position about gun ownership is controllable, determined by policy, not the Constitution? Unfortunately, for many people, all they've had to go on to assert the right for individual gun ownership HAS been (and is) the Constitution so I can easily see how people would be very uneasy and even confused about his dedication to the issue. If it's "frivolous" to his view to the S.C., then that'd sink him to some for that reason.
Which is easy to see how it is that his nomination was so conflicted. I do admire what Bork has authored and has to contribute on today's media, and rue the day that Ginsberg was overwhelmingly supported by so-called conservatives in the Senate. And that by comparison Bork was rejected.
Anyway, thanks for clarifying that.
But it looks like Santorum will lose in 2006.
That's not the reason he was picked.
The reason he was picked is because many people saw him as a kind of '92 election "do-over". A kind of slap in the face of Clinton.
If Bush were the best chance at beating Gore, he would have had to worry about a 500+ vote lead in Florida.
Cmon. There are 30,000,000+ conservatives. Bush was really the best?
Ever since Hurricane Katrina, President Bush has had a deer-in-the-headlights look, and has acted as though he's under siege.
Maybe those National Enquirer stories from last month about President Bush drinking again were more accurate than many of us thought at the time.
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.