Gap widening between Bush and conservatives

Townhall.com ^ | January 23, 2004 | Jonah Goldberg

[Apple Pan Dowdy]

Gap widening between Bush and conservatives

Jonah Goldberg

I thought President Bush's State of the Union address was fine. It wasn't outrageously long. He drew a bright line between himself and his critics on the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, Social Security Reform, etc. He delivered it well, and the nudity was tasteful and integral to the plot.

As luck - or bad timing - would have it, I was invited to Manhattan to address the New York State Conservative Party right before the president addressed the nation. It seemed only fitting since the subject of my speech was the conflict between Bush's "compassionate conservatism" and traditional conservatism. You see, conservatives in New York City have suffered more and for longer than conservatives in the rest of America. Trust me, I grew up on New York City's Upper West Side. We felt like Christians in Ancient Rome.

Well, after three years with George W. Bush at the helm, many conservatives are starting to feel like we've been sent to the catacombs. Don't get me wrong. Out in real America where most Americans - liberal and conservative - don't focus on politics every day, Bush is still doing very well. And, even among conservatives, Bush has considerable political support. But among ideological and intellectual conservatives, emotional support for Bush is starting to ebb.

I can't point to anything scientific. But if you pay attention to what conservatives are saying at meetings and in magazines, on the Web and at the think tanks, as well as what readers, friends, colleagues and sources say, there's a definite undercurrent of discontent with the president.

For some it started with his plan to offer amnesty-lite to illegal immigrants. For others, it's his fence-sitting on gay marriage. For others, like me, it was his signing of the campaign finance reform bill even though he thought it was unconstitutional. Or maybe it was his support for steel tariffs. Or the farm bill. I forget.

Anyway that doesn't matter. What unites pretty much all of these grumblers is a deep sense of, well, disgust with how much this administration is spending.

When it comes to taxpayer dollars, this is the second most "generous" administration in American history, second only to that of another Texan, Lyndon Johnson. There may be good aspects to George Bush's "compassionate conservatism," though on the whole I never liked it, but it's clear that compassion doesn't come cheap at the Bush White House, on whose watch overall spending from 2001 to 2003 grew at 16 percent and discretionary spending went up 27 percent. That's double Bill Clinton's rate.

Bush's defenders are eager to point to the war on terrorism as an excuse for increased spending. Fine. But that's only a small part of the story.

Under Bush, spending on education has gone up 60.8 percent, on labor 56 percent and on the Department of the Interior by 23.4 percent . The price tag for the president's Medicare plan alone starts, but won't end, at $400 billion. The farm bill was a pork horror show, pure and simple. More people work for the federal government now than at any time since the end of the Cold War.

Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation sums it up this way: "Overall for 2003, the federal government spent $20,300 per household, taxed $16,780 per household, and ran a budget deficit of $3,520 per household."

The reason most Americans haven't heard a lot about all this is twofold. Conservatives have stayed relatively quiet and liberals have controlled the anti-Bush microphone.

Democratic presidential candidates and interest groups have been screeching that the president is gutting education and abandoning the elderly. Obviously this is nonsense on tall stilts, since Bush is spending a lot more on both than Bill Clinton ever did.

In fact, on Medicare and education, for example, the Dems think Bush is being stingy. And a study by the National Taxpayers Union found that each and every one of the Democrats running for president have plans that would raise the deficit even more, from $169.6 billion under Joe Lieberman to - get this - $1.33 trillion under Al Sharpton.

Conservative opposition to such overspending is more complex than the media and the left think. Some just don't like red ink. Others think big government erodes freedom and traditional arrangements. Others believe it slowly inoculates the citizenry to greater levels of social engineering.

Whatever the reasons, conservatives - as opposed to partisan Republicans - have sincere misgivings about the kind of presidency Bush is conducting. A lot of compassionate conservatism is smart politics for the Republican Party, and some of it is even good policy. And, yes, conservatives understand that the GOP is practically the only place they have a real impact in electoral politics.

But I'm not sure George Bush understands how much he is asking from those who brought him to the dance.

[RiflemanSharpe]

Sadly we do not have one. But I can as of now not in good conscience vote for a GWB, I sadly do not see that much of a difference between him and the dems anymore.

[Lazamataz]

And just what true conservative are you planning to replace him with in 2004?

We can't. The system is gamed (for 2004).

[cynicom]

There is one thing Bush stays focused on, that is being re-elected at all coasts, or any cost. Only if he senses he might lose will he throw conservatives a bone. To me that will be too late.

[Orangedog]

I gave you your answer. You just want to pretend I didn't. Those "assault weapons" are indentical in function to most hunting rifles and shotguns. Banning mean-looking guns leaves the door open to banning almost every gun, as the current "assault weapons" ban gives any Attorney General the authority to expand that list.

By the way...do you even know what an "assault weapon" is and what makes it an "assault weapon?"

[ZULU]

George Bush is not now, nor ever was a Conservative. He is a true moderate Republican (unlike leftists like Chrissie Whitman, Tom KEan, Rudy Giuliani, etc who are incorrectly termed "moderate" by the far left-wing press of America).

If any of you out there were not watching the Democratic Debate last night, Bush's relative Conservative credentials or the lack thereof pale into insignificance when compared with the nine dwarfs currently running for the Democratic ticket. Kucinich is scarey - he looks like Souter in drag, or a midget vampire. His prescription for more government spending and opposition to any American military involvement in the Middle East is frightening. Clark is a total imbicle. Only Bill Clinton could have made this moron a General. Kerry is a warmed over George McGovern. Edwards is an idiot. Sharpeton, unlike the mentally sharpe guy I THOUGHT he was, despite my philosophical differences with him, is a stupid, ignorant, bloated buffoon. Dean is really certifiable. I question his mental stability, along with his ignorance of international issues. The ONLY candidate there REALLY capable of even marginally functioning in the White House is Joe Lieberman and he is way down in the polling and in funding.

If any of these nutcases get elected President ( and I don't include Lieberman in that category) instead of Bush, we can anticipate the total collapse of America as we know it and massive new attacks from Islamofascists.

And so, Bush may not be perfect, but he is the best we have to go with. We can only try to exert pressure on him with letters, petitions, etc, to try and get him more to the right. The other thing we can do is start - NOW, plotting as to who we will back in 2008. My vote there goes to Condolezza Rice, but I'm open to other suggestions.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

No.

I'm selling the last of my property except for a couple of little resort spots and I'm leaving.
By summer at the latest.

[BlackbirdSST]

The opposite of love is hate. Nice try at trying Clintonese though.

Like I said, the usual suspects. Try to wrap your feeble mind around this Dane, somewhere in the middle of Love and Hate, lies simple indifference. Kind of like my thought's towards you. Blackbird.

[weaponeer]

I'm not saying that one shouldn't own an assault weapon... I'm asking why anyone would need one.

For the same reason some folks need Ferraris, Corvettes, golf clubs, speedboats, scuba outfits, surfboards, race cars, or any other non-work related, non-income producing, non-safety related , non-essential item.

Fun and recreation.

[carton253]

I'm perceptive enough to know that you have a double standard.

But that's okay. We all have them.

[kildak]

When Bush sign the AWB renewal expect the bots to go on about how it is a minor issue a we need not concern ourselves with the loss of more of our liberties.

[RiflemanSharpe]

Exaclty, I am tired of politics as usual. I voted for GWB wanting honest leadership. And doing whatever it takes to win smacks of clinton. I wish he would take a stand for his believes and stop pandering and hispandering.

[Lazamataz]

I'm perceptive enough to know that you have a double standard.

I am mistaken. You lack perception at all. You cannot see that I am consistant, but... I don't care. You are just some anonymous egg on an internet forum.

[Apple Pan Dowdy]

"but we must never loose sight of the fact that the demonicrats cannot be allowed to return to power"

AMEN to that! You are so right. And therein lies the problem. We are between a rock and a hard place. We dare not give the Dems any ammunition to use agaist Bush, but at the same time we need to convince Bush to be a bit truer to those conservative values and ideals we cherish.

Several months ago I swore that I would not give another penny of donation to Bush or the Republican Party until they started doing something about the open border situation. But now here it is election time and I am already giving in and know that I will send money and I will work at the local campaign headquarters for him..... simply because "we must never let Democrats return to power!"

[Lazamataz]

When Bush sign the AWB renewal expect the bots to go on about how it is a minor issue a we need not concern ourselves with the loss of more of our liberties.

Dig it.

[AbsoluteJustice]

I would like to reply to this to everyone in here AND PLEASE DO NOT FLAME ME for my views on this.

Some in here have probably never fired an assault weapon in their lives and are clueless as to what it does to a body.
I am a former Marine of 5 years and have thousands of hours spent behind all types of assault weapons. I know and have seen what it can do to "targets and bodies."

With this said I have NO PROBLEM at all with people owning them if it is for practice, souveniers, collectables or other. Some use the argument that they require it to protect their families. This is hogwash, any pistol is just as effective.

I am mixed on this issue as a whole. Having the experience with assault weapons I can not see any need as to a civilian owning one. On the flip side these are rights afforded by the constitution. Then again when the founders wrote the law weapons were not firing 1000 RPM unless you owned a galing gun, and I do not bleieve there were any other than the military who owned one personally. Interesting discussion this will be.

[carton253]

You are just some anonymous egg on an internet forum

As are you... As are you...

[Lazamataz]

"we must never let Democrats return to power!"

They're in power, but now we call them Republicans.

[Johnny_Cipher]

Having the experience with assault weapons I can not see any need as to a civilian owning one.

I won't flame you. But the Second Amendment was not enacted to protect deer hunters.

[carton253]

And I support your decision not to vote for the GWB. I am sorry that you can't see a difference between him and the dems.

I hope you can find someone that you can back in the election.

[William McKinley]

I was joking before when I compared your "He said it" "I didn't say he said it" "You said I said he said it" routine to some of Clark's gymnastics.

Maybe I shouldn't have been joking.

Let's go down the progression here. You made an assertion. I called you on it, asked you to back it up. KantianBurke chimed in with an article that said Bush was essentially for extending the status quo, and presented it like a proud puppy bringing in the newspaper, apparently not realizing that the status quo is not what you asserted at all (namely, that he would strenuously push for something much more restrictive than the status quo).

I pointed this out, and he was kind enough to drill down to an exact quotation which undercut the assertion that Bush was going to push for anything at all beyond the status quo. I thanked him for it, and you say that is me predicting the future?

Wow.