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.

[Veto!]

he ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending, extremely tolerant of excesses by Congress,

Yeah, well, I changed my screen name when Bush was inaugurated in 2000 hoping to see some very snazzy Vetos forthcoming. You know, the kind that limit spending. Yeah well, yeah well, yeah well.....

[AnalogReigns]

I've often wondered if Buckley is a true conservative.

Heh. Right. Bush, with his 44% increase in domestic discretionary spending (vs 18% for Clinton) is the true "conservative". Since when did Bush become the definition of conservative?

Ain't that the truth! Why are so many "conservative" FReepers so in love with Bush??? I really don't get it. The guy uses conservatives, and then dumps conservative principles (except perhaps over pro-life issues, we'll see...) in his governance--and this causes the Dems to hate him even more (and real conservatives to be saddened too, by this big-government spending "conservative.") He's not up for re-election so criticizing Bush can be helpful, not hurtful to the next Republican candidate--who hopefully won't be (another) false conservative. William F. Buckley has more sense in his little finger than half the FReepers on here.

Our President has a hard time even forming complete sentences guys...face it! We have to do better next time!!!!

[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "You contend that what has been come to be called the "Neo-Conservative" movement is not populist?

Yes, that is precisely what I contend. Look up every populist movement in the United States for the last 150 years or so, beginning with the Know Nothings, and then work your way forward. Neoconservativism is not a populist movement--it isn't even a movement, by any understanding of the term. It is a school of thought with a foreign policy emphasis.

You wrote, "As for the origin of the terms I'm unfamiliar with who coined them, but it seems to me that they both probably predate Buchanan."

No. The term 'paleo-conservative' does not predate Buchanan. Buchanan coined the term as an oppositional phrase to neo-conservativism.

You wrote, "I use the terms broadly, in the same sense as they are used by opponents of the two positions, in the interest of objectivity."

Not sure what you mean by 'in the interest of objectivity'. I can call a tulip a rose, but it is still a tulip, and even close friends will look at me sideways and roll their eyes if I insist upon doing so. You simply can't change the meaning of a word at will, particularly when engaged in reasoned debate.

Further, that bit about neoconservatives advocating a 'watered down socialism' was a bit over the top, particularly the part about the Reagan Administration being rife with neocon proponents of a hidden, quasi-socialist agenda. Like something out of a John Birch Society tract.

You wrote, "Similarly I use “paleo-conservative” in the same sense as the neo-cons use it. That is, anyone who basically disagrees with the modern movement and where it is going. This includes backsliders who seem to be supporting a more pragmatic approach to the war on terror."

Paleo-conservative is, after all, a fairly precise word naming a very specific group--a name that (again) they gave themselves. So it would be confusing to someone reasonably well informed on current political trends to throw the term around in a broad, all-encompassing way. Can you name an instance where a recognized, self-identified, neoconservative writer, thinker, columnist or pundit has used 'paleo-conservative' to describe someone other than the Buchanan crowd? No? Okay.

Lastly, what exactly do you mean by 'a more pragmatic approach to the war on terror'? By any chance, does this 'more pragmatic approach' involve selling out Israel?

I thought so.

[BarbaricGrandeur]

I like how you ask a question and then answer it. Tell me do you still beat your wife? yeah I thought so.

Any way, I'll avoid using Paleoconservative in the future. It had seemed to me to be a negative style so I assumed, like the term neocon, it was originally used disparagingly to describe the ideology of traditional conservatism negatively as “old-fashion.” That is at least how it is commonly used here at FR, especially by those who identify themselves as neocons.

BTW, any movement that calls itself “grass roots,” or that justifies itself as the legitimate voice of the Greatest Number, especially in opposition to the established system, is a "populist movement." In that sense the so called “Conservative Movement” of the 80s-90s was a populist one. It had to be, the modern political system does not favor anything but populism. Indeed, you must claim to be against the establishment even if you are the establishment. Thats why elections often devolve into a mere exercise in voicing dissatisfaction with the current system, what ever it is. The socialists of the 20th century framed the debate, and established the rubrics.

[Rembrandt_fan]

Here's Wikipedia's definition of populism: "Populism is a political philosophy or rhetorical style that holds that the common person's interests are oppressed or hindered by the elite in society...Hence a populist is one who is perceived to craft his or her rhetoric as appeals to the economic, social, and common sense concerns of average people."

Don't like Wikipedia? Try Princeton University: "...the political doctrine that supports the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite."

Now, let's try your definition: "...any movement that calls itself “grass roots,” or that justifies itself as the legitimate voice of the Greatest Number, especially in opposition to the established system, is a "populist movement."

Note the difference. You simply can't make up your own definitions as you go along. Further, I'm fairly widely read on the subject, and cannot recall anyone other than yourself, friendly or hostile to neoconservativism, referring to neoconservativism as a grassroots, populist movement. Among neoconservatives, there has been no effort to cultivate a grassroots following, no appeal to any perceived underclass, no attacks on either a real or fictitious elite.

Think Huey Long. Think William Jennings Bryant at various points in his career. Think Pat Buchanan at any time. Those are populists.

You wrote, "The socialists of the 20th century framed the debate, and established the rubrics."

What are you talking about? What does that mean? What socialists? What rubrics? Give examples. Support your argument(s) with other than vague, malapropistic absolutes.

Your brand of argument may fly where you come from, but wouldn't give a passing grade to a freshman on the community college debating team.

[BarbaricGrandeur]

Note the difference.

No, I don't. Please explain to me how they differ. The Wikipedia one seems spot on with mine.

[Pelham]

Well, you can believe in the wisdom of the twenty-somethings if it suits you. They don't have the perspective that comes with having watched and engaged in politics for a few decades, and I'm not impressed with their substitute for experience, ideology. I am enjoying the irony of WFB being on the receiving end of a purge for once- hardly the first time a Revolution got around to eating its own.

[BarbaricGrandeur]

Among neoconservatives, there has been no effort to cultivate a grassroots following, no appeal to any perceived underclass, no attacks on either a real or fictitious elite.

You can't be serious. FR advertises itself as 'grassroots.' And if you've never heard the neocons bitching about the liberal elite you're a liar. BTW Huey Long, in addition to being a populist, was a very perceptive man, he once said “fascism could only be accepted here in America if it was called anti-fascism.” There is a lesson in there for the “anti-socialists.”

[Rembrandt_fan]

Your definition, which encompasses neoconservatism, does not jive with Wikipedia's, which does not. In fact, the word 'populist' doesn't show up at all in the 'neoconservatism' entry. Surely, if 'populist' is one of neoconservatism's defining attributes, it would appear in there somewhere. And if not in Wikipedia's definition, then surely in Princeton's. Nope, not there either.

Again, if you make the statement that neoconservatism is a populist movement, back it up with examples. Support your argument.

[Pelham]

Irving Kristol, Bill Kristol's father, is often regarded as the godfather of Neoconservatism. He used the term in the title of various books and essays, applying it to himself and his end of the political spectrum.

Neoconservatism has roots in the Cold War Liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Hawkish on foreign policy and the use of force, and liberal to socialist in domestic policy. It's their domestic big government liberalism that often grates on the nerves of traditional conservatives.

[Windsong]

Good post, and I agree. I differ with him on immigration and some other issues, but by and large I believe him to be conservative enough for his base. I just wish he could speak a tad more efficiently and elequently in his debates (especially considering his 2nd performance with Kerry..*grimace*)

[Prost1]

Buckley is old.

[BarbaricGrandeur]

You make the mistake in assuming I'm defining according to its self professed Ideology. I'm defining the movement by its actions, not its own ideological conceits ;). I don't care what it claims to be.

[danamco]

If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we've experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign," Great. Wouldn't America be such a great place if we did things just like Europe?

Yesterday Rush Limbaugh got a call from Winston Churchill's great-great grandson who said that Buckley was totally wrong, and that President Bush IS very much like Winston Churchill, giving a rip about public opinion and do the right thing for America, like Churchill did for the U.K. during WWII!

PTL!!

[pcottraux]

I know. I was heard it yesterday while I was listening. It was a great thing to be able to hear.

[Rembrandt_fan]

When referring to elites, I meant economic elites. 'Liberal elites' and 'media elites' and so on aren't usually the elites that populists--historically--have referred to.

You wrote, "FR advertises itself as 'grassroots.'"

So? FR advertises itself as grassroots because it isn't a neoconservative site. FR is a big tent. There are all kinds of conservatives here aside from those (such as myself) who identify themselves as mainstream conservative Republicans: a great many libertarians, several Ayn Rand aficionados, a whole truckload of staunch states' rights advocates, and even a few fringe Pat Buchanan fans who style themselves paleoconservatives. What's your point?

Noticed you've finally resorted to name-calling, although it's hard to take insults personally or seriously when they come from someone with a moniker like 'BarbaricGrandeur'. (snicker, chuckle)

[BarbaricGrandeur]

Neoconservatism has roots in the Cold War Liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Hawkish on foreign policy and the use of force, and liberal to socialist in domestic policy. It's their domestic big government liberalism that often grates on the nerves of traditional conservatives.

Yes, the post that started this argument was the one in which I pointed out that the libs hate the neocons much more than traditional conservatives precisely because the neocons are most like them and therefor (according to the liberal mindset) more dangerous than pure Conservatism, which the libs don't believe is a credible danger. And they are probably right.

[Brimack34]

Without the war in Iraq The budget may be balanced. President Bush made the choice and here we are. It was the right choice. Clinton did not fight the war and with the Republican congress and the Bubble he may have balanced the budget. But he left a hugh mess that the President is cleaning up. It was a costly move.

[BarbaricGrandeur]

Noticed you've finally resorted to name-calling

You need to read my posts more closely, I never called you a name. I said that “if-thats is, 'on the condition that..'- you've never heard the neocons bitching about the liberal elite you're a liar.”

You didn't claim that, and I didn't think you would.

[NutCrackerBoy]

I read all the posts on this thread fairly carefully. I found most of them to be very thoughtful...In the full interview Mr Buckley said the President's popularity would probably be in the 60% range if it were not for Iraq. All of Mr. Buckley's comments assumed that the President's administration had become "engulfed" by Iraq and events in the mid east. I don't think he said anything particularly inflammatory.

Don't forget WFB did praise the President in the piece. I also thought the full thread worth reading, except not so much the digression into neo- and paleo-.

When all is said and done, WFB has made interesting observations about the Bush 43 Presidency. They are debatable but quite cogent.