Punishing Bush May Punish The Country

A group of economic conservatives were discussing the state of the world. They were a pretty unhappy lot. The conventional wisdom (which is often wrong) when George Bush ran for president in 2000 was that he would please fiscal conservatives. It was social conservatives whom Bush would displease.

At heart, it was understood that Bush was a pretty orthodox Republican, which meant everything he did would serve the cause of the economy. He was expected to run for cover when it came to those dreadful values issues.

Well, guess what? While social issue conservatives are not jumping up and down with glee, they do not feel betrayed, except for those whose concern is primarily immigration. Otherwise they feel the president is pro-life, pro-family and is now getting set to fight for the sanctity of marriage.

Economic conservatives, on the other hand, do feel betrayed. One senior member of the group actually suggested that the country would be better off with a Democrat president and narrow control of the Congress by the Democrats.

Now that caught my attention! While it is true that Bill Clinton looks like an economic conservative compared with this president, there are mitigating circumstances to consider.

First, Bill Clinton's economic conservatism was the product of Republicans winning control of the Congress after two years of the Clinton presidency. Republicans kept narrow control for the next six years as well. In fact, the Republican spending spree didn't happen to any noticeable degree until the unexpected victories in the 2002 elections where Republican control was won back in the Senate and GOP control in the House was actually enlarged.

Second, Clinton gutted defense where it mattered. Had it not been for what Clinton called "the peace dividend," the budget would have been much larger. Third, whether you like it or not, and I do not, we have fought a war in Iraq and are dealing with the consequences of that action, along with lesser commitments in Afghanistan, Bosnia and elsewhere.

What upsets the economic conservatives are so-called discretionary domestic expenditures that are about four times as high as they were under Bill Clinton. It matters not. When you have principled conservatives actually advocating the election of a John Kerry, providing he doesn't have a Lyndon Johnson kind of Congress, that is serious.

And those conservatives whose principal focus is government regulation are just as depressed as those concerned with spending. "We have all the problems of regulation associated with a liberal Democrat Administration, only the Bush Administration has given liberal Republicans cover," one long-time activist told me.

He too thinks that the country would be better off with a Democrat in the White House because "maybe then Republicans would fight this stuff."

A survey of economic conservative leaders reveals that all of them believe that their supporters will stay at home this election and, to quote one of them, \ldblquote...if they do, Bush will be toast because they will be the margin in state after state." That assumes that 2004 will be a duplicate of 2000. Elections seldom are just like the last one. In fact, in 48 years of watching Presidential elections, I can't think of two in a row that were alike.

It also assumes that some of those very voters who are so steamed about spending and/or regulations will not be motivated, one way or the other, by other considerations such as war, the defense of marriage or tax cuts.

Of course, they could be right. Bush made history when, after the Florida Supreme Court got out of hand, the U.S. Supreme Court intervened in the 2000 election, which effectively handed Bush the Presidency. Bush made history again in 2002 as he became the first Republican in exactly 100 years to gain seats in his first off-year election. The last Republican President to accomplish that was Teddy Roosevelt in 1902.

So perhaps Bush will make history in 2004 by having as close an election as we had in 2000. If that is the case, these economic conservative leaders feel so betrayed that they are going to give cover for those at the local level who want to punish Bush.

The problem is in punishing Bush they may end up punishing the country. It is unthinkable to me that we will have the same Supreme Court in January 2009 as we have now. Thus, whoever is president is likely to have perhaps three, maybe even more justices to replace. I am told by these same cynics that Bush in a second term is going to betray all of us and will appoint liberals to the court. I just find that hard to believe. I think he honestly believes in the quality of the nominees he has been sending up to the Courts of Appeals.

Then there is missile defense. We are finally getting close to deployment. That would be stopped by any of the potential opposition candidates, despite the fact that Russia never blew up when we withdrew from the ABM treaty.

And there is Kyoto. The Democrats have promised to get it ratified. Those who hate the regulation of this Administration will really have something to loathe then. I'm told that the Republicans will fight ratification. Really? I was told the same thing about the Panama Canal treaty.

The Panama Canal treaty was far more unpopular than is Kyoto and Jimmy Carter was a weak President. Still it got ratified. If a President is really determined to get something done, he can get it done. I think we could count on Kyoto being ratified. As to immigration, well, the cry of the opposition is that Bush has not gone far enough.

Maybe these fiscally conservative voters really will stay home, even though with enough pressure the spending and regulation issues are fixable. Fiscal conservatives keep telling me that every president is worse in his second term than the first.

I would remind folks that the first two years of Reagan's second term was in many ways far better than the last three years of his first term. Iran-Contra and a Democrat victory wiping out GOP control of the Senate made his last two years weak and unproductive. But those first two years of the second term when Don Regan was Chief of Staff and Pat Buchanan was running Communications were, as I recall, quite dynamic: Tax rates went down to 28%; aid went to Jonas Savimbi; "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Should I go on?

And what do Bush's most ardent media critics say about him? That the President he most reminds them of is Ronald Reagan.

This is a very good and insightful commentary on the present situation. Simply put, we need to give President Bush another four years to make necessary economic policy adjustments -- and to anchor the principles for our longterm war against Islamic fundamentalist.

I would like to be able to vote for someone better than President Bush on economic and immigration issues. However, no such person has a chance of winning and voting for such a person could result in a vastly worse person becoming president. Add to that the fact that many of the Supreme Court justices (maybe even a majority) are holding on by their finger tips. The idea of five justices appointed by President Kerry chills me to the bone.

I hope that all the talk of "maybe a Dem wouldn't be so bad" doesn't demoralize the base. Instead I hope it provides President Bush and Karl Rove a "Road to Damascus" moment (the St. Paul version, not the 4th ID version).

He too thinks that the country would be better off with an Islamic terrorist enabler/supporter in the White House because "maybe then Republicans would fight this stuff."

Any patriotic soul must support George W. Bush in 2004. There is no honorable and viable alternative. Our nation was warned on September 11, 2001. We are without excuse if we abandon our defense.

The conventional wisdom (which is often wrong) when George Bush ran for president in 2000 was that he would please fiscal conservatives. It was social conservatives whom Bush would displease.

Yes, the fiscal conservatives have recognized that they are considered extremist cranks, exactly as they considered social conservatives.

The result is a unification of dissident conservatives, opposing Bush's agenda at the congressional level.

Well, guess what? While social issue conservatives are not jumping up and down with glee, they do not feel betrayed, except for those whose concern is primarily immigration. Otherwise they feel the president is pro-life, pro-family and is now getting set to fight for the sanctity of marriage.

I don't see this. But then, my observations and Weyrich's are based on what we see in our own circles and in our own regions.

This isn't a particularly good piece by the writer, presently in a political eclipse similar to that of Robertson and Falwell.

These "oooooh soooo much more conservative then you are" people, like the punks a cpac can kiss my ash.
The screwed us in 92 and gave us a pervert and embarrassment in the White House for eight night mare years.
This time around, they will be rudely awakened on election night. They won't have that pointy headed nit wit to draw off votes and there are now more people than ever who have become aware of what is happening in this world. Yes in 92 those cpac jerks could screw us with their stupid talk of
"We'll stay home, the country will get clinocchio and then come crawling back in 96" Well morons that didn't happen.
The law of unintended consequences took over and we suffered for another 4 years.
The big story in this election will be how at the far left the unions will be exposed as powerless and at the far right the cpac gang will be unmasked as powerless as well.
The cpac guys will have marginalized themselves the way the Blacks have. Maybe they can go into Baptist Churches and recruit new members then join with mcentee and trumpka to form Hasbeen-pac.

It's a sad fact that politicians spend most of their terms of office gettting reelected to the next term.

I support Bush but I don't like some of his actions in his first term. I look forward to his next term with hope that the free-spending pandering to the liberal masses will come to an end.

I hate to even mention the "Legacy Thing", I don't want to suggest that Bush and Clinton share the same thoughts on ANYTHING. But it's there, it has to be. First terms are for politicians, the second is for statesmen (or it should be). Here's hoping that Bush's "Legacy" is a return to security, personal freedom, and financial prudence.

How is it possible that in an otherwise well-written article, a good author could neglect to mention the other "mitigating circumstance" regarding the last two years' economy: the hugh hit (possibly as much as 5-8%) to the real economic output of the US caused by 9-11 and the diversion of resources to prevent a recurrence?

other "mitigating circumstance" regarding the last two years' economy: the hugh hit (possibly as much as 5-8%) to the real economic output of the US caused by 9-11 and the diversion of resources to prevent a recurrence?

I agree with you. Article after article fails to mention 9/11 as a mitigating circumstance on the economy and the deficit. Talk about bias in the media -- we can start right there!

Thanks for the ping. I heard Rush chastise a caller yesterday that was complaining about the economy, immigration, etc. Told her the #1 issue is National Security and that Kerry would be a lot worse on domestic issues too.

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.