FRN Columnists" Corner - "Hey, Big Spender" By Jonathan David Morris

Free Republic Network ^ | 10-10-03 | Jonathan David Morris

[Bob J]

FRN Columnists' Corner

"Hey, Big Spender"

by

A common misconception these days is that last week's addition of Gen. Wesley Clark brings the field of Democratic presidential contenders to a total of ten. This is wrong. There were already ten Democrats running for president, and their names were Howard Dean, John Edwards, John Kerry, Dick Gephardt, Al Sharpton, Bob Graham, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Lieberman, Carol Moseley Braun, and George W. Bush.

George W. Bush?

That's right: George W. Bush, the best damn Democrat in office since Jack Kennedy some 40 years ago.

Now, granted, Bush still bears the GOP label, and Republicans -- last time I checked the donation requests in my mailbox, anyway -- sure seem to think he's one of their own. Part of the problem, though, is Republicans -- or at least those in control of Congress -- might as well call themselves Democrats, too.

Let me come right out and say this without beating around the proverbial, well, you know, bush: Between America's two major parties, small government's got nary a champion in Washington today.

And this doesn't bode well for the president's reelection campaign.

Now, there are those who'd tell you -- indeed, there are those who've told you repeatedly since September 11, 2001 -- that Bush's greatest vulnerability is the economy. If the economy doesn't improve, they say, Bush will be packing his bags and heading back to his Crawford ranch four years early come November of next year. This, I contend, is only partially true. The economy may affect Bush's chances, but those who oppose his handling of it won't hold exclusive power here -- they'll be joined, potentially, by those fed up with the GOP's big-spending ways.

As former Clinton advisor Dick Morris wrote on Vote.com earlier this year, "The mythology surrounding the dramatic fall of the first President George Bush -- from dizzying heights of popularity after the Gulf War to defeat less than two years later -- may obscure the real risks for George W. Bush." Bush, Sr., according to Morris, "did not lose because of 'the economy, stupid,'" but rather was "rendered vulnerable by four other factors," those being: (1) "He faced an opponent who took away his best issues;" (2) He "screwed up his signature issue by raising taxes" after making his famous "read my lips" pledge; (3) "The Gulf War lost its relevance;" and (4) He "had no domestic agenda beyond fighting the recession."

With regards to George W., I think Dick Morris is on to something here -- particularly on Point No. 2.

Now, whereas Bush, Sr., promised not to raise taxes then found he had no choice but to go ahead and raise them (as Ronald Reagan's successor, no less), Bush, Jr., has delivered not one but two -- count 'em, two -- tax cuts, the first remarkably coming mere months into his presidency. George W. might therefore expect his core supporters to hold taxes in his favor to the same degree they held taxes against his dad in '92, and rightly so, I suppose, except for one thing: He's failed to nail down the basic small government philosophy behind his very own tax cuts.

So, it's not that the current president has "screwed up his signature issue," but that he hasn't quite grasped -- or implemented, at least -- its underlying theme. He cut taxes, all right, but the government hasn't shrunk along with it. In fact, according to Paul C. Light in his recent report for the Brookings Institution, "federal contracts and grants generated just over 8 million jobs in 2002, up from just under 7 million in 1999" -- meaning the government Bill Clinton left us has actually grown since the current administration moved in.

And don't think conservatives haven't noticed this.

The DNC can talk all day about Bush's "tax cuts for the rich" benefiting only "the wealthiest one percent" of the nation, or about how Bush is some kind of fascist extremist warlord, but the truth is that many of us on the Right only wish that's what Bush was. Not to look a gift horse in the mouth or anything, but tax cuts go only so far when you're vastly expanding Medicare and tossing billions towards education while failing to introduce voucher programs or privatize Social Security.

Then there's the War on Terror. Just recently, Bush announced he'd be asking Congress for an additional $87 billion to put towards Iraq, on top of the billions we've already spent there. Bush has a post-9/11 mandate to protect the American people, and the American people, by and large, support him in this cause -- as do conservatives, who overwhelmingly appreciate his leadership lo these last two years. But war doesn't come cheap, and Bush, as a conservative, ought to be cutting spending in other areas to account for it while keeping the deficit down. To date, he has not.

A few weeks ago, I wrote that "Joe Lieberman's fond of saying no Democrat can win the presidency without being strong on national security." I said his assertion was wrong because "it's hard to imagine Americans voting Bush out of office if, indeed, they view the War on Terror as Issue No. 1." For Bush to lose, in other words, Americans would have to decide he's no longer the best at doing whatever needs to be done. While no one can predict what Iraq will look like a year from now, it'll have to get pretty bad for Bush to lose the War on Terror vote.

But the reverse also holds true: If Americans are going to go with a big government president, then there's no reason to vote Republican when the Democrats -- for what it's worth -- don't hide big government as their ultimate goal.

Bill Clinton won the White House in 1992 with a mere 43 percent of the popular vote -- less than George W. had in his victory over Al Gore eight years later. It stands to reason that Bush, Sr., with his 37 percent against Clinton, might've won were it not for Ross Perot's respectable 19. But that says as much about Bush-41's popularity as it does for Perot's.

And while there may not be a viable third party candidate the likes of Perot in 2004, there will be a dark horse contender whose name is called apathy. Barring any major catastrophes in the next 13 months, and provided a galvanizing force the likes of Hillary doesn't run, there's a real chance hardcore conservatives will stay home next year. Judging by the 2000 election -- or by the recent Newsweek poll giving Bush a slim 47 to 43 percent margin over Clark -- it'll only take a few.

© 2003 Jonathan David Morris.