Posted on 07/22/2006 8:45:38 PM PDT by 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.
That may be so, but in my opinion, the impact of their contributions to the conservative movement--which, for both, began in 1952--outweighs that of their forays off the reservation later in life.
Yeah, but that to him is history.
To him, the present will always be somewhere between 1950 and 1989. Not that he doesn't intellectually know the Cold War is over, but emotionally, he can never seen any other enemy the same way he viewed the USSR.
It's no different from some people who see everything through the Depression and the New Deal, or how most lefties see everything through the lens of Vietnam and the 1960's.
One's mindset gets stuck in a certain point in history, it happens.
Thank you.
You've said it perfectly.
If people have paid attention they'll note this is true of a number of Reagan era conservatives. Their approach to the world is the same as it was during another era. Events have changed, the enemy has changed, their capability for destruction has changed.
Buckley is certainly no "faux" conservative, nor an "unappeaseable" as some reflexively would label. he is neither George Will nor Pat Buchanon. He tried to support this war, to understand it. But I really don't think he can move beyond the approach taken to the biggest threat of his day. The Soviet Union, in which rather then boots on the ground...you fought the enemy by containment and outspending them producing a build up of nuclear arsenals to serve as a deterrant. Only deterrants don't work with nationless terrorists.
On domestic matters, I'll largely agree with him. A guiding conservative philosophy would have served this president Bush well in that arena. Foreign policy? Buckley's preferred strategy is no longer current to the threats of today. In this issue, he is out of step with most conservatives.
I thought Bush would have been more conservative (affirmative action, spending, Medicare, immigration). However, I wouldn't consider his father conservative. Wasn't there a study recently of the political attitudes of children aligning often with their parents? That said, Bush has been conservative in many ways: abortion, stem-cells, marriage, judges (probably MOST important way). It would have helped a great deal if the Reps had a bigger majority in the Senate.
He's as much as a conservative as Reagan, except that Bsuh's USSC nominees are more conservative than Reagan's (apart from Scalia).
Bush isn't a conservative. He never pretended to be one. WE just got blinded that he was the anti clinton. He told us he'd spend our tax money to enlarge existing gov agencies and create new entitlement but it didn't matter because he wasn't Clinton. No Bush has ever been a conservative. He has certain conservative tendencies but he hasn't governed as one. Call it the conservative crack up because he has so brilliantly fooled many to think he is a bonafide conservative. Reagan he is not. Big government republicans have hijacked the party. I would just love to see how you can spin that Bush is a conservative when he's outspent CLinton even when you take out military expenditures. Yeah, that's some conservative!
Yep.
W is not conservative. The libs hate him because Kerry lost.
compassionate conservative is like libs calling themselves progressive. It's a meaningless term. Conservatives have never been compassionless. It's just how the left defines us and we've never had the ability to erase it.
I'd rather have Cheney than Bush. Cheney is a conservative and , unlike Bush, articulate his beliefs.
Well stated!
The MSM would never have had Mr Buckley on if not for his opposition to Pres Bush and the war in Iraq.
Why beat up on the old guy?I totally disagree with your comment here. If someone chooses to "put their comments out there", then those comments should be judged on the basis of their logic and meaning, not on the basis of the age of the person who put them out there.
If Buckley wants to retire and play fetch with his doggy, then it's only right to leave him be. But if he wants to continue to make contributions to the marketplace of ideas, especially given his past successes, we owe him the courtesy of critiquing his words at face value, and not giving him a pass just because he's an "old guy".
That's not fair to him, and it's not the right way to conduct a national discourse.
As for what he says about Bush and Iraq, he's so far off base that I question his own conservative credentials. But he's off base because he's wrong, not because he's old. There are plenty of young people who are just as wrong on Iraq as is the old man Buckley.
National Review was a huge influence on Limbaugh and countless other conservatives from the 1960's to the 1990's. I think Rush would admit that.
Great post.
Bush not a true conservative. DUH, no kidding. Bush may not be a true conservative but he was vastly superior to sleazy kerry. I'd vote for Bush again in that same situation, warts and all
Everyone has some issue everyone thinks they understand until they go and make a statement like this. Once they even have a bomb, it is too late. Rogue states with nuclear ambition can not be tolerated. How many North Koreas can the world tolerate?
In particular, Buckley views the three-and-a-half-year Iraq War as a failure.
Ummm.......no.
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.