ASHINGTON -- Tucked away in Gov.
George W. Bush's
education address on
Tuesday was a provocative critique of
modern-day conservatism.
ASHINGTON -- Tucked away in Gov.
George W. Bush's
education address on
Tuesday was a provocative critique of
modern-day conservatism.
"Too often, on social issues, my party has painted an image of America slouching toward Gomorrah," he said. "But something unexpected happened on the way to cultural decline. Problems that seemed inevitable proved to be reversible. They gave way to an optimistic, governing conservatism."
What should conservatives make of his claim? I, for one, plead guilty to drawing attention to America's cultural decline. In the early part of the decade, the task was to call attention to America's stunning social regression; that, after all, is where the facts and the evidence led.
But today, the news is more encouraging. So, on an empirical level, Governor Bush is right. (In the interest of full disclosure: I provided input on the Governor's speech.)
The 1990's have seen remarkable progress on some key social indicators. Since 1994, for example, welfare rolls have decreased by 46.5 percent. The murder rate is at its lowest since 1967. The reported number of AIDS cases has decreased by more than 50 percent since 1993. Near the end of the decade, there are 243,000 fewer abortions a year than at the beginning.
What accounts for this? Many different factors.
But well-conceived, well-executed public policies deserve much of the credit. For example, we have seen the extraordinary transformation of New York City, which was once thought to be virtually ungovernable. In the 1990's, the city's murder rate dropped by more than 70 percent; today, there are many fewer residents on welfare, a lot less graffiti, fewer panhandlers, quieter streets. We see, too, that Michigan has substantially reduced the number of abortions and Texas has made impressive gains in test scores. The extraordinary drop in the nation's welfare caseload tracks closely with welfare reform legislation.
In this same decade, however, we experienced social regression in several areas. The proportion of American births that are to unwed mothers, already at 28 percent in 1990, is even higher today, at 32.4 percent. America still has the highest divorce rate among Western nations. And our rates of sexually transmitted disease far exceed those of every other developed country. The number of high school seniors who reported using marijuana daily increased 180 percent from 1991 to 1998.
It is important to keep in mind how much ground we have lost since 1960. The nation we live in today is more violent, coarse, cynical and deviant. A popular culture that is enamored with death robs many children of their innocence. Marriage and the family are weaker, more unstable, less normative.
These are social realities, and they pose an enormous challenge to us.
It would be self-delusion, and self-defeating, to pretend otherwise. But surely the successes of the 90's give us something upon which to build. Above all, they remind us that we do not have to sit passively while our culture breaks apart.
This, I think, is what Governor Bush is getting at.
His is a sound political strategy, based on an accurate assessment of the state of our culture. I have long argued that the Republicans should concentrate attention on those "in the shadow of affluence" and refuse to cede to Democrats the ground of authentic compassion. The conservative movement should publicly and repeatedly declare that its noble goal is to make American society more humane, civil, responsible and just.
The task now is to advance the
forces of social composition. And to
those conservatives who are tempted
to give way to pessimism, resignation and even withdrawal, we must
answer: no, it need not be so, and we
will not allow it to happen.
William J. Bennett is author of the forthcoming "Index of Leading Cultural Indicators: American Society at the End of the 20th Century."
it just takes republicans longer than democrats to become socialists.
Bennett needs a good cleanse. Moderates = Mushy humans. Go have another heater, Bill. Rockefellar Republicrats are the real problem.
They stand for nothing and everything at the same time.
"This, I think, is what Governor Bush is getting at."
"(In the interest of full disclosure: I provided input on the Governor's speech.)"
Which is it Bennett? You think this is what he's getting at, or you provided input?
With you as an adviser, no wonder the mess the gOp is in. Hey Bill, there's a Marlboro Light crying out to you - go suck on it.
You are a big money Rockefellar gOp type who sold the party out in 92, 96 and your trying your best in 2000.
Nothing I dislike more than a mugwump: definition - Someone with their mug on one side of the fence and their wump on the other.
I lost all respect for Bill Bennett in '96. He's no better than his fat, lying brother.
What a sad and bizarre thing that some can only see compassion as socialism. Is your life really so small and petty that you begrudge anyone the need for help, or the desire to help others?
"George. W. Bush, the Bold Leader, Cleanses the Republican Soul"
Feen-A-Mint is the cleansing agent that comes to mind after reading Dubya's contemptuous remarks.
The task now is to advance the forces of social composition.
What does that mean?
no problem with compassion here. compassion for others is a personal virtue. but legislating compassion is socialist. if you feel compassionate for someone or some issue, you pay for it; don't ask taxpayers to pay for your social engineering and guilt.
We see, too, that Michigan has substantially reduced the number of abortions...
Of course, this is a good thing. But as long as abortion is "legal" we do not have a Republic--we are living under a dictatorship that can and will kill anyone.
Bump - 'feel goodism' as defined by gOp = socialist re-spin.
How about making a difference one person at a time and by being an example, lizzie, instead of one law or one tax at a time. Good grief.
When we need another conservative leader to explain what the wanna-be conservative leader is saying, so that the latter's conservative audience (who should be the most sympathetic) understands him... we're in trouble. Or that putative leader is.
Or should be. Or will cause it.
Put another way: If W's way to persuade folks that they're wrong is by giving the inescapable impression that WE'RE wrong... he sucks as a leader!
Dan
According to another thread, Bill Bennett co-wrote this speech for Dubya. So how come a self-inflated windbag like Bennett, never elected to anything, not only gets to help Dubya form policies and write speeches, but also gets to applaud his own ideas and compliment his own phraseology on the pages of the New York Times the next day?
How does Bill Bennett merit editorial space in the NYT?
I thought there was a liberal media.
WHAT? DIDN'T YOU READ THE ARTICLE? KILLING BABIES HAS DECLINED BY 10% IN THE LAST DECADE SO ALL YOU SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES JUST SHUT UP AND VOTE FOR BUSH.
This point about a decline in abortion annoys me. People like Bennett and (I think) Bush really aren't very interested in abolishing abortion. Same for McCain and Dole. They are only nominally pro-life, not true-believers. When they talk about organized infanticide (the abortion industry), one doesn't get the impression that they really have any personal feelings about the murder of a baby. I'm sure that they would be quite harsh about the murder of a delivered baby. I'm sure they (or their supporters) will say that being outspoken against abortion will lose the election. It was a good excuse in previous elections and a lot of us used to fall for it. But no more.
I'm sure they (or their supporters) will say that being outspoken against abortion will lose the election. It was a good excuse in previous elections and a lot of us used to fall for it. But no more.
You have a point, but in making your criticism I think you have hit on something deeper. As much as I would not like to admit it, I think Bush may just have a winning strategy with this approach. All this rot about "optimism" and Bennet throwing out statistics like the Politburo discussing the next Five Year Plan will probably work in a nation so dumbed-down by mindless television and educational decay. Bush is really running like Clinton, and I do not mean this to be as direct an attack as it may seem.
Clinton looked across American society as it was, as it had become, and tuned his message accordingly. Bush is doing the same. He has harnessed the strength of the American popular culture machine, which values a short attention span above all. He knows that Americans don't want to think about the more difficult issues like why we are in worse moral (and economic) shape than ever, so he just changes the terms of reference: "Forget all this talk about decline and negativism, we're number one!"
It strikes a chord in American society and makes us less ill-at-ease with our own failings. Clinton made us feel better about our moral shortcomings, and Bush will make us feel better about our cultural and intellectual shortcomings. We crusaders may not like it, but it will likely be a winning strategy: "All those other fuddyduds are a bunch of sourpusses. Do you want another lecture from Keyes on why you are immoral, or another boring tax lecture from Forbes? NO! Boring!!! We're number one. Things are getting better." America loves optimism (even when misplaced) -- it is part of the frontier mentality.
William J. Bennett is author of the forthcoming "Index of Leading Cultural Indicators: American Society at the End of the 20th Century."
Bennett is the author of "goals 2000" for our "mush-headed" children, wonder why he supports "w"?
"no problem with compassion here. compassion for others is a personal virtue. but legislating compassion is socialist. if you feel compassionate for someone or some issue, you pay for it; don't ask taxpayers to pay for your social engineering and guilt."
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!
Bennett set up a premise nicely, but failed to deliever the punch line.
When pointing out successes in the culture wars, he should have noted that they came from: a) state experiments in education and welfare reform innovation; and b) the GOP Congress, by forcing Clinton to sign the welfare reform bill. He could also have noted that the issues he mentioned where we are failing can largely be linked to the policies (or lack thereof) of the current loathsome administration.
How long does it take to make people understand that a country which twice elected Clinton and supported him through the exposure of the most sordid and illegal acts, is not on our side on a lot of the issues.
If we want a candidate to go down in flames,do the following:
o demand that he outlaw abortion NOW,
o abolish the Dept. of Education NOW,
o cut the government back by 50% NOW,
o end the income tax NOW,
o end public schools NOW.
o etc ... (fill in the blanks).
We will then have our candidate and lose the election.
This country did not end up where we are overnight, or through one election cycle. It has taken at least 70 years. Can't we begin to think longer term? Or are we destined always to fight like the soldiers of WW I, throwing ourselves in deadly charges into the mouths of machine guns - and die?
Read George W.s speech; it was posted yesterday. It was a very good one, on which 90% of us could agree - and it moves in the right direction.
Someone once said, "the ideal is the enemy of the good." Keep that in mind. The enemy if not fellow Conservatives, and I believe George W is a conservative. The enemy is liberalism. We will not vanquish Liberalism by getting ourselves defeated in elections.
I pray most Conservatives will see this whole thing your way. If they don't, THEY will elect Al Gore. But maybe some of my fellow Conservatives would like that; it would give them more to complain about. We don't know how to win.
We don't know how to win.
We do know how to win. We won the White House twice with RR, 49 states... and we won the House big time... but on ISSUES... Conservative ISSUES! What we have today is Trent Lott failing to drive a stake thru the heart of the weapons treaty now before the Senate... and an impeachment trial that was a complete farce... and on and on... there's no guts in Washington.... and that's why the pubbies may very well loose. imho
Gosh, precisely. And we could take that a step further. Under our Constitution, we can vote on such things, even make ammendments, if the nation as a whole feels compassionate. But, of course, where are they? It's not the compassion we criticize, but the usurpation!!!!!!!!!!!!
That was a great reply and unlike so many who didn't read the entire speech it was on point.
When I read the first news articles I wondered what GW had done to get some people in such an uproar. Then I read his entire speech and I understood that again the liberal media had taken a few select words out of context to make it appear to be an attack when in fact it wasn't.
Some of the same people who are defending the Republicans in congress were only days ago calling them spineless jellyfish. Bush gives a speech that is honest to a fault where he admits the Party has made "some" mistakes but that overall is has done far more right then wrong. Bush suggested that in some areas that we as a people and a Party must look to new directions and better ourselves. If that's an attack then some have very thin skins because IMO it was one of the best speeches I've read.
I agree with you before anyone makes a remark about what Bush said they need to read the entire speech and not the SPIN from the media.
Thank you thank you thank you. I too read GW's whole speech--and am convinced the media is spinning this as hard as they can--and those that want to bash Bush are using it gleefully. I never saw them respond much when Bush talked at the Citadel about his ideas on foreign policy, which were not mushy "compassionate". Sure he believes in Free Trade--so did Reagan--but he said we should defend Taiwan. The only posts following articles on that speech which I remember were ones shouting NWO. Now these screamers think that by criticizing the Pubbies in Congress Bush has "betrayed" them. I guess they feel the only ones with the right to criticize--even bash--is themselves. Oi!
Bennett misses the biggest negative indicator - the continual backsliding of the federal government. The people of the United States seem to be slowly but surely cleaning up their act. But at the same time the federal government has backslid so much that the recent allegations of serious wrongdoing by Coehlo generate yawns from politicians and reporters alike. Notice that all the presidential candidates, now that Gore has moved to Tennessee, are campaigning from outside Washington and, to a large extent, against Washington. The notion of cleaning up the federal government obviously resonates with the voters, but time and time again our elected leaders pay lip service to reform, win their elections and then settle in Washington and then kick us in the teeth.
Hey all's fair in love,war and politics.
Those supporting other candidates will have a field day with this.
Why not? When the next bad article comes out on Forbes,Dole,Bauer or Buchanan we will have fun with it as well.
The truth is that most of those on Bush's case haven't read the entire speech and don't care too. The rest have read it know that Bush said nothing wrong but just will not admit it. But who cares when we know we're right.
Is your life really so small and petty that you begrudge anyone the need for help, or the desire to help others?
Helping others is necessary for growth in yourself, so long as you make the choice. If the government makes it for you, you get no benefit, except a cleansing of a lot of nasty money.
Can you imagine if the conspirators who plotted to kill Hitler had succeeded, and then held free elections. One of the men running for election points out in a campaign speech:
"We have made progress in undoing some of the excesses of Chancellor Hitler's regime. We have slowed the processing [killing] rate at the relocation centers [concentration camps] by ten percent. Some extremists urge the government to close the camps altogether and release all the prisoners onto an economy that is not yet ready to handle all of those extra mouths to feed. The more reasonable approach, obviously, is to make every effort to slow the rate of processing at the camps, strengthen the economy, and hope that, over time, public opinion will change, and that the relocation centers will no longer be considered necessary. There will be plenty of food and jobs for all people."
I would hope that few people would support such a candidate. Yet that speech is precisely what our "moderate" Republican leaders are telling us today about abortion.
Couldn't have said it better myself!
Guess you haven't been paying much attention to GWB's positions. He believes strongly in faith-based organizations leading the efforts to help people rebuild their lives. I suppose you'll respond that he proposes using federal dollars to do so, and in your world that's an abomination. But given a choice between a bureaucracy that collects forms and spits out checks, and the involvement of caring people who can help the needy repair their lives, I will surely choose the later. It is much harder to "take" from a real person than a bureaucrat, and the re-introduction of some degree of embarrassment would do worlds to reduce the number of people who take because it is so easy. Who knows, the day may come when hardly anyone WANTS to take something for nothing.
There is more than one way to skin a cat, as the saying goes, and the important thing is the goal. George W Bush's goal is that people take care of themselves. Unlike Democrats, he is not invested in the increased dependency of people on government.
Cut me a break Bennet you loser. Bush used that LEFT WING CLICHE "THE BACKS OF THE POOR." I don't need a gas bag like you to explain it to me. That's EXACTLY the charges the democrats used against the GOP's efforts in congress and EXACTLY how the liberals described REAGAN's administration. The GOP congress is already under constant attack from Clinton . Now they get amBUSHed from the rear. When the democrats take back congress and the left wing wackos chair all the committees we can thank fools like you. You backed that other loser Alexander in 96. You think the NYT let's you write an editorial because the like the GOP ?
lost all respect for Bill Bennett in '96. He's no better than his fat, lying brother.
Especially after his brother was out smearing innocent people and brother Bill says he respects the job brother Bob is doing.
are you sure you're not in the wrong chat room? you'd be happier in a liberal chat room. there they be concerned with feelings and "caring" people. i don't care about the bushes or the clintons because both have been involved in the international cocaine trade. and both were involved in the bcci and saving and loan plunder. or do you care?
[
Top
|
Last
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |