Posted on 01/08/2005 4:12:28 AM PST by snopercod
The Republican Party now seems to have it all: possession of the U.S. presidency and expanded control of Congress. Ironically, however, President Bush’s victory might destroy American conservatism. The GOP and conservative movement have lost their souls.
Modern American conservatism grew out of the classical liberal tradition that birthed the U.S. For years Republicans emphasized their commitment to individual liberty and limited constitution government. They believed Washington to possess only specific enumerated powers. The most important domestic issues were matters for the states.
Internationally American needed to be strong but responsible: War was a tool to protect U.S. security, not remake the world.
Most important was recognition of the limitations of political action. Economist Thomas Sowell observed how the right had a “constrained” view of mankind: No amount of social engineering could transcend humanity’s inherent imperfections. In contrast, modern liberals held an “unconstrained” view, that is, they believed in the perfectibility of human beings and institutions.
Although GOP operatives and their conservative supporters often placed political expedience before philosophical purity, most at least criticized expanding government power. And occasionally - during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, for instance - they actually rolled back one or another program.
In 2000 candidate Bush ran within this conservative tradition. But he has turned his party into another vehicle of modern liberalism, little different from the Democrats.
Federal spending has raced ahead at levels more often associated with the Democratic Party. Even as administration officials preached restraint to the lame-duck Congress, they demanded increased outlays on their priorities amid the pork-filled budget bill. The administration has pushed to nationalize local issues, expanding federal control over education, for instance.
Bush engineered the largest expansion of America’s welfare state in decades, a poorly designed and hugely expensive pharmaceutical benefit. And Bush’s officials shamelessly lied about the legislation’s cost.
The president is not without good ideas. But the GOP’s spending excesses threaten to undo his most important success, income tax cuts, and undercut his proposal to create private Social Security accounts.
The administration terms its expansion of government as “empowerment.” But this is just another name for nanny-state regulation. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card explained that Bush “sees America as we think about a 10-year-old child,” requiring Washington’s benevolent guidance.
In foreign affairs Bush most dramatically diverged from traditional conservatism, advancing an international agenda breathtaking in its arrogance. First, he launched a preventative war based on bad intelligence, but offered no apologies for his mistake.
His substitute justification, that of promoting democracy in a recalcitrant Islamic society, harkened back to liberal was making in the tradition of President Wilson. Abandoning traditional Republican skepticism of foreign aid, Bush sought to win Iraqi hearts and minds by providing garbage trucks and creating a postal ZIP Code system. Such social engineering seemed more apropos of liberal Democrats.
Equally disappointing was Bush’s commitment to executive prerogative. Supporters explicitly and administration members implicitly questioned the patriotism of anyone who criticized the president’s Iraq policy. He brusquely dismissed fiscally responsible members of Congress who advocated trimming the Iraqi aid program.
Although a decent person, Bush represents the worst anti-intellectual caricature of religious conservatives. He admits that he doesn’t read or “do nuance.” He believes in presidential infallibility and exhibits an irresponsible, juvenile cockiness (“bring ‘em on,” he said as U.S. soldiers were being killed in Iraq). He holds no one in his administration accountable.
Alas, he has influence much of the Republican Party and conservative movement. Leading GOP congressmen have given up attempting to eliminate even the most wasteful programs. Some conservative intellectuals also want to make peace with Leviathan.
Although the GOP long has violated conservative principles, there once was a difference between the philosophies and parties. No one could make the governing philosophy of Reagan and Jimmy Carter.
That difference is no longer discernible. Under Bush, modern conservatism has become a slightly fainter version of modern liberalism. Both groups believe the right application of spending, regulation and war can perfect people and their institutions.
Conservatism was the main political repository of the classical liberal commitment to individual liberty in America. But Bush has gutted the right’s opposition to the growth of statism in the U.S. By embracing Bush, conservatives have won power, but they have sold their souls - along with the individual liberty that is so integral to the American experience - for a mess of pottage.
Any typos are mine.
Sad, but true. The old GOP traditions of fiscal responsibility and limited government died somewhere along the way. We'll never see them back again.
Ah, what a bunch of crap.
Are you saying that my statement that the GOP used to believe in limited government and fiscal responsibility is crap? Or are you saying that the current GOP IS practicing limited government and fiscal responsibility? Which?
I'm a realist. When you compare both sides I can't see guys like me, a conservative, would change.
Speaking as a despised moderate, it seems that conservatives are only about abortion.
So do I.
Thanks for pounding it out so we can read it.
You may not have changed, but what if your party has without you?
Great article. Where do you think the country is headed because of this? Since both sides have moved to the left where do we turn for conservatism?
I must be either Chinese, Indian or Mexican, then. I guess I can't be an American of German and Polish descent or I would be despised by you, too.
Best regards - I write this only as a bit of education.
Why not just come out and say you think Americans are jerks - be honest. This little bit of condescension is boorish.
And in a few short years all we have sought to build will go by the wayside and the republican party will fall into corruption as the dems of the 1960's and 1970's did.
There are mechanisms with which we can lance out the lesions and the cancers before they spread -- FR has helped bring the republicans to power and we can try to help police them.
We need to fearlessly speak of what is right and wrong within the party and help frame the debate around the issues of our time. Bush's plan for worker amnesty is bad. So we need to make a lot of noise. But noise is not enough we need to speak in clear terms of what is right and wrong about it.
The republican party is beholden to the hispanic vote so they fear touching the third rail of imigration. We need to make a lot of noise about this but as I said before noise is not enough concrete plans and Ideas to stem the flow pf illegals need to be done, Move an army post on the border along a main corridor and let the military perform its own sercurity. That is a no brainer that will take some pressure off the politicians and not have the oborder patrols stretched so thin. Erect some sections of fence like israels along some othe key sections 10 -20 mile sections. One giant fence proabably wouldn't pass but smalle sections in targeted areas would.
With prodding and the selective voting in of true conservatives we can bring back physical conservatism term limites and other things that have been cast asside in the last few years.
All is not lost -- but if we sit back and let the party run us all will be lost, and all too soon.
And where then will we turn to to save us the dems? not on your life. We built this thing and breathed life into it when there was none, we can not let this be pissed away in a few short years.
Weed and Feed!
What makes Cato think there was a mistake? There is far, far more at stake in the Iraq war than keeping WMDs away from terrorists.
In American politics there are Conseravtives and Liberals, not Republicans and Democrats. The only difference between the our two political parties is which one has the most Conservatives or Liberals.
The Republican party has more Conservatives than Liberals (which we call RINOs), and Republican Conservatives dominate the Republican electorate as we've seen in the last election But, the Republican leadership has strayed away from Republican's basic principles under Bush due in part to the Iraq war and to win over traditional Democratic voters.
That being said, the Conservative movement is far from dead, and certainly hasn't "lost its soul". Unlike Democratic Liberals whose basic principles rely on a "government down" philosophy Conservative principles of "the least government is the best government" still underlie the Conservative electorate, and they will make their voice heard in the voting booth if things get too far out of hand. Democrats have just woken up to this fact.
We are doomed, DOOMED I say.
WRONG!
Maybe they're mad because Pres. Bush didn't legalize drugs and pedophilia.
One solution - TERM LIMITS.
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.