The GOP's New Deal: Big tent, big government, big mistake

The American Conservative ^ | July 28, 2003 | Timothy P. Carney

[zoyd]

"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.

These days, Reagan would probably be called a 'radical conservative'.

[billbears]

These days, Reagan would probably be called a 'radical conservative'.

I seriously doubt he would be called Republican in any case. If Ronald Reagan were to come up today, he would be put in the same system as Ron Paul by the Republicans. Very conversative, an ideologue, and unelectable

[zoyd]

That's what bothers me most about some current Dubya 'conservatives'. They have more in common with mainstream voters than anyone conservative, and somehow convince themselves that prescription drug handouts, massive Farm Bills, protectionist tariffs and general governmental largesse are somehow 'conservative' tenets. Some people who define themselves as conservatives, on this board, would have been labelled tax-and-spend Democrats 20 years ago. With the passage of time, we just inexorably trudge towards socialism, but call it 'being a Republican'.

[KC Burke]

You make a good point at 15 and compromise is spoken of as "The Art of the Possible" by Kirk and as "Prudence" the chief political virtue by Burke. Perhaps the jaggernaut of the federal involvement in healthcare "saftey nets" as settled by earlier compromise in Medicare mandates its extension into presriptions now.

Regretably, I guess a case can be made for that.

But how do you explain the No Child Left Behind layer of Federal intrusion into education? I know I can't.

My son, a teacher, is so disgusted with it he sees no practical difference in the parties except that this albatros makes the Republican both more hypocritical to their own principles and then to make matters worse, capable of foisting a more unworkable interference than we had before. I find myself at a loss to explain it away in his chief field of interest and vocation.

No, I felt that Bush was the most feasible winning primary candidate with some conservative blood in his veins, but like most elected funcionaries of either party, his vision is only four years ahead far too often for my taste.

I like his Presidential performance overall, but certain specifics let me know that he is still a functionary, not yet a Statesman.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Well, I think GW is going to win re-election, and despite the negative press, he is by far better than any Democrat running for the presidency.

[ModernDayCato]

Hey, thanks for the ping. Thought I was banned, but I was just suspended, so I'm not going to post for a while (haven't decided yet if I'm just going to leave).

[Major Matt Mason]

Fewer Burrs and DeMints means more Lincoln Chafees and Arlen Specters.

This is exactly what moderate Republicans want. They were perfectly happy to be in the minority for all those years, because they really didn't have to make any tough decisions. Instead, they let the conservatives be the attack dogs, while they simply nodded their heads in approval. Since Republicans have become the majority in Congress, however, the moderates have gradually been exerting more influence over the party's direction; there is no way they will support a true conservative agenda.

Conservatives are to the GOP what African-Americans are to the Democrats- a voting bloc that they absolutely need to win elections, but one that is almost totally ignored once those elections are won. Bush is just behaving the way all moderates (country-clubbers) do, so we shouldn't be surprised at this.

[The Old Hoosier]

I don't like Libertarian principles or ideology--no way I'm going to vote LP.

[The Old Hoosier]

We didn't get Reagan into office by voting third party. We did it by kicking and screaming until we got our way. And the GOP is much more conservative today than it was 25 years ago because of it. I'm not saying Bush has my vote sewn up, only that I'm still willing to vote for him.

[The Old Hoosier]

Remember the third debate against Gore, when he said very pointedly that the difference between the two of them was that he was the candidate of limited government?

[The Old Hoosier]

Bush has 4 more years in a second term to start pushing some real reforms

Do you think he'll really do that? I don't think it's out of the question, but how do you judge future results, except by past performance?

[rwfromkansas]

Certainly true, but remember how Clinton decided to issue all those pardons at the last minute because it was the end of his second term and no consequences could come of it politically?

I think Dubya may be waiting for bigger plans until we have a stronger majority.

Maybe not, in which case, he is a disappointment for blowing an incredible opportunity not open to the GOP in almost a century. And that would be very disappointing.

[The Old Hoosier]

And that would be very disappointing.

Indeed. But on top of that, Bush doesn't understand the purely political value of conservative principles. There's a considerable segment of the vote--especially in socially conservative states like Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota--that he can't and won't win by moving to the middle, but that he can gain if he really gets conservatives excited and involved.

[paulk]

Not only was Bush liked by Democrats in Texas - he has surrounded himself with Bob ("tax collector for the welfare state") Dole's advisors.

If you look at what he is doing, instead of listening to his words, it is clear he is a socialist.

[UCANSEE2]

That's OK. Sometimes it is better to be a lurker. You don't get too involved and have more time to see what idiots some people turn out to be.

I was pleased to have you as an 'opponent' on this issue. It has taught me to keep more of an 'eye' out for the actions of our President and his cabinet.

One never knows when the COTTON CANDY may just be covering up SEA URCHIN SPINES.

[ModernDayCato]

Rush spent a lot of time today talking about this very issue. Don't know if you had a chance to listen (spent a lot of time in the car today so I heard most of it).

[UCANSEE2]

I didn't get the chance to hear Rush's radio program.

I find it a wonder that any one person can deal with all the issues that the President must have to concern himself with , and that he can even get anything accomplished, when half of the government, and maybe over half of the population, and most of the media are against everything he does.

I always had concerns about the HOMELAND SECURITY issue, as it seemed another expansion of gov't. It always seemed to me that what we were told was needed was MORE LAWS, MORE COPS, MORE GOVT, and what we really needed was a JUSTICE SYSTEM that enforced the laws we already had.

The things President BUSH does that add to the MORE LAWS side, make me have the same concerns as you.