Posted on 09/19/2005 8:10:32 AM PDT by Mikey
The turn of the century was supposed to be the triumph of the conservatives. From the dark era of the Democrat-dominated '60s and '70s, conservatives began their protracted march toward electoral power, culminating finally in the long-awaited capture of all three branches of the federal government. The Reagan Revolution was finally to be realized in earnest!
But just as most Republican Supreme Court nominees have turned out to be treacherous supporters of big government – activist liberals in disguise – their legislative- and executive-branch colleagues likewise revealed themselves to be every bit as unfaithful to conservative principles of small government and individual freedom. As is all too often the case, conservative success carried within it the seeds of its own demise.
President Bush's recent speech on his administration's planned long-term response to Hurricane Katrina marked an interesting point in the continued devolution of American conservatism. Whereas his first five years had previously been a strange combination of strategic Wilsonian foreign policy and tactical Keynesian domestic policy, the president managed to make it abundantly clear that in domestic terms, his presidential guiding light is Lyndon Baines Johnson, not Ronald Wilson Reagan.
Real conservatives now understand they have been betrayed – badly – by this fraudulent man. Compassionate conservatism, as it turns out, is simply another name for Great Society liberalism, and not even the Texas swagger is original. Genuinely conservative Republicans are dismayed by the president's unveiling of his core liberalism and rightly fear for the future of a party which has likely seen its high-water mark already.
But nothing dissuades the Three Monkeys from screeching and howling their enthusiasm for their Dear Leader's every action. They have redefined conservatism to be the actions of one known as a conservative, so the individual is no longer defined by his ideology, the ideology is defined by the individual.
Consider radio host and former WND columnist Hugh Hewitt's take on the president's speech:
My acquaintances at the nation's leading "conservative" blog, Powerline, agreed:
Unfortunately, celebrating the realization of that which one opposes is the predictable end result of pragmatism, which is nothing more than a euphemism for the slow sacrifice of one's principles. Longtime readers may recall that I wrote the following in 2003:
As I feared, that tide has continued to rise under the aegis of a Republican House, Senate, presidency and Supreme Court. So, are there truly no conservatives left in the Republican Party today? Or is the determination to see, hear and speak no evil about the present gang of Republican charlatans in office based on a fear of giving aid and comfort to Hillary Clinton in 2008?
In either case, it is apparent that mainstream politics in America has been reduced to a Seinfeldian sport wherein voters are simply rooting for laundry.
Since the Republican Party has dedicated itself to racing its Democratic rivals in offering more bread and circuses to the underprivileged masses, there is no longer any reason for conservatives to support it. Disenchanted and dismayed Republicans will do well to remember these pragmatic betrayals of conservative principle when The Most Important Election of Our Lifetime rolls around again three years from now.
Vox Day is a novelist and Christian libertarian. He is a member of the SFWA, Mensa and the Southern Baptist church, and has been down with Madden since 1992. Visit his Web log, Vox Popoli, for daily commentary and responses to reader email.
Bravo! Couldn't have said it any better.
In fact I am astonished that so many people on FR (many are obviously DUmmy infiltrators) have such hatred toward GWB.
After all, the man has cut taxes, implemented a long overdue war on terror, he is seeking to lift church folks out of second class citizenship and into the mainstream where they belong, he is attempting to facilitate more exploration of hydrocarbons in the US and elsewhere, and he put the Kyoto Treaty right where it belongs, in the toilet. (The list of accomplishments is too long to post here)
President GWB might not support every single conservative tenant, but he is doing just fine in a job which often requires compromise in order to get anything done.
Both are treatable. One leads to insanity.
Great column!
The key to conservative success will be to transform the Republican Party from within, beginning with the grass roots, rather than vote third party - - that would be idiotic.
Regards,
LH
Some of it.
We saw a group of people like you back in the 1990's, Mikey.
They gave us Bill Clinton when they voted for Ross Perot. We had eight years of oral sex, mismanagement, bandits in the White House, an administration who left our country unprotected from terrorists and one of the most horrible decades in history.
And now you and your party want to give us more of the same? You want to abandon ship rather than stay and fight. Conservatives, as I remember, stand up to be counted. They don't turn tail and run because the party isn't going exactly as they wish. If your attitude belongs with those whom you call conservatives, then I'll stand where I am while you guys throw in the towel and help take down the country.
I remember it differently (but we may be talking about the same thing, different reason). Bush (41) went back on his pledge not to raise taxes and that incensed his base who saddled up with Perot to "send a message to Bush." It was those voters who split the Republican vote and gave Clinton a plurality. Without Perot, Bush would have squeaked by and Clinton would have vanished into obscurity.
Goody. I got some of what I wanted when Clintoon was in office.
Stopped the KYOTO GLOBAL WARMING TREATY which would have pus the US economy into a disastrious decline.
Stopped the US-CCCP ABM Treaty that prevented the US from deploying our ABM defenses.
Began construction of the first 10 ABM silos in Alaska so American has a defense against North Korean nukes.
Pushed through three (3) raises for our military.
Signed Executive Order reversing Clinton's policy of not requiring parental consent for abortions under Medical Privacy Act.
Fighting a successful War on Terror by getting world wide cooperation to shut down terror funding. Captured many key leaders of alQaeda and other terror networks.
Led the nation through two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, freeing 50 million people who had lived under tyrannical regimes.
Convinced Libya to disarm of chemical, nuclear and biological WMD’s little bloodshed or bribes.
Signed TWO bills into law allowing our pilots to carry handguns in the cockpit.
Pushing for immunity from lawsuits for our national gun manufacturers. Told the United Nations we weren’t interested in their plans for gun control (i.e. the International Ban on Small Arms Trafficking Treaty)
Brought back our EP-3 intel plane and crew from China without bribes or bloodshed. (Remember that, folks)
Signed the largest nuclear arms reduction in world history with Russia.
Changed the White House into a respectable place. Restored Honor and Dignity to the Presidency.
Initiated discussion on private medical accounts, and possibly private Social Security accounts.
TAX CUTS !! Turned around economy which was in recession in 2001 when he took office.
Orchestrated continued Republican control of the House and Senate.
Trying to push through conservative federal judges. Stopped the liberal ABA’s role in promoting woosy, liberal federal judges.
Passed tough new laws to punish corporate criminals, most of whom pillaged their respective businesses during the GoGo 1990s when the SEC cared little about corporate malfeasance.
Reduced taxes on dividens and capital gains.
Eliminated the IRS marriage penalty. Increased small business incentives to expand and hire new people.
Signed into law the No Child Left Behind legislation, delivered the most dramatic education reforms in a generation, challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Passed partial liability reform to eliminate frivolous lawsuits by preventing "Judge shopping" in the federal system.
Supports class action reform bill which limits lawyer fees so more settlement money goes to victims.
Submitted comprehensive Energy Plan to Congress, which should produce more oil and gas here at home while developing cleaner technology energy.
Challenged the United Nations to live up to their responsibilities and not become irrelevant.
Changed forest management Act to allow necessary clean-up of national forests, thereby reducing fire danger.
Stopped Clinton's "ergonomic" rules that OSHA was about to implement; rules that would have shut down every home business in America.
I doubt we could afford another 8 years of the Republicans either. Get over it. George Bush lost. He lost because the country read his lips and didn't like him. Seeing him with Bill Clinton makes my stomach churn, but does not surprise me.
THAT is exactly the way to change a party EEE. Things always change from the bottom up. Our country and our party. Great advice—I agree.
Perot split Bush's vote and gave us Clinton's first term. I'll agree with you about Dole.
I stand by "tactical retreat". Here's why:
Clinton proved that you could forward a sorta-kinda-ostensibly, conservative agenda provided you sugar-coated it for the left.
So, if we look at some Bush "victories", what do we see?
1. "No Child Left Behind" - it has a catchy, feel-good slogan of four words or less (all Leftist slogans have this quality, they can't remeber anything longer than that) that threw money at education. However, Bush also got tougher standards for testing, more frequest testing, stricter teacher qualifications, and the abilty to withohold federal funding (i.e accountability). All conservative principles. The only non-Conservative part of this program is the spending, but that's the price you pay to get it through. The momeny part merely made it more palatible to the other side and their union minions.
2. Tax Cuts - by making tax cuts both across the board and limiting the amount of time (until 2009)those cuts are in effect, Bush got a Conservative wish-list item through Congress. The democrats knew they couldn't stop tax cuts, but consoled themselves with the fact that the cuts are not permanent. So Bush got another victory and threw the other side a bone in the bargain.
3. National Security - Bush got approval for the War in Afghanistan and Iraq, mostly because of 9/11 but also because he showed the other side to be hypocritical (Kerry's famous I-voted-for-it-before-I-voted-against-it), and gave the other side what they wanted: public hearings. He also got the Patriot Act passed in the face of the "privacy rights" crowd (which defines privacy rights as the right to keep your perversions quiet and uninterrupted by government. See NAMBLA). He framed the debate in a way that they could not respond to, but, the Patriot Act is also not permanent. It too, needs to be re-debated and tweaked from time to time, which gives dimwits something to scream about come election time.
In each of these cases, Bush gave some in order to advance an item on the Conservative agenda: lower taxes, accountability in public education, greater security and a tougher foreign policy. This is called "picking your battles wisely."
Conservatism cannot leap forward in huge bounds because there will always be a sizable minorty opposed to conservative views. The same is true in reverse vis-a-vis liberalism. Therefore, incremental conservatism is the only way to go until society as a whole is ready to adopt a completely conservative point of view. I can guarentee you that this will never happen, so we have to take what we can when we can and often compromise.
Fair enough. I was just answering your question directly.
I believe I will NEVER get everything I want from someone else. So I pick my battles and try to get as much as I can.
My husband and I have a pact: Just because we do it differently doesn't mean it's wrong. I think that really, really applies here.
Agreed. Look at my posts on FR. I give the President credit where it is due and criticism where it is due. I have many beefs with W, but he's done a lot of good too and deserves credit.
I've been voting since the Richard Nixon/George McGovern election in 1972, and I'm about ready to say the same thing.
I've bookmarked this one. I especially enjoyed the line about Dubya being more LBJ-ish than Reagan-ish.
Practically speaking, conservatism is dead in the Republican party. If Dems are whacked-out leftist liberals, Rs are timid centrist liberals.
Maybe the only remaining significant reason to vote for Rs over Ds is SCOTUS nominations, and it remains to be seen whether that difference holds up. Would Dubya even want to nominate a Thomas or even a Scalia? I doubt it. All we can hope for is a Rehnquist, and we just might get shafted by another Souter (or three).
In the end, Rs are on the same track as Ds. The slope is just as slippery and only a bit less steep. Apparently, We the Sheeple like it that way.
One leads to insanity if UNTREATED. The other leads to death if UNTREATED.
Do we need to discuss the success of treating each?
So do I. Despite the nonsensical info to the contrary on this thread.
But I never reward those who work to deny me my rights.
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.