George W. Bush’s Conservatism

The American Enterprise Online ^ | 11/2/05 | Joseph M. Knippenberg

[Valin]

There has been no end of often-dissatisfied talk among conservatives about George W. Bush’s conservatism, or rather, the lack thereof. Robert Bork, for example, recently asserted that “[t]his George Bush, like his father, is showing himself to be indifferent, if not actively hostile, to conservative values.” The Claremont Institute's Charles Kesler is similarly unsparing in his criticism:

Compassionate conservatism is the President's self-proclaimed philosophy. This term proves the old admonition that the adjective is the enemy of the noun. Conservatism defends "liberty and justice for all," meaning that there are limits to what government can do to, and for, us. But a compassionate government cannot be a limited one…. Compassionate conservatism, therefore, means big-government conservatism. And big-government conservatism is no conservatism at all.

Since he is a little less fastidious about adjectives, Jonah Goldberg is a tad more forgiving. Bush, he argues, is anti-left, but not anti-state, a position that is within the conservative big tent, so long as the state promotes or is at least not hostile to conservative values.

Powerline’s Paul Mirengoff appears to take up a suggestion implicit in Goldberg’s analysis. Anti-left conservatives, Goldberg suggests, seem to take for granted that there are political and practical limits to the habitual conservative strategy of attempting to shrink the state. Institutions like public schools, they argue, are here to stay; let’s make the best of them. Anti-left conservatism is above all else pragmatic. “When push comes to shove,” Mirengoff observes, “Bush’s desire to solve the problem at hand tends to take precedence over the desire to uphold conservative principles.”

So Bush is either not a conservative at all, or his compassion trumps his conservatism. Or his pragmatism—animated, perhaps, by his compassion—overwhelms his conservatism.

In my view, however, the best explanation and explication of Bush’s problematical conservatism was offered earlier this year by Wilfred M. McClay, who calls it “evangelical conservatism”:

It is his evangelicalism that has broadened and softened his younger tendencies toward harder-edged oil-and-gas business conservatism, fired his moral concerns, given him a sense of political mission, and given him the energy, force, and staying power to pursue it. Many of the very positions that make some of his fellow conservatives suspicious of Bush—his “compassionate conservatism,” his relatively favorable view of many federal social and educational programs, his sensitivity to issues of racial injustice and reconciliation, his softness on immigration issues, his promotion of the faith-based initiative, his concern with issues of international religious liberty, his African AIDS initiative, and above all, his enormously ambitious, even seemingly utopian, foreign-policy objectives—are positions that are best explained by the effects of his evangelical Christian convictions, and by his willingness to allow those convictions to trump more conventional conservative positions.

McClay further contends that evangelicalism and conservatism are in some tension with one another:

“As a faith that revolves around the experience of individual transformation, [evangelicalism] inevitably exists in tension with settled ways, established social hierarchies, customary usages, and entrenched institutional forms.”

While it is impossible simply to characterize a large and diverse movement in broad brushstrokes, evangelicals tend to prefer a kind of spiritual and experiential individualism that rests uncomfortably in and with traditional authority, expressed institutionally or doctrinally.

Evangelicals thus have a kinship with libertarians that puts them somewhat at odds with traditionalist conservatives, who emphasize the organic development of particular communal usages and institutions, and with Roman Catholic conservatives, who point to natural law and the authority of the Church. But on moral matters in which there is a clear Scriptural teaching, evangelicals are closer to the traditionalists and Roman Catholics than to the libertarians. Furthermore, because evangelical faith expresses itself in communal worship and calls for its own sharing and propagation, evangelicalism points to community and involves its adherents in communities in ways that would lead libertarians “spontaneously [to] burst into flames,” to borrow one of Goldberg’s more colorful formulations.

In other words, an evangelical conservative like George W. Bush is “libertarian” where most non-libertarian conservatives are not, and “communitarian” where most libertarian conservatives are not. But neither his libertarianism nor his communitarianism is simply assimilable to traditional conservative categories.

This doesn’t make Bush’s position inconsistent or incoherent, according to McClay. Its unifying principle, he contends, is “the ultimate value of the self-governing individual.”

“Both [foreign and domestic policy] depend upon a certain anthropology of the human person, a constrained individualism which understands human flourishing as requiring both the political and social freedom to pursue the good, and the moral discipline to live responsibly within the constraints that reflect the highest properties of human nature.”

Unlike libertarians, then, Bush recognizes that the responsible exercise of freedom requires a self-discipline that is available largely to those whose lives have been touched and transformed by faith…or at least by relationships with people of faith. Strong individuals are products of strong relationships, not with government bureaucracies, but with communities constituted above all by neighbor-love.

Were he inclined to theoretical discourse—which he is not—Bush might respond to Kesler that the limited government he prizes as the hallmark of conservatism can work only when broken lives are healed, when individuals become—once again, or for the first time—capable of taking responsibility for themselves. To get as many people as possible to this point requires the exertion, above all, of loving communal effort, supported by the government.

It’s also possible to explain much of Bush’s apparent pragmatism in terms of his evangelicalism. We frequently take note of the few arguably foundational and non-negotiable moral truths the Bible contains, which provide the basis for many of the fronts in our “culture war.” But Jim Wallis to the contrary notwithstanding, exactly how you most effectively love your neighbor is less a matter of doctrine and more a matter of prudential—or pragmatic, if you will—judgment.

In concluding, McClay notes another tension in Bush’s evangelical conservatism, or between evangelical conservatism and conservatism simply. In its focus on individual transformation, it relies upon and promotes a certain optimism about the human prospect. With God’s assistance, there is, it seems, no limit to what we can accomplish. This is, McClay notes, a characteristic, not only of contemporary American evangelicalism, but of the preferences of the electorate and the inclinations of those political leaders who wish to win its favor. We all like morning in America. “But,” he continues, “conservatism will be like the salt that has lost its savor, if it abandons its most fundamental mission—which is to remind us of what Thomas Sowell called ‘the constrained vision’ of human existence, which sees life as a struggle, with invariably mixed outcomes, full of unintended consequences and tragic dilemmas involving hopelessly fallible people, a world in which the legacy of the past is usually more reliable than the projections of the future.”

I’m inclined to find a little more humility and sense of human fallibility in Bush’s speeches than McClay does, but recognize the problem he identifies, not just as the occupational hazard of American evangelicals or American politicians, but as the peculiar temptation to which this particular sinner is prey. He wouldn’t have sought the presidency without it. And he wouldn’t constantly be taking on our biggest challenges, at home and abroad, without it.

We need conservative prophets, scolding us about our excesses, about how we’re “slouching toward Gomorrah.” But we also need conservative leaders who have the capacity to inspire us to march in the other direction. Debate among conservatives is healthy, especially when it returns us to a recognition of our own limits and our own dependence upon the (flawed) wisdom of our ancestors. We do not, however, want to forgo the possibility of learning something new, of finding a new way to address our perennial problems. George W. Bush may have much to learn from the conservative movement, but conservatives who are true to their own recognition of human frailty may also have something to learn from him.

Joseph M. Knippenberg is a professor of politics and associate provost for student achievement at Oglethorpe University in Atlanta, Georgia. He blogs at No Left Turns.

[Valin]

Click on source for links

[wizardoz]

Okay, so... he's not really a conservative, but he's a Christian, so it's all okay.

Hm. Well, I'm not really okay with that.

[sheltonmac]

We need conservative prophets, scolding us about our excesses, about how we’re “slouching toward Gomorrah.” But we also need conservative leaders who have the capacity to inspire us to march in the other direction. Debate among conservatives is healthy, especially when it returns us to a recognition of our own limits and our own dependence upon the (flawed) wisdom of our ancestors. We do not, however, want to forgo the possibility of learning something new, of finding a new way to address our perennial problems. George W. Bush may have much to learn from the conservative movement, but conservatives who are true to their own recognition of human frailty may also have something to learn from him.

Huh?

[Old Seadog]

Well, I'm not really a Christian but I am a Consevative. So how does that fit into the equation?

[sheltonmac]

Okay, so... he's not really a conservative, but he's a Christian, so it's all okay.

Hm. Well, I'm not really okay with that.

Based on the president's own words, I'm not even convinced he's a Christian.

[wizardoz]

I'm an atheist conservative. I get along with Christian conservatives as long as they are actually conservatives. Once we get to this area where Christian is considered "close enough" without the actual conservative part, I get a lot less enthusiastic.

[itsahoot]

Straight from Billy Graham's teachings of late.

CHARLES GIBSON:
Do we all worship the same God, Christian and Muslim?

PRESIDENT BUSH:
I think we do.

CHARLES GIBSON:
Does ...

PRESIDENT BUSH:
We have different routes of getting to the Almighty.

[rcrngroup]

Based on the president's own words, I'm not even convinced he's a Christian.

Wow, that is really something! I have long suspected that President Bush is a closet liberal/moderate who seeks to avoid conflict with the left, and says just enough conservative sounding phrases to keep the conservative wing happy. But whenever he is interviewed by the liberal/left-wing MSM, he falls all over himself to portray his liberal/moderate views. Just like when he was asked in one of the debates as to whether homosexuality was genetically inborn, or whether it was some type of unnatural learned behavior (or something like that). He responded he couldn't really say! Obviously he has never read (or doesn't believe) Rom 1:26-28.

I found his comments in the link "http://www.evervigilant.net/news/gmatranscript102604.html#testimony" to be especially appalling and contrary to Biblical Christianity, certainly his misunderstanding of Christian fundamental doctrine regarding salvation in Jesus Christ alone. John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me" versus.....

"CHARLES GIBSON: Do we all worship the same God, Christian and Muslim? PRESIDENT BUSH: I think we do. CHARLES GIBSON: Does ... PRESIDENT BUSH: We have different routes of getting to the Almighty. CHARLES GIBSON: Do Christians and non-Christians and Muslims go to heaven in your mind? PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, they do. We have different routes of getting there. But I will, I, I want you to understand, I want your listeners to understand, I don't get to decide who goes to heaven. The almighty God decides who goes to heaven. And I am on my personal walk".

What a fool!

What ignorance and idiocy on the part of President Bush. Much like his oft repeated phrase that "Islam is a religion of peace". Gag me!

[sinkspur]

What ignorance and idiocy on the part of President Bush.

It's not ignorance; it's profound wisdom.

Bush does not stand in judgment of who God can save, unlike you, who insists that you know.

That's pharasaical, my friend.

[uncbob]

Compassionate conservatism is the President's self-proclaimed philosophy.

Just as his father's was "A Kindler Gentler Administration " ( I guess as oppossed to Reagans )

[Forgiven_Sinner]

"Based on the president's own words, I'm not even convinced he's a Christian. "

"Wow, that is really something! I have long suspected that President Bush is a closet liberal/moderate who seeks to avoid conflict with the left, and says just enough conservative sounding phrases to keep the conservative wing happy. "

I also disagree with Pres. Bush's views on the salvation of non-Christians. But he gets the essence right--it's up to God to determine who is saved.

The view he expresses is fairly common among Christians who love all and want all to be saved, but don't take the Bible literally. C.S. Lewis, a fine Christian, also speculated along these lines.

Regardless of this doctrinal error, it does not affect whether the President is a Christian or not. That is up to faith in Jesus Christ, not doctrinal purity. If doctrinal purity were required, none of us would be saved, for none of us is perfect in doctrine.

Oh? You think you're perfect in doctrine? Then explain 2 Peter 3:18 Grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

How can we grow, unless we are imperfect to start with? How can we be perfect in knowledge of an infinite Being?

[I Like Lincoln]

I don't care if he's religious or not. A true conservative doesn't bankrupt the country.

[conservative blonde]

You are signed "Forgiven_Sinner". All real Christians are forgiven sinners. Bush admitted he was a sinner who was forgiven and his life changed by coming to Jesus Christ. For anyone to doubt he is a Christian is foolish.

[trubluolyguy]

How DARE these vultures attack this President when he is trying to fight a war! Why he has more conservatism in his little finger than all of them combimed! He is so conservative he makes Phyllis Schlafly look like Jane Fonda! These people make my sick. There is no big spending going on! The borders ARE closed you bigots! etc, etc.


Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

[thoughtomator]

As a Jewish conservative I'm in the same boat as you. I prefer Christians to any other neighbors but self-proclaimed Christianity doesn't assure me of anything, when folks like Bill Clinton and John Kerry are in that group.

[rcrngroup]

It's not ignorance; it's profound wisdom.

I'm not professing to sit in judgement of who is saved vs who is not. The Bible is clear however that salvation is based on faith in Jesus Christ alone, not good works and certainly not all roads leading to heaven, which is liberal theology. It's not my opinion, it's what is taught in the Word of God. Try reading it and quote some scripture to back it up, not your own personal opinions.

[sheltonmac]

For anyone to doubt he is a Christian is foolish.

Bush may be a Christian, but for anyone to doubt that politicians are capable of lying is also foolish.

[sinkspur]

The Bible is clear however that salvation is based on faith in Jesus Christ alone, not good works and certainly not all roads leading to heaven, which is liberal theology. It's not my opinion, it's what is taught in the Word of God. Try reading it and quote some scripture to back it up, not your own personal opinions.

Is it in keeping with a merciful God that He would not make salvation possible for people who had never heard of His Son?

[sheltonmac]

It's not ignorance; it's profound wisdom.

Considering that you called someone "pharasaical" for daring to test the president's words against scripture, I can't say I'm surprised you actually believe that.