January 25, 2004
THE NIHILISTS:
A Concerned Bloc of Republicans Wonders Whether Bush Is Conservative Enough (DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK, 1/25/04, NY Times)
To many people, President Bush — tax-cutter, born-again Christian, invader of Iraq — is the face of American conservatism. But here at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, many of the assembled are questioning whether he is conservative enough.Conservatives complain about the administration's spending on Medicare and education and its proposed spending on space exploration, its expansion of law enforcement powers to fight terrorism and its proposed guest-worker program for immigrants.
To underscore the discontent, the American Conservative Union, which organizes the conference, held a dinner in honor of Republicans in the House of Representatives who voted against the president's Medicare bill. The conference called them fiscal heroes. The topic of one panel discussion was "G.O.P. Success: Is It Destroying the Conservative Movement?" and another debated whether the administration's antiterrorism efforts were endangering people's rights to privacy and freedom. [...]
"There are troubling signs that the ship of conservative governance is off-course," Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana, said in the opening address.
Too many "big-government Republicans" have come to see government as a solution instead of the problem itself, Mr. Pence said.
"One more compromise of who we are as limited-government conservatives and our majority could be gone as well," he said, adding, "It is time for conservatives to right the ship." [...]
Many conservatives attribute the 1992 electoral defeat of the first President Bush to disillusionment at the conservative grass roots over his failure to understand the movement and his willingness to raise taxes.
"Bush Sr. jumped over the line and we had to whack him," said Grover G. Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and a strategist of the conservative movement.
As Eric Hoffer described this mindset:
Free men are aware of the imperfection inherent in human affairs, and they are willing to fight and die for that which is not perfect. They know that basic human problems can have no final solutions, that our freedom, justice, equality, etc. are far from absolute, and that the good life is compounded of half measures, compromises, lesser evils, and gropings toward the perfect. The rejection of approximations and the insistence on absolutes are the manifestation of a nihilism that loathes freedom, tolerance, and equity.
Mr. Norquist captures the fanaticism of such folks perfectly--he's proud to have helped give the country 8 years of Bill Clinton, and nearly 8 of Al Gore, because it proved he's ideologically pure. Thus is the self ultimately elevated above country and even over ostensible cause. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 25, 2004 11:51 AM
We have a President who is, in many ways, more conservative than Ronald Reagan, and we debate whether he's conservative "enough." Thus, forever we shall remain the Stupid Party.
Posted by: kevin whited at January 25, 2004 12:31 PMYou could go back to the primary season six years ago, substitute the names of several conservative members of the Texas Republican Party for the national ones in this story, and pretty much use the exact same quotes. And, of course, Bush in the end won re-election by a 74-25 percent margin over his Democratic challenger Garry Mauro. The Republicans should be so cursed again with a flawed candidate like that come November.
Posted by: John at January 25, 2004 1:25 PMAnd if the result is a party that has moved left in a (vain) attempt to displace the Dems as the party of the big government welfare state?
Does the country need 2 leftwing parties?
Are principles merely negotiating points?
"We have a President who is, in many ways, more conservative than Ronald Reagan"
Reagn was an ideologue,the cold war was his priority,everything else was secondary.
Bush is no ideologue,his record is largely split-the-difference opportunism,cut taxes but double welfare spending,sign the partial birth ban but cave on affirmative action.
The only real thing he has going for him is the war,pulling conservatives,independents and moderate Dems into his orbit.The '02 election was all about national security and nothing but.
M --
When Reagan accepted Thatcher's advice that Gorbachev was a man who could be bargained with, he was dismissed by certain conservatives as the Communist's useful idiot. Bush, on the other hand, has clearly decided that the war comes first and everything else is secondary.
If it weren't for the war, I could imagine not enthusiastically supporting Bush. But, of course, if things were different, things would be different.
Posted by: David Cohen at January 25, 2004 3:16 PMM:
The midterm, as has been authoritatively demonstrated (http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/006028.html), had nothing to do with 9-11, nor will the '04 election. There's simply a political shift underway in which the GOP is greatly assisted by geography, demographics and the American electoral system.
Posted by: oj at January 25, 2004 3:53 PMBush has alienated a *LOT* of conservatives with:
1. His amnesty and open-borders plan for guest workers. I know I keep going on about this, but this is a tyrannical imposition by open-borders ideologues, and not in touch with the will of the people. It is a BIG DEAL politically, as the polls show here and here:
An ABCNEWS poll found 52 percent oppose an amnesty program for illegal immigrants from Mexico; 57 percent oppose one for illegal immigrants from other countries. Both results are roughly the same as when the administration floated the idea 2 ½ years ago.Moreover, in a finding that suggests it will be a difficult political sell, at least twice as many Americans "strongly" oppose the proposal as strongly support it. For Mexicans, 34 percent are strongly opposed, with 17 percent strongly in favor. For other illegal immigrants, 40 percent are strongly opposed to the idea, while 14 percent are strongly in favor...
Opposition peaks in Bush's own party: Fifty-eight percent of Republicans oppose his immigration proposal for Mexicans, compared with 50 percent of Democrats. For illegal immigrants other than Mexicans, 63 percent of Republicans are opposed.
2. His $400 billion dollar expansion of Medicare -which is an underestimate, as I've seen Heritage and CATO peg it at around 1 trillion once all is said and done.
3. His meddling in local schools through the Federal "No Child Left Behind Act", whose 5 year plans are reminiscent of the Soviet Union (and do not acknowledge that - yes - some kids just aren't as smart as others).
4. His opportunistic protectionism (steel, outsourcing)
5. His 30-plus proposals during the SOTU for more and more government spending and programs, with "success" being defined as growing the budget by "only" four percent.
6. His creation of a massive and useless Homeland Security and TSA bureaucracy, and his refusal to overhaul a CIA and FBI which screwed up on 9/11, Tora Bora, and the WMDs in Afghanistan.
Just about the *only* things that Bush has done right are the tax cuts and Afghanistan. But even the tax cuts will face pressure to be rolled back in the wake of this massive discretionary spending binge, and the jury is still out in Iraq. I mean, if we pull out by June and they end up implementing sharia, will it really have been worth it?
As for fiscal conservatism...the truth is that Clinton and a Republican congress were much more effective in keeping spending under control and controlling the size of government. Welfare reform, NAFTA, balanced budget, MFN status for China, and reinventing government...all that stuff happened when the House Republicans stuck it to Clinton and forced him to triangulate and co-opt their proposals.
Bush, by contrast, has yet to veto a single bill. Not a single one! If this out-of-control spending was confined to the military, that would be one thing - we are in a war. But the increase in discretionary spending is frankly surreal and unnecessary. Is it worth voting for Bush if he's this far left? He needs to get checked by his base. Rove cannot take them for granted.
Posted by: godlesscapitalist at January 25, 2004 11:33 PMGodless
First, "tyranical"? The President has announced that he's going to make a proposal to Congress. If the proposal was to round up all the Mexicans and ship them to Mexico in boxcars, I'd still think that tyranical was a little out there. As it is, come on.
Second, don't you see a problem with scoring the President with both points 1 and 4. Your criticism of the immigration plan as unpopular doesn't sit well with your criticism of the popular steel tarriffs as bad policy.
Posted by: David Cohen at January 26, 2004 9:00 AMDavid:
But it does fot the profile perfectly--for the godless's of the world it is divergence from their personal preferences that makes one untouchable.
Posted by: oj at January 26, 2004 9:12 AMOne should never o'erlook the allure
of being ideologically pure....
And . . .
As a matter of economics, how can you distinguish your opposition to banning outsourcing with your opposition to bringing in cheap, unskilled labor? Does it really make a difference whether we send the work there, or bring the worker here?
Posted by: David Cohen at January 26, 2004 10:39 AM