Gap widening between Bush and conservatives

Townhall.com ^ | January 23, 2004 | Jonah Goldberg

[Apple Pan Dowdy]

Gap widening between Bush and conservatives

Jonah Goldberg

I thought President Bush's State of the Union address was fine. It wasn't outrageously long. He drew a bright line between himself and his critics on the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, Social Security Reform, etc. He delivered it well, and the nudity was tasteful and integral to the plot.

As luck - or bad timing - would have it, I was invited to Manhattan to address the New York State Conservative Party right before the president addressed the nation. It seemed only fitting since the subject of my speech was the conflict between Bush's "compassionate conservatism" and traditional conservatism. You see, conservatives in New York City have suffered more and for longer than conservatives in the rest of America. Trust me, I grew up on New York City's Upper West Side. We felt like Christians in Ancient Rome.

Well, after three years with George W. Bush at the helm, many conservatives are starting to feel like we've been sent to the catacombs. Don't get me wrong. Out in real America where most Americans - liberal and conservative - don't focus on politics every day, Bush is still doing very well. And, even among conservatives, Bush has considerable political support. But among ideological and intellectual conservatives, emotional support for Bush is starting to ebb.

I can't point to anything scientific. But if you pay attention to what conservatives are saying at meetings and in magazines, on the Web and at the think tanks, as well as what readers, friends, colleagues and sources say, there's a definite undercurrent of discontent with the president.

For some it started with his plan to offer amnesty-lite to illegal immigrants. For others, it's his fence-sitting on gay marriage. For others, like me, it was his signing of the campaign finance reform bill even though he thought it was unconstitutional. Or maybe it was his support for steel tariffs. Or the farm bill. I forget.

Anyway that doesn't matter. What unites pretty much all of these grumblers is a deep sense of, well, disgust with how much this administration is spending.

When it comes to taxpayer dollars, this is the second most "generous" administration in American history, second only to that of another Texan, Lyndon Johnson. There may be good aspects to George Bush's "compassionate conservatism," though on the whole I never liked it, but it's clear that compassion doesn't come cheap at the Bush White House, on whose watch overall spending from 2001 to 2003 grew at 16 percent and discretionary spending went up 27 percent. That's double Bill Clinton's rate.

Bush's defenders are eager to point to the war on terrorism as an excuse for increased spending. Fine. But that's only a small part of the story.

Under Bush, spending on education has gone up 60.8 percent, on labor 56 percent and on the Department of the Interior by 23.4 percent . The price tag for the president's Medicare plan alone starts, but won't end, at $400 billion. The farm bill was a pork horror show, pure and simple. More people work for the federal government now than at any time since the end of the Cold War.

Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation sums it up this way: "Overall for 2003, the federal government spent $20,300 per household, taxed $16,780 per household, and ran a budget deficit of $3,520 per household."

The reason most Americans haven't heard a lot about all this is twofold. Conservatives have stayed relatively quiet and liberals have controlled the anti-Bush microphone.

Democratic presidential candidates and interest groups have been screeching that the president is gutting education and abandoning the elderly. Obviously this is nonsense on tall stilts, since Bush is spending a lot more on both than Bill Clinton ever did.

In fact, on Medicare and education, for example, the Dems think Bush is being stingy. And a study by the National Taxpayers Union found that each and every one of the Democrats running for president have plans that would raise the deficit even more, from $169.6 billion under Joe Lieberman to - get this - $1.33 trillion under Al Sharpton.

Conservative opposition to such overspending is more complex than the media and the left think. Some just don't like red ink. Others think big government erodes freedom and traditional arrangements. Others believe it slowly inoculates the citizenry to greater levels of social engineering.

Whatever the reasons, conservatives - as opposed to partisan Republicans - have sincere misgivings about the kind of presidency Bush is conducting. A lot of compassionate conservatism is smart politics for the Republican Party, and some of it is even good policy. And, yes, conservatives understand that the GOP is practically the only place they have a real impact in electoral politics.

But I'm not sure George Bush understands how much he is asking from those who brought him to the dance.

[Carry_Okie]

You see, conservatives in New York City have suffered more and for longer than conservatives in the rest of America.

I'll see your New York and bet you a San Francisco.

[carton253]

It is really a fascinating process to watch.

Fascinating, exasperating, sophomoric, and wearisome.

[atlaw]

Not to get in the middle of this, but I don't view as reassuring the clear indications by Pres. Bush that the assault weapons ban should be re-upped. If your point is: "He said he was going to pander to the liberals, and by golly he's pandering to the liberals," well, it's just not a very compelling point.

[PhiKapMom]

I am going to take the word of some magazine writer over what I personally know -- yeah right! Not going to happen.
I don't go by a magazine that I consider over the top and I also don't see a bogey man behind every tree in this Country.

Now I know what it is like to read statements by the "macho" types of this Country -- why not buy a tank for your backyard?

[PhiKapMom]

My last post should have read "I am NOT going to take the word . . .

[William McKinley]

It is a good thing for me then that that was not my point. Not quite sure where you got it from, but it was a nice non sequitor.

[Apple Pan Dowdy]

"...his article is as agenda driven as..."

AGENDA DRIVEN??? I am agenda driven too! My agenda

• Not only protecting America from invasion by Muslim terrorists, but also the infiltration and take over of America by illegal aliens
• stopping the promotion of socialism in America
• keeping a healthy economy as well as keeping such a huge portion of our income being turned over to the IRS and our grandkids from having to suffer the consequences of our years and years of unbalanced federal budgets
• stopping the promotion of immoral behavior and values (such as allowing the murder of unborn babies)

I could go on and on, my point is, yes the author of this article has an agenda..... but it does not sound like a "liberal" one to me!

[William McKinley]

Your three other adjectives are nice additions to mine.

[PhiKapMom]

Noticed they resorted to name calling once again on a thread. When nothing else works we get labeled as Bushbots -- no chance for reasonable disagreement -- better to paint a broad brush and label us all.

The tendency on here by some people to believe the worst about President Bush without any facts is amazing. Surprised we are not getting the typical, "I voted for George Bush in 2000, but . . ." response but then I haven't read every post either.

Personally, I am not sitting back and staying quiet any longer as these people go thread to thread with their negatives on the President without basis in fact. After that RAT debate last night and following the Howard Dean blog after the Iowa Caucus, I will spend every spare minute supporting this President.

BTW, the Dean Blog following the debate sounded strangely familiar -- "I am voting 3rd Party or for Pres Bush if they nominate anyone but Dean." Must be something catching!

[RiflemanSharpe]

If a dem president had followed the domestic agenda that Bush hah, the people on this board would be screaming. But just because he has a R by his name they give him a pass.

[Dead Corpse]

Am sure when the 2nd amendment was written, our forefathers had no idea of the type of weapons that would be available today. Why not buy a tank and keep it your back yard along with grenades, grenade launchers, etc.? Where does it stop?

Exactly the type of argument the Brady Campaign would approve of. Completely false as well. Or do you honestly think the Founders would over look the firepower of two ranks of 8 9" cannon on a merchant ship?

[BureaucratusMaximus]

I am all for Right to Bear Arms but it is ludicrous to put assault weapons in the hands of ordinary American citizens with tempers to match.

Um...thanks mom! Should I send you my AR-15 since you're not "allowing" me to have it? Or should I send it to the real Nanny? Make sure I at least get some milk and cookies from you in return ok? Can I keep the ammo?...Pretty please?

[Charles Martel]

You are asking for proof of a future event.

And you're engaging in sheer speculation over a future event. Bush has always been squishy on the assault weapons issue, but the White House thoughtfully warned members of Congress that if they wanted the AW Ban to die, they'd have to deal with it themselves.

I see nothing to suggest that there will be any cheerleading from the White House urging representatives and Senators to pass a replacement for that law.

A new Assault Weapons Ban - even if it's a redux of the current version with no ups or extras - is a political toe tag with George Bush's name on it.

[Dead Corpse]

Bush has always been squishy on the assault weapons issue, but the White House thoughtfully warned members of Congress that if they wanted the AW Ban to die, they'd have to deal with it themselves.

Same thing we were told about McCain-Feingold CFR and the Medicar give-away. Whoops... looks like Bush signed both of those.

[RiflemanSharpe]

Same thing we were told about McCain-Feingold CFR and the Medicar give-away. Whoops... looks like Bush signed both of those.


Bush will sign an AWB if it hits his desk. Make you displeasure known to your congresscritters.

[snooker]

A simple question ... who is ever happy with everything that any president does??? I haven't seen it in my lifetime.

So disagreement is a natural state of affairs.

It's a lot better having Bush there than any of the dwarfs.

[kildak]

Well AJ, I'm a former Marine of 6 years and I can tell you for a fact, pistols calibers are not as effective as rifle or "assault weapon" calibers at neutralizing immediate threats.

[Dead Corpse]

Make you displeasure known to your congresscritters.

Already have. In fact, I'm not even getting the automated reply letters anymore.

[KEVLAR]

Please substitute the term "semi automatic rifle" for "assault weapon". I can't believe that none of the folks you refer to own semi automatic rifles.
Could you tell me what an extraordinary citizen is?

[Dead Corpse]

As another former Marine of six years, five expert rifle badges(never made my sixth trip to the range before EOC) and two expert pistol badges... I'd have to agree.