Bush: Conservative?

[Black Dog]

Conservatives wonder: is Bush one of us?

"Historically, conservatism in the United States has meant support for small government, balanced budgets, fiscal prudence and great skepticism about overseas adventures," notes Clyde Prestowitz, a former Reagan Administration official who back in the 1960s was among the young Republicans supporting Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, a conservative standard-bearer. "What I see now is an Administration that's not for any of these things."

[Big Blue Machine]

If he isn't conservative, what else could he be, an extremist?

[Black Dog]

If he isn't conservative, what else could he be, an extremist?

I think trying to define Bush in terms of ideology is a mug's game due to his total lack of principles. If I had to sum up the Bushite ideology, it would be "what's in it for me?" He's an oligarch who drapes himself in the trappings of "common sense" conservativism, which is only a means to an end, that end being power and personal gain.

I think the most telling views in the article are:

"The Bush Administration is not against big government," says Kevin Phillips, a one-time Republican whose recent book, American Dynasty, chronicles the crony capitalism long practiced by the Bush family. "They're against the portion of it that regulates business and requires tax increases, against a welfare system. When it's the latter, they're against big government, but when it's big government that takes care of the oil industry or bails out financial institutions or pumps money into the Pentagon, then they tend to be in favor of that."

...

Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute has described the Administration's energy plan in much the same way: "three parts corporate welfare and one part cynical politics...a smorgasbord of handouts and subsidies for virtually every energy lobby in Washington."

[Big Blue Machine]

Mr. Bush is Mr Very Very on spending

[Black Dog]

The reality of red-state fascism.

The vigor and determination of the Bush administration has brought about a profound cultural change, so that the very people who once proclaimed hated of government now advocate its use against dissidents of all sorts, especially against those who would dare call for curbs in the totalitarian bureaucracy of the military, or suggest that Bush is something less than infallible in his foreign-policy decisions. The lesson here is that it is always a mistake to advocate government action, for there is no way you can fully anticipate how government will be used. Nor can you ever count on a slice of the population to be moral in its advocacy of the uses of the police power.

[August1991]

You make a good point, BD. Reagan was an isolationist in the Teddy Roosevelt style (walk softly but carry a big stick). Bush Snr fought in WW2 and was an internationalist.

Bush Snr is convinced he lost the 1992 election because he raised taxes.

I suspect Bush Jnr has learned this from his Dad: Don't be afraid to get involved abroad and make sure your economic policies at home are vote-winners.

So, to answer your thread title, Bush Jnr is not a doctrinaire conservative. He's no Barry Goldwater.

----

Something else. I still don't know why Bush Jnr is president. I don't think he wanted to be, really. I suspect some Republicans came to him in 2000, showed him the name recognition stats and he said yes ("back into the bubble" is how he put it). And the rest, as they say, is history.

[I miss Reagan]

BD I know you see Al Qaida as a "boogy man" but Dubya will spare no expense at defending the US. I guess that's what differentiates us visionaries on the right from the myopic left, we know that money spent on a good defence is money well spent . As it is with things like entirely public health care, we'd rather be alive and bankrupt, than dead waiting in line for cost free surgery or in economics, have 500 GM workers layed off in Flint now rather than the entire corporation go under 5 years later because it can't compete with Japan, or cut taxes to boost the economy, such it is with spending on defence. We'd rather spend money now so we still have a country 5 years from now. But I know how it is with the left. As spokesman Moore says "there is no terrorist threat, there is no terrorist threat".

[Black Dog]

BD I know you see Al Qaida as a "boogy man" but Dubya will spare no expense at defending the US. I guess that's what differentiates us visionaries on the right from the myopic left, we know that money spent on a good defence is money well spent

Obviously you didn't read the last link. If you had, you'd know that this is another voice from the disenfranchised right, the standard bearers of traditional conservativism, not the ugly chimera that passes for conservatives today.

What is the most pressing and urgent threat to freedom that we face in our time? It is not from the left. If anything, the left has been solid on civil liberties and has been crucial in drawing attention to the lies and abuses of the Bush administration. No, today, the clear and present danger to freedom comes from the right side of the ideological spectrum, those people who are pleased to preserve most of free enterprise but favor top-down management of society, culture, family, and school, and seek to use a messianic and belligerent nationalism to impose their vision of politics on the world.

As it is with things like entirely public health care, we'd rather be alive and bankrupt, than dead waiting in line for cost free surgery or in economics, have 500 GM workers layed off in Flint now rather than the entire corporation go under 5 years later because it can't compete with Japan, or cut taxes to boost the economy, such it is with spending on defence.

That's the problem: when in doubt, neocons reflexivly revert to dogma, never mind the facts. Nevermind that private health care has, without exception, faile dto live up to the promised ends. Nevermind that corporations, those bastions of free enterprise, nose up to the public trough with alarming frequency, even as they shed jobs and seek new ways to maximize shareholder profits at the public's expense. Nevermind that most defence spending is a black hole, the only benefit of which is to defence contracters dependant on government largesse.

We'd rather spend money now so we still have a country 5 years from now.

Maybe you should open your eyes and ears and see what proper conservatives are saying about Bush. That's why I started this thread.

[I miss Reagan]

Maybe you should open your eyes and ears and see what proper conservatives are saying about Bush. That's why I started this thread.

I'm just curious exactly what kind of Conservatives these are that hate Bush so much? Are these the conservatives that voted him in again 2 months ago? Are these people who contributed to the market rise upon the announcement of Bush's re-election. I'm sure you'll find the odd RINO and David Orchard conservative who doesn't like Bush. But the most relevant poll of all showed conservatives support Bush.

[August1991]

BD I know you see Al Qaida as a "boogy man" but Dubya will spare no expense at defending the US.

After those airplane attacks, all presidents would have invaded Afghanistan to eliminate the Taliban. (Even McGovern would have.)

The issue is Iraq. This was a Johnson style intervention.

We'd rather spend money now so we still have a country 5 years from now.

I don't think the Left has a monopoly on short-sightedness. (Although I have to think of short-sighted Right.)

Nevermind that corporations, those bastions of free enterprise, nose up to the public trough with alarming frequency, even as they shed jobs and seek new ways to maximize shareholder profits at the public's expense.

On the Left, this is known as an "Industrial Strategy". Europe has numerous subsidies of the sort, starting with Airbus. A perusal of most Leftist programmes would show a long series of subsidy proposals. They are frequently tied to job creation schemes.

Nevermind that private health care has, without exception, faile dto live up to the promised ends.

Socialized medecine hasn't been a great success. And why do nurses have to be government employees?

Nevermind that most defence spending is a black hole, the only benefit of which is to defence contracters dependant on government largesse.

BD describes government spending as a black hole. (So of course, you want to extend government to other economic sectors.)

[Black Dog]

I'm just curious exactly what kind of Conservatives these are that hate Bush so much?

I think the links I've posted here so far are pretty clear: libertarian, small government classical conservatives. or what I call "real" conservatives. Because there's nothing conservative about runaway government spending, and widespread government intervention.

Are these people who contributed to the market rise upon the announcement of Bush's re-election

Why would the market rise with a Bush reelection? Because there's no such thing as a free market and stockholders know: Bush looks after his own kind. That doesn't make them conservatives, but plutocrats.

But the most relevant poll of all showed conservatives support Bush.

Who are those conservatives that support Bush, and what makes them conservative?

On the Left, this is known as an "Industrial Strategy". Europe has numerous subsidies of the sort, starting with Airbus. A perusal of most Leftist programmes would show a long series of subsidy proposals. They are frequently tied to job creation schemes.

Yeah, but how many would describe themselves as tough, fiscal conservatives? That there are some governments that intervene heavily in the economy is not the issue: the issue is one's that do so under the banner of an idealogy based on small government.

Socialized medecine hasn't been a great success. And why do nurses have to be government employees?

Define success. A well funded public healthcare system is better at ensuring people get the treatment they need regardles sof their socioeconomic status. hat's the point of a healthcare system, not profit

BD describes government spending as a black hole. (So of course, you want to extend government to other economic sectors.)

No. I said military spending is a black hole in that it entails shovelling public money into the private sector with negligible return for the public. How many people could get health coverage or a college education for the cost of a single stealth bomber?

[Black Dog]

"I remember when conservatives favored restraint in foreign policy and wished to limit government power in order to protect civil liberties. Today’s young conservatives are Jacobins determined to use government power to impose their will at home and abroad."

"In fact, if there was anything particularly striking about this year's CPAC, it is to just what extent Republicans have given up being the party of small government and individual liberty."

"I don’t think there are yet real fascists in the administration, but there is certainly now a constituency for them — hungry to bomb foreigners and smash those Americans who might object. And when there are constituencies, leaders may not be far behind."

[Herman Simancas]

'A conservative is someone who is afraid of trying something new.'

'A conservative is someone who sits and thinks. Mostly sits.'

It is someone who is right-winged and opposes reform and embraces traditional values (Family, religion, etc).

[Black Dog]

It is someone who is right-winged and opposes reform and embraces traditional values (Family, religion, etc).

I disagree. True conservatives belive in individual freedom above all else. (Which is why conservativism is better referred to as classical liberalism).

Even the neo conservativism of the Bush inner circle doesn't really meet your criteria. Nor does "compassionate conservativism" do anything mor ethan pay lip service to religion and "values". The current G.O.P's ideaology is centred around using the ower of the state to consolidate political and economic power in the hands of a few elites.

[moderateamericain]

'A conservative is someone who is afraid of trying something new.'

'A conservative is someone who sits and thinks. Mostly sits.'

It is someone who is right-winged and opposes reform and embraces traditional values (Family, religion, etc).

haah thats quite a broad definition.

i think whats happend in the united states is that both parties are spreading further and further apar (ie. more socialist more fascist.) that is why i call myslef moderate Americain because i believe that we need to vote out these extremist like bush or like hilary clinton or even ted kennedy. and get in the much more moderate candidates, ones that are more willing to sit down and listen to both sides and not filibuster on every thing. I consider myself a fiscal conservative, in other words i dislike government spendings. I understand the need for SOME welfare, and i support abortion. the point im trying to make is it is possible to be a conservative and not fit into a mold. you can vote for a conservative president and not be a KKK member. Ive seen alot of the world, ive been to Isriael and japan and china. ive seen alot of the world out there. but i love my country and theres no other place id like to call home. i love that we are all fat and watch too much cubs baseball on TV. i love that i can go into downtown detroit and have the owners of two restaurants fight over me and tell me why they should eat there coney dogs. i love that i can turn on the television and see infomercials on the latest butt master or a commericail on how to keep my stick hard for hours. this is america the land of opportunity, we survived the revolutionary war, the civil war, the war of 1812, the spanish american war, world war 1 and 2, vietnam, korea, gulf war, afghanistan, 9/11, and the current iraqi war, we will survive passed this as well. Americans are free spirited people, we work hard and we play hard. not everything in are culture is good but some things are. everything has a balance in this country for everything that canadians hate theres something to be admired here. we put out some decent Hockey from time to time eh . getting back to the point here, bush really isnt a conservative in the traditional sense. hes more of a "light facist" something in between conservative and facism. i think he trully does have good intentions i think hes unduley influnced by that religion he partakes in, and by oil companies. if only we could get a moderate conservative to run, hed have my vote in a heart beat.

[Black Dog]

i think whats happend in the united states is that both parties are spreading further and further apar (ie. more socialist more fascist.)

Huh? Hardly. What you have is teh Republicans racing to the far-right and the Democrats close behind. Take the Dem's recent aquiescence to the credit card industry's demand for harsher bankruptcy laws, for example. The Democratis establishment is in thrall to the same special interests that guide the Republicans, while the rank and file seem to believe that their defeats over the past 4 years have been the result of the party being "too liberal", which has resulted in a shift to the right. This has left Americans with little real choice, which is no wonder so many couldn't care less about the political process.

As for your point about moderation, I don't belive moderation in itself is a virtue. Canadian politics is rife with moderates who stand for nothing. You need principles and the strength to act upon them.

[moderateamericain]

so according to you being moderate is standing for nothing? and liberals have gotten more liberal in the passed 8 years not less.

[Black Dog]

so according to you being moderate is standing for nothing?

Being a moderate means you have to try and please everyone which, more often than not, reults in dithering and equivocating. Doing the right thing usually menas pissing some people off. But such is life.

and liberals have gotten more liberal in the passed 8 years not less

prove it. Take the last election: did John Kerry, the so-called "most liberal senator in America" take one bona-fide liberal stance? Did he say 'The Iraq war was wrong"? Did he say "we need a single-payer health care system like every other industrialized country in the world"? Did he say "we need to curb trhe influence of corporations on the political process"? Sid he stand up for gay marriage or the right to choose? Did he stand up for anything? No. The difference between him and Bush was one of degrees because the political establishment in America speaks for the same interests regardless of party affiliation.

[moderateamericain]

well i am moderate i believe in what i believe, i dont try to sugar coat it for anyone, some of what i believe conservatives agree with some of what i believe liberals believe that doesnt make me indecisive or a crowd pleasure. it means i take a issue and make my own desicion based on it. if anything im more independent than the robots up there that are singing the party tune be they democrat or republican. so thanks but your argument is foolishly presumptive at best.

look at the politics of FDR and compare it to clinton or kerry. that should prove my point.

[Black Dog]

look at the politics of FDR and compare it to clinton or kerry. that should prove my point.

Let me get this straight: the father of the New Deal, a program that would probably be derided as naescent communism today is somehow less "liberal" than Clinton, a president who incorporated conservative economic policies, including welfare reform, which destroyed the most durable legacy of the New Deal? Or John Kerry who voted with the Republicans to go to war?

Please.

[Black Dog]

Right on cue, James Wolcott , one of my favorite commentators, had this to say about moderation in his blog today.

Whenever a Voice of Moderation addresses liberals, its sole purpose is to stomp out any real sign of life.

[Unpolarized]

Bush is not a conservative. I believe that he an issue by issue decision maker and has no consistency to his approach to issues. When I think of a conservative, I think of someone who is interested in individual rights more than a communitarian approach. Someone who believes in a smaller role for the state, incremental change, the stewardship of resources, a strong link to historical trends and not someone who makes wild radical change.

George Bush does not steward resources well. Fiscally he spends like crazy. He is not interested in protecting the natural resources. His homeland security intiatives are not focused on making government smaller or on individual right but rather on the opposite. He and his adminsitration are reactionary, ad hoc and not based on any solid philosophical ground. His religious views get mixed up with it somehow but its just a mish mash of approaches that lack consistency and quite honestly, thoughfulness.

Neo- conservatism, well I am not sure what that is? Perhaps Bush is the definition of it and therefore it means nothing?

[Black Dog]

Neo- conservatism, well I am not sure what that is? Perhaps Bush is the definition of it and therefore it means nothing?

I don't know if I'd realy characterize Bush as a neocon. His dalliance with some of the more reactionary elements of social conservativism and his own professed beliefs in this area bely that designation. A neoconservative, or neocon, is primarily concerned with the application and expansion of (in this case,) American power and influence on a global scale, by military means if necessary. Prominet neocons in the Bush admin include Cheney, Rumsfeld and Perle.

The thing about neoconservativism is that it is so divorced from the traditional definition of conservativism and so monomaniacally focussed on foreign policy, that it would be better termed "warmongerism" or some such.

[Unpolarized]

Here are an articles that helped me understand the neo-conservative issue.

This one is written by someone who calls himself a neo-con

Neo-Con link

I tried to find a good critique of neo-conseratism from a more traditional conserative but had little luck.

Perhaps I was wrong about Bush. When reading the above link, he follows the neo-con approach to the letter. Can anyone help me understand the appeal of the neo-con approach, which seems to be:

1. Debt financing so that the economy will be stimulated.

2. The American view is the dominant view

3. The role of government should be larger and stronger

4. Even though government is larger, the social safety net can be done differntly or by the private sector.

5. World institutions generally should be regarded with distrust

6. As a world superpower, the American have a responsibility for promoting democracy everywhere possible.

7. Tax cuts (even in the face of a mounting debt)

Its seems a weird mish mash of ideas to be but Bush is following almost to the letter. Perhaps he does have a philosophical base?

[Unpolarized]

I just found one critique that might be an interesting read. Its really a book review but I think sheds a different perspective.

Critique of Neo-Cons