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

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.?

I agree with having intelligence agents in the Middle East and in punishing terrorists. And I want very much to believe that there is good reason to have sent the US military there, but I remain unconvinced.

I am not so egotistical as to think I can convince you, or even to be sure that I am right. However, it is appropriate to continue to question and debate the worthiness of the use of our Armed Forces.

It is not sufficient to try to contain terrorist networks. We must stop state sponsorship. The card we have to play is military force, so where should we start? Saudi Arabia is better to be changed by diplomatic means. Iraq was the best candidate. We had ample justification (broken treaties) to use military force to bring on a regime change there.

Looking at Iraq in isolation without considering a deterrence factor, I agree the mandate to invade it does not seem that overwhelming. If we had done nothing, there is a low probability that in any given year Saddam would have sponsored a 9/11-type attack. But chances are fairly good that somewhen over a span of ten years, the configuration of the terrorist networks would have presented him a fatal opportunity. OK.

But our flattening of Iraq is a huge deterrent to other states that would sponsor terrorism. And then there is the possibility that liberty and the open society really will begin to take hold in the Middle East, further decreasing opportunities for terrorists to flourish.

If all that works, it will have been worth the use of our armed forces, because the cost of a series of successful attacks on the US is unfathomable.

You've basically been telling us on this thread is that the reason Bush has been moving us in such a socialistic direction is entirely the prior influence of Clinton's presidency upon the American political culture. That explanation might make sense if today's big-government push has merely been a shadow of its former self. But it's been pointed out that government expansion has accelerated under the present administration, far above and beyond what could conceivably be needed for the War on Terror.

The truth that you apparently don't want to face is that RINO's are far more dangerous to our liberties than Democrats, precisely because they don't excite the same level of opposition as Democrats.

Your points about Perot are irrelevant, because there's little evidence that he drew more votes away from the Republican candidate than from Clinton. Voting for recognizable conservatives, on the other hand, even if they have no chance of winning, serves a number of purposes:

-It opens up the public debate to real alternatives to socialism, thus answering one of your main objections on this thread.
-If it results in a Democrat winning, it makes it clear to him that he does not have a mandate for more socialism, but rather it keeps him well-contained, far better than Bush is being contained right now.
-And the threat of voting for the conservative deters the Republican candidate from abandoning his base.

You've basically been telling us on this thread is that the reason Bush has been moving us in such a socialistic direction is entirely...

No. I said "in part" and we will likely see more if it in the future.

But it's been pointed out that government expansion has accelerated under the present administration, far above and beyond what could conceivably be needed for the War on Terror.

Again, time will tell if the merging of the 20+ agencies results in fewer personnel and more efficiency. If it works, more agencies can be merged. Again, the new agency weakens the influence of unions and the Dems strongly opposed it. A Dem President/Congress would have left all those agencies in place and added a few more, besides.

The truth that you apparently don't want to face is that RINO's are far more dangerous to our liberties than Democrats, precisely because they don't excite the same level of opposition as Democrats.

Open your eyes. If RINOs are being elected over Conservatives, then the Conservatives are doing something wrong in winning over the voters, apparently.

Your points about Perot are irrelevant, because there's little evidence that he drew more votes away from the Republican candidate than from Clinton.

Wrong. The electorate is closely divided and without the Perot factor Bush would likely have been reelected and the Clintons sent back to Arkansas.

Voting for recognizable conservatives, on the other hand,...

You seem to miss part of my point. Elected Conservatives are part of the solution. Conversative voters are part of the problem. They abandoned Bush and enabled the Clintons and are threatening to do it again with their do-it-my-way-or-I'll-destroy-the-country mentality. They can't be relied on to keep the Liberals out of power, as we have seen.

"Well, there you go again..." Keep apologizing.

Bad, unimpressive start and it goes downhill from there.

I stand behind my statements that POPULAR Presidents tend to enjoy better press and a Congress less likely to take them on.

So what? You're just APOLOGIZING for the Congress. Nice going.

I must be doing something right.

No, and your post belies that. You said you're doing something right and you said you did something wrong in '92, '96, and 2000. You got it exactly backwards, as you would see if you were thinking straight instead of like an ideolog purist.

To paraphrase from the Book of James.

James isn't going to back you up on this one.

Are these as the article claims the foreign policy of Conservatives?

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.?

I think the foreign policy goals are.

Protect American sovereignty. (Work with the UN when it helps and marginalize it when it doesn't, but avoid all treaties that undermine our sovereignty)
Eliminate and undermine threats especially in a world of nuclear and WMD.
Avoid peacekeeping operations where we ignore and aren't willing to eliminate the cause or source of violence.
Be ware of starting foreign project but finish the job when you do.

[You've basically been telling us on this thread is that the reason Bush has been moving us in such a socialistic direction is entirely...]

No. I said "in part" and we will likely see more if it in the future.

So it's in part because of the influence of the previous administration. What's the rest of the reason? Could it be because this administration is inherently socialist-minded?

Efficiency and union-busting are all well and good, but the problems they address are by far not the biggest internal threat to freedom. That threat comes from socialism - the attitude that government is responsible for solving every conceivable problem that might affect people. It is that that has been expanding by leaps and bounds under the present administration.

If RINOs are being elected over Conservatives, then the Conservatives are doing something wrong in winning over the voters, apparently.

There's something circular about your logic. You (and many others) say that we shouldn't vote for 3rd parties because it might prevent the Republicans from winning, then use the fact that people take that advice as evidence that they don't like 3rd parties.

My point is that by voting for conservative (as in, not Ross Perot) candidates, though they may be 3rd-party, then we stand a much greater chance of getting the conservative message out to the public in the face of a hostile press.

They abandoned Bush and enabled the Clintons and are threatening to do it again with their do-it-my-way-or-I'll-destroy-the-country mentality. They can't be relied on to keep the Liberals out of power, as we have seen.

I never tried to argue that they could keep liberals out of power after a single election. I said that they can keep liberalism (regardless of the label of who's promoting it) in check far more effectively than by simply voting Republican. I agree with you that those conservatives who voted for Perot (however many of them there were) made a mistake. Instead, they should have voted for an unmistakably conservative candidate, and then even if Clinton won, conservatism would have won the day, in the exact same way that liberalism is winning the day now even though we have a Republican in the White House.

[You've basically been telling us on this thread is that the reason Bush has been moving us in such a socialistic direction is entirely...]

YOU, not me, have been saying that Bush has been moving in a socialistic direction. I have been relating the socialistic trend to how the electorate are voting and the influence of the Clinton victories on that process and on the legislative process. I also stated that disgruntled Conservatives played a part in those Clinton Victories.

Could it be because this administration is inherently socialist-minded?

No.

That threat comes from socialism - the attitude that government is responsible for solving every conceivable problem that might affect people. It is that that has been expanding by leaps and bounds under the present administration.

If both parties support socialism, then we will become a Socialistic Nation. However, recent GOP victories have put the Democrats out of power in DC, but they are not powerless by a long shot. They still have the filibuster, they control academia, unions, voting mechanisms in many states, the welfare bureaucracy nationwide, etc, etc. There may be more to be undone than there is to be done. It will take decades.

There's something circular about your logic.

It's a simple statement of fact. Forget about Third Parties, sending messages, the hostile press... If Third Parties were going anywhere, they wouldn't still be irrelevant. Three parties fighting each other (gridlock, etc) would further drive people away from keeping informed about the political process. For that reason, I'm suspicious about anyone who advocates Third Parties.

We seem to agree on the mistakes that Conservative voters made. Socialism is a constant in the Democrtat Party. That's what you get when they are in control. It's still the case with the GOP that you can get a Conservative, Moderate, or Liberal politicians elected. I still see the GOP as the alternative to the Liberal/Socialist Democrats.

George Will was part of the so smart DC set who knew better than Reagan and weren't shy of pointing out his failures or how he let down HIS base, blah blah...Will and others of his ilk take themselves much too seriously while others charged with actually carrying out policy and making things work must do the hard lifting that writers, think tankers and media whores could never manage.

If the third party disaffected could actually stomach to build a party from the grassroots, rather than expect a fruitloop like PJB or Browne/Philipps to take the WH in a winner take all, burn bridges apprach, then they could see how unpopular almost all their prescriptions are with 99% of the electorate.But why build a party when bitching about shoulda/coulda/woulda is much more satisying?

I am glad Will has stepped up the plate and added his heft to this matter.It won't make any difference but it sure is nice that even someone as erudite as him gets bogged down in the dog days of summer.He also fails to remember his own terrible prognostications.

The decision when preemptive force crosses into being necessary is usually a judgement call (clear-cut cases like the 6 Days War and Cuban Missile Crisis not withstanding). I appreciate your thoughtful reply, and those of a couple of others so far.

Some of my ambivalence at how the Iraqi War and occupation have played out may be due to my knowing that so many of the regimes in the area are so bad, and yet it seems that so little HAD been done up until now, diplomatically, or otherwise, to change their totalitarian nature. I was told recently that the people in the middle east are so much better off with petrodollars flowing in for the last 40 years, but with all of it flowing through and strengthening these autocratic states, I have to question it. The rank and file may have better health care, Hillary-style, but less honest opportunity to innovate and compete. Even a 160 year old Granddady Saud, I think, could not have terrorized everybody into such regimentation and bureacracy as has been seen. Even Ceausescu and Castro had a pipeline to Moscow.

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."

Well, just for starters, it is well documented that they have given aid (money) to terrorists the world over, some of which more than likely ended up in helping to fund the attack on the USA. They have hidden terrorists, worked with the terrorists, and could very possible have given them WMD's as well as arms.

I could go on, but you get my drift. We must wipe out terrorists at every opportunity. I think the war in Iraq got the attention of these mad men the world over. We are already seeing a decrease in terrorism, and as we hunt out and kill them, one by one, the world will be a safer place.

Three parties fighting each other (gridlock, etc) would further drive people away from keeping informed about the political process.

This is what I'd have to disagree the most with.

First of all, the media were supportive of Nader because they knew he would have a distinct influence on the public debate (in the way that they wanted, of course), despite the fact that it helped elect Bush.

Secondly, I can tell just by hearing ordinary people around me that they were very turned off and kept as uninformed as ever by the Bush/Gore debates, because they really didn't talk about anything beyond whether to phase in prescription drug subsidies over three years or five - and simply traded silly barbs otherwise. Bringing in a third candidate will help cut through that inertia, as historically has been the case. Third parties throughout our history have brought forth challenges that the two main ones have taken up. It's a necessary vitalizing element to the political system that's been absent for too long.

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.