George F. Will:President Bush has turned conservatism on its head, infuriating many supporters

The Union Leader, Manchester, NH ^ | July 24, 2003 | George F. Will

[RJCogburn]

THIS IS THE is the summer of conservatives? discontent. Conservatism has been disoriented by events in the last several weeks. Cumulatively, foreign and domestic developments constitute an identity crisis of conservatism, which is being recast ? and perhaps rendered incoherent.

George W. Bush may be the most conservative person to serve as President since Calvin Coolidge. Yet his Presidency is coinciding with, and is in some instances initiating or ratifying, developments disconcerting to four factions within conservatism. The faction that focuses on foreign policy has four core principles: Preserve U.S. sovereignty and freedom of action by marginalizing the United Nations. Reserve military interventions for reasons of U.S. national security, not altruism. Avoid peacekeeping operations that compromise the military?s war-fighting proficiencies. Beware of the political hubris inherent in the intensely unconservative project of ?nation-building.?

[Ff--150]

his Presidency is coinciding with, and is in some instances initiating or ratifying, developments disconcerting to four factions within conservatism

Somehow don't think folks will be lining up to the old conspiracy theorists to say, "I guess you were right: There are really NOT two political parties in the United States; just Party A, and Party B!"

[4CJ]

It's purely political. If the 'pubbies give the Dims everything they want, then why would Dims flood the polls to out the 'pubbies?

The problem is, we believed them.

[Maceman]

A prescription drug entitlement is not inherently unconservative, unless the welfare state itself is — and it isn’t.

It isn't? News to me.

[RJCogburn]

Today a conservative administration is close to asserting that whatever the facts turn out to be regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the enforcement of U.N. resolutions was a sufficient reason for war. If so, war was waged to strengthen the United Nations as author and enforcer of international norms of behavior.

[RJCogburn]

The conservative faction that focuses on low taxes as the key to economic dynamism and individual opportunity has had two good years. But this faction must be unsettled by signs that the President’s refusal to veto last year’s abominable farm bill (in fact, he has vetoed nothing) was not an aberration. The tax cutting seems unrelated to any thoughtful notion of what the government should and should not do.

[RJCogburn]

The conservative faction that focuses on constitutionalism and democratic due process winced when the President seemed to approve of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s opinion affirming the constitutionality of racial preferences for diversity in higher education — and perhaps in many other spheres of life. The concept of group rights — of government complicity in allocating wealth and opportunity on the basis of skin pigmentation — now has a conservative President’s imprimatur.

[Ben Bolt]

Bump for later read .

[NittanyLion]

The tax cutting seems unrelated to any thoughtful notion of what the government should and should not do.

Agreed. The corollary to tax cutting is reduced spending, and initially I assumed that the President would be pushing that issue by now. It's become clear he's not interested in reducing the scope/cost of government, and I suspect he won't become interested anytime soon.

[Ff--150]

It's purely political. If the 'pubbies give the Dims everything they want, then why would Dims flood the polls to out the 'pubbies?

Yeah, W is not getting treated the way Reagan was, hmmm...

[ArneFufkin]

I ... rang ... doorbells ... and ... baked ... cookies ... for ... Bush ... but ... he's ... lost ... my ... vote ... just ... like ... his ... daddy ... Demopubs ... Republicrats ... RINOs ... Rove ... Necons ... one true patriot me ....one real conservative me ... one principled Constitutionalist me ... one sit on my fat arse and do nothing but bitch on an internet forum me ...

[ActionNewsBill]

I ... rang ... doorbells ... and ... baked ... cookies ... for ... Bush ... but ... he's ... lost ... my ... vote ... just ... like ... his ... daddy ...

Why do you believe that anyone is "owed" our vote?

[Miss Marple]

Apparently, there are a lot of people who think the mark of a true conservative is talking really mean about folks they don't agree with.

Could the President change Justice O'Connor's opinion? No.

But if he had only said some insulting things about her, then everything would be ok.

[rmmcdaniell]

Could the President change Justice O'Connor's opinion? No.

But if he had only said some insulting things about her, then everything would be ok.

Well lets see... He could have civily condemned the opinion for the injustice that it is.

Are you an enabler Miss Marple?? When someone does something wrong do you just say "Well golly shucks, I can't change what you did so I guess I'll give you my support." The president didn't have to do anything; a simple "no comment" would have been far superior to I AGREE WITH THE SUPREME COURT'S OPINION!!

[BlueLu]

The part of this article, criticizing Bush's (unconservative) action in Iraq, is much more the way I have conceived of the situation. Help me to see why the majority of FReepers seem to feel otherwise.

I am in favor of defending America and peacable Americans, and have said before that Saddam and many other rulers should be thrown out. I would probably even give money to such a cause. But I cannot justify ordering the US military to do it. So help me see the evidence that Saddam's regime was a direct or imminent threat to Americans at home. That attacks on Americans will be reduced, instead of increased, by more meddling in this foreign culture. And that we know who "they" are, when we say that "they are out to get us."

[Teacher317]

So exactly how could "George W. Bush ... be the most conservative person to serve as President since Calvin Coolidge" with that track record?

[Teacher317]

Apparently, there are a lot of people who think the mark of a true conservative is talking really mean about folks they don't agree with. Could the President change Justice O'Connor's opinion? No. But if he had only said some insulting things about her, then everything would be ok.

There's a difference between stating opposition to a misguided Constitutional and/or political stance and saying mean things. Who exactly asked for GWB to malign her personally?

[Cacophonous]

The faction that focuses on foreign policy has four core principles: Preserve U.S. sovereignty and freedom of action by marginalizing the United Nations. Reserve military interventions for reasons of U.S. national security, not altruism. Avoid peacekeeping operations that compromise the military's war-fighting proficiencies. Beware of the political hubris inherent in the intensely unconservative project of "nation-building."

Today a conservative administration is close to asserting that whatever the facts turn out to be regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the enforcement of U.N. resolutions was a sufficient reason for war. If so, war was waged to strengthen the United Nations as author and enforcer of international norms of behavior. The administration also intimates that ending a tyranny was a sufficient justification for war. Foreign policy conservatism has become colored by triumphalism and crusading zeal. That may be one reason why consideration is being given to a quite optional intervention -- regime change, actually -- in Liberia...

This really spells out well my reluctance to support the actions in the Middle East; I subscribe to all of the principles in the first paragraph.

[Consort]

Why do you believe that anyone is "owed" our vote?

Because you owe it to the country to keep the Socialists out of power. Don't make it too complicated. And, yes, you always vote for the lesser of two or more evils...common sense. And, no, the parties are not the same...not by a long shot.

[ActionNewsBill]

And, yes, you always vote for the lesser of two or more evils...

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

And, no, the parties are not the same...not by a long shot.

Not from where I'm sitting. No difference at all.