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.
Henrietta, aka "Judas in half-size support stockings," reveals her game plan in none too subtle detail....
That's all fine and well, but it is not I who misunderstand but rather you who grossly mis-speak. I shall quote you directly again:
Bush could very well be derailed by the betrayal of many of the people who voted for him last time.
Now you say what you really meant to say was that Bush has betrayed conservatives... blah blah blah... it's all Bush's fault... blah blah blah... "But I think you understood exactly what I meant."
Maybe in the course of derailing your argument I got your Buchananoid half-size ham-hock hackles up there just a bit and it left you fundamentally confused and dumbstruck in your speech patterns and in your subsequent reply. Single issue people like you vote with their emotions, not with common sense, and you are here for all to see in all your splendor: the poster child example of the toung-tied malcontent. The more you post, the more you prove my point.
Either that, or it sounds like you need a basic course in subject-verb agreement. Presuming, however rightly or wrongly, that you are a female heterosexual who is married or has a significant male other in your life in some capacity, I pity your husband, or boyfriend on account of the relational strain he must endure for your inherent inability to communicate any thought clearly, or one which is unfettered by your irrational emotionalism.
I'll quote you again and give you the opportunity to renounce the statement:...I'm not voting for him EVEN IF THAT MEANS WE GET JOHN KERRY....I call us "principled."
BTW, posting threats to Freepmail is quite unbecoming of you and it won't help you win arguments... at least not in these forums.
Sure it was. Oooooh I'm scared now. Next thing you know you're gonna slap me with demerits, send me to the principal's office for a spanking, and call my mommy too.
I don't think Moderator's concern themselves much with people who can't hold up their own end in a discussion, and who, when they are exposed for making the stupidest of statements, go whining and tattling to them about it. They can read, and recognize your Kerry love-pap about as well as anyone here can, I'm sure.
I'll just keep reminding everybody -- Mods included -- exactly how stupid a statement it is that you can make:
"...I'm not voting for him EVEN IF THAT MEANS WE GET JOHN KERRY....I call us "principled."
It's quite amusing to watch an intellectual playtoy like yourself and as you have become for me not just lose the argument, but like the Tazmanian devil, just completely lose your mind too, as you continue to babble on incoherently.
Maybe you can be awarded the FreeRepublic forum's keeper of that "coveted" title reserved for those who make half-sized half-witted Benedict Arnold-style statements:
"Kerry's Favorite Konservative-in-Name-Only Kiss-up!"
You certainly have earned it.
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.
Have Know idea if you check aroud here anymore - but whatever you do - don't google 'owk' to see if you popped up anywhere.
Best regards,
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.