Conservatives Need to Get Real

The Intellectual Conservative ^ | 02 February 2004 | Scott Shore

[Lando Lincoln]

While President Bush may not be a conservative’s 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 President’s foreign and defense policies, I think that the Administration has tried to do the impossible—preempt 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 President’s 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 President’s 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 conservative’s 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.

[ohioWfan]

I'll vote for a conservative. BTW, if Bush can't carry my state, he'd lose Texas too.

So in my case, the point is pretty moot. Not that I'm afraid of any debate but this isn't a swing state. Solid Red. I kind of hate to admit it...

OK, so translate this for my feeble mind, O wise one.......

Perhaps the problem is your inability to communicate what you're actually trying to say......

Tell me why your living in a 'red state' makes anything 'moot.'

[ohioWfan]

btw, others on this forum have communicated with clarity their view that they are free to vote 'on principle' because they live in a 'red state.'

[FairOpinion]

Thanks you for the excellent, logical, clear, and insightful essay. It was worth your time, it will be preserved. I will be posting it (with proper attribution, of course) as a reminder to those, who want to assess the choices we face calmly, intelligently.

I hope that, at least occasionally, you will continue share your insights.

[Darlin']

Aaaah, I see. You had 4 issues and you thought he'd take care of each one, to your express satisfaction, in the first 3 years of his adminstration and now you're disillusioned. If you'll forgive me for saying so, that seems pretty naive under ideal conditions and he was not afforded that luxury. In case you haven't noticed, he has been a little busy with some major problems commencing with a turncoat senate, a deadly terrorist attack on this country and 2 wars. Had the President not devoted sufficient effort and resources to these problems it flat wouldn't matter how large or small the government is cause we wouldn't be around long enough to make a difference one way or the other.

It is a mystery to me why so called "principled conservatives" refuse to grasp the necessitiy of adjusting priorities. By neutralizing manical, tin-platted tyrants and liberating 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq the world, our world made enormous strides toward becoming a safer place. I think that is huge. We all might live long enough now to address issues such as AWB, immigration or big government, even though it won't meet your timetable.

[George W. Bush]

Tell me why your living in a 'red state' makes anything 'moot.'

Because this is one of the most reliably Republican states in the country. And it is monolithically Republican. Every county. I can almost count the Dims in my county on two hands.

Even if the more liberal metropolitan sections voted for Dims (normally, this would carry the state), my own congressional district would not. And Bush would get at least that electoral vote.

Therefore, you can assume my neighbors will, in fact, deliver my portion of the single electoral vote which I can influence to Bush in any event.

It's like a reflex. They're incapable of a Dim vote for president. The idea would actually confuse them.

BTW, in 2000 I did caution the Brigade about their vote if they were in a state where it might actually count. But I voted Bush anyway. Buchanan ran such an awful campaign I was too embarassed to actually vote for him. He would have been a more attractive candidate if he hadn't campaigned at all.

[ohioWfan]

BTW, in 2000 I did caution the Brigade about their vote if they were in a state where it might actually count.

That was my very point.........so why the insults?

You believe that if you are in a swing state, you should vote against your 'principles' because if you vote FOR them, we might end up with a RAT in the White House.

What kind of conservative principles are those, anyway?

[Columbine]

Kuma, I believe that the president's faith is genuine. I think he will do all that he can about abortion, preserving traditional marriage, etc. However, I recognize that he can't do it all in 4 or 8 years.

As to Congress, some Republicans are social conservatives and some are not. But, if we would be so fortunate as to have a 60 seat majority I think that traditional values could be further advanced.

[Consort]

Speaking of duped, you really think Bush has given us tax cuts?

My post dealt with tax increases; not with tax cuts.

[George W. Bush]

I could give you a list but there's a site someone posted on this topic. They go into in more detail.

You should go look at it and decide the merits for yourself. I'd say this site pretty much exhausts any possible critical examination of the Bush administration from a conservative Christian standpoint: BushRevealed.com. It's a very conservative no-compromise Christian political site. And people around here think some of us FReepers are tough.

I would say that I don't take their every argument seriously. They have some tinfoil material. And we didn't elect him to establish a Christian theocracy. I do wish that if he's going to quote the Bible, he'd try to read the rest of the Good Book and get to the New Testament. Still, worlds better than any Dim on Christianity. He's big on the Judeo-Christian scripture, I guess. Well, the Judeo part anyway. More disturbing to me is his calling Islam "The Religion Of Peace". I wish he'd call us Christians that just once.

Oh, well, maybe he'll have time to discover the New Testament in his second term. Heh-heh. We have to be optimistic.

Bush is quite adequate as CIC aside from some minor WMD/intel quibbling that'll drag out until at least November. He seems to put a real snap into the troops. Besides, it's a little late to hand Iraq back to the Baathists at this point. I don't see how Kerry can possibly compete with Bush in the CIC role, especially given his record of votes and speeches on defense, intel, United Nations.

I'm not trying to steer you one way or the other. Given your two major criteria, you may need to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. Or look at ways to elect more conservative congressmen to help him govern better.

[Terpfen]

"Well, lot’s of stuff here. Not surprisingly, this seems to have fractured into two general camps. That is, those who will vote for GWB and those who won’t. Sure, there are shades of these positions, but this is generally so."

You misinterpret me. I'm still voting for Bush. I merely disagree with your notion that conservatism can't win elections. Reagan in the '80s and Schwarzenegger last year showed that conservatism can win--and if anyone's going to reply to me telling me that Schwarzenegger isn't conservative, I'm talking about fiscal and constitutional conservatism with regards to Schwarzenegger, not social conservatism, as he was elected in a recall that was about a budget crisis, not a pressing social catastrophe.

[rdb3]

In truth, you'll vote for Bush if he promises you everything in the Kerry agenda and more.

You are partisan voters. Nothing could keep you from voting Bush/GOP. Since your vote is already settled, you are the FRingers. Bush and Rove can take you for granted.

Conservatives are the swing voters. Because Rove has failed to 'buy' the replacement voters they needed in order to dump us conservatives once and for all.

Allow me to interject here. I'm not a Republican. In fact, I'm proudly Independent. However, Bush has my vote for one reason and one reason only: National defense. Kerry falls so short on this issue that he doesn't really exist.

As a vet, I'm happy with how he's taken care of our soldiers.

I'm not partisan in any way.

Okay. I've said enough. Carry on.

[George W. Bush]

What kind of conservative principles are those, anyway?

Because sometimes your vote is going to be wasted. But if you were in Floriduh in 2000, for instance, you had a far more meaningful and relevant vote to cast. And it was clear to FReepers by noon what the Dims were up to in many of these states. So there were states where someone intending to cast a 'safe' third-party vote could have actually influenced the outcome. The 2000 election was the closest since 1960.

It's easier to vote your principles if you're sure they won't let the true wolf into the fold. But if you're equally sure it won't, then you have a greater lattitude in voting by your principles and helping the ballot access of the party whose platform and message you prefer.

[George W. Bush]

If that's your issue, I don't find fault with your choice. Seems clear enough.

[Mo1]

Sounds like 4-5 million of those condescending conservatives will be staying home

4-5 Million??? ... Yea right

[ohioWfan]

Rationalization..........but if it makes you feel better.......

Good night, George.

[ohioWfan]

If your concerns are primarily Christian, kuma, and your politics secondary, George W. Bush has in no way disappointed you.

If your political opinions outweigh your Christianity, you may be disappointed.

I am a Christian first.

[Mo1]

It is a mystery to me why so called "principled conservatives" refuse to grasp the necessitiy of adjusting priorities.

Because they are blind fools

[kuma]

You bring up some good points. I fully realize that many problems in our society will not be defeated in 8 years. As I said before I'm not Republican so I don't know what is going on inside the party. Santorum is my Senator so I can vote my conscience without any reserve.

Who is the next Repub on the ladder? Who do you think will be the party elites choice for the next Presidential Candidate? I'm just so suspicious of party politics. o_O Remember that I can most definitely be considered "fringe".

[Lando Lincoln]

Thanks FairOpinion.....I had a boss once that, when he would receive a lengthy memo, would say, "looks like you didn't have time to write a short memo, so you wrote a long one." I could have written what I had to say with a fraction of the words.

I enjoy your posts. I will post my "insights" from time to time.

All the best,

Lando

[Columbine]

Santorum is a good man, no doubt about it.

Some would love to see Jeb Bush run but I just don't see that happening. Right now, I'm pulling for my governor who is Bill Owens from Colorado. He has good conservative principles but doesn't talk about his faith like this president. I think he is on the right side of conservative social and financial issues but might not do some of the faith based things that President Bush does.

I'm sure others will advance some names here too.

Kuma, it's always a compromise. I wish I could have a president that agreed with me 100% but that will never happen. I always choose the one that agrees with me the most.

It's so important to have good conservatives in Congress. I think that's where we can do a lot of good this year and in 2006.