Don't forget why Bush was elected

Jewish World Review ^ | July 9, 2002 | Michael Long

[mondonico]

Don't forget why Bush was elected

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | How quickly we forget.

When George W. Bush ran for President against Al Gore in 2000, the motivation of many Republicans who supported him was not affection for his policy. In fact, many stalwarts were reluctant to sign on -- remember the pundits' reassuring promises (and the Democrats' reassuring warnings) it took to convince that Bush was a "real" conservative? Significant numbers of Republicans were more to the right than the candidate, but got on board anyway.

These days, as many right-wing writers, conservative soothsayers and omniscient analysts rack up grievance lists of Bush's departures from the conservative hymnbook, it is time to remember why so many other Republicans-and to some extent, those whiners and more than a few Democrats-voted for Bush in the first place.

In no small measure, Bush was elected to ring down an explicit rejection on the elastic ethics of the Clinton gang. Casting a vote for Bush was a way for voters to do what a few fickle Republicans in the Senate would not in the impeachment trial. It was a way to register disgust with the ongoing tawdry approval of and occasional praise for eight years of lying for fun and profit. By simply defeating Al Gore, George W. Bush achieved not only most of what voters were asking for, but also most of what was needed: a clean sweep of the people's house.

Of course, a house swept clean is often taken for granted, as today's conservative writing often shows. Republicans would be wise - and a bit more grateful -- to make their criticisms of the President more kindly. Bush is a popular leader, and this is a useful thing for Republicans-especially considering how rare such popularity is. His approval ratings have stood at superhuman levels for months. As the 2004 election approaches, those numbers will come down as party loyalty reappears, but the longer the numbers stay high, the deeper Bush's hold goes into the consciousness of mainstream voters-those who do not much follow policy but vote on instinct.

Voters' instincts these days tell them that Bush is the real deal. In a just-released Des Moines Register poll taken in late June, voters in Iowa who handed Bush a 5000-vote-margin defeat now favor him over Gore by better than 2-to-1 plus ten percent, 64% to 27%. In California in 2000, Gore easily beat Bush, and by a dozen percentage points. Today Bush beats Gore in the liberal stronghold by seven points.

This is powerful stuff, but many Republicans think and vote like third-party crackpots, imagining that it is somehow smart to let the liberal win than to vote for someone who doesn't parrot the appropriate lines on every single issue. Those voters will feel free to tear down Bush for the next two years, subtly planting doubt in the minds of mainstream voters who make the biggest difference between winning and losing.

These activists don't have both feet in the real world because they reject the unpleasant compromises that are part of both coalition parties and governments. They think little about the practical upshots of a liberal administration under an Al Gore, Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt or John Edwards, any of whom would have more likely launched an Interpol investigation after September 11, and not a war. Those who doubt it should recall the records of those who surrounded Bill Clinton, especially Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and project their past writings and actions onto the months after September 11.

Not to say that Bush's departures from his agenda are insignificant. He signed campaign finance "reform" legislation, which, if the First Amendment is read by either literal meaning or the lights of contemporaneous documents, is patently unconstitutional. He signed off on protectionism for the steel industry, which will create marginally higher prices throughout the economy. And he watered down education reform and attendant "education market" pressures that were major pillars of his campaign. These compromises are not only significant disappointments but also genuine losses to the way we ought to be allowed to live.

But the hard political truth-the thing that made possible these particular compromises in the first place-is that there aren't enough mainstream voters to matter who will reject Bush on any combination of these positions. The die-hards yelping just now should remember that being President is also about staying President, and that it requires playing politics along the margins. Recall that Bush has not yielded in the main; that is, on the thing that matters most, the war on terror. He is what Americans said we wanted in 2000: a man of character whom we can trust in perilous times.

[mondonico]

I agree. This is a big blind spot for GWB. Still, it's no reason to elect Gork, Daschole, or Geekhardt.

Certainly not. But it is a good reaon to vote for Pat Buchanan in 2004.

Go Pat Go!!!

I can't tell whether you're kidding. As Orwell said, pacifists in WWII England were "objectively pro-German." That's because there was no hope of pacifism prevailing over the Wehrmacht. Similarly, Buchananite conservatives are "objectively pro-Democrat" because there is no hope of Buchanan prevailing over anybody.

[GraniteStateConservative]

At least you're no MurryMom-- posting and running.

Unfortunately Bush hardly won the election, it took a court to appoint him. Also, he has departed on more than one occaision from the policies of those who voted for him. He went back on his word to the people of Nevada about Yuccata and is backtracking (rightly) on his international policies.

It took the Court to stop the attempt by Gore-ons in FL from stealing the election by creating votes (as Tipper said-- "I just couldn't believe they (the Court) stopped the voting in Florida"). Bush vowed to oppose temporary storage of nuclear waste at Yucca. I believe he is in favor of permanent burial-- which is the issue that was decided. Bush hasn't back-tracked on his international policies-- as much as liberals would like to suggest. Bush is opposed to the military setting up governments. He believes nations themselves or the UN should do it. He is not in favor of US-controlled nation-building, unlike Clintoon.

Oh yeah, don't forget that until 9-11 his approval ratings were what, maybe fifty two percent? The only reason his ratings are so high (besides polls being conducted unscientifically) is because the country is rallying behind the current leader like good citizens. He needs to be a true leader if he expects to be reelected.

People are supporting Bush because of 9/11-- but not just the event, but how he responded to it. He showed leadership on what was seen as an international and domestic crisis. Americans trust his judgment and cheer his character. Bush has pulled out of the ABM and Kyoto treaties while Euro nations shrieked. Bush supports ousting Hussein while the Euro nations shriek. He's not a follower.

[HalfIrish]

Reagan was a man like you and me. I merely point out that his strategy for re-election worked and Bush the Elder's didn't. Who said he was a God except you?

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Our southern border isn't as secure as it should be.

You are absolutely right. They were airtight under Clinton and would have stayed that way under Gore. Wait! Wasn't it Gore who was in charge of "Reinventing Government" and who directed the INS to approve 60,000 new immigrants in California alone without FBI background checks so that they could be here to vote (illegally) for the Dems in 2000?

That Bush sure has dropped the ball. Oh, if we only had Gore, whichever one he is at the moment.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Bush never made a promise on permanent burial-- only temporary storage.

[Wphile]

Haven't seen that poll. Please provide a link.

[Wphile]

I did see the Iowa poll that showed people would vote 64-27 for Bush over Gore, and even some Democrats said they would vote for Bush if the Dems run Gore. Also saw the poll where Bush beats Gore in California by 7 points. Actually it was in the same article. I shall provide a link.

[mondonico]

Bush did campaign on less international intervention

Has Bush gone back on his non-interventionist campaign stance? Not a bit of it. He has tanked the ridiculous wealth-transfer-scheme-masquerading-as-an-environmental-treaty scam known as Kyoto, and he has "unsigned" the unratifiable (and unconstitutional) Internation Criminal Court concord.

Perhaps you are referring to his actions in the middle east. In case you missed it, 3000 Americans were murdered on 9/11/01, which required the national government to take direct action to defend the country. It also required some engagement in the Arab-Israeli mess. As to the latter point, however, he has served notice on the Palestinian terrorists and their cohorts in the Arab world that the US won't deal with them until they purge the terrorists from their leadership (i.e., never).

Bush an "internationalist"? Don't make me laugh.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Good reply GSC. Terry you seem to have a lot of misinformation. Stick around FR and learn the truth. You don't have to be shy, just open minded.

[1rudeboy]

Unfortunately Bush hardly won the election, it took a court to appoint him.

Really? I thought it was the Nader voters that gave him the margin of victory. Har.

[Protagoras]

it's still a free country

Look again.

[B Knotts]

People like this guy are every bit as bad as the Bush-bashers.

[Wphile]

BushBeatsGoreInIowa

Here ya go, kiddo.

[deport]

Unfortunately Bush hardly won the election, it took a court to appoint him.

Can you provide a link to the text of the court order appointing him as President?

[mondonico]

Unfortunately Bush hardly won the election, it took a court to appoint him.

I thought it was the Nader voters that gave him the margin of victory. Har.

HAH!

[ecomcon]

Remember when conservatives were reasoned, rational, and pragmatic-- and didn't think with their emotions? What happened? Who feminized the psyche of conservatives?

Since when is the essence of Conservatism pragmatism? Win at all cost? Pragmatism is compromise. If anything, the spirit of pragmatism is a "feminized" system of thought.

[Sabertooth]

Attention Bush-bashers on the Right: Are you listening?

Oh yes... To more of the same.

This article is a yawn, simply regurgitating the tedious, Bush-loyalist rationalizations we've grown accustomed to on FR. Thanks for all of the coalition-building boldface.

All you've done is set the stage for more rounds of insults and groupthink... Self-congratulations are in order!

What you and those who think like you on this forum would like to do is shut down debate, because debate is going to entail criticism of the President. Unfortuanately, there are areas where President Bush has merited criticism, and this is America... deal with it.

I'm baffled, actually, by the screechings from the loyalists' corner, forever warning about the perils of Hillary or Gore... you've simply drawn a different lesson from 1992 than some of us have. You think the problem is that not enough conservatives fell in line with Bush 41, and you blame them for Clinton.

While I voted for Poppy, I don't blame the conservatives for dumping him at all... I blame George HW Bush for not falling in line with conservatives. Their vote is not his birthright.

And no one's vote is the birthright of George W Bush; if he loses them, he's responsible. He's a politician; if he loses elections, he's responsible. He serves at our pleasure, and if he loses our pleasure, it's his burden.

What did you really expect from posting this screed? You never wanted to reach out, you wanted to slap down. Are those of us critical of the President now supposed to gratefully come to our senses? That's not going to happen as a result of this article and the attendant "attaboys." Not one vote will be cowed into the fold, nor one critical voice silenced. You made yourself feel better, but you've done nothing to advance the cause of conservatism, nor, ironically, President Bush.

Let the circular firing squad continue.

[mondonico]

Since when is the essence of Conservatism pragmatism? Win at all cost? Pragmatism is compromise. If anything, the spirit of pragmatism is a "feminized" system of thought.

A fair point. I think the earlier poster was focusing more on intellectual reason vs. emotional hysteria. But even that may be an inaccurate characterization of the '60s, which gave us the "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" spirit that rejuvenated the conservative movement.