TRAGEDY OF BIG GOVERNMENT -- Whether It's A Hurricane Or Home Security, Why Failure Is Guaranteed!

ICONOCLAST ^ | by R. Bastiat

[rob777]

I don't remember Bush running as a big government Republican. Compassionate conervative, yes.

"Gore offers an old and tired approach. He offers a new federal spending program to nearly every voting bloc. He expands entitlements, without reforms to sustain them. 285 new or expanded programs, and $2 trillion more in new spending. Spending without discipline, spending without priorities, and spending without an end. Al Gore’s massive spending would mean slower growth and higher taxes. And it could mean an end to this nation’s prosperity."

---- George W.Bush, Speech in Minneapolis, Minnesota Nov 1, 2000






The term "Compassionate Conservative" was coined to distance himself from the limited government conservatives who came up with the "Contract With America". They proposed the elimination several departments of the federal government. The GOP Platform had called for the elimination of the federal Department of Education, among other departments, since Reagan. Though Reagan was not successful in implementing such an agenda, at least he remained committed to it in principle. The Class of 1994 almost pulled it off. When Bush ran in the 2000 primaries, he abandoned such a commitment even in principle. His campaign pushed for the removal of planks calling for the elimination of the federal Dept. of Ed. from the GOP Platform. In fact, he campaigned on increasing federal spending on education.

Like Clinton, Bush had his own "triangulation" strategy. He put himself in the middle of the "extremes" represented by Al Gore and the GOP Class of 1994. While he brought Al Gore to task for his spending plans, Bush's own plans differed only in degree, not in principle.

Given that he starts out in principle as accepting a slimmed down version of the big government agenda and came to Washington D.C. with a desire to be a "Uniter not a Divider", is it any wonder that we are up to our eyeballs in runaway spending? As a "Uniter" he constantly is splitting the difference between a call for bigger government and a call for MUCH BIGGER government.

[Reagan Man]

A good friend and advisor to GWBush since the early 1990`s, Marvin Olasky, came up with the term compassionate conservatism and wrote about it in his book "The Tragedy of American Compassion". It focused on moving away from government sponsored welfare to more charitable faith based organizations. Bill Bennett gave a copy of Olasky's book to Newt Gingrich in 1994. Later on, we witnessed the serious and historic welfare reform advanced by Newt's Contract With America.

It was always my understanding that the word "compassioniate" in compassionate conservative was employed as a means to take the perceived hard edge off conservatism. Funny, I always thought conservtism was compassionate. Anyway. Bush promoted neighbors helping neighbors, and if government did get involved, it was to help out with accountability in mind. Bush never promoted more big government. That was why I included the November 1st 2000 quote from Bush in Minneapolis, about Algore's agenda to increase the size of the federal bureaucracy through massive spending increases. Bush wanted to reduce government involvement in peoples lives and slowly transfer the financing aspects of this effort from the federal government to the private sector and local governments.

A good example was Bush`s words versus deeds, can be found in his 2000 campaign proposal to increase Medicare spending by $158-billion over ten years. With $12-billion spent over 4 years on helping the eldery poor purchase prescription drugs. Small peanuts. That is a huge difference with the new trillion dollar prescription drug program Bush and the GOP Congress rammed down our throats. The biggest government program since Medicare itself was created under LBJ in 1965. Now we have three huge entitlement programs that will eventually bankrupt America. Social Security, Medicare and Prescription Drugs. Thanks Dubya. LOL

Another good example of Bush not promoting big government was his campaign pledge to bring performance standards and install a voucher program into the federal education system. We got the former, but no vouchers. We did get an 86% increase in education spending. More big government.

On top of his spending for the new PDP and socialized education, we can add to the list of Bush`s big government Republicanism, signing off on three huge non-defense discretionary programs. The pork barrel transportation bill of 2005, with its 6,000+ earmarks, and the heavily subsidized, pork barrel ladened, farm and energy bills. On top of all of that, not one single veto by Bush on anything the Congress has sent him.

Bush didn't run on a big government agenda in 2000 and I don't believe it was his intention to advance big government Republicanism. Just like with his dad, it just happened. In 1988, Bush41 ran on further advancing the Reagan agenda. Within a year he broke with the Reagan agenda and the rest is history. Taxes went up, spending went up, Bush41 became more out of touch with conservatives, and in 1994 he lost to Clinton. Like Father, like son.

[rob777]

A good friend and advisor to GWBush since the early 1990`s, Marvin Olasky, came up with the term compassionate conservatism and wrote about it in his book "The Tragedy of American Compassion". It focused on moving away from government sponsored welfare to more charitable faith based organizations. Bill Bennett gave a copy of Olasky's book to Newt Gingrich in 1994. Later on, we witnessed the serious and historic welfare reform advanced by Newt's Contract With America.
It was always my understanding that the word "compassioniate" in compassionate conservative was employed as a means to take the perceived hard edge off conservatism. Funny, I always thought conservtism was compassionate.




You are right about the origins of the word. "The Tragedy of American Compassion" is an excellent book and the notion is sound in principle. I just do not agree that this was how it was presented in the 2000 Bush campaign.

Bush is not someone who is ideologically grounded. While offering some rhetoric that appears to oppose big government, he promoted programs that were at odds with a small government agenda. The 2000 PRIMARIES are what led me to become suspicious of his commitment to limited government. My biggest problem was what his campaign did with the GOP Platform. (Removing planks such as the one calling for the elimination of the Department of Education)
There was no need to back off from such planks for conservatism to be "compassionate".

Again, I believe that Bush's ideological "fuzziness" combined with his inclination for compromise, effectively neutered him as a champion of limited government. This was the view of a number of limited government conservatives during the 2000 election. Most held their nose and supported him against the bigger threat of Al Gore.

[rob777]

Bush didn't run on a big government agenda in 2000 and I don't believe it was his intention to advance big government Republicanism. Just like with his dad, it just happened. In 1988, Bush41 ran on further advancing the Reagan agenda.




Neither really impressed me as ideologically committed to the limited government agenda the way Reagan was. With the Bush Sr. 1988 campaign, it was the promotion of "A Kinder and Gentler" America. (As opposed to Reagan's America) I am sure that they did not set out to actually expand the role of government, but neither did they put forward a serious agenda to role it back. At least Bush Sr. did not insist on watering down the commitment lo limited government in the GOP Platform.

[Protagoras]

LOL, you need a new mantra, that crap never worked on anyone with a brain before and it sure won't work now. Particularly since there has proved to be very little difference.

If can't get people to vote for you, don't blame it on someone else. There must be something wrong with what you are selling.

[Reagan Man]

Since Bush was pushing education reform, it would only be natural for him to remove the Reagan abolishment clause pertaining to the Education Department. It was't a big surprise to most conservatives.

While I agree with you that Bush isn't "ideologically grounded" in conservatism and while he didn't actually promote strict limited government like Reagan, he did promote reducing bureaucracy through a transfer of funding and power from the federal government to the private sector and local municipalities.

>>>>While offering some rhetoric that appears to oppose big government, he promoted programs that were at odds with a small government agenda.

In election campaigns, rhetoric is sometimes all voters have to base their decisions on. Especially first time Presidential candidates. As Governor of Texas, Bush seemed like someone who wanted to step up and bring more fiscal responsibilty to the federal government. As I said, Bush`s original Medicare proposal was peanuts compared to what he signed into law. An 86% increase in education spending wasn't something I ever anticipated. Same for the historic transportation, farm and energy spending bills.

In 2000, Bush never passed up any opportunity to attack the Democrat agenda of bigger government, more taxes and more spending. Never. Bush basically campaigned on a strong defense, tax cuts, promoting pro-life issues and advancing fiscal responsibility over the federal bureaucracy. We basically got 3 out of 4 from Bush. Problem is, on the last one Bush went totally liberal and today we have the biggest welfare entitlement bureaucracy in US history.

Guess we might have to agree to disagree on this one.

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[freepatriot32]

i second that motion :-)

[edcoil]

I have said the following for years now.

In the past 6,000 years of recorded modern man's history, no government has ever led its people into anything except the history books with a simple lesson. Don't let this happen to you.

Our founding fathers understood this and formed a government of people, with limited government as close to them as possible.

We here seem to be doing nothing but duplicating the failures of others and not learning from the past.

[Supernatural]

The government can't do anything right except for waging war and they screw up a lot of things in that endeavor and get a lot of people unnecessarily killed even on theri own side with poor decisions.

It always amazes me that people want more government control over their lives.

[mysterio]

Vote 3rd party that ought to fix it.

Well, at least this portion of your post was correct.

[rob777]

Guess we might have to agree to disagree on this one.




Not a problem, as we agree on where we need to go from here.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>Not a problem, as we agree on where we need to go from here.

Exactamundo.

[traviskicks]

That is a very well written piece. Thanks for posting it.

[patton]

or vote republican...and elect a rat.

I am done with voting. waste of my time.

[Hank Rearden]

Vote third party and you will get what you deserve. More death, more taxes and Hillary Care.

Ahhh, here come the threats. Republicans, who have utterly failed, resort to bludgeoning the electorate.

Sorry, won't work. We'll hunker down and ignore Big Stupid Government before we'll waste our votes supporting it via Republicans and 'Rats.

The GOP needs to go the way of the Whigs - the lying sleazeballs.

[Hank Rearden]

Can’t disagree with your facts; but you did omit at least one important matter: Supreme Court nominations.

Yeah. We damn near got Aunt Harriet the White House Bootblack as a result of electing Republicans.

All we hear these days is "Vote for us - maybe we'll do the right thing sometimes."

[mugs99]

And all this with a Republican controlled Congress, too. Who's to blame?

Democrats take away your liberty in the name of children and of fighting poverty, while Republicans do it in the name of family values and fighting drugs. Either way, government gets bigger and you become less free.
.

[LibertarianInExile]

"VOTE LIBERTARIAN . . . and elect a rat."

I will likely vote GOP in the fall--I have faith in that party to put forth a conservative in 2008, too. But I won't vote RINO ever again. The next candidate for which I cast my vote will be a strong American patriot who believes in American border control.

But I have a question for you. At what point would it be inappropriate for you to vote GOP? That is, where would a Republican cross the line so that you COULD NOT vote for him in good conscience? Would vocal support for gun control, or affirmative action, or open borders, or federal assumption of authority previously belonging to the states, or support for a national ID card, or voting for a tremendous expansion in federal expenditures, or a tremendous expansion of taxes, would any of these enough to stop you from supporting the nominee? What about if ALL of them were combined?

Just curious.