Posted on 10/20/2005 9:56:38 PM PDT by quidnunc
The bile accumulating on the right toward the White House has reached China Syndrome proportions and is starting to melt through the floor.
Suddenly, conservatives are starting to question whether George W. Bush is even a one of them at all. One of my heroes, Robert Bork, recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal that "George W. Bush has not governed as a conservative. This George Bush, like his father, is showing himself to be indifferent, if not actively hostile, to conservative values." Conservative columnist Bruce Bartlett opines: "The truth that is now dawning on many movement conservatives is that George W. Bush is not one of them and never has been." Even at National Review Online — where I hang my hat most of the time — several of our contributors have echoed these concerns.
I think this goes too far. Two factors contribute to this misdiagnosis: confusion and disappointment.
Let's start with confusion. Contrary to most stereotypes, conservatism is a much less dogmatic ideology than modern liberalism. The reason liberals don't seem dogmatic and conservatives do is that liberals have settled their dogma, so it has become invisible to them. No liberal disputes in a serious philosophical way that the government should do good things where it can and when it can. Their debates aren't about ideology, they're about tactics. Indeed, the chief disagreement between leftists and liberals over the role of the state is almost entirely pragmatic. Moderate liberals think it's not practical — either economically or politically — to push for a dramatic expansion of the role of the state. Leftists think it would be a good idea politically and, despite all the evidence to the contrary, think it would work economically.
Within conservatism, however, there are enormous philosophical arguments about the proper role of the state. This debate isn't merely between libertarians and social conservatives. It's also between conservatives who are "anti-left" versus those who are "anti-state." Neoconservatives, for example, are famously comfortable with an energetic, interventionist government as long as that government isn't run by secular, atheistic radicals and socialists (I exaggerate a little for the sake of clarity).
-snip-
And what part did the Republican house and senate play in all this overspending ,lack of border control etc.?
An article that proves Mr. Goldberg has fallen for the MSM interpretation that Iraq is a failure.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1506523/posts
Just to put that re-post into context, it was in an attempt to try to be fair to the administration. They have made some serious conservative progress. But they are very erratic. I too believe Miers must be stopped, but I don't think it serves us well to say that GWB has no conservative achievements. It's true he's not a conservative, but it is also true that he's not a liberal...for whatever that it is worth.
And certainly I don't mind the re-post. I'm honored that someone read it other than myself!
Good answers.
I don't think our only two options are to either kiss Bush's behind or attack him wildly, but those seem to be the only options discussed or used in here. I agree with the president's positions on tax cuts and social security reform, and I think he has done a magnificent job on the war on terror-- the true extent of which we won't know for perhaps a generation. His judicial nominees have also been excellent-- withholding judgment for the moment on Miers.
I am disappointed with many on the conservative side who seem content to viscerally attack those they disagree with, even if they are on our side. In this country we elect politicians, for better or worse. We are fortunate to have gotten out of this president all that we have. I tend to agree with a previous poster on this thread that the war on terror is, and should be, the pre-eminent issue of the time. Everything else, yes, even supreme court nominations, pales in comparison. The only weakness I see in the president regarding the war on terror is in our immigration policy, and Chertoff is at least talking like some action is going to be taken there.
As for the Miers nomination, a lot of conservative pundits were fooled by the nomination, and given the vitriolic nature of their responses to it there is more than mere disagreement with Bush's choice, as a policy matter. The reaction of the elites (and as much as I like Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, George Will, Robert Bork et al-- and I DO like them) makes it clear that while they may oppose her on legitimate grounds concerning lack of experience on the bench and lack of a discernible record (which is a reasonable position to take) they either didn't like the fact that Miers was not on any list of potential nominees that they had or that she is not an "elite" from their perspective.
Frankly, the position of supreme court justice is not as complicated or difficult as it is portrayed. That is not to say that just anyone could handle it, but many more are qualified than those who claim to know are willing to admit. And of the decisions that the supreme court makes, the constitutional interpretations are not as complex as some of the legislative interpretations, such as ERISA and labor laws. Many of us made it through constitutional law in law school without great difficulty, and even after 18 years of practice totally unrelated to constitutional law, even I have a decent working knowledge of the major constitutional decisions. I am no elite (UNC law grad, top 10%-- no star, but no slouch). There are, I dare say, thousands of us who could handle a supreme court appointment. In fact, there are few who could do a WORSE job than some who presently sit on that bench (Ginsberg comes to mind, but you could throw in Souter and Kennedy as well). From a purely bottom line perspective, Miers is on OUR side. At least, prior to the hearings on her nomination, she (and Bush) is entitled to a presumption of suitability, or at least a level of restraint from insults such calling her a "paper stapler" and the like.
Whoa!!! Sorry, maybe a little too much coffee this morning. But since I have typed it.....
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,
1. The act of invading; the act of encroaching upon the rights or possessions of another; encroachment; trespass.
Yes, some very good points. Bork has asserted through a great many of his writings that it stands on the face; as it is written so shall it stand, and has for the most part discounted the context, the time, review of outside documents of writings such as the federalist papers and others of the time as his basis of interpretation. He has expressed the view that anything other than face value is an interpretation. I believe that to not take in the context, to take it on face value, and on face value alone, is in and of itself an interpretation.
I think taking a blind eye to the context and philosophical inference in which the work was undertaken is to take away its meaning and its foundation. I have always subscribed to words have meaning and reflect the author(s), to ignore the author(s) is to ignore their words and their intended meaning. In the end intent, has significance, it helps to espouse the underlying principal(s) that were trying to be form the basis of the document.
I am opposed to all but the truly needy receiving money from the government. Private charities could do it much more successfully than the Federal Government.
There is a lot that Bush does that I don't like but he is already president and when we attack him we lessen our chances of electing more Republicans in '06.
Careful now... you're confronting the single most predominant and defining characteristic of American theology ;^). But come to think of it: Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts are all Catholic; And Miers is said to be headed that way. (Contrary to numerous conflicting accounts, she is presently an Episcopalian attending a church flirting on the edge on a conservative schism.) Rehnquist was the last conservative Protestant on the bench.
I'm sorry that conservatives are rejecting your perverted brand of "conservatism" which embraces large government. Feel free to join the Democrats if that's your type of thing.
Thank you.
[[Those of us that are principaled don't give a damn about electing more Republicans. We'd rather elect conservatives.]]
Sounds alot like a statement of the elitist progressive left. Just change a couple words and you have:
"Those of us that are principaled don't give a damn about electing more Democrats. We'd rather elect Progressives."
Who made you determiner of principles and conservatism ? I have seen more intolerance and vitriol from you than most. You only prove that the fringe right is no different than the fringe left. Both are divorced from political reality, elitist on their face and demean those who don't march lockstep with them. Both act like spoiled children throwing temper tantrums when they don't get their way and aren't allowed to impose on others what they think is best for the masses. Both advocate the minority dictating to the majority, while speaking hollow platitudes to the democratic process, because both know they are not in the majority. Both have a lust for power as their driving force, not principle, as they claim. They want to lord over the masses, just from different perspectives.
The phrase 'movement conservative' is, for the most part, an oxymoron. They are, in reality, entrenched and inflexible, making the use of the word 'movement' inaccurate. The manipulation of the english language, to make things sound more palatable than they really are, is commonplace in our society, but never more glaring than in politics (i.e. we don't call it socialized medicine, it's called universal healthcare, etc.).
In doing so, we divorce ourselves from political reality. What is that reality ? The truth is that the majority falls somewhere between those extremes on the left and right, with a majority leaning towards the right currently, but that middle is subject to fluctuations like a pendulum caused by either fringe overstepping and seeking to impose their agenda. The real key is to be cognizant of reality and accept that we need those who may agree with our beliefs for the most part and be accepting of some differences. When either fringe oversteps, what they are blindly advocating is the path to authoritarianism. Political reality accepts that incrementalism, for all its lack of ideological immediacy, is the only path that can lead to shaping society and its direction. The left successfully moved this country down the socialist path through this approach. The key being they didn't do it in one fell swoop, but through longevity in power. Neither side can rule for long without an appeal to, or reason for, those who don't fall on either fringe to support them.
Does that make one who does not espouse ideological zealotry any less of a conservative than one who does ? Certainly not. Claiming superiority, or purity, of ideology is akin to an Aryanesque doctrine of belief that needs to label others as inferior to legitimize themselves.
Those that try to stigmatize Bush as not a conservative are engaging in that very tactic. When you look at his full record, he has done more to put the conservative agenda before the populace than any president. On only has to weigh in perspective all he has done and attempted. That does not make him perfect and mean he has not made mistakes.
Let's weigh the record, on the conservative side:
- tax cuts
- tort reform
- bankruptcy reform
- making the third rail able to be discussed where before it was untouchable (even Reagan shied away from it)
- healthcare reform being discussed
- discussion of tax reform
- energy program
- diminshed influence of teachers unions
- GWOT
- Bolton to the UN
- partial birth abortion ban
- anti-cloning
And that is only a quick snapshot. Yes, he has falied on certain issues, but mostly due to political realities involved. One cannot forget the plan he and Rove put forth, to set the foundation for republican and conservative dominance on the political front far into the future. Bush is not an ideological conservative, he is a big picture conservative, not concerned with his immediate legacy, but with a legacy that impacts the future long after he is gone.
Let's deal with the criticisms, ones that I share, just not in the extreme context of those who seek to demean his conservative credentials.
- CFR, one of the biggest mistakes he made. The one time he bowed to the polls, his error there was in expecting the SCOTUS to declare it unconstitutional. He thought he could get away with signing it and not suffer expenditure of political capital. He was wrong.
- Prescription Drug Bill, his other major mistake, in my opinion. It was a move made of political expediency to take an issue away from democrats in the 2004 election. The ONLY saving grace to this fiscal albatross of social spending is it is structured in such a way it can easily be absorbed into his proposal for personal health accounts that, if enacted by Congress, would decrease Medicare expenditures.
- Spending, another bete noire of the conservative right. He has failed to veto a single spending bill and I find that to be a double edged sword. In any bill he would veto, he would also be vetoing spending he wants. It is here that I lay major blame on the republcian Congress for sending bills laden with excess attached to what he wants or for not voting him the line item veto. His proposed budgets for 2005 and 2006 have returned to a more fiscally responsible conservative track. It now appears Congress is getting the message, but we are still failing to attack mandatory spending, the only place where we can make significant strides in decreasing government spending and the size of government.
We, as conservatives, are failing to create the publicity for entitlement reforms. We need to create a groundswell of support, Bush has the bloody pulpit, but that pulpit only reaches so far if we don't help spread the message. We are at a disadvantage, in that we do not have the MSM and elite academia to aid us as the democrats did for so very long.
- Immigration, the hot button issue of today. Finally, it appears, Bush is stepping up, better late than never. This is another topic tainted by political reality and expediency, that of the Hispanic vote. I put to everyone, this issue is all about political power and maintaining it or taking it. It is why both parties have been reluctant to take it on in any meaningful way, as the fastest growing minority block, the Hispanic vote is going to be crucial to being in power.
- Lastly, the Miers nomination, a confusing choice, but one the Constitution allows him to make. I disagree with the anti-Miers crowd in their assessment of needing an intellectual heavyweight or some of them calling for her to withdraw without having a hearing. Her hearing should determine whether she is seated on the SCOTUS, and, unless she performs at a very high level in the hearings, her chances are less than 50/50, and, at best, 50/50 if she performs well, and conservatives rally behind her, because democrats will then rally against her pro-life background, and with the aid of republicnas like Specter, Snowe, Collins and Chaffee to help them.
My ideal scenario would be for the democrats to reject her, it opens the path to nominating a solid conservative, such as Miguel Estrada (he is my pick), to be put forward. As I have stated before, I do not think Miers was on his list until democrats screwed up and suggested her. This gave Bush, in his mind, a win/win scenario, either a pro-life conservative on the bench, whom he knows personally (unlike Souter, O'Connor and Kennedy nominations), or the ability, if she is rejected, to nominate that conservative we all want and weaken democrats ability to fillibuster. I think Bush considered this when he nominated her, what he overestimated was conservatives ability to grasp his strategy and their lack of willingness to trust him, even with his track record for judicial nominations.
Make no mistake, Bush is a conservative, but he is a big picture consevative. Yes, he has made mistakes, but do not 'misunderestimate' him.
And was one of the initial causes of the schism to begin with.
That would be the outcome-based conservatives.
Me? I'm pro-life, but I also see Roe as bad law, regardless of whether the underlying issue was abortion or some other "hot button" social issue. For me, Roe is bad legal precedent first, with an abhorrent moral outcome second. My legal/political beef with Roe is that the Court took on itself to "settle," once and for all, an issue that belongs in the arena of public debate and legislation.
So, the conservatives that rally behind Mires because they seek the right outcome, but don't understand the rationale, are likely to make a mistake as big as the Griswold case, or Casey, or Roe. In short, they don't "get it."
He's taking advantage of a social issue and emotional decision making. He is encouraging a belief in outcome-based jurisprudence, which is exactly waht traditionalists aim to avoid.
I'm pro-life, but I also see Roe as bad law, regardless of whether the underlying issue was abortion or some other "hot button" social issue. For me, Roe is bad legal precedent first, with an abhorrent moral outcome second. My legal/political beef with Roe is that the Court took on itself to "settle," once and for all, an issue that belongs in the arena of public debate and legislation.
So, the conservatives that rally behind Mires because they seek the right outcome, but don't understand the rationale, are likely to make a mistake as big as the Griswold case, or Casey, or Roe. In short, they don't "get it."
It is possible to be pro-life, and yet have the opposite view of Roe, as a legal matter, from the view I hold. I wonder which side of the LEGAL fence Ms. Mires comes down on, and in that matter, she has kept her hand well hidden.
i dont need an article, i cited the passage from his own book.
elitist on their face and demean those who don't march lockstep with them.
You are saying that her church, The Falls Church of Virginia, is a cause of the Episcopalian schism? I would blame Griswold, not the diocesan-independent, Canterbury-loyal, conservative church to which Miers belongs.
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.