Posted on 03/27/2006 2:54:07 PM PST by Irontank
President George W. Bush took office to the sustained applause of Americas conservative movement. In 2000, he defeated the liberal environmentalist Al Gore, abruptly terminated the legacy of the even more hated Bill Clinton, and gave Republicans control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. A few cynics were suspicious of Bushs understanding of and commitment to conservative principles, but most on the Right welcomed his inauguration.
Five years later, the traditional conservative agenda lies in ruins. Government is bigger, spending is higher, and Washington is more powerful. The national government has intruded further into state and local concerns. Federal officials have sacrificed civil liberties and constitutional rights while airily demanding that the public trust them not to abuse their power.
The U.S. has engaged in aggressive war to promote democracy and undertaken an expensive foreign-aid program. The administration and its supporters routinely denounce critics as partisans and even traitors. Indeed, the White House defenestrates anyone who acknowledges that reality sometimes conflicts with official fantasies.
In short, it is precisely the sort of government that conservatives once feared would result from liberal control in Washington.
Still, conservative criticism remains muted. Mumbled complaints are heard at right-wing gatherings. Worries are expressed on blogs and internet discussions. A few activists such as former Congressman Bob Barr challenge administration policies. And a few courageous publications more directly confront Republicans who, like the pigs in George Orwells Animal Farm, have morphed into what they originally opposed.
The criticisms are about to get louder, however. Bruce Bartlett has been involved in conservative politics for a quarter century. He authored one of the leading books on supply-side economics, worked in the Reagan administration, and held a position at the National Center for Policy Analysisuntil the Dallas-based group fired him, apparently fearful of financial retaliation arising from his sharp criticisms of the administration.
That the truth is so feared is particularly notable because Bartletts criticism is measured, largely limited to economics. Bartlett notes in passing his concern over Iraq, federalism, and Bushs insistence on absolute, unquestioning loyalty, which stifles honest criticism and creates a cult of personality around him. These issues warrant a separate book, since it is apparent that Americans have died, not, perhaps, because Bush lied, but certainly because Bush and his appointees are both arrogant and incompetent.
Although modest in scope, Impostor is a critically important book. Bartlett demonstrates that Bush is no conservative. He notes: I write as a Reaganite, by which I mean someone who believes in the historical conservative philosophy of small government, federalism, free trade, and the Constitution as originally understood by the Founding Fathers.
Bush believes in none of these things. His conservatism, such as it is, is cultural rather than political. Writes Bartlett, Philosophically, he has more in common with liberals, who see no limits to state power as long as it is used to advance what they think is right. Until now, big-government conservatism was widely understood to be an oxymoron.
For this reason, Bartlett contends that Bush has betrayed the Reagan legacy. Obviously, Ronald Reagan had only indifferent success in reducing government spending and power. For this there were many reasons, including Democratic control of the House and the need to compromise to win more money for the military.
Yet Reagan, in sharp contrast to Bush, read books, magazines, and newspapers. (On the campaign plane in 1980 he handed articles to me to review.) He believed in limited government even if he fell short of achieving that goal. And he understood that he was sacrificing his basic principles when he forged one or another political compromise. George W. Bush has no principles to sacrifice. Rather, complains Bartlett, Bush is simply a partisan Republican, anxious to improve the fortunes of his party, to be sure. But he is perfectly willing to jettison conservative principles at a moments notice to achieve that goal.
Which means Bushs conservative image bears no relation to his actions. Indeed, reading Impostor leaves one thinking of Oscar Wildes Picture of Dorian Gray, as if the administrations real record is depicted in a painting hidden from public view.
Bartletts analysis is devastating. He begins with process rather than substance, Bushs apparent disdain for serious thought and research to develop his policy initiatives. In this way, Bartlett helps explain why Bushs policies are almost uniformly bad.
As someone who served on a presidential staff, I can affirm that developing policy is never easy. Departments push their agendas, political allies and interest groups fight for influence, and legislators intrude. But the best hope for good policy, and especially good policy that also is good politics, is an open policy-making process.
That is precisely the opposite of the Bush White House, which views obsessive secrecy as a virtue and demands lockstep obedience. Bartlett reviews the experience of several officials who fell out with the administration, as well as the downgrading of policy agencies and the total subordination of analysis to short-term politics.
The biggest problem is Bush himself, whothough a decent person who might make a good neighborsuffers from unbridled hubris. His absolute certainty appears to be matched only by his extraordinary ignorance. His refusal to reconsider his own decisions and hold his officials accountable for obvious errors have proved to be a combustible combination. As a result, writes Bartlett, Bush is failing to win any converts to the conservative cause.
The consequences have been dire. Bartlett, long an advocate of supply-side economics, is critical of the Bush tax program. A rebate was added and the program was sold on Keynesian grounds of getting the economy moving. The politics might have been good, but the economics was bad. Unfortunately, writes Bartlett, the rebate and other add-ons to the original Bush proposal ballooned its cost, forcing a scale-back of some important provisions, which undermined their effectiveness. Although rate reductions have the greatest economic impact, rates were lowered less and less quickly.
Bartlett also criticizes Bush on trade, on which he views him as potentially the worst president since Herbert Hoover. Since then, all presidents except George W. Bush have made free trade a cornerstone of their international economic policy. While his rhetoric on the subject is little different than theirs, Bushs actions have been far more protectionist.
Many TAC readers may view Bush as insufficiently protectionist. However, the obvious inconsistencyrhetorical commitment to open international markets mixed with protectionist splurgesis not good policy. Here, as elsewhere, Bushs actions are supremely political, where the nations long-term economic health is bartered away for short-term political gain.
However, it is on spending that the Bush administration has most obviously and most dramatically failed. Bartlett entitles one chapter On the Budget, Clinton was Better. Not just Clinton but George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, and even Lyndon Johnson, depending on the measure used.
In this area Impostor makes for particularly depressing reading. The administration is not just spendthrift. It is dishonest. Given the administrations foreign-policy deceptions, it should come as no surprise that the administration cares little about the truth in fiscal matters. Writes Bartlett:
As budget expert Stan Collender has pointed out, the Bush Administration had a habit of putting out inaccurate budget numbers. The deficit in its 2004 budget appears to have been deliberately overestimated just so that a lower figure could be reported right before the election, thus giving the illusion of budgetary improvement. The following year, the deficit projected in January 2005 was also significantly higher than estimated in the midsession budget review in July. This led Collender to conclude that budget numbers produced by the Bush administration should not be taken seriously.
Like the typical Democratic demagogue, Bush has used spending to buy votes whenever possible. In this, of course, he has been joined by the Republican Congress. But his lack of commitment is evident from just one statistic: Bush has yet to veto a single bill. One has to go back almost two centuries to find another full-term president who did not veto even one measure.
In fact, the Republican president and Republican Congress have been full partners in bankrupting the nation. The low point was undoubtedly passage of the Medicare drug benefit, to which Bartlett devotes one chapter. The GOP majority misused House rules and employed a dubious set of carrots and sticks to turn around an apparent 216 to 218 loss. Worse was the administrations conduct. The administration shamelessly lied about the programs costs, covered up the truth, and threatened to fire Medicares chief actuary if he talked to Congress. The bill is badly drafted and, more importantly, adds $18 trillion to Medicares unfunded liability.
In Bartletts view, this might be the worst single piece of legislation in U.S. history, which would be quite a legacy. Writes Bartlett, It will cost vast sums the nation cannot afford, even if its initial budgetary projections prove to be accurate, which is highly doubtful. It will inevitably lead to higher taxes and price controls that will reduce the supply of new lifesaving drugs. In short, an allegedly conservative president inaugurated the biggest expansion of the welfare state in four decades.
Bartlett believes that tax hikes are inevitable, and he offers some decidedly unconservative observations on these issues, including the desirability of imposing a Value-Added Tax. He also speculates on the political future and a likely Republican crack-up.
But the core of his book remains his analysis of the Bush record. Bush, Bartlett believes, is likely to be seen as another Richard Nixon:
There has been an interesting transformation of Richard Nixon over the last twenty years or so. Whereas once he was viewed as an archconservative, increasing numbers of historians now view him as basically a liberal, at least on domestic policy. They have learned to look past Nixons rhetoric and methods to the substance of his policies, and discovered that there is almost nothing conservative about them. So it is likely to be with George W. Bush.
It is almost certainly too late to save the Bush presidency. Impostor demonstrates that the problems are systemic, well beyond the remedy of a simple change in policy or personnel. There may still be time, however, to save the conservative movement. But the hour is late. Unless the Right soon demonstrates that it is no longer Bushs obsequious political tool, it may never escape his destructive legacy.
ways = says
Well, then. It's the eeeevil corporations.
If he did, don't you think he would have used a couple of brain cells (something which Bush has been unable to do on this matter) and sealed the border? I'm confident that he would have. "A nation without borders is not a nation." - Ronald Reagan
Additionally, how is bursting the seams with uncontrolled non-defense, discretionary spending something that must be done post-9/11? Logic says that such pork spending should go down and defense spending should go up after such a devastating attack and the ensuing war. Bush wants it both ways and our grandchildren and their children are going to get the bill. Similarly, he wants it both ways with the border - he wants us to believe that he's serious about stopping another terrorist attack in the United States but at the same time he wants people to believe that he is somehow compassionate by not sealing the borders.
I hesitate to think that Reagan would have played it like this - especially if Reagan enjoyed a Republican controlled Senate and House.
The country could do a lot worse than Dan Quayle (arguably, it did). Or we could've had Liddy Dole (another entry-level wannabe).
You have to remember , the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and Tip O'Neil always declared everyone of Reagans budgets DOA. Reagans tax policy brought in more tax dollars, but the Dems went back on their "word" in the budget deals and spent every cent of it. Now we control both houses of Congress. Both Bush ( for not using the veto ) and more to their shame, the Republican Congress are to blame
After the '96 fiasco, it was demonstrated that it was going to take more than a good philosopy to keep Gore from screwing the country. We needed a name-brand.
It's remarkably easy for the Bandows of the world to sit back and shoot at a Bush. They had no plan to get the 'Craps out of the White House.
It turns my stomach to watch young guys get burned in a Bradley as an IED goes off while patrolling in a town on the Syrian border with Iraq...and then see the President scared to even call these people illegals and say that we just can't enforce our laws and deport people...real WOT...what a friggin' joke he has turned out to be.
Jim Wright used to have a DOA party every time a Reagan budget came down.
McCain...whom I have few doubts will be the Republican party's offering for President in '08.
VOTE REPUBLICAN. Only because it's better than the alternative.
I beg to differ
BETTER than the alternative? THEY are in bed with the alternative! There are absolutely no differences anymore. Very very SAD DAY in America, the Republican party we all knew aND LOVED AND SUPPORTED ALL OUR LIVES HAVE MORPHED INTO THE ALTERNATIVES!
"VOTE REPUBLICAN. Only because it's better than the alternative."
Vote conservative. Not republican, those who vote only for republicans have no political power because your being taken for granted.
The GDP today is 11.750 trillion dollars. Reagan deficient 6%, Bush deficient 2.9%
You can say nearly anything derogatory about Specter that you choose to and I will most likely agree with you, but Arlen Specter has never pretended to be conservative. He is, at least in that respect, honest. Even when he runs for re-election and moves right, he never claims to be a conservative.
Who?
My vote goes to whoever cuts taxes, eliminates government programs, puts the fair tax on the table and fights the WOT with a vengeance. The D party passes none of those tests, the R party passes some and fails others.
So again I ask: who? The FEC won't even let other parties take part in presidential debates. The congress has shut off political advertising just prior to elections.
Who?
Libertarian? Pat Buchannon? Green? Who?
I don't see anyone out there, do you? What am I missing?
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.