Posted on 07/27/2002 5:04:16 AM PDT by nofriendofbills
IT'S ABOUT THE REPUBLIC NOT THE REPUBLICAN
By: Glenn R. Jackson
If you are conservative in your political and societal leanings there seems for you to be a new game in town. This new sport has one sole purpose, defend the Republican President George Bush. Like a good offensive line in a game of football conservatives rally around THEIR President to defend him against the other team, the Democrats and the liberal media. Yet most surprising of all, the Bush apologists also spend considerable time defending against their own mounting doubts about THEIR guy, President George Bush.
Unfortunately in adopting this football game mentality most conservatives have forgotten their one foundational principle. When it comes to this nation it is NOT about the victory of Republicans over the opposing team of Democrats, but about the victory of the people, the citizens of the United States, over governments invasive nature.
For conservatives it is never about big government over even bigger government, or even about small government over gigantic government. The fight is always to keep central government in its place. The people are the rulers and the government is the servant. It is that simple.
Realize this, the Republicans are part of the government, and as with the other half of that governmental equation, the Democrats, they should be approached cautiously. The object then of conservative participation is not to protect one half of the governmental equation, but to protect We the People.
With that understanding, perhaps it is the perception of President Bush as a fellow conservative and philosophical soul mate that stirs many Bush apologists to his defense. After all George Will has written that President George W. Bush is the greatest conservative President since Ronald Reagan. And as much concern as that should give to conservatives about the Republican Party itself, why is that perception accepted as reality?
A reality check gives a very different picture. A picture of a President without a philosophical center, and one who engages in set piece political thinking planned far in advance of real events, with political considerations the only goals. It is time for the Bush apologists to recognize their mistake and to stop making self-defeating arguments in the President's defense.
Instead, many conservatives continue to strain mightily to explain clearly liberal tendencies from the President as something else. Whatever is going on for President Bush, he is really one of us right?
Argument One: The President is either hamstrung by lack of control of the Senate and/or is exerting a masterful strategy to regain control of both Houses of Congress AND then will enact a conservative agenda.
This argument is usually offered in defense of the President breaking a campaign promise (Campaign Finance Reform), or advancing the liberal agenda (Education Bill). The necessity of using this strategy is blamed on the President's powerlessness in the face of the loss of the Republican's slim Senate majority because of the defection of the RINO Jeffords, or as a way to disarm the Democrats and the media. Now there is a LOT that is laughable in this argument, yet it is seriously offered by many conservatives.
The major flaw with this argument is the illogic of the President playing best friends with Senator Ted Kennedy in order to disarm liberals or initial some masterful strategy to offset the Jeffords defection. How much would it have taken for the President to try the same with Jeffords earlier and to prevent the defection in the first place? Clearly the Jeffords defection was a bungling of that RINOs ego. Yet just as surely there is no masterful strategy in running off a RINO so you can be best friends with Ted Kennedy in order to win back the RINO Senate you just lost by running off the RINO OK enough.
The President and his people caused their problem in the Senate. The President and his people badly bungled the political end game in the Senate. So to claim now a master strategy just rings hollow, and brings into serious doubt any solution that courts liberal issues to win the RINO vote in November. The simple answer to the Bush apologists is the right answer. This President has no conservative center and is unable to initiate a conservative agenda.
Argument Two: The President is doing a masterful job of running the Terror War. Who would you rather have in the White House Al Gore or George Bush?
The answer is who cares. This argument seems to have its basis in the likeability of Bush over the tree stump Gore. Granted! Nevertheless the Bush apologists need to think like conservatives. Would a conservative initiate TIPS, a new massive Homeland Security bureaucracy, continue the massive influx of Muslim immigrants, maintain wide-open borders, and propose new police powers for the military while resisting the use of the military on U.S. borders?
Other than bombing the Taliban out of power, a job the U.S. military is well trained and able to do, how has the President ensured the safety of U.S. citizens? The war has been sidetracked successfully by our Arab friends into the Palestinian question and the Bush families need to repay the Iraqi black eye. The only progress in the Terror War is the home front war against U.S. citizens. You dont believe that?
Citizens of the United States are searched randomly at U.S. airports and the borders are unsecured. Airline pilots are searched by low paid federal McSecurity workers and not allowed to secure their airplane by flying armed. Islam, the "religion of peace," and their mosques are protected by the Political Correctness Police while the meter reader is being recruited to spy on your home. Stationing troops on the U.S. borders is resisted for historical reasons while military policing of the U.S. civilian population is seen as a good idea.
All of this and more demonstrate at best a President detached from serious conservative positions, and without a conservatives grasp on the Executive branch of government. At worst, well he might just believe this stuff. In either event a conservative defense of this President is as wrong headed, as it is dangerous.
Conservatives must defend the Republic, for no one else will. Conservatives must uphold the Constitution because it is clearly under assault. Conservatives must push back against both political Parties, because big government elitism is rampant in both their houses. Conservatives must take on media bias directly and with vigor for the Republic, not the Republican.
The Presidents Clueless Conservatism is nothing to be an apologist for.
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn R. Jackson is Chairman of the American Reformation Project, former State Chairman for Buchanan Reform and former state Chairman of the Georgia Freedom Party. Glenn also served on the Executive Committee of the Reform Party USA. He is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.
Glenn R. Jackson can be reached at: grjackson@mindspring.com
Published in the August 1, 2002 issue of Ether Zone. Copyright © 1997 - 2002 Ether Zone.
Well...mostly intact...I still go into a cold sweat when I hear the words "Sierra Club".
--KL
I think Pat's window has passed (I wouldn't jump onboard a Buchanan bandwagon, though...see anti-tarriff comments above)...now Alan, he's a fire 'em up speaker, but in terms of name recognition...to the general public it's "Alan WHO?" Plus, I don't know if he quite has the calm composure I'd look for in a prez. :-) He's still one heckuva fire-'em-up speaker, though.
I've been saying that for months here, and I'm still healing from my wounds. ;-)
Ah well, the truth often hurts. And it often hurts the one who tells it even more. :p I do hate to say it...but I like my candidates to come in the "electable" flavor. *duck*
--Kip
that became very clear. fact is, bush IS doing an outstanding job on the war on terror. he is hamstrung by the fact that americans do not want to see their own die. every single death of a us service man in afghanistan was sensationalized by our press. somehow every death was blamed on the united states.
it is clear that bush is trying to get surrogates to fight this war. as long as the surrogates have congruent goals to ours, that is great. let them put their lives on the lines for their own liberty -- with our help of course. besides afghanistan, we have been especially successful in indonesia.
i would like to see us be more aggressive in iraq, but i also realize that we in the united states will pull the plug on the war if we have too many casualties or if the price of oil goes too high. unlike buchanan, bush has this talent of carefully navigating a bull in a china shop.
domestically, bush got a 1.3 trillion tax cut through congress. we just need to accelerate it -- it's coming.
buchanan is an isolationist. the last 3 depressions had their roots in isolationist policies. too bad because i think he is strong on social issues and personal freedom. but carville does have it right, "it's the economy stupid" and pat would lose woefully on that.
"Popularity in the realm of fools is impotence in the realm of values."
L. Peikoff
It is good to see that they missed you and you still are thinking independantly - sorry to have doubted you....
It was saddening, several times, during the debates, we went to support outside the places, and the Rowland supporters told us we were splitting the vote. We explained how Rowland was a liar who could not be trusted,
Don't move to Maryland - there's only one party in this state and it's infested with Socialists.
Your experiences should be a thread all it's own, putting Conservatives on notice what will happen nationally (hell, it already is) if we keep giving individuals a pass just because they have an "R" after their names...
You're right that the Pubbie Party isn't conservative anymore, but I bristle every time I hear the words "neoconservative" and "paleoconservative". Let's call the way it is...either someone is conservative or they're not conservative. The more modifiers we attach to the word only serves to dilute it's true meaning.
That said, the Pubbies are no longer conservatives, they are political opportunists, licking a finger and sticking it in the air to see which way the wind is blowing on each and every issue that comes their way, afraid of the press and their own shadows, no longer willing to take a stand and do what's right for fear of losing votes or not getting invited to the next cocktail party. Perhaps this is what folks mean when they say "neoconservative", but cretins with no spine or sense of right and wrong shouldn't be rewarded by attaching any form of the word "conservative" to them.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Perhaps a more dynamic and imaginative leader could create the conditions for a more conservative agenda. I doubt it would make very much difference just now, but Bush isn't that leader. He's not without talents, but they are more those of a national, rather than a party or factional, leader. In this, he's more in the mold of his father or Eisenhower or Washington, than of Reagan or the Roosevelts, who were as skilled at partisan and ideological command, as at national leadership.
The issues that make the press? Don't you mean, the issues the press decides should make the press? The mainstream media is always going to run stories that benefit their liberal agenda.
The issues that conservatives win on are (mostly) the very same issues that Bush won the election on (and, again, I'm counting Bush as a conservative -- although *not* the weaklings in Congress). Tax cuts, limited but effective government, personal accountability, increased military spending, school vouchers, a ban on partial-birth abortion...those are conservative issues. And they still resonate with most of the country. The danger is when the moderates/RINOs start tapdancing around with social security, or education spending, or ANYTHING that has to do with spending -- liberals will always be willing to outspend conservatives. As for immigration issues, even within the conservatives, there's a great deal of disagreement on it. Isolationism and conservatism do NOT go hand in hand (for instance, I'm livid over the steel tariffs).
That being said, I will readily admit that Bush doesn't have the bully-pulpit oratory power that Reagan had; however, he's far more conservative than his father ever was (good god, we lost so many damn seats -- *overnight* -- when he broke his "no new taxes" pledge -- it ain't even funny). Bush is more of a Truman or maybe even a Coolidge; not particularly fond or great at over-arching oratory but a very effective "manager" of power. All I care about with Bush is that he gets the majority of the issues I care about as a conservative taken care of -- which he has. Tax cuts -- done. Increased military spending -- done. Partial birth abortion ban -- on the way.
And let's not forget the single most important reason to have a conservative president -- appointments to the courts. Now, don't get me wrong, we've had some real f'ing idiots put on the courts by Republicans -- David Sou...I can't even say his name :p -- but, on the par, Bush's nominees are conservative. Which is why it drives me absolutely bats**t when a basically liberal RINO like McLame comes along and sides with the Dems on blocking his nominees. We've got to get those nominees appointed.
Okay, this thing is rambling all over the place, but er, you get some of my points. I don't think conservatism is dead. I think it's feared by the Republicans in Congress as again, being too "dangerous" to pursue -- but then again, even if they lost control of the congress, it was a conservative who gave them that control in the first place -- Newt.
--KL
Well, unfortunately, the conservative answer to that is -- let it die. You know the Adam Smith line -- or at least, you should. The fact that these companies are moving overseas is basic free-market economics -- it's *cheaper* for them over there. The cheaper labor translates into cheaper goods for the consumer. Cheaper goods for the consumer mean more money to spend on other sectors of the economy, which the displaced workforce eventually rotates into.
Buchananism ain't conservatism. It's populist isolationism.
--KL
Bump!
The alternative would seem to be gridlock playing into Dashole's hand? No compromise, and hence shutdown the government. Not likely a good way to win in 2002.
Any President who could acheive gridlock in congress and shut down that particular branch of government would get my vote. Congress does it's best work when it does nothing at all
Nope, sorry. He would have to convert to conservatism before he could ever hope to become the most popular or powerful conservative in the country. Liberals aren't popular conservatives, Ned. I urge you to seek professional help before you snap and kill us all.
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.