Posted on 02/11/2004 11:00:20 AM PST by Lando Lincoln
While President Bush may not be a conservative’s perfect president, the alternative should shake any discontents to active support of the President.
As a conservative, I agree with most of the criticism that has been leveled at President Bush amongst Republicans and conservatives. While I support the President’s foreign and defense policies, I think that the Administration has tried to do the impossible—preempt the Left on their own issues. Republicans were not put on this earth to increase the size of government, create massive new programs like Medicare, spend billions of dollars on AIDS in Africa, fund the UN renovation, expand the Federal role in education or pursue a reckless policy of granting amnesty to illegal foreigners working in the US. None of these initiatives by the President will, in the end, take votes from the Democratic core base. Democrats are much better and far more willing to outspend any Republican program that expands the Welfare State. The strong suit of Republicans is limited government, lower taxes, individual responsibility and strong national defense. Karl Rove may be right that some of the President’s big government initiatives may neutralize some independents. In any case, conservatives could have hoped for much more in a Washington where Republicans control both the White House and Congress.
Having said all that, I intend to do whatever I can to reelect President Bush. The reason is simple. The alternative is unthinkable. A tax increase by rolling back the President’s much needed tax relief will not go to reduce the deficit but to fund massive new social programs, especially some form of universal national health care system. The stimulus of tax relief will be gone and the deadweight of new taxes and government program will lead to a much larger deficit. Moreover, the hue and cry over the deficit is only logical if the deficit grows as a percentage of GDP over a period of years. Economic recovery can shrink the deficit in a relatively short time -- provided there is no new spending. A Democrat will give us the worst of both worlds -- higher taxes and higher spending.
A Democratic economic policy is also lethal to the American middle class and small business. The repeal of most taxes to the “wealthy” proposed by the Democrats are really to two-income families that are just getting by and are clearly the backbone of the middle-class and small business owners who pay income tax; their business is not a corporation but a family business that is a sole proprietorship. An increase in dividend taxation or capital gains will put the financial markets in a tailspin and further retard the growth of new or expanded business activity.
Universal health care has an interesting twist that few seem to be discussing. If people are concerned about possible invasions of privacy because of the Patriot Act, imagine the access to private information available to Big Brother when he gets his hands on your medical records. Once the government is subsidizing our health, how long will it take before certain health lifestyles or diets become a matter of government concern over its citizens? Should we expect a universal health care system to deliver the same value as our compulsory educational system? In fact, the Democrats are likely to create an even greater rift between the Haves and Have-Nots in healthcare by allowing only the wealthiest Americans to pay for private services. Besides this, universal health will either bankrupt the economy since the demand for healthcare is virtually without limit or it will require the government to ration healthcare. Do we really want the delivery of healthcare to become a matter of political bargaining? Imagine the hypocrisy of those who are adamant that the relationship between a doctor and patient is sacrosanct when it comes to abortion, but would make almost all medical procedures a matter of public policy mandates in the future. Imagine your worst nightmare of an HMO and then increase that exponentially and you begin to get the real meaning of Universal Health Care. As for the eventual bill for this service, look to the past at all other federal entitlement programs. To make matters worse, no Democrat is going to support Medical Practice Tort Reform which is contributing to the skyrocketed growth of healthcare costs.
How will Democrats deal with other issues of free market choice for individuals? No Democrat supports any level of privatization of Social Security for retirement. There is no support for school vouchers or alternatives to the monopoly of the public school system. Finally there is no support for private Health Savings Accounts among the Democrats. While Republicans will at least look for market-based solutions to public policy issues, the unions and bureaucratic constituencies of the Democrats virtually insures no such innovation.
On the matter of illegal immigration, the Democrats are more likely to pass a liberal new amnesty program than any GOP administration. The reason is that the Hispanic community seems to be “in play” and this is one constituency the Democrats really need to lock up in order to strengthen their position on the West Coast and in the Southwest.
One can only imagine the kind of social activist judges and Supreme Court justices that would be appointed by the Democratic nominee. The Federal Judiciary will begin to resemble the lunacy of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Can any responsible citizen sit home and allow the judiciary to lunge to the Left? This alone should energize conservatives. The dismantling of all religious tradition or symbolism in public life is likely to continue with a Democratic President and a liberal judiciary.
The final issue is one of national security. Certainly no one can believe that a Democratic administration will strengthen our intelligence and defense capabilities. It was under Democratic administrations that the CIA and other intelligence agencies became decimated and hand-tied. The Democrats have almost unanimously voted against nearly all major new weapons systems. At a time when we are in fact living in a Third World War, we can not go from a Churchill to a Chamberlain. It is disingenuous for the Democrats to glob onto intelligence deficiencies when they are largely the culprit for lack of human intelligence or material resources in the important area of espionage. In fighting a terrorist enemy, preemption is the natural policy and that requires intelligence first and foremost.
While President Bush may not be a conservative’s perfect president, the alternative should shake any discontents to active support of the President. Moreover, in the area of determining the security threat to the West and taking action, the President may go down as one of our greatest leaders. For the sake of the hope of more prudent domestic policy, judicial restraint and national security, there is really no choice. As for much of the domestic agenda, can we afford to sacrifice the good for the perfect?
Scott Shore is a political commentator and management consultant in Providence, Rhode Island.
Lando
I said it was simple, not short. But, I believe history will tell us that the leadership from this administration has been remarkable in the face of incredible pressures. This president has the press/media always looking for weakness, the left and democrats are constantly undermining his efforts, many of our so-called allies abandoned the U.S. at a critical time of need, and, the UN was worse than worthless. At a time when the economy was reeling from a cyclic recession coupled with the costs of September 11. Yet, through it all, we have removed a despot, planted the seeds for democracy in the “swamp” of the Middle East, and the economy is on the upswing.
And – I think this gets overlooked sometimes – this President and his advisors understand POLITICS. Tim Russert said last nite on the Dennis Miller Show that demographics have changed considerably since the 2000 election. More elderly, more “minorities”, more urban voters, etc. Russert said that if the 2000 vote were held with today’s demographics, GWB would lose the popular vote by over 3 MILLION votes!!! That struck me. It is easy to carp from the relative security of the sidelines over GWB’s proposed immigration plan, or his changes to the prescription drug plan, or his proposed social security changes, or even the Patriot Act. But this President knows that to see his WOT through his potential 8 years in office, he must appeal to those “margin” groups that the democrats have so successfully exploited since at least FDR. To do otherwise is to surrender the 2004 election – at great peril for our nation. I believe, with all my heart that our President understands this intuitively, instinctively and intellectually. I can’t imagine a Hillary or a Gore or a Kerry or a Dean or an Edwards in charge over our very survival.
So I ask, what is the real cost of GWB’s proposed spending?
My new best FReeper FRiend has it right (apologies to all my other best FReeper Friends). This is the most important election cycle since 1940. I will vote for GWB and the republican ticket. If I were to do otherwise, I would be denying my young sons what I believe is the best shot at a secure future.
Lando
Bush is not a conservative; he's not even much of a Republican; who he resembles most closely is FDR, who was strong on defense but saw federal programs as the best way to deal with the country's problems.
A FDR republicans bump, or since he's supposedly a Texan now maybe a LBJ republican bump.
People seem to have forgotten the devastating legacy of the Clinton presidency — if they ever really understood that legacy at all. But Bill Clinton is not an idealogue. Kerry is. If we think Clinton's presidency was bad, we ain't seen nothing yet if Kerry gets in.
The idea that this nation would be so foolish as to install Kerry as president just three years after the events of late 2001 is just devastating to me.That every single right-of-center person in this country isn't standing up and working as hard as they can for GWB's re-election is mind-boggling. I am beginning to think that perhaps right-of-center people are genuine paper tigers.
I mean, they are the ones who always claim to be strong on defense. They always claim to want to march to the borders to keep the illegals out. They are the ones who talk tough about the 2nd Amendment, and religious freedom, and so on. But the left keeps winning. Why? Are the Republican leaders in Congress the only empty suits on the right? Or is it maybe that they are that way because we in the right-of-center grassroots are empty suits, too?
THEY never learn?!! Puhleeze. If that isn't the laugh of the day, I don't know what is. Who never learns? It seems to me the answer is as clear as the posts on this thread from you, AWW, and others.
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.