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.

He would have to convert to conservatism . . .

LOL. Like everything else in life, conservatism is still evolving, Twodees. We're applying old principles to a new and changing world. The President, as the leader of the conservative movement, is defining American conservatism for the early twenty-first century.

If and when there exists technology which will enable you to return to the Mississippi of 1840, I will not need to tell you about it. It will be in all the papers.

Your conservative friend,

ned

"Attack the messenger, not the message, guilt by association, change the subject. Damn! Why not just call the author a racist homophobe nazi!"

Why not? Simply because I don't believe Buchanan and his cohorts are "racist", etc. Now, why do you believe that pointing out that this man was a campaign manager for Pat is "attacking the messenger, not the message"? My comment very clearly points out that this message is the message of Buchanan, a message clearly and overwhelming rejected in the last election.

Now, why do you believe that pointing out that this man was a campaign manager for Pat is "attacking the messenger, not the message"?

Since every sentence but your last had 'Buchanan' or 'Buchananites' in it without responding to any of the points in the article.

My comment very clearly points out that this message is the message of Buchanan,

No, the only part of any Buchanan message you mention is trade policy which is not even mentioned in the article. Granted the defending the borders issue in the article is pure Buchanan but you did not address that in your reply.

a message clearly and overwhelming rejected in the last election.

That may be true, but if you look at any poll today, after 9/11, defending the borders ala Buchanan, is an overwhelming winner (as a single issue). Every election is different, so if it was a loser last time that does not mean it would be next time.

It was not my intent to argue the points of this article in detail but to point out the inconsistencies implicit within the article.

As I stated earlier: "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." This comment directly addresses one of the trusts of this article.

I also pointed out that: "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." This also addresses one of the articles points, ie, that Pat is the true conservative and Bush is not. One cannot support trade policies that are more akin to socialism and at the same time call one a conservative.

I'm not sure of your point on poll numbers. Are you saying that poll numbers should guide national defense policy? How does this differ from Clinton's use of polling to define foreign and defense policy? Don't you find it odd that you would use polling data like Clinton did and still call yourself conservative?

It was not my intent to argue the points of this article in detail but to point out the inconsistencies implicit within the article.

So the fact that the author is a Buchanan supporter automatically makes him a unthinking robot that takes all the great wisdom that flows out of the mouth of his god as gospel? I think that is an attack on the messenger since it was you, not he who invoked 'The Great Pat'. ;-)

while they swallow every word from Bucanan as if it were inscribed on stone tablets." This comment directly addresses one of the trusts of this article.

See above.

This also addresses one of the articles points, ie, that Pat is the true conservative and Bush is not. One cannot support trade policies that are more akin to socialism and at the same time call one a conservative.

Again, it is you not the author invoking 'The Great Pat'.

I'm not sure of your point on poll numbers.

It is a direct answer to your statement:

a message clearly and overwhelming rejected in the last election.

Since an election is basically a poll, I was pointing out that as circumstances change, the voters might be receptive to a message that they were not last time.

Are you saying that poll numbers should guide national defense policy?

No.

How does this differ from Clinton's use of polling to define foreign and defense policy?

See above, that was not my point.

Don't you find it odd that you would use polling data like Clinton did and still call yourself conservative?

I don't, and I don't.

P.S. - I'm not a Brigadier, though I like him, and he was my second choice with Pres. Bush as third.

"So the fact that the author is a Buchanan supporter automatically makes him a unthinking robot that takes all the great wisdom that flows out of the mouth of his god as gospel? I think that is an attack on the messenger since it was you, not he who invoked 'The Great Pat'. ;-)"

Would you care to point out any inconsistencies between this article and the pronouncements of "The Great Pat"? When you can demonstrate that this article is inconsistent with a Buchanan policy statements, then I'll withdraw my comments.

Would you care to point out any inconsistencies between this article and the pronouncements of "The Great Pat"?

Why would I want to lie? I'll grant you that every point in the article is consistent with Buchanan's ideas.

When you can demonstrate that this article is inconsistent with a Buchanan policy statements, then I'll withdraw my comments.

I don't want you to withdraw any of your statements. I just wanted to know where the article is inconsistent with the truth. If you believe that by virtue of the author sharing the view of Buchanan makes it automatically wrong, well then, there is nothing further to say. Not to say that would make it true.

vote the rats out in November and it will register alright!

Son, put the pipe down already!! It may be a little better but not much. I've got a Republican Senatorial candidate saying Hillary's healthcare plan didn't go far enough. She's for implementing something along the line of 5 billion dollars for buying back tobacco, when if the federal government would have stayed out of it in the first place we wouldn't have to do even that. She's anti-gun, for fast track, and I'm supposed to vote for her? Conservatives should be worried about taking back the nation instead of taking back a legislative branch. We do it at the local level. Enough local change, you see state change. Enough state change, you see national change.

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.

This is what it's about TLB. No matter who is in office, whether it be Democrat or Republican, we have to call, write, even visit these officials that are promising more and more government intrusion. I don't care what party they're from.

Tell you what. You give me one valid positive conservative difference between Doles and Bowles and h#ll, I'll go vote for Liddy and show my support for the National Republican Party. It's not like I'm voting for Bowles. Liddy has won this race. She won it when she announced her candidacy. Trust me though. I have wracked my brain and I still can't find anything. This article is spot on.

Bump for you other gentlemen

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.