Conservatives Need to Get Real

The Intellectual Conservative ^ | 02 February 2004 | Scott Shore

[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.

[ohioWfan]

I know we've been through this before, but there are only TWO viable choices, Biker.

Bush, and most likely, Kerry.

The only viable alternative to Bush on the ballot is an anti-military, anti-American, give our sovereignty to the UN, far left wingnut.

Is that really who you want to be in the White House??

Are you REALLY willing to risk our future like that??

[Mo1]

You're kidding, right? He'll be in hog heaven!

no he won't be in hog heaven .. he'll be crying up a storm when Kerry shoves the UN down out throats

He'll be crying up a storm on how Kerry throws away our national security

He'll be crying up a storm when Kerry throws those borders wide open

But he's too blind to see all that ..

[OWK]

Compromise is part of how politics get enacted.

And you see the results before you.

You and your ilk have been compromising away the only restraint we have against government encroahment.

The constitution.

And you're getting pretty good at it.

Congratulations.

Just a few more tatters to shred, and you won't have to worry about that old thing any more.

[alwaysconservative]

We've suspended the writ of habeus corpus. We've allowed wiretaps without a warrant. We've allowed men to be jailed without charge.

Oh, yessssss, that eeeeeeeevil Patriot Act, requested by the President for his and John Ashcroft's nefarious ends! Never mind that it was voted in by an overwhelming bipartisan majority (including your buddy Kerry). Never mind that your goblins are simply untrue; facts don't seem to matter to you. If you want to do some research sometime, look at x42's wiretapping act in 1996 that even had the ACLU screaming at their guy. The Patriot Act doesn't even come close to that. Check out the warrant requirements sometime and get back to us when you know the facts. And you, of course, are so interested in the civil rights of enemy combatents that you are worried they are, post 911, jailed without charges. Take your ticket book and go into a war zone. Or let your buddy, Kerry, handle it like the criminal action he thinks it is. Give OBL and Hussein free defenses for their war crimes, yeah, at taxpayer expense.

If you are willing to put a socialist in office instead of a conservative, you're a socialist. You talk like a duck, you walk like a duck, . . .(Hint: namecalling someone who disagrees with you is a very liberal thing to do. Conservatives look at the facts.)

[Howlin]

Oh, I get it; they're just plain old cry babies, doesn't matter WHAT they have to cry about, right? Crying is the thang!

[OWK]

Are you REALLY willing to risk our future like that??

Why don't you see the ever-growing socialist leviathan as a risk to your future?

I find this peculiar...

[Howlin]

You're arguing with a person who plans on voting for a person who doesn't want his vote. Think, woman! :-)

[OWK]

Oh, yessssss, that eeeeeeeevil Patriot Act, requested by the President for his and John Ashcroft's nefarious ends! Never mind that it was voted in by an overwhelming bipartisan majority

Hmmm... the leftist democrat scumwads voted for it too...

So it must be OK...

Helluva defense you've got there.

[ohioWfan]

That isn't what I said, and you know it.

I didn't say you were FOR Kerry, but the reality is (whether you think it's repetitive or not), that there are only TWO choices in November.

That's it. No one else can win.

If your 'purism' makes you so strongly opposed to Bush, and you don't vote for him, you will be de facto, supporting Kerry.

If you really ARE a conservative (and not just a DU troll stirring up trouble), then the thought of Kerry in the White House nauseates you. The thought of handing this country back to the left scares you to death.

But you're so busy calling other conservative 'leftists' that it doesn't seem likely that you even know what a leftist really is.......... it's certainly NOT the people you've lambasted on this forum.

[Mo1]

Bush, and most likely, Kerry.

Hey .. there's always Edwards .. not only will he throw our country over to the UN .. all his Trial Lawyer buddies will bankruptcy corporations to the point there won't be any jobs and we'll all be depended on the government for hand out

Just think of all the fun we'll all have

/ end of sarcasm of course >

[OWK]

I didn't say you were FOR Kerry...

No... you only implied it.

(is this what passes for honesty in your camp?)

[Mo1]

BINGO!

[Mo1]

Why don't you see the ever-growing socialist leviathan as a risk to your future?

One could ask you the same question

GO KERRY GO!!!

[Bikers4Bush]

I don't know that that will be the case.

I have a feeling that something very unpleasant is going to come out of Kerry's closet that will cause him to not get the nomination and I believe the Clintons will be involved behind the scenes in some way.

I will truly be surprised if he winds up getting the nomination.

[OWK]

If you really ARE a conservative (and not just a DU troll stirring up trouble)

Jinkies! You're on to me Velma.

I started on FR in 97. Wore a red hat at the March for Justice, personally met just about everyone on FR at the time, have been a consistent and unwavering defender of my principles on this website for 7 or 8 years... and it was all so I could establish a deep cover as a DU troll operative, and spring a trap on you dupes in this very thread making you all look like fools trying to defend a leftist.

And I'd have gotten away with it too.. if it wasn't for you meddling kids.

You're just too smart for me.

[George W. Bush]

Aren't you the poster who was insinuating yesterday that George W. Bush wasn't a Christian?

I did not say that.

What? You're getting too lazy to dig up your own cheap shots and distortions now?

[ohioWfan]

I find it peculiar that YOU don't mind ceding our sovereignty to the UN, that you don't mind the thought of more leftist activist judges on the bench, that you don't mind the possibility of gutting the military and our intelligence again.

I find it peculiar that you're planning to vote for someone who isn't even running.

I find it peculiar that you can't tell the far right purists on this forum from the DU trolls. There is NO way to tell which of the two you are, OWK.

btw, your tagline is borderline blasphemy. I know what you're trying to say with it, but your mockery of believers in Jesus Christ who respect the President is over the line.....

[OWK]

One could ask you the same question

Interesting.

If you're so concerned about leftist and socialist policies in America... why don't you ever criticize them?

In fact, consider it a challenge.

Do you have enough integrity to list ten leftist decisions from the Bush administration, and tell me why you disagree with them?

[George W. Bush]

And I'd have gotten away with it too.. if it wasn't for you meddling kids.

LOL.

Mmmm...Velma...hot, hot hot!

[ohioWfan]

My question is, if these people are so purely conservative, why doesn't the thought of a REAL leftist in the White House make them sick, like it does the rest of us??

I would venture a guess that most of them are phonies, because they don't seem to care if the future of the country is put at risk.