[Cincinatus]

"In the early years, there were no 'big government conservatives' around — at least no one who would admit to being that,"

A little retrospective re-writing of history here. All conservatives supported "Big Government" when we needed it to fight communism during the Cold War (as well they should have), including the sainted conservative icons Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Conservatives made a Faustian deal -- we needed Big Government to fight the commies, so they accepted that idea in principle. That was the camel's nose under the tent. The difference between liberals and conservatives then became to what ends should we apply this Big Government? Liberals wanted to attack social problems with it. The conservatives were then stuck with Great Society boondoggles.

[JohnEBoy]

But there is a fundamental difference. Establishing and maintaining a ready military IS called for in the constitution. Providing Social Security, social welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, prescription drugs, abortion on demand, etc., is NOT.

[nathanbedford]

One political reality, Mr. Viguerie says, is that the "conservatives in Congress today are not movement players. They are part of the Republican team assembled by President Bush and [Bush chief strategist] Karl Rove. No matter how much overlap there may be between the two agendas, their first allegiance is to the Republican Party rather than the conservative movement."

I am afraid there is more than a little truth in this observation. But I would add a caveat: Their first loyalty is personal not to party. That means that it is to miss the mark to accuse the Bush/Rove faction as being RINOs or moderates or even country club republicans. Their loyalty is to the extended Bush family and its hold is very strong. It is animated in the President's case not by political philosophy or ideology but by his Christian faith.

Normally, this brings him down on the conservative side of issues, but not always. That is why he will spend $15B in Africa in a hopeless campaign against aids. He sees himself as a good Samaritan. Rove may countenence this ill advesed undertaking for political reasons but Bush is free of hypocracy. He is a true believer. That's why he could sign on to Kennedy's education boondoggle. It is a matter of Christian compassion. Ditto health care.

After he makes a judgment of right or wrong as a Christian, he extends and expects loyalty. Too often this is loyalty to a person like Putin or Fox or even Kennedy rather than to a principle.

Finally, and derivatively, he is a conservative.

[Noachian]

If big government is against the conservative agenda, and Bush is a conservative, how does Bush's pushing of the Patriot Act, and other similiar acts, diminish big government?

Although we need extraordinary laws for extraordinary times laws that limit individual freedoms, while enlarging the role of government, are more of a Democratic/Liberal idea than a Conservative idea. Long after this war is over those laws will still be on the books, and will have consequences unforeseen by today's Congress.

How these laws will be used by a future Clinton-type president to expand his personal agenda and enlarge government is scary to think about, and the irony is that those laws will have been put in place by a conservative president.

[Princeliberty]

Rusher said the conservative movement has come
to totally dominant the Republican party.

More like the Republican party has come to dominant
the conservative movement. Hence why there
is no push to reduce government.

Or do anything good for that matter, just
elect Republicans.

[PGalt]

Good post. Interesting comments bump.