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.

[Reelect President Dubya]

Give it a rest moron.

I asked for a quote from Bush (WHO IS STILL PRESIDENT)and you give me a quote from Ari Fleischer (WHO IS NO LONGER ASSOCIATED WITH THE WHITE HOUSE).

And you call me a moron?

[My2Cents]

Anywhere in the article, did Jonah say he was not voting for Bush? I think this is the difference between real conservatives who have concerns about some of Bush's policies, and the "real conservatives" who expend more energy bashing Bush than they do the Democrats (at least Jonah does his share of attacking the Dems). Real conservatives have concerns, but considering the big picture, they will vote for Bush again, and gladly given many of his conservative policies and appointments. The "real conservatives" never voted for Bush in the first place, and they now complain that Bush is "abandoning the base" (when indeed they were never part of the base).

There was a post up yesterday (I'm sure everyone saw it) which pointed out the conservative elements of Bush's SOTU. The "real conservatives" will never admit there is anything conservative about Bush. It is interesting that on FOX News Channel today, the chairwoman of the New Hampshire Democrat Party was shedding crocodile tears over "Bush abandoning the conservative base," as if John F-in' Kerry had a chance of winning them over. She sounded just like the "real conservatives" on FR, which makes me wonder if they're all reading off the same script.

[My2Cents]

Expect him to strenuously push for, and sign, a much more restrictive Assault Weapons Ban.

Thereby denying you your constitutional right to possess an M1/A1 Abrams Tank.

[My2Cents]

Bush is not strident, and not extreme in either tone or policies. I think you're right. Bush always does what he does because he thinks it's the correct thing to do. He does not operate from ideology, but from a set of deeper beliefs. Most of the time, his instincts are conservative. Some times they are not. Overall, though, we are fortunate to have this man, with his set of values, in the White House, even if he isn't every Freeper's model of conservatism.

[livius]

...and DU trolls who wander the halls of FR.

I suspect there are a lot of trolls involved in these threads. I think they are taking things upon which people can reasonably disagree or which need more discussion and clarification and trying to provoke hysteria, so that the general perception will be that "conservatives" also hate Bush. Nice try, and of course, they're finding a lot of gullible folks eager to be stirred up.

[My2Cents]

You're absolutely correct. All of the "real conservatives" on FreeRepublic don't recognize that as conservatism has become the majority viewpoint in our society, it's become a majority because of an amalgamation of a variety of interests. Those who bash Bush for "abandoning the base" don't recognize that THEIR definition of conservatism isn't precisely the same as someone else's definition, or reasons for their conservative leaning. I'm a conservative Christian. I've seen conservatives on FR who have shown nothing but distain for my faith. What informs and motivates my conservative viewpoint is different than what motivates others' conservative viewpoints on FR. There was a comment made at the top of this thread bemoaning Bush's willingness to reauthorize a semi-automatic weapons ban in law. For many, this is THE cutting issue of conservatism. As far as I'm concern, I couldn't care less about that issue. I defend the 2nd Amendment because it is in the Constitution, but I don't believe that the 2nd Amendment leaves the door open for anyone to possess whatever kind of firearm they can get their hands on. This, in there mind, disqualifies me from being a conservative. I beg to disagree with them.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Here it is, second hand again, though. Nonetheless, the circumstantial evidence is mounting.

http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-assaultweaponsbush.htm


Feinstein and Schumer Welcome President Bush's
Support of Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization

- Seek to Work with President to Swiftly Reauthorize Ban,
Close Clip-Importation Loophole -

April 16, 2003


Washington, DC - U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) welcomed the announcement that President George W. Bush supports the reauthorization of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which is set to expire in 2004.

In an article published this weekend, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law."


Senators Feinstein and Schumer, authors of the original assault weapons legislation in the Senate and House of Representatives, will introduce legislation to reauthorize the ban shortly after Congress returns from recess. The legislation would:


Reauthorize the prohibition on manufacture, transfer, and possession military-style assault weapons, while protecting hunting rifles and other firearms.
Close the clip-importation loophole, which prohibits the sale of domestically produced high-capacity ammunition magazines, but allows foreign companies to continue to bring them into the country by the millions.


Preserve the right of police officers and other law enforcement officials to use and obtain newly manufactured semi-automatic assault weapons.

[My2Cents]

My attitude is, one should complain all they want about GW Bush, but in November, one is a fool if they do not vote to re-elect him.

[My2Cents]

I agree. As another poster on FR once said (in mocking the pro-assault weapons argument), "They can take away my Abrams tank when they pry my charred dead body from the turret."

[PhiKapMom]

The are never a factor. They don't elect anyone ..They don't defeat anyone. They are not a factor. That is why Karl Rove does not give a hoot what they do. They are not important.

Thanks for posting that information! Found an article recently that said that Pres Reagan regretted bringing the religious right into the Republican Party because they could not be counted on to vote or support and were the biggest complainers.

[My2Cents]

Yes, I understand Thomas Jefferson was a strong proponent of automatic weapons.

[My2Cents]

He not only made a statement in support of the Brady bill, he signed it into law.

[Joe Hadenuf]

No one will ever convince me that the same assualt weapons our military use should be in the hands of private citizens.

No offense Ma, but I find that offensive. We are the land of the free, not the land of the regulated. The sooner the socialist, anti-freedom elite in DC figure this out, the better.

[My2Cents]

Tell me, what is a "true conservative"? The more I listen to the "true conservatives" on this forum, the more I think me, and Ronald Reagan, and Bill Buckley have had it wrong all these years.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Here it is again from the VPC.

http://www.vpc.org/press/0304bush.htm

VPC Welcomes President Bush's Reaffirmation of Campaign Pledge to Support Reauthorization of Federal Assault Weapons Ban
WASHINGTON, DC— On the eve of the National Rifle Association's annual meeting, President Bush has kept his 2000 campaign promise and reaffirmed his support for the federal ban on assault weapons, Knight Ridder news service reported this past weekend. According to White House spokesperson Scott McClellan, "The President supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law." The federal assault weapons ban is scheduled to expire on September 13, 2004. The NRA, one of Bush's strongest supporters during the 2000 election, claimed credit for his electoral victory. The NRA is vehemently opposed to the ban and has called for the law to not be renewed. The NRA's annual meeting is April 25-27, 2003. Florida Governor Jeb Bush is scheduled to be the keynote speaker at the event.

Bush's support for the ban has been longstanding. In October 2000, Bush spokesperson Ray Sullivan told Salon magazine that he would expect then-candidate Bush to reauthorize the ban. That position was reiterated by John Ashcroft during his confirmation hearings on January 17, 2001, when he said, "It is my understanding that the president-elect of the United States has indicated his clear support for extending the assault weapon ban, and I would be pleased to move forward that position, and to support that as a policy of this president, and as a policy of the Justice Department."

[My2Cents]

Your statement deserves to be expunged. Ass.

[My2Cents]

If any of you out there were not watching the Democratic Debate last night, Bush's relative Conservative credentials or the lack thereof pale into insignificance when compared with the nine dwarfs currently running for the Democratic ticket.

Thank you for saying this! It needs to be repeated, often. I don't care what beef some "true conservative" has with Bush, they are complete asses if they do not vote to re-elect this man in November. With all things considered, the stakes are too high to allow one of the Dems back in the White House.

[My2Cents]

The same thing that a typical hunting rifle would do.

Turn it into hamburger?

[prairiebreeze]

Excellent points!

[My2Cents]

Re-election at any cost, the people be damned.

No, only you be damned. I think clearly enough. Your implication to the contrary is offensive.