Posted on 05/06/2006 3:26:58 PM PDT by RWR8189
PRESIDENT BUSH IS A CONSERVATIVE politician, not a conservative ideologue. This explains why Bush sometimes does things that aren't conservative. He does so to survive and, if all goes well, to prosper politically. Or he does so because he actually favors some nonconservative policy or position. Conservative politicians are never ideologically pure. "The president works at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, not 214 Massachusetts Avenue N.E.," a Bush administration official says. The Massachusetts Avenue location is the site of the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank.
President Reagan, like Bush, was a politician first and an ideologue second. When Social Security was on the verge of insolvency in 1983, he had to act quickly. But he didn't call for benefit cuts or privatization, the conservative positions. That was not politically feasible. He agreed to a tax hike and a modest increase in the age of eligibility. And the issue went away, leaving him politically undamaged and able to pursue his conservative goals, like winning the Cold War.
Calling for a probe of oil companies for possible manipulation of gas prices is Bush's latest nonconservative position. With prices soaring, he was losing ground politically. The public and the politicians, Republican and Democrat alike, were attacking the oil companies--and Bush as well. His job approval rating dipped into the low 30s, the worst of his presidency.
He could have said, no, the free market is working properly. That, while basically true, would no doubt have further injured his political standing. Instead, he moved to take control of the issue and protect himself politically. Two days later, the president conceded he had "no evidence that there's any ripoff taking place." Of course he hadn't. That wasn't the point of his intervention.
His divergence from conservative orthodoxy was probably harmless. "I don't think there's any problem in looking into the possibility of price gouging," the administration official says. "If it doesn't exist--and the odds are quite strong it doesn't--nothing will be lost." In fact, the president gained politically. His approval rating in the Fox News poll rose from 33 percent to 38 percent.
Neither Bush nor White House officials have suggested, publicly at least, that there's a paradox involved in taking nonconservative positions on issues such as gas prices. But it's true that this may shore up the president's popularity and enhance his ability to pursue conservative issues like the war on terror, Iraq, and tax cuts.
Besides political expediency, conservative politicians sometimes stray because they've become enamored of a nonconservative position for policy or political reasons, or both. Reagan wanted to eliminate all nuclear weapons in the world, despite their deterrent value. He insisted on picking a woman, moderate Sandra Day O'Connor, as his first Supreme Court nominee. He met repeatedly with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Conservatives fumed.
Bush's chief apostasy is on the Medicare prescription drug benefit, the first new entitlement in decades. Rather than aiding only needy seniors--perhaps a quarter of the over-65 population--he championed a far more expensive universal benefit. Bush touted it in the 2000 campaign and pushed it aggressively in Congress. It was enacted in December 2003 and implemented this year.
Many conservatives, maybe most of them, opposed the drug benefit. So did Democrats and liberals. And it appeared that the new program might not become the political bonanza that the White House and Republicans had hoped it would be. Month after month, polls found it to be unpopular.
Not anymore. Now that 30 million of the country's 43 million eligible seniors have signed up, the drug benefit has become popular. Ninety percent in a poll by the Tarrance Group say they understand the plan and how to use it. While enrolling may have been difficult and time-consuming, 65 percent say it was worth it. Plus, the monthly fee and the cost of the entire program has turned out to be less expensive than had been projected.
"What ranks among the single best issues Bill Clinton used to club Newt Gingrich and the Republicans in the 1990s?" a Bush adviser says. "Medicare. That issue has essentially been taken off the table since the program was created [in 1965] and over time our proposal may well make Medicare a net plus for Republicans. At a minimum, though, Republicans have been pretty much inoculated against the charges by Democrats."
So in this fall's midterm election, the drug benefit will hardly be an albatross. Republicans will have a positive achievement to brag about. If it helps Republicans stave off a Democratic landslide, its political value will have been confirmed.
There are two points in all this. One, conservative presidents--indeed, conservative elected officials at all levels of government--will always wander from conservative tenets. The test is whether there's a flip side, a strengthening in the fight for conservative aims. And second, even the most sainted conservatives--Reagan, for instance--harbor nonconservative thoughts. If this is an insurmountable problem for conservatives, my advice is, get over it.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.
Of course, he is neither.
But Fred is a whore who drank the Kool-Aid when he wrote the embarrassing book about Bush's reputed heroism. After all, Bush had gotten Part D when the book was written. Fred's trying to take an emetic with this one.
I feel sorry for Fred. I have always said--and he keeps proving--that he is a mental lightweight, a dottering uncle that conservatism would prefer to keep in the attic.
That is an assumption that is just flat wrong. Lot's of us have worked--probably harder and longer than you--and given money, probably more than you.
You have it exactly backwards--the ones who have much invested in conservatism are the ones betrayed, not you worshippers at the shrine of Dear Leader. After all, He is undoing all the work WE have done for the last 35 years.
Freddy Barnes has been a big disappointment to conservatives in recent years. A true status quo centrist, not to mention a die-hard Bushie. You're either a conservative, or you're not. Reagan was, Bush is not.
Might help us to cast the blame where it goes - our representatives that are worthless.
Wrong.
Would be very simple for Bush. Hold a PR conference and say something like....I have directed my head of DHS to enforce the law. If you are employing illegals we will come after you. If you are in the country illegally you will be deported. We are going to enforce our laws.
There would be a stampede for the border.
But, you are correct about hitting a nerve. You Johnny-come-latelies will put up with anything, even crap those we've fought against for years wouldn't have thought of proposing. Even Clinton didn't have the courage to propose something like Part D. Yes, we've been betrayed by Bush and, as important, by people who support him no matter what.
Even Clinton didn't have the courage to propose something like Part D.
You are right Jammer,Part D is horrible. I think, however, that when composing this reply, you forgot Universal Health Care. Billery DID propose that and it would have made Part D look downright libertarian!
No, although I agree with you, I did think about it. It just got shot down too early to see the light of day. Aborted, so to speak. But, no matter what they came up with, I doubt Clinton would have been able to even propose it. YMMV, of course.
Politicians do have to compromise, but it comes a whole lot easier to some than to others. They only have so many options. Nixon, for example, had to work in very liberal times. Reagan, like Nixon, had a Democrat Congress to put up with.
I don't blame Bush for not having the best hand -- he would never have Reagan's popularity nationwide -- but it does look as though he didn't make the best use of the openings and opportunities he did have.
Fred, Mort and Kristol should get a room....Romping RINOS
Precisely. He also enacted small c conservative reforms whenever he could. He instituted the "we ask, don't join" policy for homosexuals; he ended coed basic training for the army. Good things.
Shades of Lindsey Graham's, "Just Shut up.", here?
I don't like elites. Fred is an elite. An elite would dismiss people and tell them to basically sit down and be quiet because they find them bothersome pests.
I respect the President. I support him. I have NOT been a part of the crowd dismissive or bashing him at every turn. Infact, I've defended him on immigration threads concerning points where the critisisms are unjust and against those that freely speak of impeachment. I've no common cause with that mindset.
With this said, I'm not going to delve into response to the specifics of this column because I don't respect Fred. Fred is being disingenuous here. And, everyone that has followed him knows it.
Fred wrote this column for one reason only. It has dawned on him that a significant minority of the base is unhappy. Unhappy enough to debate sitting an election out. It is STILL only debate, hold off on assigning committee chairs Dems....but for the base to even consider that option is NOT a good thing in an election year.
Fred's response to this dawning realization? Write a weak column using Reagan, a conservative "icon, rather deceptively, to silence critics. And, if not willfully silenced, he concludes with telling them to shut up. I'm suprised he didn't work in pelosi as Speaker.
Now do I deny Reagan compromised? Nope. Am I a "Reagan conservative"? Nope. I have few memories of Reagan, I'm afraid, I brand myself rather unromantically as a plain conservative as a result. But, Reagan was a part of the conservative movement and sought to advance it. Our President currently never has really been a part of that movement, his goal has been to advance the Republican Majority. At times our goals have been compatible, but they do diverge from time to time. I find nothing wrong with either of their goals, and don't think too highly of conservatives who are upset the president hasn't advanced the movement when he never claimed he'd do so. Just as I lack some sympathy for people upset about him being for Big Government, did he claim otherwise? As for amnesty, I knew when I voted for him he supported it. It's pushing boundaries to claim betrayal now.
But Fred surely knows there is a difference here. May I suggest Fred Barnes stop rationalizing reasons for a Republican Majority not to have led on conservative promises, and instead tell his in the beltway collegues on the Hill that they simply do their jobs and spend the next few short months rectifying their errors? It's a far better use of their time that using scare tactics to entice voters to the polls.
Sure - deport millions of people and send them back without any jobs - with their families so that they can starve. Now, do you really think any president that touts family values will do that?
We got into this mess because of slack borders. It will have to be corrected with strong borders.
Come up with a workable solution and forward it to Washington.
By the way - they did raid a company and they supposedly are tightening the borders. But, don't expect any media coverage. The liberals would rather Bush did nothing. He did propose immigration reform and it sits in the Congress.
So, just who do you support? The dems? The socialists?
Do you support no war on terror, do you support further destruction of the CIA and our security? What about our education system? More subversives teaching our children?
We have seen the danger posed by the Clintons, we cannot withstand the destruction should the democrats get power back.
If they do, look for constitution changes, destruction of the electoral vote, more liberal activist judges, national health plans, voting for criminals, more pandering to criminals and dictators.
Afterall - they want America weak, they want America dependent on dictators for their oil, they do not want domestic energy.
Guess I will have to vote for the lesser of two evils. I don't dare do nothing.
Here's what I think it all boils down to, folks:
The Democrats are the enemy. The Republicans are the good guys, but they often don't fight hard enough. So what are you going to do? Are you going to punish the Republicans for their weakness by making them even weaker? Are you going to punish them by putting the Democrats in charge? Now, that would be a brilliant move, eh?
Folks, has it occurred to you the Republicans might just show a bit more backbone if they get more votes. Imagine what they could do if they had 60 Senators. If they get fewer votes, they will just cave in even faster. You really need to know that.
You may not like everything the Republicans do, but if you think they are as bad as the Democrats, you have a hard lesson to learn. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.
Of course not. Why did you waste your time coming up with implied positions I might take? That's ridiculous.
You commit the logical error of the false dichotomy. There are other positions, to the RIGHT of our RINOs. Of course, those ideas are dead for 20-30 years do to the bad rep the RINOs are giving conservatives.
Remember - he had to handle the attack on America on our shores and the War on Terror.
Remember - he has had little or no support from his own party, his GOP representatives, the media, and foreign governments.
One man can do only so much - and Bush is never getting any help - only complaints and backstabbing.
So, just remember, it might have been a lot different if those representatives had done what we wished rather than Bush.
What about the permanent tax cut? What about the sitting immigration reform? What about line item veto, drilling in ANWR, the energy program. Seems to me - it was Congress, not Bush that stopped each of these.
Yes he did.
You gave a good analysis on Fred Barnes wrongly employing the Reagan legacy to silence the Bush critics. Then you went and spolied it with the above remark. In 2000, Bush ran on reducing the national debt and shrinking the federal budget. The latter was going to be accomplished by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse in the annual federal budget. Bush even stated the following about Algore:
"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."
--- Bush Speech in Minneapolis, Minnesota Nov 1, 2000
At least on domestic policy, Bush has proven to be no better then Algore.
Bush doesn't have a Conservative Senate to work with. Nor is over half of the elective Conservative.
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.