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

Skip to comments.

Counterfeit Conservative
The American Conservative ^ | Doug Bandow

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 Unc
hained: Washington’s Bipartisan Big Government Crusade, will be published by Town Forum Press..

March 27, 2006 Issue


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: hogwash
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-179 next last
To: MineralMan

Because he's not acting like the conservative we voted in. Duhh.


41 posted on 04/03/2006 11:33:51 AM PDT by TypeZoNegative (Future Minnesota Refugee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
Are you suggesting that the only real choice for conservatives, those of principle, that there only true choice is the liberalism of one party or the liberalism-lite of the other party


Nope but at this point the choices are going to split FR into a flame war like we've never seen.

You'll have a choice between another big spending, inarticulate, social conservative George Allen...or a articulate, tight fisted social liberal Rudy Gulliani.

As much as I like Pence or Newt ...he is not electable at this point
42 posted on 04/03/2006 11:34:35 AM PDT by Blackirish (Hillary is angry AND brittle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Jimbaugh

"Bush is going to get impeached. The Dems are going to win the house and then let the hearings begin.
"

No, he is not. Even if the Dems win control of the Congress (and that's in question), Congress has lost the taste for impeachment, given how the last one worked out for them.

No, they'll just block the President for the last couple of years of his second term and make him look like a fool. Then, they'll manage to get a Dem President elected in 2008.

Wishing ain't winning.


43 posted on 04/03/2006 11:35:07 AM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Jimbaugh

I would not want to have seen Algore or John Heinz-Kerry's America. 8 Years of the co-presiduncy of Billary Clinton was enough.

Want to see another Jimmy Carter in office?

Things can always be worse (and that is not the "lesser of two evils" argument).


44 posted on 04/03/2006 11:35:13 AM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
Look, I'm not going to have this philisophical discussion. We'll just end up with another pie-fight, like the thread I linked earlier.

We'll just have to decide when votes are asked of us, what we want to do.

45 posted on 04/03/2006 11:35:21 AM PDT by Cyber Liberty (© 2006, Ravin' Lunatic since 4/98)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

46 posted on 04/03/2006 11:36:26 AM PDT by unixfox (The 13th Amendment Abolished Slavery, The 16th Amendment Reinstated It !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weegee

You know, you have a point. Things could be worse, however, at least when it was Carter we could say, "Hey, not our fault!"
I'm pretty frustrated right now. I am afraid I am having an epiphany of sorts about Bush.
susie


47 posted on 04/03/2006 11:37:20 AM PDT by brytlea (amnesty--an act of clemency by an authority by which pardon is granted esp. to a group of individual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: TypeZoNegative

"Because he's not acting like the conservative we voted in. Duhh."

President Bush did not disguise who he was, nor did he dissemble regarding his positions on things like immigration. He campaigned pretty much for what he has done while in office.

Then we had this 9/11 thing, which diverted President Bush's attention a bit. Suddenly, he's a wartime President, and a lot of stuff got moved to the back of the stove. Now, it's back on the front burner again. Immigration? President Bush wanted guest workers in 2000. Didn't you hear him say so?

You got exactly who you voted for.


48 posted on 04/03/2006 11:38:50 AM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish

And the Left knows this and will fuel the flame war.

Trolls will be out, as well as those who left FR (and the party).


49 posted on 04/03/2006 11:39:12 AM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker
I disagree with the "mixed bag" interpretation, because on the size of government, we've been completely defeated. On federal spending, half a trillion dollar deficits, new entitlements, and new government programs & departments - we've been defeated. On illegal immigration, Bush/Frist/McCain are paving the way for amnesty and yet more illegal immigration to the tune of millions a year. You'd think wildly popular conservative legislative efforts like a constitutional amnedment protecting marriage would have at least been attempted, but I suppose the Dick and Lynne Cheney can put a stop to that for the sake of their lesbian daughter..

I disagree with the vigorous prosecution of the war, although I supported both the war in Afghanistan and Iraq...because we've done things like drop more food than bombs on Afghanistan during the onset, we've left al-Qaeda a sancturary in the Western portion of Pakistan, Iran continues just like the Koreans did while we futilely seek diplomacy after it fails over and over, and we've been largely diverted by trying to build "Islamic Democracies" with billions of our tax dollars so that we can drag backwards Middle East Countries into the 20th and 21st Century.
50 posted on 04/03/2006 11:39:31 AM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan (One of the greatet conservative accomplishments would be the undoing of FDR’s big government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Jaxter

"The last 2 times the RNC called me asking me for money I told them that I'd start giving money again when they grew a pair. The only reason I have for voting this November is to keep the President from being impeached. Period."

Lately, when I get a request for a donation I print out one of the Bush Peso's and send it back. My congresscritter (who I had high hopes for) when to Washington and immediately began voting for whatever the leadership told her to.


51 posted on 04/03/2006 11:40:16 AM PDT by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

Since you and I aren't running for office, or at least I'm not, we are forced to choose among those who are. Sadly, none of them are as smart as I am, or as dedicated to my principles.

But, then again, as "centrist" as Bush is, he only just barely managed to get elected, thats running against a certifiable nutcase like Gore in the first instance, and a Jane-Fonda-Democrat in the second instance.

I doubt seriously if a true classic-liberal-classic-conservative could get elected dog-catcher in this country.

Still, given the choice, I am very glad it wasn't Gore or Kerry sitting in the White House, on security issues alone.

That doesn't mean that we have to sit silent while he tries to out-Kennedy the Kennedys. We are quite capable of walking and chewing gum, we can support him when he deserves support, and scream when we need to. Screaming when he back-slides should give no comfort to the Democrats, since we are screaming when he is too much like a Democrat.

This is what is deceptive about Bush's low ratings. His loss of support does not in any way translate into support for Democrats.


52 posted on 04/03/2006 11:40:40 AM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
Pitty poor Mr. Bandow.

Pitty your inaccurate read--this article is about Bruce Bartlett's analysis of Bush, not Doug Bandow's opinions.

The points raised are all glowing examples of what conservatives find wrong. Bartlett is correct about the Medicare Drug Bill. There was total dishonesty to how this was presented. No independent think tanks were commissioned to detail the cost of the program before the vote on the bill, and the cost went to mult--TRILLIONS as soon as the ink dried from the Bill signing, after it was represented as a $400 billion program.

You can "yawn" all you want, but true conservatives do not "yawn" as Republicans go liberal and lie to us about costs and budget numbers. Bruce Bartlett has been a true conservative for many, many years. Bush has been a liberal (fiscally) for five years. Bartlett has a far more respected track record of conservatism than most commentators.

Your "yawn" signifies your apathy to surging socialism, and your blind eyes toward the fact BOTH parties are the culprits.

53 posted on 04/03/2006 11:40:59 AM PDT by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888 (The purpose of this forum is to fight socialism (see FR homepage), not to defend Republicans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

"Not our fault" but Carter was (and is) our problem. What's more, Carter continues to be a problem. What other 1970s governors are still on the national stage meeting with foreign leaders and trashing a Republican administration's foreign policy?


54 posted on 04/03/2006 11:40:59 AM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

excuse me... i see no contradiction in liking the man as a president and as a person, which i do... i supported his ideas and ideology, but what i stopped supporting was the apparent execution of those policies because they weren't in line with what he was saying... you can go back and look at why i've stopped my support of the president...

i've made a very distinct distinction on why i've stopped supporting the presidents policies domestically and it's because they aren't good for me or my children economically or politically... his international policies i'm okay with and don't have a problem there, but unfortunately they are being steamrolled by a very active leftist/liberal kook base that is getting face time on the MSM... if you want to call that schitzophrenia, you can, but it still makes your assessment inaccurate about my stance with the president and his policies... maybe i wasn't being clear to you about it, but hopefully this post and some of my previous posts on the subject may shed some light and clarity on it...

also, i'm no longer a member of the GOP... the illegal immigration issue has driven me away from them as a party... i'm still a conservative, but not a party member any longer...


55 posted on 04/03/2006 11:42:29 AM PDT by Methadras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner

I made my peace in 2003, during the latter part of the year, because I couldn't in good conscious advocate my conservatism and on the other hand sacrifice it for the corrupted politics of Washington D.C. I've pretty much resigned myself to looking ahead to 2008, because I don't see Bush or the republicans magically reversing course, and we can hope that someone like Newt Gingrich defeats the likes of Romney or McCain or Pataki.


56 posted on 04/03/2006 11:43:42 AM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan (One of the greatet conservative accomplishments would be the undoing of FDR’s big government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty; All
Read the thread that's already been posted.

Posted a week ago. Damn!

57 posted on 04/03/2006 11:43:46 AM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
There sure seem to be plenty of anti-Bush screeds being posted lately. What's that about?




It depends on the angle, not all have the same purpose. This one seems to be about recapturing the centrality of limited government to the conservative message. That was lost when Bush came to be seen as the conservative/GOP leader. With Bush about ready to exit the political arena, the battle is joined to define conservatism.
58 posted on 04/03/2006 11:44:43 AM PDT by rob777 (Personal Responsibility is the Price of Freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rob777
If you remembered right, you would have understood that GWB never showed any signs of being a Conservative as governor of Texas.

Bawling now, about something all of us should have been aware of, is rather pathetic. Hopin and a wishin is best to be done in private.




59 posted on 04/03/2006 11:44:49 AM PDT by G.Mason (Duty, Honor, Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

Wouldn't be a problem if the rest of the world was united with us to defeat international (and state sponsored) terrorism.

Pakistan and Syria not doing enough to apprehend the terrorists in their midst? Take the war to them.

The United Nations and some European nations have been exposed as being in Saddam's pocket. That should have discredited their criticisms of the US led war effort.

It's like we are in 1942 and still arguing if the Nazis pose any real threat outside of Germany.

And I oppose giving money to the Middle East. Too much wealth there already. They don't use their money wisely (it goes into the pockets of "kings"). Poverty isn't what causes their holy war (Bin Laden is a billionaire). And I'll believe we are striving for "Islamic democracies" when they accept the freedom of man to choose NOT to be a muslim.


60 posted on 04/03/2006 11:47:13 AM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-179 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