Posted on 03/12/2006 3:11:35 PM PST by FairOpinion
The author, Jeffrey Hart,is a professor of English (emeritus) at Dartmouth College, a former speechwriter for presidents Reagan and Nixon and, most recently, the author of "The Making of the American Conservative.
====
William F. Buckley Jr. has defined conservatism as "the politics of reality." Ideology is the enemy of conservatism because it edits, omits or ignores reality. George W. Bush is an ideologue.
Iraq is commonly said to be the centerpiece of Bush's presidency. The United States invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein supposedly possessed weapons of mass destruction. But nearly three years after the invasion, no such weapons have been found. And evidence is mounting that the intelligence used to bolster the claims for Iraq's WMD was cherry-picked, politically pressured and, to use intelligence expert Thomas Powers' word, "fabricated."
Ideology.
As Buckley wrote in two recent columns, our Iraq policy "didn't work." The Bush centerpiece has been an astonishing flop.
A major triumph of American conservatism since World War II has been general acceptance of free-market economics in political discourse. This economic system works. It produces goods and services efficiently.
Yet free-market economics pushed to exclude other worthy goals becomes an ideology.
Bush is not a conservative. He has bushwhacked the term. He is a right-wing ideologue.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Yes.
<< How can you write so assuredly about weapons not beig in Iraq with the tapes that have recently surfaced? >>
When did a paleo and/or any other kind of effective liberal ever not carefully select the 'facts' that give the best appearance of veracity to his Goebbelisms?
Not True.
The evidence is mounting that the WMD were moved to Syria.
The centerpiece.
The centerpiece drives people insane.
This author said, "Iraq is commonly said to be the centerpiece of Bush's presidency."
And that's horse hockey.
Does anyone know what the President's centerpiece is anymore? He does.
Peace and Freedom.
Period.
The whole ball of wax falls apart when you realize that were RR alive today, he'd be very proud of President Bush. In fact, he is right now.
Opinions are similar to anal orifices. Everyone has one.
Of course, Buckley was being flippant and would be the first to contradict it, but it reveals a basic point about conservatism and is probably more true than it is false.
He smiles even wider when you insult him. That's what drives them insane.
I wonder if any of them know when the Declaration of Independence (of the United States of America) was signed. If so, I wonder if any of them know when the Constitution was ratified. Or if they know when President George Washington was sworn in as the first President of the United States.
Or if we don't want to go back quite so far... When was VE day, signaling the end of WWII in Europe. When did the US troops pull out of Germany, and the rest of theEuropean theater? When was VJ day? When did the US troops pull out of Japan and the rest of the Pacific theater?
I wonder how history might be different today had the press, as well as the rest of these "monday morning quarterbacks" had been writing their drivvel either back in the 18th century, or in the 1940s... My guess is that we'd be speaking different languages today.
Mark
Before the action began in Iraq, and shortly thereafter, there were lots of reports on the movement of the WMD's. But, why haven't the supposedly smartest peole in the intelligence field put forth any proof, and why hasn't this administration revealed it?
I don't agree or disagree with the author. I am just tired of hearing things second hand! I don't know enough to have a defined opinion, but I lean against Mr. Bush more each day. I am tired of illegals, and sick of his spending (yeah, I know he only "proposes" these huge increases)...
Inquiring minds want to know! At least, I sure do! I would definitely like to see who can defeat the Dems in '06 and '08...
Good that you posted this. Nothing is wrong with Hart. It matters not one iota that he is at Dartmouth college, Hart is a token Conservative there. He is watching Bush not protect the borders, sign every spending bill Congress hands him, and nation build in Iraq. And he asks, would a true conservative do this? Reasonable people can disagree, but I notice the ad hominems start with post 2. Bush is a new world order globalist, no more, no less. We are getting the new world order whether we like it or not. Every President we will get from here on out will be a new world order globalist, count on it. There will be no more Washingtons, Jeffersons or founding fathers types in general forthcoming. The Constitution and all that flows from it will never be more than a meaningless piece of paper to any future President. They'll pretend to revere the Constitution but it'll always be a ruse. One day there will be a global body of laws, global currency, and the United States will be no more than a province in the global confederation...as VA is to the US, or Fairfax is to VA. We will pay global taxes that are actually called global taxes. There will be global gun control. It will be necessary for our grandchildren to learn Spanish because the growing Latino reconquista la raza movement will insist on it. Think I'm crazy? Do you think any 18th or 19th political observer would be considered sane for predicting the stuff that goes on today? Call me a moonbat if you want but what I'm predicting is being prepared for us already. Have a nice day.
where did you see the part about border security, globalization, etc. in Hart's piece, or are you just channeling what he meant?
I think Bush using Evangelical Christian terms is what fools people into saying Bush is a right winger. By his social and economic actions, Bush has far more in common with LBJ than he has with Reagan.
Interesting take. Would you say that this tack has contributed to widespread acceptance of domestic liberalization through moral entropy? The importation of un-American values, rather than vice-versa over the last 50 years? Would you view this as an innovation, or progressivism?
Therein lies the Libertarian fallacy. Not everyone expresses their liberty in the same fashion. Personal expression of liberty is based upon personal ethos. Ethos is based upon mythos. When those of contrary mythos express personal liberty in each other's presence, conflict ensues. Why we all can't just 'get along'.
Suicide bombers were just exercising freedom of religion.
Jeffrey Hart has really lost it.
I was referring to the shift from supporting dictators to promoting democracy. Economic ideology is fantasy, in my mind. Some policies work and others do not.
Sure, having freedoms and how you exercise them are different things.
When those of contrary mythos express personal liberty in each other's presence, conflict ensues. Why we all can't just 'get along'.
Right, hence the desire of people in other countries to have a system which allows them to resolve such conflicts without having a dictator simply impose his will.
Suicide bombers were just exercising freedom of religion.
You have a very peculiar defenition of freedom. Personally, I'll take John Paul II's:"Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought."
"I was referring to the shift from supporting dictators to promoting democracy. Economic ideology is fantasy, in my mind."
I was way off. Thanks for the clarification.
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.