Replies

Thanks, CyberCowboy777, but I can only glean one specific example from your post. You think Bush has moved to the center because he’s enlarging the federal Department of Education rather than sticking to the “core” conservative position of eliminating the DOE.

I’ll buy that one and agree that a conservative is one who prefers to have local educational institutions run by local government institutions. A liberal (to use the other extreme in expounding on the definition at hand) would want the federal government’s role and influence expanded, even, perhaps, to the point of mandating curriculum (like requiring all elementary students to read favorable books about gay issues). Most of these “thinkers” hope that by consolidating power in a central government, a minority of activists can exert tremendous power (which happens now).

I don’t think any American kid would suffer if we started the process of eliminating the DOE tomorrow, so I guess on this point I’m a conservative and Bush is definitely moving to the left on this issue.

I’m not sure about your other examples, namely “property rights and mandates.” These are broad terms when applied (I know the narrow definitions of each) and a conservative might remain one in principle when agreeing with some issues regarding property rights and mandates. Do you suggest that a conservative is one who “refuses to have states saddled with unfunded mandates PERIOD”? That’s what I mean when I say that discussions of political persuasions are meaningless in the absence of specificity. There’s danger in using broad brushes. And I presume you intended to discuss “unfunded mandates.” Unfortunately, I can think of several examples of unfunded mandates that don’t really example an abandonment of core conservative positions, they simply force the states to abide by Constitutional protections afforded all Americans by the Bill of Rights (and which states from time to time feel free to abuse, like minimum standards for prisoner housing).

Good start, though, CyberCowboy777.