Posted on 02/11/2004 11:00:20 AM PST by Lando Lincoln
While President Bush may not be a conservatives perfect president, the alternative should shake any discontents to active support of the President.
As a conservative, I agree with most of the criticism that has been leveled at President Bush amongst Republicans and conservatives. While I support the Presidents foreign and defense policies, I think that the Administration has tried to do the impossiblepreempt the Left on their own issues. Republicans were not put on this earth to increase the size of government, create massive new programs like Medicare, spend billions of dollars on AIDS in Africa, fund the UN renovation, expand the Federal role in education or pursue a reckless policy of granting amnesty to illegal foreigners working in the US. None of these initiatives by the President will, in the end, take votes from the Democratic core base. Democrats are much better and far more willing to outspend any Republican program that expands the Welfare State. The strong suit of Republicans is limited government, lower taxes, individual responsibility and strong national defense. Karl Rove may be right that some of the Presidents big government initiatives may neutralize some independents. In any case, conservatives could have hoped for much more in a Washington where Republicans control both the White House and Congress.
Having said all that, I intend to do whatever I can to reelect President Bush. The reason is simple. The alternative is unthinkable. A tax increase by rolling back the Presidents much needed tax relief will not go to reduce the deficit but to fund massive new social programs, especially some form of universal national health care system. The stimulus of tax relief will be gone and the deadweight of new taxes and government program will lead to a much larger deficit. Moreover, the hue and cry over the deficit is only logical if the deficit grows as a percentage of GDP over a period of years. Economic recovery can shrink the deficit in a relatively short time -- provided there is no new spending. A Democrat will give us the worst of both worlds -- higher taxes and higher spending.
A Democratic economic policy is also lethal to the American middle class and small business. The repeal of most taxes to the wealthy proposed by the Democrats are really to two-income families that are just getting by and are clearly the backbone of the middle-class and small business owners who pay income tax; their business is not a corporation but a family business that is a sole proprietorship. An increase in dividend taxation or capital gains will put the financial markets in a tailspin and further retard the growth of new or expanded business activity.
Universal health care has an interesting twist that few seem to be discussing. If people are concerned about possible invasions of privacy because of the Patriot Act, imagine the access to private information available to Big Brother when he gets his hands on your medical records. Once the government is subsidizing our health, how long will it take before certain health lifestyles or diets become a matter of government concern over its citizens? Should we expect a universal health care system to deliver the same value as our compulsory educational system? In fact, the Democrats are likely to create an even greater rift between the Haves and Have-Nots in healthcare by allowing only the wealthiest Americans to pay for private services. Besides this, universal health will either bankrupt the economy since the demand for healthcare is virtually without limit or it will require the government to ration healthcare. Do we really want the delivery of healthcare to become a matter of political bargaining? Imagine the hypocrisy of those who are adamant that the relationship between a doctor and patient is sacrosanct when it comes to abortion, but would make almost all medical procedures a matter of public policy mandates in the future. Imagine your worst nightmare of an HMO and then increase that exponentially and you begin to get the real meaning of Universal Health Care. As for the eventual bill for this service, look to the past at all other federal entitlement programs. To make matters worse, no Democrat is going to support Medical Practice Tort Reform which is contributing to the skyrocketed growth of healthcare costs.
How will Democrats deal with other issues of free market choice for individuals? No Democrat supports any level of privatization of Social Security for retirement. There is no support for school vouchers or alternatives to the monopoly of the public school system. Finally there is no support for private Health Savings Accounts among the Democrats. While Republicans will at least look for market-based solutions to public policy issues, the unions and bureaucratic constituencies of the Democrats virtually insures no such innovation.
On the matter of illegal immigration, the Democrats are more likely to pass a liberal new amnesty program than any GOP administration. The reason is that the Hispanic community seems to be in play and this is one constituency the Democrats really need to lock up in order to strengthen their position on the West Coast and in the Southwest.
One can only imagine the kind of social activist judges and Supreme Court justices that would be appointed by the Democratic nominee. The Federal Judiciary will begin to resemble the lunacy of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Can any responsible citizen sit home and allow the judiciary to lunge to the Left? This alone should energize conservatives. The dismantling of all religious tradition or symbolism in public life is likely to continue with a Democratic President and a liberal judiciary.
The final issue is one of national security. Certainly no one can believe that a Democratic administration will strengthen our intelligence and defense capabilities. It was under Democratic administrations that the CIA and other intelligence agencies became decimated and hand-tied. The Democrats have almost unanimously voted against nearly all major new weapons systems. At a time when we are in fact living in a Third World War, we can not go from a Churchill to a Chamberlain. It is disingenuous for the Democrats to glob onto intelligence deficiencies when they are largely the culprit for lack of human intelligence or material resources in the important area of espionage. In fighting a terrorist enemy, preemption is the natural policy and that requires intelligence first and foremost.
While President Bush may not be a conservatives perfect president, the alternative should shake any discontents to active support of the President. Moreover, in the area of determining the security threat to the West and taking action, the President may go down as one of our greatest leaders. For the sake of the hope of more prudent domestic policy, judicial restraint and national security, there is really no choice. As for much of the domestic agenda, can we afford to sacrifice the good for the perfect?
Scott Shore is a political commentator and management consultant in Providence, Rhode Island.
No, actually, I didn't. I thought what you put at the end of that post was a reference to the website you linked. It didn't occur to me that it is your name.
And again, no, I don't know what a "real" conservative is are you talking about religious conservatives, or economic conservatives, or social conservatives, or constitutional conservatives, or traditional values conservatives, etc? From your broad definition, I would think you mean constitutional and traditional values conservatives are "real," but perhaps that the others might not be.
I am not so presumptuous or condescending as to question someone's political convictions simply because they may come at their conservatism from a different perspective than my own. Yet that is precisely what I see numerous folks with your point of view doing daily on these threads.
Previous comment poorly constructed -- have 4 year-old on my lap.
You wrote: "I think the reason we are not seeing much if any *undecideds* in the polls, is that the former undecideds have decided...for Bush and the Republicans." I hope with all my heart you're right about this.
One thing you are definitely right about is the uselessness of arguing with the "pitchfork brigade" and their kin in other minor parties.
Your comments, btw, are excellent.
Your cock-suredness about the public's reactions to Bush's policies is the result of your narrow, and self-centered view of the real world.
Actually, I was talking about all of the above. Personally, I am not into denominational religious distinctions--for reasons that in that sense are not Conservative--but try to encourage people who are to support the Conservatives in their Faiths. I am a God fearing person, and believe in the God of the Bible, just not in the total written dogma. (I simply do not believe that we are given to know as much about God as most religions claim.) But I believe that the Fifth and Tenth Commandments are essential to any secular society, as well as to any Society based upon Western Religious values. (And I am not disparaging the others. It is just that the Fifth and Tenth have been under especial attack from Leftist theorists, promoting social deconstruction of our heritage.)
But there is no real difference between social Conservatives and economic Conservatives, except a question of priorities. Traditional values have an economic and social value; and our economic system, premised upon individual responsibility in a Constitutional framework, where Government facilitates individual decision making by providing stable money, uniform weights and measures, and Courts to enforce contracts, etc., is very dependent upon the same predictability in Constitutional Law, that is right for every other purpose, etc., as well as our social (and religious) values.
I have always tried to encourage those who have different priorities, but still support most of the Conservative principles and social values, to make common cause with us; and will tailor the message to any particular group, to an effort to demonstrate how their unique interests and perspective is well served by the general principles of the American tradition. It is not hard to do, if one keeps in mind (1) why it is so important; and (2) the clear understanding of the Founding Fathers: Why they resolved issues the way that they did.
William Flax [Instead of the gate to the Web Site, let me offer that to the Debate Handbook, which addresses a raft of issues, many of them in different ones of the categories that you suggest.]
What I've seen lately on FR are people who will skewer GW Bush on federal spending, and then will sniff at issues like the character of his judicial appointments, or his defense of American values in the world. These people are not conservatives. They are cranks who have adopted a lazy form of "conservatism", namely, "keep your hand out of my pocket!" All they care about is "their money," and their perception of what the government does with it. Have you folks ever talked about the importance of judicial nominations, or the culture wars, or the defense of American ideals in a dangerous and hostile world? No. That is because they are not really conservatives. Frankly, I am very suspect of anyone who bitches about government spending, but then shows no alarm at the possibility of electing a John Kerry and giving him the ability to appoint up to perhaps four Supreme Court justices between 2005 and 2008. Anyone who shows no concern over this possibility isn't a "pure" conservative at all.
So sit out the election. I'm not impressed with your threats, and you're clearly not part of the solution.
Moreover, the hue and cry over the deficit is only logical if the deficit grows as a percentage of GDP over a period of years.
I heard the same voodoo from Lawrence Kudlow a couple of years ago. Using the GDP instead of the budget as your basis for measuring the deficit (while ignoring the national debt) only makes sense if you are talking about a totalitarian country, in which there is no private property.
Economic recovery can shrink the deficit in a relatively short time -- provided there is no new spending.
Is that an argument for Bush or for Kerry?
A Democrat will give us the worst of both worlds -- higher taxes and higher spending.
He makes two assumptions: a Democrat rather than a Republican will break the economy, and higher taxes and higher spending are the worst of all fiscal worlds. I once would have gone along with him on the first count, however, Bill Clinton was the most niggardly president since Ike. But I never would have fallen for his second claim. Lower taxes and higher spending are the worst of all fiscal worlds, and that's what Bush has given us. (The best of all fiscal worlds is low taxes and low spending).
This guy is hack city.
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.