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.
It's the Neil Diamond solution:
I am, I said To no one there And no one heard at all Not even the chair I am, I cried I am, said I
He's merely handing me a credit card balance that I'll have to pay off down the road.
The deficit will fall as revenue increases, just as it did after Reagan's tax cuts.
The Debt/GDP was declining from 1945 to 1980, from the WWII high of 114% to 32% in 1981. It ballooned again to 60% under Reagan because he had an adversarial congress. It is ballooning again now, but wait...why isn't Bush using his veto to stop spending? Why isn't congress fighting his spending tooth and nail like they did against Clinton?
I must assume you are a conservative of the green eye shade variety, who only cares about your perceived pocketbook, nevermind the threat from terrorists.
Nah. I give Bush credit for fighting abortion, and as I said, gave him a pass on AWB at the time because I believed it was just a pre-election ruse to get the soccar mom's vote. But now I believe he really does want to grab the very guns we may need to blow ali muhammed's turban off his shouders. He could have every airline pilot who so wishes armed right now, but his fed underlings are still holding the process up. I think the Patriot Act is garbage. I think his open borders stance represents a greater terrorist threat than all the cavity searches of granny at the airport combined.
One thing that you said in passing struck me as something many of us are forgetting now:
But these most definitely are NOT ordinary times.
They haven't been ordinary since 9/11, and I doubt that they're going to go back to "ordinary" again for some time. Perhaps Bush has been too successful in restoring confidence and getting us back to more or less normal again, and we've forgotten.
But if we don't realize this and stop squabbling and get Bush and a bunch of good solid GOP senators in, then I think we're going to be in for a much rougher ride much sooner than we expected. The entire world is waiting to pounce on us if we stumble, and we'd do more than stumble with a Kerry - we'd fall flat on our faces, and we'd be fair game for the wolf pack.
Maybe that's a little apocalyptic of me, but I really see this election as something of crucial importance to our continued future.
I know one thing, his screen name is a misnomer. He is entitled to vote for whom he chooses, and is entitled to all of his opinions. We have a right to respectfully disagree, and I now take that right. Anyone who would, even in the smallest degree, aid and abet the election of a socialist, U.N. loving gigolo, is no conservative.!
You're exactly right. And I'm damn proud of it.
Because the ONLY thing standing between ME and the liberals taking over this country IS the Republican Pary.
If you're willing to give it to them, you'll have to live with it.
I like it.
Actually, it scares me...
The problem is that we no longer live in a very conservative country. The old institutions that held society together since time began, which is to say, family, friends, neighbors, are not held in high regard. The idea that people should look after themselves and one another without government intruding is simply not a part of the national dialogue. No one is going for it, and therein lies the rub. If you can't sell it to your neighbor, you aren't going to sell it nationally.
But while we fight that battle out on the homefront, we can't afford to lose it all to the globalists. It is humorous to hear people attacking the US as the supreme globalist, while complaining that we are acting unilaterally. The globalists are the ones who want us to submit to global institutions that none of us elected, which care nothing for the principles we care about.
We are fighting a two front battle. The muslim nutcases are a real foe, and if they manage to get at us they can do real harm. But the other part of the battle is against the people that want us to submit to a supranational authority that none of us elected. Hence Kyoto, hence ICC, UN, and on and on. Hence the belief that US troops under US command are a threat to the world, whereas the same US troops under UN command are suddenly transformed into a positive. The people who espouse this are people who have forgotten, or never knew, what we stand for.
Which is fine, we don't have to elect them into power.
I am disturbed at the direction things are going domestically. Bush has been ineffective in turning things around on that front. But its a democracy, you can't force people to go where they don't want to go, tragic as that may be. But we live to fight another day, if we manage to carry the day on the other fronts, against the people who want to do us harm, and the people that want to rule us without our consent. Those two fronts GW has handled well, and if we lose on those two the third is settled without firing a shot.
So I will hang with him. You have to be realistic, we work with imperfect human tools. Just as a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, in the current environment, and I heartily encourage all Democrats to vote their conscience and vote Nader, a conservative voter sitting home this November is a vote for the ICC, and Kyoto, and Kofi Annan. And Chirac, and the Belgian judges salivating at the possibility of putting US servicemen on trial.
Try "It's the voters, stupid." The new coalition of Disgruntle Conservatives and Hateful Liberals want to do to Bush what they did to his father. One side wants to stab him in the back and the other side wants to drive a stake through his heart. What a bunch of sick bastards.
You're both insignificant.
Keep thinking that way...we'll see what happens in November.
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.