George F. Will:President Bush has turned conservatism on its head, infuriating many supporters

The Union Leader, Manchester, NH ^ | July 24, 2003 | George F. Will

[RJCogburn]

THIS IS THE is the summer of conservatives? discontent. Conservatism has been disoriented by events in the last several weeks. Cumulatively, foreign and domestic developments constitute an identity crisis of conservatism, which is being recast ? and perhaps rendered incoherent.

George W. Bush may be the most conservative person to serve as President since Calvin Coolidge. Yet his Presidency is coinciding with, and is in some instances initiating or ratifying, developments disconcerting to four factions within conservatism. The faction that focuses on foreign policy has four core principles: Preserve U.S. sovereignty and freedom of action by marginalizing the United Nations. Reserve military interventions for reasons of U.S. national security, not altruism. Avoid peacekeeping operations that compromise the military?s war-fighting proficiencies. Beware of the political hubris inherent in the intensely unconservative project of ?nation-building.?

[jmc813]

He also didn't campaign for Schundler for NJ governor.

Bush did support Schundler in mailings and phone calls, but did not personally campaign for him. I'm willing to give Bush a pass opn that because I believe that after the royal screwing the NJ GOP gave to the Schundler team, a Bush appearance would not have made enough of a difference.

[Sparta]

But...but....it's all to co-opt the Dim's issues and sneak conservatism under the rug. (/sarcasm off)

[Dane]

What are you doing posting on FR? You should be making millions with your comedic routine

Hey can you get me the name of a Hollywood agent who will take on non liberal/liberatrian talent.

JMO, but I will be waiting a long time for one name. :^)

[Consort]

Just something to think about...If Bush had won in '92, there would be no such thing as Free Republic today.

I doubt it. But there would have been no President Clinton and probably no Senator Clinton...and they're not through, yet.

[jmc813]

True, I certainly didn't say Clinton's winning was a good thing, it's just funny how things sometimes work out.

[Constantine XIII]

You can think bigger than this! What will happen next year when it is apparent that these deficits cannot be sustained? We will have two options: raise taxes and lower spending. Of course, how politically palatable will it be for Dems to propose rasing taxes just as everyone is beginning to reap the benefits of the Bush tax cuts?

With tax increases effectively off the table except for the Barney Franks and Ted Kennedys, the R's will have no choice but to accomodate the will of the people by cutting silly social spending.

Please, you and other FReepers are smarter than this! We criticise the Dems and their legions that they have the collective attention span of a gnat. We must not fall into the same trap. Politics is a game of strategy and compromise. What we invest today will be returned with interest come this time next year. Count on it!

[roughrider]

Your remarks about the problems with the federal court system miss the mark completely. The problem with the federal courts is judges and Supreme Court justices who unconstitutionally impose their own ideologies on the nation through their rulings. This is LEGISLATING, which is not in any court's jurisdiction. The courts are there to APPLY THE LAW to individual cases, not to create law that satisfies their own political and social beliefs. If courts were confined to their Constitutional functions, it would not matter what the ideology of a nominee for a court position is. It would only matter that the nominee for a judgeship or a Supreme Court justiceship was honest and loyal to the Constitution and People of the United States. The wrangling over nominees has become so depraved in the Senate because both sides are trying to put "their guys" on the bench so the judges can legislate their ideologies. The President has to articulate this Constitutional crisis, and that is what it is, to the American People, and this can be done in a nonpartisan way, as what this position adovcates is a NON-PARTISAN COURT SYSTEM. Only a Court system restrained to applying the law, as it is written, to particular cases can produce an end to nominees for judgeships in the Senate being treated like victims in a gladitorial arena.

Bush was not constrained by the political false dilemma (EITHER he attacked O'Connor, a "political mistake," OR he expresses SUPPORT for the decision, a "smart political strategy"). The true Constitutional and societal crisis that is the present federal court system can only be resolved by restraining the ability of ALL judges and Supreme Court justices to illegally legislate their own political and social opinions. This can, and should, be done by the Congress applying its Article 3, Section 2 powers to regulate the jurisidiction of all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, and voting to overturn any decisions of federal courts that usurp the legislative authority of Congress. Once this is done, Bush could safely nominate a liberal or moderate to the Court, who was honest and a loyal American, and it wouldn't cause a ripple in the social fabric.

[jmc813]

I think it would be great if your scenario plays out that way, but unfortunately, I am very skeptical that we will be seeing spending increases from this administration. :-(

[WRhine]

He was probably looking down at his own anatomy when he made that comment.

[Mo1]

.

[LibertarianLiz]

A prescription drug entitlement is not inherently unconservative, unless the welfare state itself is — and it isn’t.
It isn't? News to me.

Yeah, I blinked at that one, too.

[BlueLu]

You are going to have to help me with this one; I cannot tell if you are agreeing or mocking. I will say, that I see no problem with letting the Quebecois go their own way. Sometimes the family becomes stronger when members of the household, who are disagreeable when stuck together in one household, are allowed to get their own apartments.

[gubamyster]

ping

[f.Christian]

Check over ... here --- go back about 7 - 10 days !

[rwfromkansas]

For the record, the White House has people dedicated to solely looking at what the conservatives are thinking. They aren't taking us for granted just because they didn't invite Jim Robinson to the White House for dinner.

[BlueLu]

To me this is not persuasive evidence, any more than it is to say that *enter American oil barron's name here* should have been imprisoned, because he had enough wealth in the bank and in the ground to cover up and get away committing heinous crimes if he had wanted to.

And, yes Saddam had "ties" to terrorists (other than his own police), but it sounds to me like he was keeping ties to them in order to keep tabs on them, and keep them from destabilizing his regime -- much as, for good reason, the CIA do.

I agree with having intelligence agents in the Middle East and in punishing terrorists. And I want very much to believe that there is good reason to have sent the US military there, but I remain unconvinced.

[BlueLu]

I was not on Free Republic 7 days ago. And if I go to that link, I have to click several times to get to 10 days ago.

I do not think this is nit picking.

[jwalsh07]

And, yes Saddam had "ties" to terrorists (other than his own police), but it sounds to me like he was keeping ties to them in order to keep tabs on them, and keep them from destabilizing his regime -- much as, for good reason, the CIA do.

Get your hearing checked.

Hussein gave santuary to the worst of the worst, the ones nobody else would risk letting in.

Like Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas who, by the way, was responsible for the murder of one of your fellow citizens Leon Klinghoffer.

The PLF, Answar al Islam and Al Qaeda all operated in and from Iraq.

Here's the good news. Most of them now sleep with Beavis and Butthead.

[Scenic Sounds]

Thank you.

[exit82]

If anyone should be invited to the White House, it should be Jim Robinson.Freepers in Florida and DC and across the country did more to help Bush in the Florida fiasco than anyone else.

As far as those in the WH who are monitoring conservatives, may I ask what the evidence for that is? I don't see it. Who are the conservative leaders and columnists that have the WH staff's ears or lunch with them or President Bush?

If this is happening, it's news to me and I sure would like to be better informed.