Posted on 07/21/2003 8:14:50 PM PDT by publius1
The Liberal Within Is Bush A Conservative?
Is president Bush a conservative?
It may sound like a stupid question but the dizzying mix of policies that this president has pursued - domestically and in foreign affairs -is surprisingly immune to coherent ideological analysis. Where it does seem to make sense, it certainly doesn't look like the classical conservatism of the Regagan-Thatcher years, or the revolutionary conservatism of the Gingrich period. And in some critical ways, it's far less traditionally conservative than the administration of Bill Clinton.
Take a couple of obvious differences between this administration and the last. The Clinton years will rightly go down as a period of intense fiscal sobriety. The president wasn't solely responsible for this: he was backed into a balanced budget (and then surpluses) by a Republican Congress. But the spending record of the Clintonites was extremely tight. Compare that to the Bush record. In a mere two years, this administration has turned an annual surplus of $167 billion into an annual deficit of over $400 billion. In 2001, the projected fiscal future until 2008 was estimated at accumulating $2.9 trillion of surplus - room to tackle the baby-boomer retirement crunch. Last week's White House estimates of the same future period showed a projected increase in government debt at $1.9 trillion. In other words, the Bushies have added a projected extra $4.8 trillion in debt to the U.S. government. In two short years.
Some of this was hardly Bush's fault. The economic impact of 9/11, the sluggish world economy, and expensive wars in Afghanistan and now Iraq all took a bite out of government finances. You could even argue that the big tax cuts Bush has passed have also helped cushion the U.S. and therefore world economy from slipping into a recession. But that still doesn't explain the huge lurch into debt. Even on non-military, non-homeland defense matters, the Bush administration enacted a 6 percent increase in government spending in 2002 and almost 5 percent in 2003. Government is growing strongly as a sector in American life - and Bush is now proposing the biggest new entitlement since Nixon: free or subsidized prescription drugs for the elderly. When you add all this up, you come to an obvious conclusion: the Bush administration is actually a big government liberal administration on fiscal policy. It likes spending money; it takes on big projects; it's quite content to borrow till the fiscal cows come home. Perhaps you could argue that Bush's deficits are designed to restrain future spending growth: but then why add another huge entitlement to the mix? And why not restrain spending now, when you can?
You can see the difference even more vividly when you compare the Africa trips of president Clinton and his successor. Clinton was lionized and loved - but he did virtually nothing on HIV and AIDS in the developing world in eight long years. Clinton did little to stop the holocaust in Rwanda; and did less to ensure adequate treatment for millions of HIV-positive Africans. Bush, in contrast, has proposed the biggest single project for treating AIDS in Africa ever put forward, garnering gushing praise from the likes of Bob Geldof and Bono, but precious little credit in the American, let alone European, press. So who's the conservative?
In foreign policy, Bush's instinct for unilateralism or bilateralism over international bodies has won him a reputation for conservatism. But the scale of his ambitions is anything but conservative. For eight years, Bill Clinton played a conservative game with regard to Middle East terror and conflict: defensive pin-prick strikes against al Qaeda, missiles in the Sudan, a peace-process in Israel, containment of Saddam. Obviously, 9/11 changed the equation dramatically. But the way in which Bush has chosen a strategic and systemic response - deposing the Taliban, ridding the world of the Saddam regime, taking on the enormous task of nation-building in Iraq, isolating the murderous mullahs in Tehran - is the mark of a radical, not a conservative. Bush is far more Gladstone than Disraeli in his approach to the developing world.
On trade, Bush speaks the right words, but has often failed to live up to them. His most notorious decision - to slap high tariffs on imported steel - has been rightly found illegal by the WTO. But Bush is appealing the judgment, thereby weakening the entire apparatus of free trade. Again, he seems to see little benefit in global arrangements designed to treat all countries equally in order to maximize trade between them. Compared to Bill Clinton, who stared down his own party's left to embrace NAFTA and the GATT, Bush is an old-style one-sector-at-a-time protectionist.
On contentious domestic matters, Bush is also no hardline right-winger. In his term of office, there has been no attempt to restrict the number of abortions in America; and the Supreme Court has ratified affirmative action and constitutionalized gay privacy. Bush actually supported the Court's affirmative action ruling and has stayed mum on gay issues, for fear of alienating either the center or his religious right base. In both areas, his policies are very hard to distinguish from his predecessor's - who also supported modest affirmative action and only rhetorically backed gay equality. Sure, Bush has named some worrying fire-breathers to the lower courts. But my hunch is that his Supreme Court pick (if he ever makes one) will be firmly centrist. All in all: the record is socially moderate.
In some ways, Bush is the JFK to Clinton's Eisenhower. After eight long years of fiscal sobriety and foreign policy caution, a young aristocratic president, after a knife-edge victory, cuts taxes and throws American weight around in the world. He has a global vision and some wonderful wordsmiths to craft it. He seems to care less about balanced budgets than moving the economy forward; he's less concerned about the minutiae of intelligence estimates than the broad moral and strategic case for intervention abroad. His typical action is risk-taking - like the war in Iraq or the two big tax cuts. Perhaps his policy mix, like that of many others', is merely a blend of opportunism and gut instinct.
More likely, Bush's conservatism is of a type that is simply more comfortable with the power of government than conservatives usually are. He certainly has little hesitation in using it for conservative ends. That makes sense for Bush, a man who was used to walking around the White House corridors long before he ever won the presidency. To more small-government types and libertarians, it's distressing. To Bush, it's merely full speed ahead. Meanwhile, the government he hands off to his successor will be bigger, more expensive and far more powerful in its anti-terror powers than anything he inherited. Whatever else that is, it's hardly a conservative achievement.
At least she called it by it's correct name instead of those childish made up names for our organs. How old is she?
I'm also one of those who can't leave Texas. My total family including one child lives in California. It's where I grew up and now that I'm by myself, I just can't leave Texas. It's a fine state and GREAT people. It's an attitude thing I think. People are patriotic, care about each other and... well.... hard to describe the feeling. There's still a whole lot of wide open country, even though the major cities are great big suburbs.
BTW, I was born in Brooklyn, NY, but I was sorta like you... but an aerospace marriage so I've lived in many aerospace communities including Virginia for 4 years while working in D.C.
Talk to you again, dear lady. We will have to meet and have that Chocolate/Vodka drink.
BTW, former Democrats make the BEST Republicans,for they know WHY they're Republicans. :-)
You sound like a good mom too. IMO, children know when parents are firm but fair.
See you New York Conservative lol
I'm sure that the Democrats would prefer to own the White House again, but there are probably some who realize that they are getting more done with him in the Oval Office than with a bona-fide Liberal in there.
The poor elected Republicans don't know whether to shout or go blind. They are obligated at some level to support the president, yet there are several of them biting their tongues over policies that revolt them.
If my adversary is doing me an unintentional favor, why should I make him stop by cluing him in? Or, why should I publically side with him and risk him losing his base and be forced to change tactics?
Personally, I can handle not being numero uno if I am getting more behind the scenes than if I were the top dawg.
Thanks.
IMO, that is a very scary attitude, one that lets followers permit all kind of antics from the leader.
Yes, of course I'd prefer my president to be Christian, but at the same time, I'm not allowing myself to believe that what he does is inspired and touched by the Divine, therefore beyond questioning by the rest of us.
Dangerous things can happen in the name of the Almighty when it becomes blasphemy to question the man in charge, especially when the man in charge is likable and easy to trust.
if that is true, it is no one's fault but his own.
"Is Bush conservative?"
Define "conservative". Most people who are pro-liberty, anti-big government, pro-individualism, pro-Constitution may think of themselves as "conservative". Yet, conservatism is defined as those whop protect the status quo and are resistant to change. For 40 years Republicans have been as guilty as the Dems of supporting pro-socialist programs. They now rank Social Security as their number 1 priority.
The truth is most Freepers who consider themselves conservatives are in actuality classical liberals, or Jeffersonian liberals.
Bush is a socialist, albeit a bourgoisie socialist, or conservative socialist. However both parties are socialist. Bush represents the conservative socialist party (Republicans) and the Democrats are utopian socialists.
There is no true "liberal" party, and the conservative party is merely the one that is most resistant to change.
Bush IS a conservative. Conservatives ARE bourgoisie socialists.
We now need a pro-liberty party to counter the two socialist parties.
Please let the moderator know the situation.
I saw your article was pulled, did a search and came up with this very old article.
I'd like your article to be posted for discussion. It is THE central debate for conservatives in the upcoming election. I'm sure FR would welcome debate and discourse on the subject.
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.