The Bush/Reagan Conservatism Debate

jenkuznicki.com ^ | 03/21/11 | Jen Kuznicki

[jenk]

On the debate between Levin and Wehner, Bush v. Reagan/ topic: conservatism....

The question was answered, over and over many different ways. I would like to point out the basic behavior of the two loyalists, so that I can further show that it is not just what is said, but what is done that separates conservatives from big-tent Republicans.

The worst thing that modern Republicans do is use the word conservative to describe themselves as if it is synonymous with Republican. I've had the opportunity to witness this last primary season, and it offended me and reminded me of Bush's statement that McCain was a conservative. No, he absolutely is not and now we are taking sides on who is and isn't in a very painful way. However, throughout the debate, a few quotes dug up by Dan Riehl attributed to Bush, really cemented the fact in my mind, that he not only was not conservative, but he pushed against conservatism, kicking "Gary Bauer's ass in 2000," and "redefining the Republican Party." Meaning, I suppose, that Bush regarded Bauer as the lone conservative in the race.

What Republicans who seek office know is that they cannot get elected in a primary without saying they are a conservative. Many work very hard to fool the base into supporting them and if they succeed, they spend the rest of the general trying to fool democrats that they are moderate, as the democrats become seemingly conservative. Ain't it a fun game? But this is the model of campaigning that helps a third party gain steam, if only the third party held popular beliefs. It is a model that puts people into groups, labels them, and then panders to them to get their votes, with as few words as possible. It is a stance taken that people are stupid, that they think the same if from similar backgrounds, it is anti-individualist, it is against human behavior. It also reduces arguments and conflict and instead uses conflict resolution to ameliorate the differences in opinion, setting a place at the table for one more, "interesting perspective."

But what Reagan did, and what conservatives do, is talk to the people. Mr. Hayward makes mention of it in his response to the debate. They talk sense to people regardless of color, age, ethnicity, gender, background. Everyday people for the most part are not a 'type' or mindless idlers, going through life holding nothing dear. They have families, they work, they dream, they have goals, and they talk to others, unafraid of conflict.

Mr. Rahe points to McCain-Feingold and that he believes a strong point in showing the non-conservatism of Bush lies in his signing of that particular piece of legislation even though he knew it was unconstitutional. He says that perhaps a deal was struck to support McCain in the general, and that theory is strong in my view because Bush declared McCain a conservative when prior comments regarding Bauer would have proved that a lie.

Much of conservatism is just based on telling the truth. Now, that is the difficulty for many in the Republican Party who would rather suggest that telling the truth is firstly subjective and secondly "saying bad things" about a fellow Republican, a stance with repeated attribution to Reagan which I find extremely repulsive. It has devolved into the idea that pointing out philisophical differences is overkill, and lends to Riehl's assessment that the practice works to "re-define conservatism, until it has become relatively meaningless, just as Republican politics was prior to Reagan."

Now, these same Republicans whom some label Republicans-in-name-only or RINO's (a label I set aside, because the prevailing number of them are what defines the Republican party therefore describing Republican perfectly,) are especially adept at attacking conservatives, most notably female Reagan-conservatives like Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, (after the primary for crying out loud) Michele Bachmann, and of course Sarah Palin, (which led to Mark Levin's initial comment that prompted Wehner's defense of Bush.) Why? Well, it seems obvious to me now. Bush rejected conservatism in 2000, "redefined the Republican party" and in the process insisted conservatism can't work, except as a pandering tool for coalition-building within the party. In fact, many of the Bush loyalists describe the idea that Palin cannot win outside of her own base, making her good for red-meat fund-raising tasks, but to much of a fire-brand to make any traction with the American public. That same idea was most recently made a point by Mitch Daniels, famously irritating Rush Limbaugh by saying the party must move beyond the listenership of talkradio, when it has exploded precisely because Rush and Mark and Sean et al are doing what Reagan did. And that is, going over the heads of the elite, and talking sense to the American people.

Bush is a good man, don't get me wrong, and let's don't pretend here that my post is somehow "talking bad about a fellow Republican." If it comes off as bad, perhaps it should be weighed against the truth, which is the point of debate in the first place.

[Roninf5-1]

There is no debate. The Bu$hes have been hardcore Globalists working for the establishment of a Bankster controlled One World Government since the days of Samuel Prescott Bush.

[joe fonebone]

reagan = conservative

bush = something else

there is no debate

[Daveinyork]

I was always bothered by GWB’s need to add the qualifier “compassionate” to conservative.\

A compassionate conservative, as defined by GWB is neither a coonservative, nor compassionate. It’s phony compassion, because it’s compassion with somebody else’s money.

[nhwingut]

I read Whener’s piece last week. He tried to claim that Bush was a better president for the conservative cause than Reagan. LOL!

[jenk]

yes, it was strange

[jenk]

Ping