Posted on 04/03/2006 11:04:05 AM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan
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. 
_____________________________________________________
Doug Bandow is vice president of policy for Citizens Outreach. A collection of his columns, Leviathan Unchained: Washington’s Bipartisan Big Government Crusade, will be published by Town Forum Press..
March 27, 2006 Issue
When the terrorists tried to blow up the WTC, with truck bombs, in '93, Clinton IGNORED it and later said that it was a NEW YORK CITY POLICE MATTER.
McLame IS on his second wife ( he left his first wife, after she saw him through the effects of the war, when he came back, for a younger, wealthy wife ), whose father is "mobbed up", to boot.
Maybe I am underestimating how much contempt the liberals have for america. I still think Gore would use it for political gain.
Gore wouldn't have done a damned thing. He and Clinton and the rest of their ilk, STILL think that terrorist attacks, on AMERICAN soil, are something which the LOCAL POLICE FORCE should take care of. If President Bush hadn't of reacted, the way he did to 9/11, NO Dems would think of doing what he DID do.
Heh. Here is what I wrote yesterday long before you posted http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1608373/posts?page=11#11):
"I'll just get this out so that the GWB loyalists don't have to:
- Without GWB we would be in danger of terrorism (partially true - but not the basis of the criticism in this article...no one has said that he is failing as commander in chief; even FDR can win a war)
- The Democrats would be worse on spending (arguably false, as if the D's were in charge, the GOP would become an effective opposition party)
- if you oppose GWB, you are a RINO using DU and DNC talking points (whatever...that's one of the points of the article ie that the vilification of those who dare question the king is poor procedure and in this White House has led to profoundly liberal policies)
Now...if the Bush loyalists have better arguments than those to SUBSTANTIVELY deal with this article and not just bitch and moan at the author and those who agree with them, then there are a lot of us here who are all ears.
(While we're at it, I wonder if the accounting guru's who have us the numbers for the prescription drugs benefit factored in all of the amnesty for illegals who will now officially become part of the Republican welfare state? Anyone think of that? Anyone?)"
As you can see, your completely predictible post falls into the third category, ie, that those who are critical are just a bunch of lefties.
Yawn.
When you are ready to vigorously, respectfully and intelligently debate his record as a conservative and the status of the movement under his stewardship, then come back. Plenty of freepers are eager for that discussion. If you just want to resort to the same old, tired and predictible name calling, well, it's all been said before.
What makes the far right actually believes they could win a majority of all voters in a general election when they cannot even win a majority of Republicans in a primary election. In Pennsylvania a Conservative Toomey could not get a majority of Republicans to nominate him. When the choice was your type of conservative against a very liberal Arlen Specter, the voters chose the liberal. However in that primary far right Conservatives did manage to let every PA. voter know how Conservative Senator Santorum was. As a result it looks like Santorum is going down in defeat this year. The Toomey supporters at every opportunity screamed... Toomey can win.. Look at Santorum. He is as conservative as Toomey and Santorum wins... Now it looks like Santorum can't win.
Conservatives , convinced they have majority support, have managed to re-elect Specter. In that effort they did what it takes to defeat Santorum.
if conservatives ever figure out they have to convince a lot more voters before they try running candidates they might someday have a chance at victory. But like all perennial losers, they rationalize their defeats. Their defeats are always someone else's fault.
Right wing conservatives need to grow up and take responsibility for their own failures.. If they ever do, they might be a factor.
I am always amused when far right Conservatives tell Republicans they are going to take their vote and go home. They always think the Republicans will come beging on bended knee. That never happens. The Republicans, of course, do the logical thing. The Republican candidate reasons he can never count on the far right. So to get to a majority the Republican Candidate move a bit more to the left to get a dependable majority. Right Wingers never ever figure that out.
Many things are predictable here and elsewhere. That has nothing to do with their truth or falsity. I read your post before posting mind and paid no attention to it.
Those who cannot see the big picture and the absolute necessity to keep the RATS from ever regaining the levers of power are either: good hearted but easily confused and manipulated people, out right Leftists who dedicate their lives to Bush hatred, or Psuedo-Conservatives who are perpetually pissed off and have never supported the President OR any other candidate capable of getting over 2% of the vote.
Bush has implemented conservative ideals beginning with the most important: Fighting those who would destroy the Nation, cutting taxes, implementing a rational foreign policy and reigning in an out of control Judicial system.
Policies which the Perpetually Pissed Off whine about are secondary and only become important when the three MAJOR policies have failed. Efforts by the Treason Media to deflect the awareness of the nation into Bush Hatred are directed at the most conservative president we have ever had (including Reagan.) Why would anyone claiming to be conservative join the mindless mob of Bush haters?
In this case it is like a sports fan furious because his team is only winning by three touchdowns with 10 minutes left in the game when he thinks they should be up by five so he demands the coach be fired and eleven players be recruited from the stands to play in place of the first team. Such people are and always will be politically irrelevant.
As for me, I maxed out financially for the Pres when he ran, and contributed substantially to his re-election. How much did you put in?
I also put in time for him, and other candidates to help him. I have never supported a third party, given money to one, or cast a vote for one.
With regards to the most conservative President ever, including Reagan, I only ask: how many new entitlements did Reagan create? In fact, how many new entitlements did Carter create? How about Clinton?
As you well know, the answer is zero.
It is only the most conservative President ever, as you say, who gets the distinction of creating the first entitlement since LBJ. If that's conservatism in your mind, then it's not me that is mixed up.
I have never criticized him on any aspect of foreign policy. I think he is great on that. But as I noted earlier, FDR was good there, also...and Truman had an aggressive Cold War policy. Those things are not enough to make one a conservative. I have also praised his appellatte court appointments, and was a fan of Alito way before GWB even knew who he was. These are all home runs (though the Miers thing made me worried).
I will continue to support the President when he is right. But not when he's wrong. And I'm certainly not going to accept as fact that he's a conservative. He's not. That doesn't make him a liberal. He's simply a man who is guided primarily by his sense of pragmatism and what he thinks is right at a given moment. For whatever merits that way of thinking has, it certainly isn't a conservative point of view.
As for the politics of all this, I may well be wrong and I surely hope so. But it appears to me that the chances of the GOP hanging on to the House are right now, at best, 50-50. Leadership starts at the top. If we lose it, it will be at least in part, the fault of the man who is the head of the party. (But, it won't be the end of the world...we'll become an effective opposition which might actually reign in socialism).
"if conservatives ever figure out they have to convince a lot more voters before they try running candidates they might someday have a chance at victory. But like all perennial losers, they rationalize their defeats. Their defeats are always someone else's fault...Right wing conservatives need to grow up and take responsibility for their own failures.. If they ever do, they might be a factor. "
Interesting you should say that, since you're trying to rationalize what you perceive as a 2006 with impending future GOP losses, by preemptively blaming them on the conservative wing of the GOP. Pot, meet kettle.
And as to your statement, "The far right believes that voters are ruled by politicans. The truth is voters rule politicians." I don't believe politicians 'rule' me. In fact, I'm voting to ensure they don't. If I believed the voters were ruled by politicians, why would I advocate voting at all?
No, while I don't believe politicians RULE the voters, I do believe politicians who have become entrenched start to think they do. And the only time that political class really pays attention at all to the right wing is when we're ready to depose them. We're ready to march right now, and that has you scared. You might lose the donations that have kept you fat and happy. You might lose the power broker status that has kept you in line for the lobbying job. Sure, sometimes you might pay attention to the voters' wishes, but you're only really concerned about their interests when their primary interest seems to be tossing you out on your ass.
Silliest is your implication that the difference between moderates and conservatives is that conservatives aren't electable, and conservatives don't work to convince the public, and conservatives can't do so. But I'd say that the public largely agrees with us already on the major issue right now--the borders--and what scares you is that YOU can't convince the public and YOU aren't electable even when you pretend otherwise. How many RINOs run as conservatives? Nearly all. But there are almost none that run and win as RINOs. And how many Republicans up for 2006 election are out there banging the drum for the amnesty, instead of calling people who oppose it racists and traitors to the GOP? Gosh, I can't even begin to count. /sarc
Dead on BUMP. And further evidence they'd rather lose is that they cling fiercely to unpopular, thirty-percent stands on immigration and ports while the GOP polls go down the tubes, sacrificing party credibility on national security for their own globo-goals. Meanwhile, when the polls are down on a conservative, they'll toss him like day-old bread.
I don't have any belief at all that the GOP will lose this fall. None. I may have some doubts that the GOP will retain the majorities it holds. But the elections are months away, never mind the gloom-and-doom neocons here trying to distance themselves from conservatives early in case it IS a bad year. And 2006 is not a year for a national referendum, but a district-by-district election. The question is whether or not this fall will be a nationalized referendum on illegals in those districts. If it is generally the case, the GOP will STILL win handily, because its members are perfectly capable of patriotism. On the other hand, the Rats cannot even mouth America-first politics without pissing off their LaRaza bloc.
I agree that the GOP needs to be a party with principles, but I don't believe this election will decide them. It is far too fractured a nation to assume that with each district voting on a different person that we will come away with such a message for the GOP overall.
2008, however, will put a face on the GOP. And it will either be the face of Vincente Fox, or it'll be worth voting for.
"Is there a party platform or isn't there? Should that mean anything? That's supposed to represent principle. Unfortunately, too many liberals in the party ignore it. A party - to BE a party - has to have a platform - a base set of principles that define what it stands for. Without that, it's just a name."
It's just a name. There hasn't been a confining Republican platform besides 'vote for the GOP leadership' since Bush 1. We have finally gotten to high-schoolish 'vote for me and we'll have a good prom!' at the national political level, at least insofar as political parties are concerned. The question is whether the Reagan influence has stuck or will slide off. I'm betting this election it slides but doesn't fracture the GOP, but next election the gloves come off, and that will be the end of the conservative/globobusiness GOP alliance. But we'll see.
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.