Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Counterfeit Conservative
The American Conservative ^ | Doug Bandow

Posted on 03/27/2006 2:54:07 PM PST by Irontank

President George W. Bush took office to the sustained applause of America’s 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 Bush’s 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 Orwell’s 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 Analysis—until 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 Bartlett’s criticism is measured, largely limited to economics. Bartlett notes in passing his concern over Iraq, federalism, and Bush’s “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 moment’s notice to achieve that goal.”

Which means Bush’s conservative image bears no relation to his actions. Indeed, reading Impostor leaves one thinking of Oscar Wilde’s Picture of Dorian Gray, as if the administration’s real record is depicted in a painting hidden from public view.

Bartlett’s analysis is devastating. He begins with process rather than substance, Bush’s “apparent disdain for serious thought and research to develop his policy initiatives.” In this way, Bartlett helps explain why Bush’s 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, who—though a decent person who might make a good neighbor—suffers 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, Bush’s actions have been far more protectionist.”

Many TAC readers may view Bush as insufficiently protectionist. However, the obvious inconsistency—rhetorical commitment to open international markets mixed with protectionist splurges—is not good policy. Here, as elsewhere, Bush’s actions are supremely political, where the nation’s 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 administration’s 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 administration’s conduct. The administration shamelessly lied about the program’s costs, covered up the truth, and threatened to fire Medicare’s chief actuary if he talked to Congress. The bill is badly drafted and, more importantly, adds $18 trillion to Medicare’s unfunded liability.

In Bartlett’s 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 Nixon’s 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 Bush’s obsequious political tool, it may never escape his destructive legacy.


TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aliens; bandow; brucebartlett; bush43; conservatives; deceptions; immigrantlist; immigration; neocons; nixon; republicans; spending
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-113 next last
To: penowa

If that's the best the Republican party can do, then I will be writing in my vote.

I guess we'll see won't we?


61 posted on 03/27/2006 4:40:12 PM PST by abigailsmybaby ("This is the sort of English up with which I will not put." Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: mugs99

"He was a loyal patriot who couldn't be bribed. I think you have the wrong POS in mind."

He was a glib big mouth who when the chips were down couldn't think straight.

You and I know he lost almost all supporters after his stupid post 9/11/2001 remarks.

When 3,000 innocent citizens have been murdered by foreigners, you rightly blame the murderers.

I don't need a masters from Libertarian University to know how to think straight.


62 posted on 03/27/2006 4:40:47 PM PST by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: delacoert

The ones that companies outsource work to and the immigrants who come here under visas.


63 posted on 03/27/2006 4:43:43 PM PST by misterrob (Islam is a hate crime)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369
A good conservative republican fighting on good issues would have beat gore and kerry by more than -1% and 4%

I couldn't agree with you more. Ronald Reagan's dead. We have John McCain, Rudy Guiliani, Mitt Romney and George Allen. I guarantee you none of those RINO's will do the job. Allen? Maybe, but when was the last time a Senator got elected? Frankly, I don't know if I want a former Senator as CIC.

Back to my original post (which was tongue in cheek, btw) VOTE REPUBLICAN because that's all there is. The alternative is..., what? Got militia?

64 posted on 03/27/2006 4:44:25 PM PST by groanup (Shred for Ian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: groanup
There are plenty of conservatives in America, we just need to find one whose got a clean personal life, is a very persuasive public speaker, and is dedicated to conservatism, America, and our Constitution.

I don't understand the logic of many here. Reagan the most conservative president in modern US history beat a sitting President by 10%. George HW Bush lost by 6% after winning a war only a year before. Dole lost by 10%, and GW Bush won by -.5% in 2004, and 2.5% in 2004 against the most liberal candidate a republicans ever faced, during a war where our homeland is under attack. With all this evidence showing the more moderate the candidate is worse they do in an election, they still say our only hope is running a democrat light.
65 posted on 03/27/2006 4:53:43 PM PST by RHINO369
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

Okay, I never said that there were 6 qualified conservatives in the race. I said that there were 6 conservatives and they watered down the message. Bush wasn't one of the six. Bauer, Buchanan, and Keyes were definitely not ready for prime time. Quayle and Forbes were. And frankly, I can't even remember the sixth one, but I do remember (at least) nine candidates, three of whom were Bush, McCain and Dole, who represented the center and left.


66 posted on 03/27/2006 4:55:38 PM PST by Tanniker Smith (I didn't know she was a liberal when I married her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: mugs99

Who knows, I don't work for a CEO.


67 posted on 03/27/2006 4:56:56 PM PST by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369
Regan also cut taxes by a HUGE percent. His tax cuts and massive military spending is the reason for the large deficit . Those tax cuts are also the reason the budget balanced itself under Clinton. Your not going to win converts to your neocon cause by attacking real conservatives.

First, I am not a Neocon but you can call me one if it makes you feel bigger. Second bush cut taxes too. Taxes were high as 90% in the fifties and have been trending lower every since. Third numbers are numbers, they don't care about your explanation. 2005 GDP 2.9% 1975 GDP 6%. Thats the facts, you can argue any cause you wish but when you are through the numbers are going to remain the same.

68 posted on 03/27/2006 5:08:58 PM PST by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jec41
The number do not lie
69 posted on 03/27/2006 5:17:48 PM PST by RHINO369
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: stopem

Graham today was one of the few Republicans who voted for Specter's amnesty legislation. I hope the good people of South Carolina are aware of what their Senator ("Republican by day and Democrat by night") is doing.


70 posted on 03/27/2006 5:22:37 PM PST by Malesherbes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker
I don't need a masters from Libertarian University to know how to think straight

In that case we can look forward to many more attacks. We'll just blame the muderers as they take place, instead of changing our foreign policy to prevent attack.
.
71 posted on 03/27/2006 5:38:56 PM PST by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: kaktuskid

He also didn't cut one dollar from the year to year funding of any of lbj's "Theft Society" programs. That's after a 49 state win. Not a lot of "R"s that want to do more than talk about cutting spending?


72 posted on 03/27/2006 5:40:23 PM PST by 185JHP ( "The thing thou purposest shall come to pass: And over all thy ways the light shall shine.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Irontank

[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.”]

Right. Our President is a fool liberal who doesn't have the good sense he was born with. What they think is right is one world government and Bush is a supporter like his father, unfortunately.


73 posted on 03/27/2006 5:47:23 PM PST by ohhhh ( I pray the public school system collapses for the good of the children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369

Thats argument for how the money was spent. The deficit's are still 2.9% Bush 6% Reagan.


74 posted on 03/27/2006 6:00:52 PM PST by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Irontank
My trust is absolutely shaken.

Hundreds of thousands take to the streets to defy America's right to defend its own borders, and Bush worries that we conservatives are being "uncivil" which I take as code language that he's calling his own constituency racist.

He's scheduled yet another honeymoon with Vicente in Cancun--

I know one honeymoon that is definitely over.

75 posted on 03/27/2006 6:25:35 PM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abigailsmybaby

Yes, we'll see and I hope we're both wrong about McCain. Any field of possibilities where he or Guiliani are the top polling candidates has to mean that the rest of them are so pathetic in contrast that they make these guys appear to be reasonable choices.


76 posted on 03/27/2006 6:27:58 PM PST by penowa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Codeograph
You have to remember , the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and Tip O'Neil always declared everyone of Reagans budgets DOA.

Your memory sucks. Republicans controlled the Senate for 6 of Reagan's 8 years.

77 posted on 03/27/2006 6:51:27 PM PST by Once-Ler (Principled conservatives don't vote for $trillion budgets and blame Dubya for signing them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Once-Ler
Your memory sucks. Republicans controlled the Senate for 6 of Reagan's 8 years.

Appropriations originate in the House, not the Senate.
78 posted on 03/27/2006 7:00:23 PM PST by fallujah-nuker (America needs more SAC and less empty sacs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: fallujah-nuker; Codeograph
Appropriations originate in the House, not the Senate.

That is correct and irrelevant. It doesn't negate the fact that the Republican Senate under Reagan also passed the budgets or that Codeograph's memory is wrong.

79 posted on 03/27/2006 7:12:42 PM PST by Once-Ler (Principled conservatives don't vote for $trillion budgets and blame Dubya for signing them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369
Won't work. The candidate must have infrastructure and an enormous fund-raising apparatus. The last time a candidate went door to door was the peanut brigade during the election of Jimmy Carter and, before that, I'm not sure but it was a long, long time ago. You can't just identify a good republican candidate and expect him to get any traction without the structure.

The elections were already rigged in favor of incumbents but McCain Feingold made sure that would be the case for all time.

Now the elections are rigged in favor of incumbents and the news media. I think the next time I hear one of them touting freedom of the press I'm going to puke. Freedom of the press to do what? Form a cabal and influence public opinion?

I daresay that the founders missed this one. They had no idea that Americans would be so brain dead that they get all of their news from a handful of intellectuals in New York City.

80 posted on 03/27/2006 7:12:58 PM PST by groanup (Shred for Ian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-113 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson