Posted on 06/21/2011 9:23:31 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
The Republican noncandidate flavor of the week is Texas governor Rick Perry. If you squint just right, you could mistake him at a podium for his predecessor, George W. Bush. Except for his message.
There might be no more powerful symbol of the death of compassionate conservatism in the Republican party than Bush’s successor and former running mate in Texas stomping all over it with cowboy boots emblazoned with the words “Freedom” and “Liberty.”
Bush rose from Texas to the national stage in 1999 talking of his federal education agenda, the courage of single mothers, the power of drug and alcohol recovery programs, and the need for government to forge partnerships with faith organizations. Perry is emerging from Texas talking of the 10th Amendment, cutting government, defending freedom — and defending freedom some more.
Bush spoke in dulcet tones. He separated himself from the firebrand politics of Newt Gingrich and even took a swipe at the insufficiently cheerful Robert Bork. Perry is telling Republicans to stop apologizing and elect more conservatives. He’s Rick Perry, and he’s from the Republican wing of the Republican party.
The backlash against Bush has long been brewing. Compassionate conservatism was a product of the moment when Bush began to run for president in the late 1990s. The congressional wing of the party had immolated itself in the government-shutdown fights and then the impeachment of Bill Clinton. A rebranding was in order, and Bush wanted to signal to general-election voters that they needn’t fear him.
Bush-style conservatism never really took with the broader party, although it gained acquiescence. The president usually gets his way with his congressional majority, so Bush could push through No Child Left Behind and the prescription-drug benefit. The war on terror and the Left’s hatred for him bonded conservatives to Bush whatever their misgivings. The nomination of John McCain — himself no down-the-line conservative — obscured the anti-Bush feeling.
Now, it’s in full flower and evident on all fronts, from spending and immigration to foreign policy, as Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns point out in Politico. Running on his message circa 1999, George W. Bush would be hard-pressed to gain traction in the current Republican party. Running on his record circa 2008 — the spending programs, the bailouts, the attempted amnesty and the two ongoing “hearts and minds” wars of counterinsurgency — he’d be booed from the stage. If Michele Bachmann didn’t drop-kick him off it first.
The Bush Republican party had grown flaccid and deserved to be trounced and built anew. But Bush had two insights. He realized that the party had to win over the center as well as the right, and that unadulterated doctrine would appeal most only to the doctrinaire. If Rick Perry thinks the 10th Amendment is going to have cachet with voters worried about their jobs, their wages, and the value of their homes, he’s been spending too much time at Federalist Society seminars.
On top of everything else, compassionate conservatism reflected the prosperity of the 1990s. As a candidate, Bush sometimes seemed to forget that economic self-interest trumps all else. In this economy, Republicans would be suicidal ever to forget that. Even as he preaches the old-time religion, Perry in his proto–stump speech returns again and again to a highly practical theme: his success in fostering a pro-jobs environment in Texas. Republicans may feel no need to be “compassionate” in the Bush sense — defensively vouching for their own good intentions — but they need to connect their agenda to their solicitude for the livelihoods of voters.
As the press clues into the new anti-Bush drift of the GOP, we can expect a revival in Bush’s reputation. He will be portrayed as more reasonable, more internationalist, and altogether more statesmanlike than his benighted compatriots. If only it were still the party of George W. Bush will be the lament. And it will make the party even more glad that it’s not.
Can I hear an Amen! Richie, you act like that's a bad thing?!
Well, well well. Rich Flowry doesn't much like Governor Perry. I guess I better move Perry up on my list of potential candidates. Still behind Palin, Cain and Bachmann, but if Richie doesn't like him because he's not a "compassionate" conservative (meaning Rove, GOP Establishment big tenters selling out authentic conservatism, which does not need any squishy qualifier adjective in front of it thank you very much!, for votes), I like him all the moreso.
p.s. I've got to believe that if Bill Buckley was alive, Flowery would be demoted or fired immediately. Nordlinger, McCarthy ... ?
p.p.s. IMHO, everything about compassionate conservatism that lowry attributes to President Bush really lays at the feet of Rove, Norquist and other squishy big-tenters that had way too much influence in the second term.
Your impression/reaction to this article ping.
The author seems to think that promising more handouts is the only way to win an election. He might be right ... but it’s also going to kill the country. Can’t anyone see what’s going on in Europe?
What’s with the Huntsman dweeb saying at his announcement today that we’re for the first time going to be handing down a less compassionate country to our children, too? I was put off by him already, but that really got to me.
I am an “uncompassionate conservative”. My compassion has been sucked right out of me by those who look to the government to steal from me and support them. They never have enough and demand more.
I look forward to them having the rugged yanked out from under them
Agreed. Buckley picked a dud with Lowry. In my opinion, he’d have been far better off culling applicants for lack of military service.
Forget about “compassionate conservatism”, which is just “income redistribution lite”. Forget government compassion, period. Remember Ronaldus Magnus saying, the worst words in the English language were, “I’m from the Governmnet and I’m here to help you.” The Bible is even more pithy: “The mercies of the wicked are cruel”.
Haven’t we learned our lesson yet? Freedom means more people can go into business and have jobs to earn their keep. Government “compassion” means being a serf on the Government plantation.
I’ve always hated the phrase “compassionate conservative”, which implies that conseratives lack compassion. The liberals want to give the indigent all of the goose’e golden eggs, and will even kill the goose to feed them. Then what? When the productive elements in the private sector have been taxed into indigency, and the borrowing/printing of money collapses and our currency is worthless, how will the “compassionate” provide for the dependent class? Will they even care when their tables are empty, too?
Compassionate conservative = big government conservative = oxymoron
As a practice, "uncompassionate conservatism' is exactly right. The best way to help people is to help them less and get government out of the way.
As a rhetorical term, "uncompassionate conservatism" sounds like something James Carville dreamed up.
“Freedom” means, to people like Rich Lowry,
“people doing things liberals don’t approve of”.
Yea. Rich Flowry (FR hat tip on the nickname to the in-the-penalty-box pissant), is notorious for living in the squishy, moderate, pre-Tea Party past of the elite, establishment, country-club OLD Party. What a dunce. Bill Buckley has to be rolling in his grave.
Calling Jay Nordlinger. Please pick up the white phone in the lobby if you lurk (or post) here. Changes need to be made at the top of NR. Do it for Bill!
They take your money at gunpoint and then call you greedy for complaining.
Always a great line...
I can see Europe from here!
I can see my tomato patch, and a cat who appears to be dead but is probably just napping.
Oh, they’re just a bunch of racists worried that their tax money is going to non-white people.
They already have done that with a number of issues. And they are right, Bush was a liberal and compassionate conservatism was a complete disaster. If you remember back we were promised compassionate conservatism would create a new significant minority voting base for Republicans, but in the end it just elected Obama/Speaker Pelosi.
If it isn’t napping, then what?
I think Perry’s running right against the “new tone” and against “compassionate conservatism” is a great thing. I frankly don’t trust Perry as such a super tough conservative, but it’s a great idea and if he were to win and then to govern the way he is talking now, that’s a good thing.
I firmly believe the new tone and the compassionate conservatism is what ruined the Republican brand and what gave us Obama. So firmly, I have written about it at length:
On election night: p://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/gop_defeat_and_the_new_tone.html
And near inauguration:
p://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/gop_defeat_and_the_new_tone.html
Gee whiz...the National Review celebrating the spineless, aisle crossing tactics of the Bush administration. What a shock.
I’ll assign a son to deal with it. However, napping among the vegetables is a major cat activity, so I assume it’s that. Nothing can sleep like a hot cat, except a cold reptile.
And with that, to the library we go. It’s a favorite haunt of the eponymous baby.
Where did you get that from this article?
Compassionate conservatism is a PC term for progressive Republican. It’s all ice cream, cake and sugar, laughs and good feelings until the cavities and diabetes begin. Years down the road we will blame the debt and social spending on liberal Democrats, as though progressive Republicans had nothing to do with it. No thanks! We’ve had enough of our progressive intelligentsia and the destruction it brings.
this whole article must be a lie, because I have been informed many times on this board that Perry is a RINO... seems to be a disconnect somewhere in the information chain.
lol
“Bush spoke in dulcet tones. He separated himself from the firebrand politics of Newt Gingrich and even took a swipe at the insufficiently cheerful Robert Bork.”
I never met a single leftist who thought that Bush was “compassionate”. He was “Bushitler” to every one of them- despite all the pandering.
This is where a leader steps up and explains why giving government handouts is neither compassionate or conservative. GOVERNMENT IS NOT COMPASSIONATE!
Remember Reagan's quote? Government is not the solution to problems, it IS the problem. GW's damnable "compassionate conservative" bunk tricked a lot of us into voting for him while totally ceding the conservative arguments against government interference.
“But Bush had two insights. He realized that the party had to win over the center as well as the right, and that unadulterated doctrine would appeal most only to the doctrinaire.”
Pah. This is absolutely the wrong way to deal with people in the so-called center. The right conception is that they are people you want to convert to your way of thinking, not you converting to theirs. Instead of trying to moderate your way to the middle, you convince them to immoderate and tilt to the right. Measures such as the prescription drug benefit and No Child Left Behind were absolutely the wrong sort of thing to do- trying to out-Democrat the Democrats failed.
I look forward to them having the rug yanked out from under them
As do I!
In this area, we should do what the Democrats do: Lie to the mush-brained middle, then do what we really intended when we get elected. In our case, though, we should do what is good for the USA.
Exactly right! The only people that this pandering appealed to were the idiot establishment squishy non-conservative 'moderates' in OLD party like Rove, Norquist and Flowry ... “Bush spoke in dulcet tones." ... "He separated himself from the firebrand politics" ....
Oh ... PUKE. RETCH. DRY HEAVE!
That makes me think of David Brooks and 0bama's f'ing pantleg (or is that pantload?!)
In the name of Bill Buckley, fire Flowry.
Sorry. Deep breath. Rant over.
If Rick Perry thinks the 10th Amendment is going to have cachet with voters worried about their jobs, their wages, and the value of their homes, he’s been spending too much time at Federalist Society seminars.
. . .
I wouldn’t bet on that. Rick Perry can clearly testify to how the over-reaching FedGov has tried to steamroll Texas.
People were fed up with the GOP and started kicking them to the curb in ‘06 because of the obscene spending and growth of government. They really thought they were going to get something better when they ushered in a Dem. congress and then Obama and more even more Dems in ‘08.
Now people aren’t just miffed, they’re pissed off.
Great articles! Thanks for those links. You were prophetic.
The spin in the liberal media is that tax cuts amounts to the government giving money away to those who least need it (depriving those that need the government's money the most). The liberal media spin entirely ignores the fact that tax cuts allow those earning money to retain more of it. This type of misrepresentation and misinformation is rampant throughout the lamestream media.
BRING IT ON!
[If Rick Perry thinks the 10th Amendment is going to have cachet with voters worried about their jobs, their wages, and the value of their homes, he’s been spending too much time at Federalist Society seminars.]
NRO ain’t what it used to be. The David Brooks wing.
Jonah Goldberg via NRO had a great article about this topic:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/258873/liberal-bouquets-dead-conservatives-jonah-goldberg
It dives deeper into your point. Definitely worth the read.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/258873/liberal-bouquets-dead-conservatives-jonah-goldberg
Fits your point quite nicely.
This is absolutely the wrong way to deal with people in the so-called center. The right conception is that they are people you want to convert to your way of thinking, not you converting to theirs. Instead of trying to moderate your way to the middle, you convince them to immoderate and tilt to the right.
You don't convert the middle by preaching doctrine. That's the point being made, not that No Child Left Behind or the Medicare drug benefit was a good thing.
You lead by example and lead people to make the conclusions that make sense. You don't go preaching the 10th Amendment. People, normal people not FReepers and other political junkies, tune out on this kind of thing.
Preach that the EPA is killing the economy. Make it real. Use concrete illustrations. Then give it a doctrine name, if you have to.
“.....You were prophetic....”
Well shucks. In light of the idiocy that Huntsman was spouting just a few minutes ago - right in line with the new tone and such - you might be right.
What Huntsman doesn’t realize:
Compassionate conservatism = LIBERALISM
True conservatism = equals true compassion.
Huntsman = clueless silver spoon up his a$$ trust fund baby.
That’s my math for the day.
“I am an “uncompassionate conservative”. My compassion has been sucked right out of me by those who look to the government to steal from me and support them. They never have enough and demand more.”
Sometimes compassion means making the “victim” stand on his own two feet. That’s my kind of compassion.
Colonel, USAFR
“the insufficiently cheerful Robert Bork”
Not the Judge Bork I saw on TV including Firing Line. He would drop zingers and ad libs which made the show host grind to a giggling halt amid a sea of teeth. The best jokes are told deadpan and Mr. Bork knew the technique well.
But he was an across the board no compromises Reagan conservative and did not fit the template of `compassionate conservatism’ favored by GWB.
That was the real reason Judge Bork was shunned by Republicans. The MSM turned him into a sort of American Solzhenitsyn with an image of being dour and out of touch with the need to `grow’.
So, let me get this straight. The Tenth Amendment of U.S. Constitution* is "doctrine" that a candidate for the 2012 (that means post Tea Party America) GOP POTUS nomination should NOT be "preaching" to the electorate?!
You aren't Rich Flowry, are you?
* The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ... the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
No there won't! Obama needs to bash Bush, not emulate him. So the MSM will be in a pickle. They will default to protecting the annoited one.
I’ve never felt like a compassionate conservative, just one that believes in a leg up versus a never ending hand out.
Only after elections.
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.