Posted on 01/22/2005 6:59:14 AM PST by Pokey78
PRESIDENT BUSH COULD HAVE OPTED for an easy route to modest success in the White House. After overthrowing the Taliban and routing al Qaeda in Afghanistan, he could have stopped there and not ordered an invasion of Iraq. In his first inaugural address, he advocated "a balance of power that favors freedom." Even after 9/11, he could have continued with such modest rhetoric and ambitions. He did not have to embrace a worldwide crusade for democracy in his second inaugural.
He won congressional approval of three tax cuts in his first term. He could have rejected the idea of major tax reform as a second-term goal. Bush promoted Social Security reform in his 2000 and 2004 campaigns. He could have settled for small individual investment accounts, using payroll taxes, and passed the task of restraining the growth of benefits to his successors. Had he taken the easy route, he'd have won reelection in a breeze and he'd be wildly popular today.
President Bush has chosen the hard route. The lessons he seems to have learned from his first term are: set the bar very high, don't do things halfway, forget opinion polls, use every bit of political capital and personal influence you have to achieve your goals, never play small ball, and be ready to take chances. So, instead of relaxing and savoring the achievements of his first term, Bush has laid out a formidable agenda for the next four years: the democratization of Iraq, the spread of freedom around the world, the
Why is Bush doing this? One explanation is he hates to fool around with small measures. They bore him. Another explanation, offered half-seriously by a White House aide, is that he's a Texan. For Texans, the aide says, the bigger the project, the better. In addition, the president regards himself as a problem-solver. "If there is a problem . . . I have responsibility to lay out potential solutions," he told the Wall Street Journal. When you combine an inclination to take on problems with a penchant for grand proposals, "you get George W. Bush," the aide says.
Oddly, the president's conservatism is not a brake on his desire to change institutions and countries. While he is philosophically conservative, he is anything but temperamentally conservative. Peter Wehner, a deputy to Bush political adviser Karl Rove, noted in a recent speech that "a conservative temperament can be counterproductive." At times, "the role of conservatism has been to be reactive," Wehner said. "At other times, the role of conservatism is to be proactive, bold, energetic, and optimistic--to shape history rather than impede it. We live in a history-shaping moment." Bush wants to do the shaping.
It's amazing how much the president has expanded his agenda from his initial days in office. His 2001 inaugural address took 14 minutes. His speech last week was 21 minutes long. In 2001, Bush said, "America remains engaged in the world by history and by choice, shaping a balance of power that favors freedom." In 2005, he upped the ante dramatically. "America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world, and to all the inhabitants thereof," he declared at the end of his second inaugural speech. "Renewed in our strength--tested, but not weary--we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom."
On taxes, Bush's take in 2001 reflected a faith in conventional conservatism. "We will reduce taxes," he said, "to recover the momentum of our economy and reward the effort and enterprise of working Americans." But in his speech last September at the Republican convention, he outlined a new and bigger tax agenda. The tax code, he said, was "created for the world of yesterday, not tomorrow." It's a "complicated mess, filled with special interest loopholes, saddling our people with more than six billion hours of paperwork and headache every year," Bush said. "The American people deserve--and our economic future demands--a simpler, fairer, pro-growth system. In a new term, I will lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code."
Again in 2001, the president said he would "reform Social Security and Medicare, sparing our children from struggles we have the power to prevent." That was the extent of his comments on Social Security. At the 2004 convention, he brought up two specific issues on Social Security, one expected, the other new. Bush's support for individual accounts ("a nest egg you can call your own") was expected. His mention of the sustainability of Social Security wasn't. "Many of our children and grandchildren understandably worry whether Social Security will be there when they need it," he said. Now Bush has decided personal accounts aren't enough. The solvency of Social Security must be guaranteed for decades to come. That is a far bigger task.
In Bush's case, major policy issues can be divided into
But it's the optional issues--Iraq, democracy, tax reform, Social Security solvency--that will define the Bush presidency. Bush could have ignored these issues with political impunity. He chose not to. They are not issues on which events dictate the solution. They are ones where Bush wants to shape the solution. Rather than a caretaker president like his father, he's become a risk-taker, a conservative with the disposition of a radical. And a rather unusual president.
It was during this time that Bush came on the scene. Clinton and Reno both admitted that they were using military hardware on that day. I distinctly remember Clinton giving Ann Richards (Governor of Texas)credit for this fiasco as well. Those were National Guard "track" vehicles.
Ann is complicit in Waco as well. The people of Texas threw her sorry liberal, baby-killing ass out of office.
4 more years BTTT.
"That's the difference between American Conservatism and conservatism in other countries and that is what makes American Conservatism unique."
One of the problems with applying labels is that they are too broad, and the one that bothers me most is that conservatives are considered to be Luddites with respect to progress. Being a conservative to me simply means I accept the collective wisdom learned from the experiences of others who have conducted the trial and error experiments throughout history that have led us to the present. This does not mean I reject all change and experimentation. It means I look to the past for successes and seek to expand upon them rather than repeat failed experiments hoping for different results.
We Americans have had many successes in developing our political, economic and social institutions. Why shouldn't we seek to share the benefits of those successes with others around the world if the benefits will be mutual and substantial? In the historical context who did not benefit when Hawaii and Alaska were admitted to the Union?
I'm not advocating political union with the rest of the world, although I see nothing magic about 50 states. I just happen to believe the ideals Jefferson laid out in the Declaration of Independence have universal application, and promoting those ideals globally is in the best interests of humanity and Americans.
They are organized and paid for by the same people - Communists and other anti-Americans. They were able to turn a successful Vietnam war into a defeat so they keep on trying. They follow the same script that was outlined by the Communist Party 100 years ago or more. It is a combination of deception, force, and terror.
Is it still conservative, then? If those of radical temper back Bush and those of conservative habits and inclinations hold back, is he still conservative? If conservatism implies a feel for limits what to make of a conservatism that doesn't recognize traditional limitations? Maybe we should talk of "radical conservatism" or "conservative radicalism" or come up with another word to describe what we're dealing with now.
Do you think George Washington was A) a conservative, B) a revolutionary, or C) both?
Whiggish at first, then of necessity revolutionary, then conservative. But contrast him to Thomas Paine, who did want to remake the world -- radical all the way through. The difference is whether we're doing what needs to be done, or whether we're going abroad looking for dragons to slay and paradises to create.
Nuance can sometimes be very helpful.
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.