It's About The Republic, Not The Republican

Ether Zone ^ | July 27, 2002 | Glenn R. Jackson

[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 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.

The President’s 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.

[nofriendofbills]

Makes good sense but I doubt that the Republican True Believers will see it.

[DugwayDuke]

"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."

"Makes good sense but I doubt that the Republican True Believers will see it."

This only makes sense if one belives Buchanan is the fount of all wisdom. I find it mildly humurous when Buchananites attack Bush supporters for blindly supporting Bush while they swallow every word from Bucanan as if it were inscribed on stone tablets. I find it fascinating when Bucnananites attempt to grasp the banner of conservatism when they would impliment trade policies that would make a Frenchman proud. I suppose your milage varies.

[rdavis84]

You'll have ALL of the examples of the True Believers on this thread. It just doesn't register on them.

[Miss Marple]

Oh, it registers, all right. I prefer to let you talk amongst yourselves.

[J. L. Chamberlain]

Fear not, the BushBot® posting network will be along shortly to have this thread yanked.

J

[rdavis84]

So it's all Buchanan's fault. That one should be listed in this article, along with one "where your mileage varied" about it being Perot's fault.

But this article doesn't mention either one. So why are you bringing Buchanan into it?

[rdavis84]

They're a little late. Must have had a Pep Rally last night.

[JZoback]

Nice article. Too bad the general population thinks just because Bush is a decent, caring, human being, anything is better than Clinton. (I would agree anything is better than Clinton, my cat is better)

I wonder if the Bushbots realize they are slowly becoming the James Carville, Paul Begala's of the Republican party.

[J. L. Chamberlain]

Oh, they'll be here soon enough! The devoted will prostrate themselves before the altar of Bush, saying that he is the master of all creation, the sower of great seeds. It matters not to them that he is taking the party in the direction of liberalism.

J

[steve50]

I wonder if the Bushbots realize they are slowly becoming the James Carville, Paul Begala's of the Republican party.

They know but they don't care. Reminds me of the little groups my sons friends form in grade school, your either with us or against us. The republican party is not conservative anymore, it's neoconservative

[sam_paine]

Buchanan v. Bush was decided, wasn't it?

I'm no BushBot, but the distilled argument against him doesn't seem that strong. Just two points.

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.

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.

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?

Well, we could be listening to daiy video cuts from Mullah Omar taunting the Great Satan, saying "Give us the evidence of Bin Laden's involvement." We could still have UBL training thousands of terrorists openly in Taliban camps bolstered by their apparent invincibility. We could still have utter chaos and fear.

We could still have Arafat as the recognized peace partner in Palestine.

We could still have even drier farmers in Klamath. We could be members of Kyoto. We could have California Air Resources Board decisions co-opted into federal law. I shudder to thinks what else.

[Jhoffa_]

The sports analogy was particularly good.

"Our Team" must win, at any cost.. Even if through "winning" we become virtually indistinguishable from the other team.

And, of course every team has their pom-pom clad cheerleaders..

[DugwayDuke]

"So why are you bringing Buchanan into it?"

My response pointed out that the article was written by "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."

Second, the article is an attack on Bush from the Buchananite perspective.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

The proper approach should be this: Support the president when he is right and fight him when he is wrong. We may love our parents and spouses but we don't always agree with them. In important matters of our government, we have a DUTY to criticize and argue for change when we believe change is needed. No man or woman is right all of the time. Our founders knew that and created a system of checks and balances to prevent one individual (no matter how "good" or well-intentioned ) from having complete control of public policy.

Al Gore, as president, would have been mercilessly attacked by conservatives for leaving our borders open after 9/11. Bush is wrong on open borders and conservatives should criticize him as they would have Gore.

Bush being a "nicer guy" has nothing to do with it.

[Jhoffa_]

Exactly.. You put that very well.

When dubya does something I feel is right from a Conservative point of view, I cheer him and vice versa.

I think the thing that turns most people off is the personality cult that demands total obedience and conformity with their views. The slightest dissention brings flocks of "bots" who then attempt to delphi every thing in sight.

Strangely enough their war cry is "You're being divisive"

[noRinoforme]

We could still have Arafat as the recognized peace partner in Palestine.

We don't?

[Jhoffa_]

PS: If you look at this from the perspective of a consumer with a vote to spend and a politician with a business designed to earn your vote, these attacks are allot like, say McDonalds employees chasing you into the street, yelling and calling you names because you don't like their menu.

[sam_paine]

I agree. Call him when he's wrong (such as backing down from the ICC fight, etc.) and cheer him when he's right.

I write letters, and get somewhat acknowleging form letters in return. But when I wrote Clinton/Gore in disagreement, you think I got any kind of response?

In other words, we have more of a chance to influence a liberal repulican in the conservative direction than to influence a "new" democrat in the conservative direction.

And again, should Buchanan or Keyes ever mount a viable candidacy, I'll be there. But they haven't and they won't in this climate.

[sam_paine]

You seen Arafat in the East Lawn lately?