Posted on 01/31/2004 6:27:08 PM PST by softengine
Much has been said about the Bush administration’s handling of sensitive issues to conservatives like illegal immigration and entitlement spending. The criticism is both broad and intense, coming from traditional allies and longtime foes. Though the criticism coming from opponents is severely hypocritical, it scars no less.
Conservatives are consistent in their disparagement of excessive government spending and amnesty programs for illegal immigrants. This, however, leaves no one to thoroughly explain Bush’s policy strategy because his adversaries stringently attack for the sake of power regardless of policy. Though I don’t personally condone the liberal approach of the current administration’s handling of these specific policies, I do understand the strategy involved.
As conservatives, we must force ourselves to look at the big picture. Our country faces a crippling moral dilemma; the tort system cost our economy an estimated $233 billion in 2003; we desperately need a national energy policy; we need to continue reducing the overwhelming tax burden in our country; our intelligence gathering methods must be vastly overhauled and improved; it is critical that the defense of this country continue to be improved and grow; and we must continue to fight the war on terrorism as we currently are or we will find ourselves in the same war on our soil in coming years. This is a minor explanation of what the macro picture currently looks like.
We can safely assume atheists will continue to embrace – and even encourage – the degradation of morality and religion in this country; trial attorneys will never propose tort reform; environmentalists will not support any realistic energy policy; those dependent on government subsidies will fight any tax cut; and liberal anti-military, anti-intelligence, anti-war, special interests-appeasing politicians will put our country at great risk if left in charge of such issues. These people are Democrats and for this reason alone it is critical that Republicans maintain control of Congress and the White House. Fortunately, this isn’t where supporting the Bush administration ends.
President Bush and company have trademarked setting traps for Democrats. He trapped Democrats into supporting the war by initiating the debate just before elections and trapped Democrats into making the capture of Saddam Hussein an issue. He trapped Democrats into opposing an entitlement to seniors and he, not Howard Dean, forced the Democrats further to the left. Bush has taken Democrats’ issues from them and set the stage for an election based primarily on national security – not a Democrat strong suit.
So we come to Bush’s base supporters. Needless to say, we are not happy – but we must be smart. I pose the following questions to ponder: (1) Will excessive government spending and entitlement programs ever be reformed with Democrats in office and (2) Does politics end when Bush’s term ends? The answer to both is obviously no. The end goal is to place Republicans in Congress strategically to outlast Bush. Bush has been accused by allies of repeating his father’s mistakes. I strongly caution against trying to use a slight majority in Congress to overhaul our country in one term – we’ve seen what that brings before.
Our country faces a number of critical issues we must address in coming years. The easiest to fix is (a) excessive government spending and (b) illegal immigration – if, and only if, Republicans are in office. Excessive government spending can be weaned down over time with a Republican majority in Congress (and it will in due time). Illegal immigration can be solved with technology, a slight bump in spending, and a determined Republican president. Neither, however, can be fixed unless steps are taken to regain a firm control of Congress and overall politics.
Do I agree with amnesty or excessive spending? No; quite the contrary. But I disagree with – and to a great extent, fear – the radical agenda of the left. It will, and has already begun to, destroy this country. It is critical we take control and if a bump to the National Endowment for the Arts silences a few artists, amnesty shuts a few radical Hispanic groups up, and a prescription entitlement makes a few seniors happy, so be it. These policies may not make an overwhelming difference in polls or make many people vote for Bush who wouldn’t have otherwise, but they change the image of Republicans and set the stage for a long-term Republican takeover.
Right or wrong, that is the Bush strategy. Choosing not to vote for him on these specifics simply counts as a vote for his opponents. He may be taking his voter base for granted; however, he may just be assuming we’re smart enough to figure out what is going on. Politics will outlast President Bush; he simply hopes it is politics dominated by Republicans who can eventually take on the issues we are forced to swallow at present.
The idea that playing possum will prevent the election of a Democrat -- or of a more radical or liberal Democrat -- is a shaky one. It's one that the President's father tried, and it didn't work for him. The Democrat will be elected if the Republican looks weak or ineffective or dangerous, and it's not clear how much control the Republicans have over what kind of Democrat will be nominated.
As a passive policy -- an acceptance of the status quo -- the author's policy does make sense, but not if you really aspire to get things done or change things. And if all a politician wants is to serve out his time with minimal fuss and bother, is he being a good leader? If you believe that there are things seriously wrong with the way the government operates, doesn't it make sense to want to do something about them when you have the chance?
Green's policy is Nixonism, and Nixonism doesn't work. It doesn't mobilize conservative energies. Rather it lets them dry up, atrophy or decay. The President doesn't have to commit himself to anything as drastic or silly as dismantling the federal government, but he does have to give a clear direction in conservative terms, or the ideas that Ronald Reagan brought into the center of American political life will be pushed back to the periphery.
*I* am a woman, and at the moment I am tempted to use it left and right. If the term hadn't become overused to the point of complete ineffectiveness over the past three years, I would be using it. A lot.
And "target"? "Feel safe"? Sorry, but this sounds like an attempt to play the gender card.
Presidents don't spend money, Congress passes spending bills.
BTW, We got a $300.00 tax break, (Whoopee) government spending like a drunken sailor, no tort reform in site and we are on our way to socialist health care.
I'm waiting to see the difference.
I can't believe you wrote that! He's too busy catching a plane to talk to conservatives???!!!
"Look at who uses the term Bush bot....I've never seen is used by a woman and usually the target is a woman.....First noticed it last fall.....There may be exceptions...but it seems to follow a gender pattern....Interesting isn't it? Did alot of lurking before I became a member, are you aware there are real gender areas to the threads....Some are almost women only? (I think they feel safe there....Go there and ask some of them..beware unless it's someone they know they may attack you as a troll. It's happened before.)"
Well, if you are that threatened, there is always oxygen.com.
Could it be that perhaps because most women think emotionally (I've noticed emotional attachments to W that are, well, icky) the correlation to bushbot = woman exists?
BTW, there are many male bushbotters here as well. It's really NOT a gender issue.
I don't need, nor want your approval. Just go away.
What do you call that if not an insult?
Let me finish my response to you in this way:
Theodore Roosevelt, said, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or anyone else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.