It's About The Republic, Not The Republican

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 government’s 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 RINO’s 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 don’t 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.

"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.

Hey, man! Be quiet! Don't you know that you will be mercilessly drawn and quartered for pointing out the obvious fact that neither Keyes nor Buchanan has a viable shot at winning?

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

the article is an attack on bush from a buchananite perspective

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.

"buchanan is an isolationist."

Buchanan is much more than 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."

Pat has ALREADY lost woefully on that. I might agree pretty much with some of his social policies (I might agree with all of them, I'm just not sure I've heard them all.), his immigration policies, and his policy on sealing the borders. I find his economic policies, particularly "fair trade" (which I think is only a small step removed from socialism) are sufficient to disqualify him. His foreign policy his even more disqualifying.

For years, I was a GOP robot, not because I really believed them, but because the weren't the DemocRAT party. When in 1994, I campaigned for a genuine conservative in Connecticut for governor, Tom Scott, I learned some things. We elected a RINO governor, John Rowland, a former congressman who voted for the first Brady Bill and is pro-Abortion instead.

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, and sure enough, he has done nothing to stimulate growth in the state. Our unemployment rate is only 3% for a state average, but in my area it is 5%.

Manufacturing in this state is also dying. We were one of the central hubs for aviation, both for defense and civil, but with the overseas development in China and Indonesia, Pratt & Whitney, General Electric and Rolls Royce all moved overseas to go for the cheap labor. That means Pratt went from 65,000 employed in the state in the 70's, to 5000 now. Hamilton Standard went from 15,000 in the 70's to 1,500 now.

We had several democrat governors in a row, from Ella Grasso in the 70's, then O'Niel, who ran the budget into the ground, then Lowell Wieker, who told us that having an income tax in 1990 would be like throwing gasoline on a fire, for Ct was deep into recession because of the loss of jobs defense related fromthe Berlin Wall coming down.

You guessed it: Wieker threw gasoline on a fire, Rowland said nothing about recinding it in 94, Scott entered the race, promised to eliminate the tax, stimulate growth, and get the economy moving again, but Rowland won.

That is when I learned what a RINO is. Our income tax is 1/2 of 1% less than when it started, down to 3.5%. Our Gas tax is about $.50 a gallon, I forgot the amount, but it is the second highest in the nation.

We are top heavy with CEO's, and that is the only reason our average salaries are considered the highest. I was in Engineering until a year ago when all the telecom companies went under, since then I am now running a tool crib for a supply company!

Knowing how our main industrial base left not only our state, but our country, I have no support for politicians who talk of GATT or NAFTA or Free Trade, because it translates into unemployment for us up here, and recession.

I am seriously considering moving to somewhere else, but I have no idea where.

We elected a RINO governor, John Rowland, a former congressman who voted for the first Brady Bill and is pro-Abortion instead.

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...

"The republican party is not conservative anymore, it's neoconservative."

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!

It's been over twenty years since Ronald Reagan was elected, and almost ten since the "Republican Revolution" of Newt Gingrich. The old issues don't have the same power and appeal now. The situations that led unideological people to vote heavily for Republicans or conservatives -- we could sum those conditions up by "Carter" and "Clinton" -- don't exist now. And the issues that make the press now -- internal security and corporate corruption -- tend to promote more government, rather than less. The conclusion that I draw is that the votes aren't there for a more conservative agenda. The Republicans of 1994 and 1980 were relatively inactive on immigration issues, anyway.

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.

I highly disagree. I just think that the moderates (read: liberals) once again have decided that conservatives are too controversial to handle. Remember, when Reagan ran, most of the the Reps. at the time thought he was far too conservative a candidate to win.

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

Manufacturing in this state is also dying. We were one of the central hubs for aviation, both for defense and civil, but with the overseas development in China and Indonesia, Pratt & Whitney, General Electric and Rolls Royce all moved overseas to go for the cheap labor. That means Pratt went from 65,000 employed in the state in the 70's, to 5000 now. Hamilton Standard went from 15,000 in the 70's to 1,500 now.

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

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

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.