Trouble on the Right? Bush and His Conservative Base

Toogood Reports ^ | July 14, 2003 | W. James Antle III

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

President Bush has been having more than his share of troubles lately. The economy is not quite where it should be, with unemployment offices reporting that jobless claims are at a 20-year high. Criticism of his administration's intelligence handling prior to going to war with Iraq, and even the veracity of its WMD claims, is mounting. The public is growing understandably anxious about the rising number of American casualties in Iraq, where our postwar occupation policies at times seem aimless and uncertain.

All of this is well known and frequently commented upon. One group where the president is thought to enjoy rock-solid support is among his conservative base. Yet even here, there are signs of trouble brewing.

Polls show that the president's approval ratings, still respectably high among the public at large, are quite simply stratospheric among self-described Republicans. Such staples of conservative opinion as talk radio, FreeRepublic.com and the major non-paleo right-of-center periodicals buzz with an enthusiasm for Bush unmatched in conservative circles since the heady days of Ronald Reagan. Talking with people I am acquainted with who belong to quintessential Republican constituent groups - military servicemen, white-collar male professionals, born-again Christians - I find the president to still be held in high regard.

Yet there are signs of trouble in paradise. First there is the anecdotal evidence. When I wrote critically about candidate Bush during the 2000 election, my inbox would flood with missives chiding me for being unfair in my characterizations of his conservative credentials and unrealistic in my political expectations. Just as frequently, there would be impassioned defenses of the man and his policies. In fact, one column where I was particularly hard on Bush elicited the most hostile response I have ever gotten from a conservative reader, who actually sent me an e-mail challenging me to a fight.

Nowadays, my generally milder criticisms of Bush don't seem to provoke much of a backlash and often invite agreement. More surprisingly, when I write favorably about some Bush policy - such as his tax cuts or his support for incremental abortion restrictions - I often get e-mails suggesting that I should be criticizing him for not going far enough. The only time readers were still leaping to Bush's defense would be when I'd express misgivings about the Iraq war, something I generally refrained from after the shooting started. (I wonder if even this would still be the case now.)

Less anecdotally, professional conservatives, the very people who have generally been most reluctant to criticize the Bush administration, are beginning to gripe about some of the president's policies. Conservative think tanks are openly opposing the administration's passivity on health care, for example. Perhaps more representative of grassroots sentiment is some of the grumbling now being heard on the predominantly conservative blogosphere.

Eugene Volokh's co-blogger Phillipe de Croy has called for a Republican primary challenge to President Bush. Paul Cella, blogging on the topic of the impending prescription drug benefit disaster, wrote "This must be why I voted for a 'conservative' presidential candidate: so I can reap the glorious benefits of socialized medicine, and an expansion in the size of the federal government unlike anything since Lyndon Baines Johnson." He notes that Bush faces a lack of pressure from the organized right, which has seemed content to function as "a set of court intellectuals for a ruling party," "the handmaidens of servitude," and "the functionaries of the Servile State." Steve Sailer has been all over Bush's response to the Supreme Court's awful affirmative action ruling in the University of Michigan case. Bush can forget about libertarian bloggers; even many who normally vote Republican are so fed up with his lack of interest in limited government that they are musing about voting for the unspeakable Howard Dean.

Why this outpouring of criticism of the man many conservatives breathlessly predict will usher in an enduring national Republican majority? As a sequel to dropping serious conservative education reform in favor of giving Ted Kennedy the big-government education bill he wanted, Bush is dropping serious conservative Medicare reform in favor of giving Kennedy the big-government Medicare bill he wants. (The latter promising to be a massive boondoggle that will impose staggering costs on future generations to come.) To follow up on his decision to cave on the free speech-strangling McCain-Feingold campaign finance travesty, he is caving on Second Amendment rights by backing a renewal of the assault weapons ban. He has apparently decided that as long as the Sandra Day O'Connor pays lip service to color-blindness 25 years from now, ruling in favor of a more surreptitious regime of racial preferences is A-OK. He's willing to spend federal money on constitutionally dubious "marriage promotion" initiatives but has yet to take any proactive steps to curb the growing judicial threat to traditional marriage.

Then of course there is the steel and lumber tariffs, the PATRIOT Act, the decision to sign ridiculously bloated farm and transportation bills and the refusal to veto wasteful federal spending. Rather than address porous borders and an immigration policy that lends itself more to balkanization than Americanization, the administration treats us to Karl Rove's schemes for illegal alien amnesties. The list goes on.

Yes, every single Democrat vying to replace Bush is far worse. No, I'm not saying we necessarily need to find a Pat Buchanan II to draw first blood against President Bush II. Bush's record is not without accomplishment and, in fact, he has been considerably exceeded my dismally low expectations of him from the 2000 campaign. I voted for him even then and unless there emerges some evidence that even his more hysterical critics are right, I will do so again. It is not my intention to be one of those right-wingers who would rather criticize Bush than the left.

But I do confess to a certain irritation with conservatives who don't seem to think anything is more important than having a president or other elected official with an "R" next to their name when they appear on C-SPAN. The problem isn't really Bush. It is that conservatives don't really expect anything of Republican leaders. Enough liberals were willing to risk losing the presidency in 2000 to rebuke the New Democrats by voting for Ralph Nader over Al Gore. Many are willing to risk losing it again for a principled Democratic presidential candidate in 2004.

What will conservatives be willing to risk in order to contain the growth of government, to preserve the traditional understanding of marriage, to uphold the American national identity? It often looks like not much, but there are some signs this might be changing.

President Bush still has ample time to right some of these wrongs and secure his base for the 2004 elections. Conservatives still have time to exert pressure on a president they have some influence on to further their values. If the latter does not occur, we should not blame the president. We only get the leaders we deserve.

[stevio]

With all the leftist crap he's been pedalling, if he keeps pushing that Assault Weapon Ban I'm actively supporting either Libertarian or the Conservative Parties.

[Support Free Republic]

Chrysler Corporation was to add a new car to it's line to honor Bill Clinton. The Dodge Drafter was to begin production in Canada this year, but the car had to be pulled out of production when initial tests showed that the little white lines on the road kept disappearing all the time.

Free Republic

Your donations keep us laughing at liberals

[gcruse]

We only get the leaders we deserve.

The small tenters (I call' em sno-cones, their tent is that small,
you know," 'sno pro-choice, 'sno gays, 'sno freethinkers welcome here!")
are the biggest danger to Bush.  The tent may stay too small
to include the President himself.  Bush's conservative credentials
are looking to be more hat than cattle to the true believers who
get itchy watching federal government bloat while the administration
takes no position on homosexual issues before the courts.
Oh, well, they've always got Ashcroft.

[Ahban]

How about the Constitution Party? http://www.constitutionparty.com

[Lexington Green]

He's lost me... 3rd party next election.

[Kay Soze]

Bush will be a one termer.

He is a RINO.

I will vote Democrat before I vote for Bush again.

All I have to show for my BUSH vote is a much much larger government, ZERO conservative judicial appointments, trashed economy.

We must send a strong message in hopes of getting a strong Republican party back.

His loss will in the long term be a conservative gain.

[steve50]

He's lost me... 3rd party next election.

I would have went 3rd party last election, my vote was more against gore than in favor of Bush. CFR was enough for me, I'm done with the Bush type "conservative".

[bushfamfan]

Sure he wants to spend all the money on liberal programs, but what with the military? They'd better not betray military pay and benefits.

[gcruse]

He is a RINO.

To be precise, he is a CINO.  Asa Republican,
he has brought his party into the executive branch,
which is all you can ask of a Republican politician.
The difference is that conservatism is unwavering principles that
are used to generate policies.  Republicanism
is a political strategy formulated in the pursuit
of the levers of power and doing whatever
is necessary to stay there.

A CINO governs with unconservative principles.
A RINO is sort of oxymoronic if he is on office.

[ApesForEvolution]

"Eugene Volokh's co-blogger Phillipe de Croy has called for a Republican primary challenge to President Bush. Paul Cella, blogging on the topic of the impending prescription drug benefit disaster, wrote "This must be why I voted for a 'conservative' presidential candidate: so I can reap the glorious benefits of socialized medicine, and an expansion in the size of the federal government unlike anything since Lyndon Baines Johnson." He notes that Bush faces a lack of pressure from the organized right, which has seemed content to function as "a set of court intellectuals for a ruling party," "the handmaidens of servitude," and "the functionaries of the Servile State." Steve Sailer has been all over Bush's response to the Supreme Court's awful affirmative action ruling in the University of Michigan case. Bush can forget about libertarian bloggers; even many who normally vote Republican are so fed up with his lack of interest in limited government that they are musing about voting for the unspeakable Howard Dean."

Worth repeating.

[ApesForEvolution]

Did I write this?

"But I do confess to a certain irritation with conservatives who don't seem to think anything is more important than having a president or other elected official with an "R" next to their name when they appear on C-SPAN. The problem isn't really Bush. It is that conservatives don't really expect anything of Republican leaders. Enough liberals were willing to risk losing the presidency in 2000 to rebuke the New Democrats by voting for Ralph Nader over Al Gore. Many are willing to risk losing it again for a principled Democratic presidential candidate in 2004. What will conservatives be willing to risk in order to contain the growth of government, to preserve the traditional understanding of marriage, to uphold the American national identity? It often looks like not much, but there are some signs this might be changing.

President Bush still has ample time to right some of these wrongs and secure his base for the 2004 elections. Conservatives still have time to exert pressure on a president they have some influence on to further their values. If the latter does not occur, we should not blame the president. We only get the leaders we deserve."

[cardinal4]

He's lost me... 3rd party next election.

So it doesnt bother you that your stance could pave the way for Hillary to get in?

[ApesForEvolution]

"I will vote Democrat before I vote for Bush again."

No you won't. Which RAT would you possibly vote for?

[ApesForEvolution]

"We must send a strong message in hopes of getting a strong Republican party back."

A strong Republican Party (in terms of being strong enough to actually do any good for America) must be dominated by Constitutional, conservative thought and persuasion.

A strong Republican Party (in terms of Bush's 'compassionate conservativism') waters down the Constitution, spends like a drunken RAT to buy votes, swerves into the socialist vacuum created when RATS adopt communist policy openly - and pretty much has nothing to do with conservatism.

[cardinal4]

People, I have reprimanded for being forceful on this issue, but we are treading in dangerous waters here. Threatening third party votes or for dems because of some of the liberal stances Bush has taken is a recipe for disaster. Again; I dont like porous borders, AWB, etc. But I dont want it on my conscience that my selfishness and petulance paved the way for Hillary to get elected. This what happened in 92. It is my firm belief, that the military and intelligence services will suffer horribly under Kerry or Hillary. It is also my firm belief that liberals like the Clintons, left the door wide open for 9/11. Please think long and hard about your desicion to vote for Hillary, Kerry, and third party. Can you imagine algore at the helm on 9/11?

[ApesForEvolution]

"We must send a strong message in hopes of getting an strong effective Republican party back."

Or else endorsing this left-leaning 'compassionate conservativism' will drop the anchor of the GOP (and America) smack dab in the socialist camp.

[Kay Soze]

Sorry that sorry argument WILL NOT work for me.

I tell you what even if Hillary's way is pathed with her husband as VP and AL GORE as head of the cabinent - I will still not ever ever ever vote for Bush again!

I am a conservative first.

All Bush has done is what even Hillary could not accomplish: Make the government much much bigger and socialize health care.

[Lexington Green]

So it doesnt bother you that your stance could pave the way for Hillary to get in?

No. Neither major party supports the Constitution. Who you gonna vote for ? Hitler or Stalin?

[AD from SpringBay]

Coming soon to an SAT near you:

Blacks are to the Democratic Party as Conservative Christians are to:

A) Church
B) Bake Sales
C) The Republican Party
D) Synagogue