Buckley: Bush Not A True Conservative

CBS News ^ | July 22, 2006 | Thalia Assuras

[West Coast Conservative]

President Bush ran for office as a "compassionate conservative." And he continues to nurture his conservative base — even issuing his first veto this week against embryonic stem cell research.

But lately his foreign policy has come under fire from some conservatives — including the father of modern conservatism. CBS Evening News Saturday anchor Thalia Assuras sat down for an exclusive interview with William F. Buckley about his disagreements with President Bush.

William F. Buckley's Stamford, Conn., home is a tranquil place that allows Buckley to think and write, and spend time with his canine companion, Sebastian.

"He's practically always with me," Buckley says.

Buckley finds himself parting ways with President Bush, whom he praises as a decisive leader but admonishes for having strayed from true conservative principles in his foreign policy.

In particular, Buckley views the three-and-a-half-year Iraq War as a failure.

"If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we've experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign," Buckley says.

Asked if the Bush administration has been distracted by Iraq, Buckley says "I think it has been engulfed by Iraq, by which I mean no other subject interests anybody other than Iraq. ... The continued tumult in Iraq has overwhelmed what perspectives one might otherwise have entertained with respect to, well, other parts of the Middle East with respect to Iran in particular."

Despite evidence that Iran is supplying weapons and expertise to Hezbollah in the conflict with Israel, Buckley rejects neo-conservatives who favor a more interventionist foreign policy than he does, including a pre-emptive air strike against Iran — and its nuclear facilities.

"If we find there is a warhead there that is poised, the range of it is tested, then we have no alternative. But pending that, we have to ask ourselves, 'What would the Iranian population do?'"

Buckley does support the administration's approach to the North Korea's nuclear weapons threat, believing that working with Russia, China, Japan and South Korea is the best way to get Pyongyang back to the negotiating table. But that's about where the agreement ends.

"Has Mr. Bush found himself in any different circumstances than any of the other presidents you've known in terms of these crises?" Assuras asks.

"I think Mr. Bush faces a singular problem best defined, I think, as the absence of effective conservative ideology — with the result that he ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending, extremely tolerant of excesses by Congress, and in respect of foreign policy, incapable of bringing together such forces as apparently were necessary to conclude the Iraq challenge," Buckley says.

Asked what President Bush's foreign policy legacy will be to his successor, Buckley says "There will be no legacy for Mr. Bush. I don't believe his successor would re-enunciate the words he used in his second inaugural address because they were too ambitious. … So therefore I think his legacy is indecipherable"

At 81, Mr. Buckley still continues to contribute a regular column to the National Review, the magazine he started 51 years ago.

[Humbug]

I think you nailed it, that both Buckley and Will are viewed as "safe" opponents in the eyes of Democrats. Certainly they are not scrappy fighters like, say, a Sean Hannity is. For all his perceived intellectual shortcomings, Hannity does a much better job of connecting with average Americans and motivating them to get out there and vote Republican.

[investigateworld]

"See there Lamont, sinkspur get's it right once in a while" LOL!

[Mobile Vulgus]

WARNING.... this is CBS news we are talking about here.

Buckley nevr DID say Bush was not a "True Conservative"!!

Here is the FULL text of what Buckley said and the words "true conservative" are NOT THERE! (Yes, I sat and listened to the video clip and took notations on his words)

"I think Mr. Bush faces a singular problem best defined, I think, as the absence of effective conservative ideology. He's a man who ran as a conservative, was accepted as a conservative alternative. And when he took power he had a Republican congress and a Republican senate and a mostly Republican Supreme Court. But, he then failed to refine conservative purposes with the result that he ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending, extremely tolerant of excesses by Congress, and in respect of foreign policy, incapable of bringing together such forces as apparently were necessary to conclude the Iraq challenge, that simply hasn't happened. As a result of that there is a kind of perplexity about what... what are Conservatives supposed to do when they come to power? Given the fact that they spend and spend and spend and do not consummate a broad, uh wage a trillion dollar war with no conclusion in prospects. So that is extremely humbling and extremely vexing for Mr. Bush."

[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "Buckley has always reminded me of George Will."

Dead-on observation. I've been feeling a vague sense of betrayal about those two for some time, and when I think of one, invariably the other comes to mind. I think, too, aside from their desire to play token conservative on talking head news programs, that part of the anti-Bush flavor of their commentary stems from resentment. For some reason (cough, chuckle), the President never consults them about major domestic or foreign policy decisions. Buckley and Will consider themselves a conservative vanguard to whom conservative leadership never listens. Imagine the frustration of a slow, inexorable slide to complete irrelevance. In Will's case, the trip to nowhere doesn't go far or last long, but WFB's decline is a genuine tragedy.

[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "Paleo-conservatism can't survive in a democracy, because it tries to take the long-view approach and shuns populism."

Just a shot in the dark, but I'm guessing you're a big fan of Pat Buchanan. That part about 'shuns populism' was a jaw-dropper. Look up the definition of populism. Note the historical examples of populism--the America Firsters prior to WW II, in particular. Buchanan epitomizes populism, in every aspect--particularly his rabid antisemitism. Paleo-conservatism can't survive in a democracy because it is, at its dark core, essentially authoritarian. But hey, if by 'long view approach' you mean Thousand Year Reich, I'll grant you that point.

[Hound of the Baskervilles]

"Buckley is getting fuzzy in his old age. But, that's to be expected."

Barry Goldwater did the same thing.

[Not just another dumb blonde]

I named my horse Sebastian. And he was a beautiful palomino, but barn spoiled. Last time I was on him, before he was sold, I had a close encounter with a black oak. The tree won that battle. Do you know oak is a very, very hard wood?

[pollyannaish]

The one post on this thread that isn't just a bunch of hot air...and no one has said thanks.

So, Thank you MV, for posting CONTEXT.

I think Buckley has does a good job of identifying the singular challenge the President faces. It is much tougher to be the party in power, than to have the luxury of being the opposition party.

Right now the GOP is philosophically undisciplined and therefore lacking clarity. If that was the President's only challenge, it would be one thing. But he is also faced with fighting a complex and long term war. The President stated as much going in, so to suggest he was naive and thought this was going to be a cakewalk is to completely ignore what the man has said.

It was the reporter that drew the "Bush is not a conservative" assumption. After reading what Buckley actually said, I think it is because the reporter was not smart enough to really understand the context. Buckley has a tendency to talk in circular riddles. Another interpretation would be that they are looking for a certain outcome: splitting the party and turning us against ourselves. We can't afford to let that happen.

In any case, thanks again for doing the hard work...and providing context. I am truly grateful.

[the final gentleman]

---

Well stated. Why beat up on the old guy?

---

To show respect.
He is still a man, accountable for his words.

Otherwise he is protoplasm.

My hero, Bill Buckley, is getting dotty in his latter years.

[Nextrush]

In my lifetime the left has always disliked and in some cases outright hated Republicans regardless of whether they were real conservatives or not.

That's the trick, because the media hates someone does not make them conservative.

Nixon went after Alger Hiss to advance his political career and got hated by the left ever since.

But Nixon was no conservative signing off on the expansion of big government like OSHA, EPA, etc. and appeasing of the Soviets and Chinese. (The China opening will probably bite us with their increased military power in the coming years, almost like the Japan opening of the 1800's came back to bite us.)

Bush has spoken of concepts like "good" and "evil" among other things and used military power to fight terrorism. The left wants to do neither and hates him for it even as Bush presides over more growth and spending (non-military).

Bush is an establishment Republican and the establishment wants to replace him with Condi Rice as President because they hate McCain.

"Compassionate Conservative" always was a slogan to distance himself from being a real conservative. The Faith Based Initiative as an example is really an attempt to use tax dollars as a means of buying support from churches (white and especially black ones) by pumping tax dollars into their programs.

The churches do good works but just because things are good doesn't mean we should tax people to finance good works. Behind the conservative rhetoric and military action against terrorism os the fact that money is flowing to try to buy votes and support.

Bush may win points if his Supreme Court nominees take down Roe vs. Wade (I would be pleased) but consevatives have had to fight him tooth and nail (Harriet Miers) to get people that look like a real conservatives nominated.

[jocon307]

Very good post!

[LK44-40]

Steve,

Don't mind COEX....he's just a little wet behind the ears. When he grows up and gets smarter, he'll probably lose some of that cockiness.

[goldstategop]

I happen to be a neo-con myself. Quite frankly, paleo-conservatism is passe. We cannot disengage from the world and as much as we would like to shrink government, that's a tall order politically. If it was possible, it would have been done already.

(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em, Down Hezbullies.)

[ThanhPhero]

When you get a conservative with a hyphen, you don't have a conservative.

[tkathy]

There are no "true" conservatives, because that requires total obedience to rigid ideology. Leaves no room for independent thinking.

[ThanhPhero]

When you get a conservative with an adjective, you don't have a conservative.

[DoctorMichael]

While Bush has done many things I have cheered, he has also done many that I disagree with. Unfortunately at FR you may get shouted down or insulted, as I expect many will do of Mr. Buckley, for not towing the Party line.

May I opine about the Administration being "engulfed" by Iraq? The reconstruction of Iraq would have gone much better if the borders had been sealed to insurgents. But then again, this Administration has had extreme problems with the concept of "Borders", foreign or domestic, since the beginning, hasn't it?.

Lastly, I happened to see the interview. I think we at FR should also realize the MSM would give Buckley face-time ONLY when there is criticism of the President to be found.

[PGalt]

Very well reasoned response. It certainly trumps my lack of thought.

Thanks samtheman.

Words and deeds bump!

[jmaroneps37]

Every once in a while he says something that is not gibberish. Give him an extra fruit cup today at lunch.

[Pharmboy]

Nope--you're all wet on this one regarding WFB. HE was the one who purged the Jew-haters from his fledgling conservative movement in the '50s; HE was the one who pushed Joe Sobran out of National Review for his constant and consistent Jew-baiting; and HE was the one who devoted a special issue of National Review to antisemitism where he said what needed to be said about Patsy Buchanan.

Please do not accuse people of prejudice when you clearly are unaware of their history. WFB has always been a good and decent man: False accusations are a dreadful thing.