Posted on 02/12/2004 11:28:55 PM PST by JohnHuang2
Will Bush survive attacks from the right?
© 2004 Newspaper Enterprise Assn.
The disgruntled mutterings about President Bush in conservative circles are getting too loud to ignore. From National Review to The Heritage Foundation, not to mention such libertarian redoubts as The Cato Institute, the grumbling is reaching impressive levels. It doesn't (yet) amount to outright rebellion. The protesters are still on board for November; few of them are seriously threatening to stay home on Election Day and let John Kerry waltz into the White House. But it is fair to say that, in the opinion of many serious people, the integrity of the conservative movement as we've known it is at stake.
Just how far has President Bush strayed from the conservative mainstream? Last September in the National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru counted the ways:
"Bush has increased the federal role in education, imposed tariffs on steel and lumber, increased farm subsidies, OK'd federal regulations on campaign finance and corporate accounting and expanded the national-service program President Clinton began. Since Sept. 11, he has also raised defense spending, given new powers to law enforcement, federalized airport security and created a new Cabinet department for homeland security. No federal programs have been eliminated, nor has Bush sought any such thing. More people are working for the federal government than at any point since the end of the Cold War."
And that was even before Bush pushed through Congress a Medicare reform law that is the greatest new entitlement in several decades.
Bush's defenders have just about given up pretending that he is implementing traditional conservative principles. Instead, some of them, like Daniel Casse in the February issue of Commentary, have begun arguing that Bush has offered "a very bold, and very ambitious, reordering of conservative priorities." He cites Michael Barone's contention that Bush has replaced "the conservative touchstones of small government and spending cuts with the bolder, more inspirational ideas of choice and accountability" – to which Casse would add support "not for big government but for strong government."
All this may well be true, and it is only fair to add that many of Bush's steps in the direction of bigger government (notably the Medicare and education bills) include reforms that, if they can be built upon, should greatly improve the performance of those programs. In addition, the federal deficit at the end of 2003, though dollar-wise the largest in history, represented only 4.2 percent of GDP – by no means a record.
Still, a widely circulated Office of Management and Budget chart showing the percentage increases in discretionary domestic spending reveals just how far President Bush has wandered from fiscal discipline:
– Lyndon Johnson, 1965-69, 4.3 percent
– Richard Nixon, 1970-75, 6.8 percent
– Gerald Ford, 1976-77, 8.0 percent
– Jimmy Carter, 1978-81, 2.0 percent
– Ronald Reagan, 1982-89, 1.3 percent
– George Bush, Sr., 1990-93, 4.0 percent
– Bill Clinton, 1994-2001, 2.5 percent
– George W. Bush, 2002-04, 8.2 percent
Historically, one of the chief things the Republican party and the conservative movement have had going for them is the public belief that they are financially more responsible than their opponents and less inclined to expand government. If Bush squanders those assets in pursuit of "bolder, more inspirational ideas," he will bear a heavy responsibility for the future fates of the party and the movement.
No wonder many conservatives are ill at ease. There is probably still time – though just barely – for Bush to make policy corrections that will signal his continued allegiance to the basic principles of traditional conservatism. Unless he does, he may win the next election at the price of presiding over the political destruction of the conservative movement.
Amnesty for Illegals, $500 BILLION dollar deficits, and complete support for "free-trade" - what's not to like? Could someone hand me the pork-rinds?
Exactly.
Why don't these ne'r-do-wells realize that government needs to determine what people eat and drink? And government needs to regulate their ownership of firearms. And government needs to determine what they watch, and who they buy and sell with, and what they own.
It's for their own good.
But these wacky libertarians just don't get it.
But thank goodness for people like you, and President Bush, who stand firm in defense of government's right to control people's lives, and tell them what to do, and provide for their needs with social programs.
Working together, we'll help them live better lives.
Whether they like it or not.
Yours in bipartisan unity.
Hil.
Does the government have the right to alert and/or protect the populace from tampered with and/or tainted foodstuffs? What about the government outing what's in patent medicines, which didn't cure anything, either turned users into alcoholics and/or hooked them on opiates or some other narcotic,and often killed the users?
I didn't mention guns. I didn't talk about complete government control over what people should eat, drink, or use/own.
And it's de riguer for sarcastic posts to be so identified, which you didn't bother to do.
You bet your sweet bippy it does.
And to control guns, and to control alcohol and tobacco, and to make sure people don't do anything government doesn't approve of.
I always use that "it's for the children" line, but you republicans and your "compassionate conservatism" sound like you've got the same angle covered.
And the social programs!
I could just kiss every one of you.
Keep up the good work.
Your pal,
Hil
And just as one example, N.Y. state wasn't " floating " on dot.com money. And this is a compare and contrast things, which means that the '90s is NOT the single era being talked about, unless, of course, you think that Reagan was Governor of California, instead of Grayout Davis.
I never mentioned the word " children".
And you are NOT my " pal ".
I have been asking myself the same question.
I just finished trying to explain to several people just what the word treason means and why we should not apply it to people like GWB.
I failed miserably.
The immigration issue is not even going to be a major political issue for the election and never was going to be.
it is a single issue that has not even garnered the attention of the rest of the country as of yet and everyone who is familiar with the issue agrees that the policies must be rewritten to conform to the realities of today.
How we do that and what direction we take has not yet begun to take shape. There is no bill that is to be voted on and there will not be for at least a year or more, perhaps 2-3.
It is totally beyond by comprehension that people are saying the things that they are.
WHAT'S GOING ON ? A resurgence of Patsies,"PURISTS", and other fringers, here, who would rather NOT have a GOPer in the White House, even if it means that a Dem will be elected, because their " chosen MESSIAH " has no chanced of winning/doesn't exist.This the group who should be known as DOGS IN THE MANGER !
Why the hostility?
We're soulmates.
We share the same compassionate hopes and dreams.
I can't find anyone with fewer working brain cells.
Uh, we left home about twelve years ago, dude...
"Bush has increased the federal role in education, imposed tariffs on steel and lumber, increased farm subsidies, OK'd federal regulations on campaign finance and corporate accounting and expanded the national-service program President Clinton began. Since Sept. 11, he has also raised defense spending, given new powers to law enforcement, federalized airport security and created a new Cabinet department for homeland security. No federal programs have been eliminated, nor has Bush sought any such thing. More people are working for the federal government than at any point since the end of the Cold War."
Well Burkeman, we may have to pick up a copy of NR. Mind you it's just one drop of wisdom in a sea of Frummisms but heck it's a start ;) Although it's going to take more than just a few drops of wisdom to turn that mag back around...
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
FYI, we are now closer to a democracy than this nation of states was ever intended to be and the voters have discovered the money...
Instead of a democracy, which we are not, let's allow the nation to go straight to totalitarianism, hand over our sovereignty to the UN, and have done with it. Right ?
HAPPY NOW?
Well, the rest of us don't want to do that. We want ton get this nation back on the right path and know that that is going to take decades. We're willing to take the needed baby steps and support the reelection of this president. You can CCP cherry picked sentences/phrases from the FFs, or whatever, till Hell freezes over..........that is going to do nothing at all to help the situation.
On the contrary, that person not only understands politics but also understands when voting for the lesser of two evils (liberals), you still get evil (liberal).
If a person's loyalty to his party exceeds that of to the Constitution, then that person has no regard for this nation.
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.