Stay the Course (Why should we vote for Bush again? Good editorial.)

World Magazine ^ | 1/26/04 | Marvin Olasky

[SquirrelKing]

Stay the Course

For all of the Bush administration's faults, it's good to have a president who knows about a set of rules "bigger than government rules"

JOIN THE CLUB." THAT'S WHAT PRESIDENT-ELECT Bush said in December 2000, when I told him I was journalist first, Bush supporter second, and would probably be criticizing some of his decisions early and often. That's the way it has worked out, and it's easy to enumerate complaints. No vetoes of pork-barrel spending. No nationwide vouchers or tax credits to begin creating parental choice in education. Missed opportunities during the first year of the faith-based initiative. Etcetera.

This magazine and now www.worldmagblog.com have criticized the Bush administration and will keep trying to tell the truth, regardless of partisan considerations. But, as we keep in mind two speeches President Bush has given this month, and the beliefs underlying those talks, let's remember that we're better off now than we were four years ago (when Bill Clinton was in office) or than we will be a year from now, if millions of Christian conservatives stay home in November.

Much could be said about our war against terrorism, but I'll concentrate here on domestic policy and the way President Bush in the State of the Union address on Jan. 20 reemphasized his commitment to compassionate conservatism. He was right to ask Congress to act "so people of faith can know that the law will never discriminate against them again." The faith-based initiative's emphasis on grants has been frustrating—tax credits and vouchers would work better both practically and politically—but as long as we have big government Mr. Bush is right to fight against red-lining religion.

The other speech wasn't heard by many outside of the New Orleans church in which it was given, but President Bush's remarks at Union Bethel AME on Jan. 15 went much deeper than the nationally televised address that should be called the State of the Onion, because every president spends so much time slicing and dicing (the infamous "laundry list" of items) that many viewers begin to cry.

The church speech laid out a bottom-up political philosophy that is the opposite of the top-down approach demanded by Democrats and relished by liberal Republicans. President Bush spoke, sometimes reaching for words, of problems beyond the ability of government: "Intractable problems, problems that seem impossible to solve can be solved.... Miracles are possible in our society, one person at a time. But it requires a willingness to understand the origin of miracles. Miracles happen as a result of the love of the Almighty."

He stated well the problem for religious groups: "Government policy says, on the one hand, perhaps you can help; on the other hand, you can't practice your faith. Faith-based programs are only effective because they do practice faith. It's important for our government to understand that. Government oftentimes will say, yes, you can participate, but you've got to ... conform to our rules. The problem is, faith-based programs only conform to one set of rules, and it's bigger than government rules."

[The Toll]

It certainly is in the spotlight and President Bush is getting beat down over it. His position is wrong and he must change direction.

[goodnesswins]

"Going over a cliff"....get's you killed.

[The Toll]

I never said there wasn't a downside to the strategy.

[hoosiermama]

All he has to do is put the issue on the table.....The congress-critters are the one who have to get the direction correct. What did you get in government? Have you contacted your local representatives. If not, DO! (And don't complain if you don't)

[OldFriend]

I gather you reside far from the site of the plane crashes and believe that if only we shut our borders and rounded up millions of people then we would be safe from islamic crazies determined to kill us all.

[NCLaw441]

You said: When is the time for Bush supporters to voice their opinions about what our policies should be?

As we have seen from the Democrats, there is more than one way to express one's differences with the President's policies. It can be done with thinly-veiled hate (recall the Wellstone funerally, etc. ad nauseum), with disdain, with wit, with objectively-stated analysis. When you disagree with someone who is otherwise "on your side," it seems to me that the point is best made by suggesting that the President is "misguided," "has not been made aware of all of the facts," and using similar means of expression, rather than using personal "democrat-like" attacks. Does any right-minded conservative think that Bush wants to hurt the country by his immigration and education policies (both of which I disagree with)? The personal attack should be the primary means of identifying democrats, not conservatives. Even when we disagree with the libs, logic is on our side, and we should be able to dismantle their arguments through the use of that logic, rather than attacking them personally (which is not really very sporting, is it? I mean, hey, they are SUCH easy targets).

[The Toll]

You are implying that I do not understand how our republic legislates simply because I am in oposition to the Presidents proposal. That is not a very passionate defense of his amnesty.

[b9]

"...Miracles happen as a result of the love of the Almighty."

My vote goes to the leader who knows the Almighty is bigger than himself.

My vote goes to the most unselfish man who can make a difference.

My one precious powerful vote will not be wasted on philosophy.

My grateful vote will be for Bush.

[The Toll]

Not exactly. I am not against amnesty out of fear of terorism. I have always found that position a little weak. I oppose amnesty for the same reason that I have a front door on my house.

[cyncooper]

Another whose problem is you don't like Mexicans and it has nothing to do with illegal immigration.

[xzins]

Let's say there's a third party that has a different worldview that truly wants to become a significant force.

It strikes me that they would have to begin the slow, plodding work of beginning at township trustee/clerk level and working their way into the psyche of the american voter.

As they begin winning some of those races and begin to develop a county-wide and then a state-wide recognition, it is at that point that they can increase their visibility by endorsing large party candidates.

I see no 3rd party that really wants to do that. They all want to go the route of the "magic bullet candidate" that will so excite the imagination of the electorate that they get to win with one knockout blow.

[kevao]

I don't disagree with anything you said. When I have been critical of President Bush's proposals, I have spoken of him with upmost respect. Unfortunately, many Freepers don't return the favor:

I'm fed up with being labeled a "DU-ing, DNC-loving troll" just because I think that the federal government is spending too much money (are Liberals REALLY in favor of cutting the size of government?) and that we should make a greater effort to secure our borders (are Liberals REALLY in favor of securing our borders?).

It's amazing how much hysteria can be generating by a little dissent.

[Fawnn]

Here we go again, another 1000 + posts thread with every single malcontent here on FR to vent their hatred for Bush. and transform this thread into an immigration thread

Those types are like having a record that skips on the only note in the song that's off-key, aren't they? ;)

[Sloth]

I want my gridlock back!

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

JUDGES. No three words, SUPREME COURT JUDGES.

No doubt about it, we don't need a liberal naming any more judges anytime soon.

I could wish that the president had not signed a "law abridging the freedom . . . of the press," but at least the judges he would name are less likely to approve that, rather than certain to.

[hoosiermama]

Would you rather we continue to ignore the issue and allow the problem to get worse? Whose to know he's not playing a bit of "Devils advocate" with his initial presentation.

Again, have you or have you not contacted your representative. If you haven't you certainly have done nothing but whine and spew in the air and are not doing your part. Understanding how our government works and not doing your part is not acceptable. Get off FR and write a letter, get on the phone, etc! (I just hate people who whine but do nothing to solve problems....that's why I'll vote for "W". He tries to solve problems not ignore them.)

[NCLaw441]

How about the war on terror. Does anyone think that ANY dem candidate would continue the war on terror at the same level as the President?

[The Toll]

That is so weak. Is that all you and Jesse Jackson can say over and over and over again.

[The Toll]

Yes, sorry I did not respond to that part of your post. I did indeed call my reps and for a change I do feel like they are already in line with my beliefs. I am from Georgia and our guys have already expressed a little dissapointment with the Presidents proposal. As far as the Devils Advocate idea I suppose it could be true but for know I think he is being PC.

[Fawnn]

If you were the only one going over that cliff, that'd be one thing. A person with compassion would consider those he'd be taking with him!