Posted on 11/09/2006 7:25:30 AM PST by Small-L
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, likely new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and the media will portray Tuesday's takeover as a repudiation of President Bush's leadership on the war in Iraq. The public's media-tinted perception of U.S. progress in Iraq, and its subsequent willingness to vote for Democratic House and Senate candidates does not, however, fully explain the switch in party control. No explanation of the Democrats' takeover is complete without laying partial blame on President Bush's so-called compassionate conservative agenda.
The term compassionate conservatism was coined by University of Texas professor and World Magazine editor Marvin Olasky in Olasky's 2000 book titled Compassionate Conservatism: What it is, What it Does, and How it Can Transform America. In an October 21, 2006 Wall Street Journal profile, Bush's former chief speechwriter Michael Gerson described the president's governing philosophy this way: "Compassionate conservatism is the theory that the government should encourage the effective provision of social services without providing the service itself."
Bush's big-government policies have certainly transformed America, but they are not even in the same neighborhood as true limited-government conservatism. Worse, the president, his advisors, the Republican National Committee and Republican leaders in the House and Senate have alienated the party's conservative base of activists and voters.
Compassionate conservatism first brought us the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. NCLB further consolidated federal oversight of education in an era when local control was the mantra of conservative voters and Republican congressional candidates.
Compassionate conservatism gave us the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. A Heritage Foundation report on the Medicare trustees' estimates finds that "Medicare's long-term debt, based on a 75-year actuarial projection, is now estimated to be $32.4 trillion. Of that amount, $8 trillion is directly attributable to the Medicare prescription drug entitlement." The prescription drug bill is one of the largest expansions of the entitlement state in our nation's history.
Bush has further abandoned fiscal conservatism on federal spending, one of the bedrock principles of conservative ideology. According to Richard Viguerie, author of Conservatives Betrayed, federal spending rose by 4.7 percent in President Clinton's first term, and 3.7 percent in his second term. Federal spending rose 19.2 percent in Bush's first term alone.
Too many Republicans in the House and Senate have enabled the compassionate conservative ruse by refusing to lead on true conservative solutions. The flawed structures of the Social Security and Medicare programs continue to consume a larger portion of federal tax receipts and will soon go bankrupt. The federal income tax code is an unfair burden on every taxpayer, yet few Republicans have joined the march to replace the code with a consumption tax. Our energy prices remain largely at the mercy of Middle East sheiks and South American madmen, yet our political leaders lack the will to authorize consumption of our own abundant oil and natural gas resources.
Now that Democrats have seized control of the House, and possibly the Senate, the president is poised to deliver the knockout blow to conservative voters, the conservative movement and the very Constitution itself. In a most bitter twist of irony, Democratic control of Congress would finally allow Bush to enact his amnesty scheme for the tens of millions of illegal aliens within our borders. Amnesty for illegal aliens is not compassionate, nor is it conservative. It is unconstitutional.
Compassionate conservatism failed America and cost Republicans control. Bush's guiding philosophy attempted to co-opt the liberal Democratic strategy of campaign to the right, and govern from the middle. To accomplish that feat one must pander to all interest groups, and hope the traditional base stays home on Election Day. If you recall, Bush's predecessor in the White House utilized the exact same strategy. He called it triangulation.
Conservative voters do not support moderate policy solutions, and they reject moderate Republicans who masquerade as conservative voices. Soon after Fox News declared Pennsylvania Democrat Bob Casey, Jr. the victor over Republican Senator Rick Santorum, Fox election analysts called Santorum a "compassionate conservative" who looks for government solutions to issues. Republican In Name Only senators Mike DeWine (R-OH) and Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) were similarly ousted in the Tuesday Night Massacre. Moderate to conservative-leaning Democrats also replaced many Republican House members.
Republican candidates lose when the party apparatus, whose goal is to win elections, abandons the conservative base, whose goal is conservative policy solutions. Just two years ago Bush and Santorum unconscionably endorsed liberal Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), who was in a primary race with conservative Congressman Pat Toomey. Specter won the primary, but Santorum ultimately paid the price. In this year's Rhode Island Republican Senate primary, the RNC openly supported liberal Senator Lincoln Chafee against his more conservative opponent, Steve Laffey. Sen. Chafee is one of the most liberal members of the Senate and refused to vote for President Bush in 2004, writing in the president's father instead, yet the RNC still paid for ads in his primary race. Rhode Island voters were not likely to nominate or elect a conservative, but the RNC's actions were heard across the fruited conservative plain. Tap the brakes, Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman. You're not king makers.
Compassionate conservatism completely betrayed conservative voters and their decades of grassroots activism. Fortunately, all is not lost for the true conservative movement. Every House and Senate seat lost this year is an opportunity for conservatives to re-educate the public on true conservative policy solutions. The coming Republican presidential primary offers a similar chance for renewal and the possible emergence of a genuine successor to Ronald Reagan.
No voter turnout machine put in motion over a three-day pre-election period could have overcome this slap in the face to the Republican Party's base. Undoing compassionate conservatism's wreckage will take years, not 72 hours.
So in other words you can't point to the provisions in the bill itself?
The only positions I put forth were that most Americans favored a comprehensive package which included some version of the Senate bill. I gave you proof of that and offered more. I also stated that the fence, security, and enforcement would be a large part of the price tag. Finally, I took the position that I doubt you will be thrilled with what the Dems come up with. Which of those abandons rational thought?
Now that you've insulted me, at least enlighten me.
Then the best thing W could do is pursue the 'guest worker program' he so badly wants.
His job approval numbers afterwards will indicate how right you and your survey results were. Unfortunately, we'll all have to live with the consequences of this little experiment - forever.
My apologies for having insulted you.
My point is that there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary of all your positions, but that I did not have the time nor the inclination to regurgitate fifty pages of documents and testimony... which is why I included a few links.
His job approval numbers afterwards will indicate how right you and your survey results were. Unfortunately, we'll all have to live with the consequences of this little experiment - forever.
As a lame duck president, He won't get credit in any case. But if the new congress does pass a comprehensive bill that includes sufficient enforcement and border controls, they will benefit from that in '08.
As for an "experiment", leaving 20 million illegals running around doesn't seem like much of a winner either, but that's what's been happening for years.
Speaking of enforcement, any ideas on what happened to the 'enforcement' provisions in the 86 bill?
While you're at it, since you apparently believe its a good idea, any encouraging words on why we should expect anything different this time?
I have seen no evidence that the polls on immigration over the past year are inaccurate. My position was that if Americans wanted comprehensive immigration reform, the Republicans' failure to meet in conference and carve out one did not help them in the election Tuesday. If in fact some of the several varied projections of cost were valid, then those items could well have been dealt with in conference. I seriously doubt there is any information out there contrary to those points.
Well, it only covered 2 years, 1987 and 1988, and authorized INS an increase of 50% over 1986. What happened after that and after four presidencies is anyone's guess. It's pretty obvious, it was insufficient, leading to the estimated 20 million here now.
While you're at it, since you apparently believe its a good idea, any encouraging words on why we should expect anything different this time?
Nope. But you don't stop trying. What I believe is a good idea is a comprehensive bill that includes much of what the House had and some of what the Senate had. If the Republicans had met in conference they could well have worked it out so that security of the border was first, then enforcement and legalization second. But now that will never happen, since the Democrats will craft the bill they want.
And the president will happily sign it.
All we can hope for now is a republican filibuster. Ironic, eh?
Savage claims he invented Compassionate Conservatism back in the early 90s. Wrap it up and deliver it back to him. Maybe he can resell it to somebody.
Ping.
Indeed. Doubt the Republicans will filibuster it, if it comes close to the last Senate version though. And the House needs only a majority. Perhaps the Republicans will reconsider a conference between now and January....
Grasping at straws, for sure, but I'm hoping enough people realize how critical this issue is for not only the long term prospects for the GOP but the nation.
The question is "What will the Repubs go for at this point"? If they are willing to compromise on the legalization issue, there may be a chance for passage of something legitimate. But if they try and hold out for only enforcement, they will come up empty. The Blue-dogs will not take on the liberal leadership in either house.
We shall see how much clout the San Francisco Democrats wield. My guess is not much. They are not the Clintons.
True, it is, but the term compassionate conservatism just became another word for Liberalism lit.
Rove and Mehlmans idea of turning out the vote was to place 10 calls a day to those they thought might vote republican and at least 5 daily emails which clogged the inbox. While I voted republican and would have had I never heard of Rove or Mehlman, I believe those phone calls actually alienated many republicans so much that they refused to vote.
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.