GEORGE W. BUSH, LIBERAL

NEW YORK--On the surface, the main political story appears to be "Clueless Democratic Party Beaten to Pulp by Vibrant if Unscrupulous Republicans." But the bigger, weirder story is that liberals have won the culture wars--and have corrupted the GOP with the worst aspects of their beliefs. Incredibly, the hard-right Bush Administration has turned out to be composed of old-fashioned tax-and-spend, welfare-coddling, big-government liberals.

Before the 1980s the Republican base was conservatives who, as the word's etymology suggests, defended the status quo. Because most conservatives were wealthy (or at least comfortable enough to believe they might someday become rich), they were usually opposed to change. As a sports-minded observer attempting to paraphrase John Kenneth Galbraith might have put it, "When you're sitting on the 50-yard line of life, you're not likely to trade seats." Conservative Republicans fought the right of workers to join unions, of blacks to vote and of the poor to pull themselves out of poverty. Justice for the disenfranchised requires change and change is always dangerous.

Yet the conservative tendency to let sleeping dogs lie undeniably resonates with a natural human inclination against recklessness and pointless destruction. Conservatives sought to protect much of what was good and right about America.

Fiscal conservatives were particularly passionate and persuasive; no one, after all, claims to favor government waste. In 1992 the first President Bush (news - web sites) voiced the Ur complaint of GOP deficit hawks: "Each month millions of American families sit down to balance their checkbooks. The federal government must now do the same."

Conservatives railed against the Democrats' "big government" programs, calling attention to welfare fraud and pork-barrel spending. They believed in allowing workers to keep as much of their income as possible by cutting taxes. Lower taxes would also keep government small, freeing businesses from regulatory red tape and keeping nosy bureaucrats out of people's lives.

"The government that governs best, governs least," wrote Thoreau. It's a favorite quote among conservatives.

Recognizing that war is the ultimate destabilizer, Republican conservatives were typically opposed to using U.S. troops to defend countries other than the U.S. The isolationist, America-first, anti-free-trade faction of the GOP, now led by Pat Buchanan (news - web sites), has long been an important part of the party, consistently represented in the party platform. Republican isolationists slowed America's entry into World War II; in 1976 vice-presidential candidate Bob Dole famously derided most of the military conflicts of the 20th century as "Democrat wars."

Though the Republicans' alliance with big business caused them to be soft on polluters, Theodore Roosevelt did more in his day to protect the environment than any president since, using strong-arm tactics to establish five big national parks and countless national monuments and bird refuges. Most people forget that Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites) in 1970. And in 1990 George Bush signed important amendments to the Clean Air Act. For many Republicans, conservationism was a natural extension of conservatism.

In 2000 Democrats ridiculed the first part of Bush's "compassionate conservatism." Little did they suspect that the last half would turn out to be the real joke.

By every measure, Bush the Younger has pursed an agenda that attacks everything conservatism stands for--looking out for America first, smaller government, lower taxes, balancing the budget, respecting privacy rights. Even the neoconservatives who took over the GOP's ideological base during the 1980s--defined in the Dorsey Dictionary of American Politics and Government as opposed to "government regulation of personal behavior in areas of morality, school prayer, abortion and so on"--have been left out in the cold.

Bush the Big Spender. During the 2000 campaign Bush promised to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment, a long-time goal of the deficit hawks. He broke that promise. Bill Clinton had balanced the federal budget every year since 1997. When Bush arrived in Washington, the treasury projected a $5.6 trillion surplus through 2011. Yet less than a year later, he'd thrown away so much money on a tax cut for the rich that the country is now facing a $2 trillion deficit. That figure will go even higher if, as expected, Israel and the Pentagon (news - web sites) receive an extra $14 billion a year to fight the "war on terrorism." In response to the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush approved an additional $48 billion increase in defense spending, the biggest in 20 years, yet made no move to balance that raise with tax increases or budget cuts.

Bush Raises Taxes. In a replay of the 1980s, Bush's decision to cut income and estate taxes for wealthy individuals and corporations has led to reduced federal funding to states and cities. The result, according to the conservative Barry Goldwater Institute, is a huge budget gap in 2003 for the states and municipalities. "To deal with their prospective budget shortfalls," Jim McTague wrote in September 2002, "20 to 25 states will have to raise taxes, to the combined tune of $30 billion to $35 billion. Throw in the likely aggressive tax hikes by local governments, and the state-and-local tax boost jumps to $40 billion." By December estimates of the looming state tax increases exceeded $100 billion. Bush's "tax cut" is a brazen lie--it's merely a tax shift, from the rich (who pay most of their taxes to the feds) to the middle-class, whose tiny federal cut will be more than erased by a rise in state and local taxes. Conservatives believe that tax cuts stimulate the economy, but we'll never find out this time around. Most Americans will end up paying higher taxes under Bush than they did under Clinton--during a recession, when they can least afford it.

Bush the Big Government Kingpin. "[Al Gore (news - web sites) is] a person who wants to increase the size and scope of the federal government," Bush charged during one of the 2000 debates. But the standard-bearer of the same party that once called for the elimination of the Department of Education (news - web sites) has used the specter of the Sept. 11 attacks to justify the biggest reorganization and expansion of the federal government since 1947. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites), the creation of the Department of Homeland Security will cost at least $3 to $4 billion through 2007. Amazingly, this boondoggle (involving 170,000 federal workers, and costing $38 billion during year one) doesn't include the CIA (news - web sites) or FBI (news - web sites)--the rival agencies whose failure to cooperate allowed the 19 hijackers' plans to go forward after having been detected--thus negating the main reason given for its creation. "Most of the resources are going to be outside the department's control," says French Caldwell of the market research firm Gartner Inc. "If that's not resolved, this is just another agency giving advice to the White House." Expect history to repeat itself; HomeSec will undoubtedly expand as the "war on terrorism" continues.

Bush's Bizarro Family Values. Respecting the elderly is the ultimate traditional family value (so important to GOP conservatives) yet "compassionate conservative" Bush is squandering the funds saved to make life more pleasant for Grandma and Grandpa. The CBO says that $1 trillion in Social Security (news - web sites) trust funds has already been looted to pay for Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut; a system now projected to break down by 2028 will probably crumble even sooner.

Bush Puts America Last. Wages are spiraling downward. The stock market has tanked. Unemployment and underemployment are rising. A recession is the worst time to be opening U.S. markets to foreign countries whose slave wages allow them to undercut the prices charged by American companies--but that's exactly what George W. Bush is doing. In less than two years, Bush has signed or promoted free trade agreements with Central and South America, Jordan, Australia, New Zealand, Morocco, South Africa and Singapore. That rumble you hear is John Birch Society members whirling in their coffins. And that giant sucking sound is American manufacturing jobs vanishing forever.

Bush the Welfare Pimp. More poor families are sleeping outside, but that doesn't mean Bush isn't wallowing in liberal-style welfare handouts. He's giving away your money to his friends, most of whom happen to be lousy businessmen. After Sept. 11, he gave the airlines, already doing poorly before the attacks, $15 billion. It didn't do any good, though--at this writing United teeters at the brink of bankruptcy. Halliburton, Dick Cheney (news - web sites)'s old company, got a $10 million sweetheart deal to build dog cages at Guantánamo Bay for prisoners of war. Most recently, Bush promised to pay up to $100 billion to insurance companies in case of future terrorist attacks. Never mind that taking risks is what insurance companies are supposed to do--and never mind that conservatism and government handouts didn't used to go together.

Bush the Snoop. Talk about "government regulation of personal behavior"--since Sept. 11 George W. Bush has given us a level of intrusion Josef Stalin only dreamed of. The USA-Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Department, the Defense Department's Total Information Awareness project and expansion of the CIA, FBI and NSA have created a high-tech security apparatus ostensibly designed to intercept and apprehend potential Islamist terrorists. In reality, the prying eyes of the federal government are mostly directed at ordinary Americans. The terrorists, meanwhile, operate more freely than ever in places like Pakistan and Egypt--while their corrupt governments cash even more American aid checks. According to Newsweek, Al Qaeda is once again running terrorist training camps in U.S.-occupied Afghanistan (news - web sites).

Bush the Anti-Conservationist. To reduce dependence on Middle East oil, to help us recover from the recession, and to solve pretty much any other problem you can come up with, Bush's solution involves drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He has gutted Nixon's EPA, softening regulations and ordering the agency to curtail enforcement of its remaining rules. Polluters are running rampant, national parks are being opened up to loggers and even companies that dump toxic waste are getting off the hook. Teddy Roosevelt would not approve.

Bush the Imperialist. Isolationism was a bad idea during the 1930s, but nowadays we could use some old-fashioned foreign policy conservatives. As the U.S. gears up for a costly and useless war against Iraq, we've got nearly 10,000 troops losing the war in Afghanistan. At least 90,000 more soldiers have been dispatched to such Central Asian republics as Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, as well as Yemen and the Philippines. This massive expansion of military bases throughout the world is a huge expense, a surefire recipe for more resentment of the United States, terrorism and instability--in short, everything conservatives fear most.

Hoover, Eisenhower and Goldwater were conservatives. George W. Bush is not. He's a radical right-winger applying selective liberalism in order to create an expansionist military empire centered around an oppressive police state.

Bush has given us the worst of both political worlds: the wasteful tax-and-spend big government of wild-eyed liberalism without any of the compassion or desire for justice that normally goes along with bleeding-heart bureaucracy; the most tyrannical aspects of right-wing demagoguery--scapegoating, depriving people of basic rights, domestic spying, warmongering--without any of the positive attributes that usually accompany it, such as attention to reducing waste and balancing the budget.

We Americans need both liberals and conservatives to lead us. But a government run by right-wing liberals will lead us into a world of trouble.

If the chap toned it down a bit, the piece might be somewhat effective. I don't know why these Paleos have such a love of shrill rhetoric. I guess no one has told them that it doesn't work.

Ted Rall is a flaming liberal but PJB could and has written the same article several times. LOL

Bush's "tax cut" is a brazen lie--it's merely a tax shift, from the rich (who pay most of their taxes to the feds) to the middle-class, whose tiny federal cut will be more than erased by a rise in state and local taxes.

So Bush's tax cuts are responsible for us paying more in taxes? Using his convoluted logic, Bush could just raise taxes through the roof so we don't have to pay any taxes ever again.

Liberal idiot.

Well except this one wants to soak the rich, and soak the poor through higher prices from Draconian import duties to protect inefficient industries. Perhaps the guy hates the idea of folks having disposable income or something. The perfect society is the man in the gray flannel suit, and the folks with blue collars working for one company for life.

As a Texan i can say that the state is more conservative now than ever. Bush was a fine governor. Never heard about him in the news or saw him on tv, kept a low profile. He was kind of a pansy when he came to my city when it flooded one year though, San Antonio . Flew around in a helicopter for 30 minutes and called FEMA. He was supposed to ride in a car to the sites, but was worried about the danger. Made him look like a high class prick that didnt want to get his loafers wet. That did not go down to well, the local radio hosts a field day with it, and they are all conservatives. 1998 i think it was.

You don't think the estate tax is the Maginot Line that keeps regressive state and local taxes down (because the money is all shipped to the states), except in NY and California of course, which are shining polities on the hill that know how to extract revenue from the rich, in part because the places have unique advantages that make it more difficult for folks to decamp? What's wrong with you?

...soak the poor through higher prices from Draconian import duties to protect inefficient industries.

Since it's a safe bet that Rall does not go to church, it means he's a Socialist instead of a Populist.

If he found God tomorrow but kept his political views, he'd be a Populist, of course.

Conservative Republicans fought the right of workers to join unions, of blacks to vote and of the poor to pull themselves out of poverty. Justice for the disenfranchised requires change and change is always dangerous.

Weren't all of the most virulent racists Democrats??? That was generally the Klan's party, wasn't it?

Also -- When the hell did Republicans oppose the right of blacks to vote? Even during the times of school segregation, while there may have been intimidation at the polls, I am aware of nowhere that blacks were banned from voting. That's not what the freedom rides were about - they were about whites showing solidarity with blacks and saying they were willing to stand beside them.

The only Democrat who really did anything for civil rights was Harry Truman (NOT really a liberal Democrat) when he ordered racial integration in the armed forces (over the objection of Eisenhower, who was NOT really a conservative Republican. Certainly Republicans have lagged on issues before, e.g. school segregation, but that was a geographic issue -- whites up north generally supported integration, white down south did not. It wasn't the sort of partisan issue they try to make it out to be -- the GOP was not that secure in the South at that time.

Interesting thesis. Where he goes wrong is that Eisenhower and Nixon weren't particularly conservative Republicans. They were the internationalist, interventionist, big government, high-spending wing of the party of their day. In the eyes of liberals, they were by no means liberal or "progressive," but they weren't really accepted by conservatives as being wholly in their camp.

G.W. Bush follows the tradition of Eisenhower and Nixon, rather than those of Taft and Bricker or of Reagan and Goldwater. He's the latest in a line from Dewey to Eisenhower to Nixon to his father. Where the current President differs from past Republicans is that today's unilateralism doesn't fit in with either the isolationism or the internationalism of previous generations.

"Republicans have lagged on issues before, e.g. school desegregation..."

Perhaps you are not aware that when segregation was an issue, primarilly in the South, The "Solid South" was solid democrat. Ditto for Northern cities where other de-seg battles were pitched. Mostly Rat mayors and councils.

The Southern governors who resisted integration were all demo-rat. The Civil Rights and Voting Rights Bills were passed with large Republican majorities, and a minimum of demo-rats.

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.