February 10, 2004
TRICKY DICK VS. ROCKY FOREVER:
Bush vs. the Deficit Hawks: During the Reagan years, conservatives were willing to live with big spending. What's changed? (BRENDAN MINITER, February 10, 2004, Wall Street Journal)
During Mr. Reagan's administration Washington ran large deficits too, but he is now revered for winning the Cold War and restoring the economy (not to mention the country's sense of optimism).So why is Mr. Reagan a hero, while President Bush is taking so many hits even from the right for running up the government's tab?
Part of the reason is that ex-presidents are judged differently. While seeking the presidency and while in office, Mr. Reagan was attacked by plenty of Republicans. It was, after all, George Bush père who dubbed Mr. Reagan's tax-cutting proposals "voodoo economics." And David Stockman, Mr. Reagan's budget director, looked at his president's proposed budgets and pronounced "deficits as far as the eye can see."
But that's not entirely it. With double digit spending increases over the last three years, conservatives are clearly unhappy with this president's spending priorities. Creating a new federal department (Homeland Security) and hiring tens of thousands of new federal workers (mostly for airport security) isn't sitting well. Nor is the creation of the largest entitlement expansion since LBJ, the Medicare drug benefit. For conservatives the biggest problem in all of this isn't the deficit, but the sense that the Republican Party no longer stands for smaller government. Today the party is morphing into what it once sought to unseat--big-spending politicians, interested only in holding onto power.
Kevin Phillips was on the Diane Rehm show today, practically foaming at the mouth about the Bush dynasty. As he raved the thought occurred that for older Nixonians like him (and Pat Buchanan, Bob Dole, Ross Perot, etc.) this is still all just a matter of class-hatred and the Bush family has simply replaced Nelson Rockefeller and the Eastern Establishment in their minds. Nothing Mr. Bush could ever do would convince such people that he was a true conservative--they'll always harbor the visceral sense that he isn't "one of us". What's interesting is that the elder Bush may well have understood this and that may be why the boys are so determinedly Texan, rather than Connecticut (even if the paleos don't buy it). Posted by Orrin Judd at February 10, 2004 7:57 PM
I stopped listening to Phillips years ago. What I want to know is, if the Bushes are an all-powerful political dynasty, why were they all one-termers?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at February 10, 2004 11:48 PMReagan benefitted from being there at the lowest point of the GOP in most people's memories -- the 1964 Johnson landslide. Being one of the few shining lights in a time when liberalism seemed totally triumphant gave him a certain status within the conservative movement that Bush could never hope to gain.
GWB did get the Democrats out of the White House, but was elected at a time when the Republicans already controlled both houses of Congress. Reagan's win in 1980 coincided with the first GOP majority in either chamber since 1954, which was another plus on his ledger. Combine that with conservatives' past suspicion of the Bush family over 41's "voodo economics" line against Reagan and his going back on the "No new taxes" pledge, and the sins of the father give the son less breathing space to work with, no matter how much he cuts taxes.
Posted by: John at February 11, 2004 12:17 AM--first GOP majority in either chamber since 1954,--
I thought the first GOP majority was the Senate in 1986, not 1980?
Posted by: Sandy P. at February 11, 2004 12:35 AMNo, the GOP gained the Senate in 1980, but Reagan's landslide was pulled in a number of candidates who were not very good legislators or campaigner on their own merits, and with the Iran-Contra problems breaking in the fall of 1986, the Democrats regained control of the Senate. It didn't change back until the "Hillarycare" reversal of 1994.
Posted by: John at February 11, 2004 1:24 AMThe idea that Reagan was any kind of fiscal conservative is a joke. He ran huge deficits, larger as a percentage of GDP than Bush's. He jacked up taxes twice, and one of the huge hikes was to prop up Social Security as a comically inefficient all-government Ponzi scheme. He spent like a sailor on crack with three hookers: the federal budget nearly doubled while he was in office.
But Reagan is revered as a conservative saint while Bush takes all sorts of flack from the right. In fact, by any reasonable measure, Bush is much more fiscally conservative than Reagan was. But don't expect that dangerous knowledge to penetrate, say, the NRO Corner.
Posted by: Casey Abell at February 11, 2004 9:31 AMBTW, since when are all the Bushes one-termers? Last I checked, George Jr. and Jeb both won overwhelming re-elections as governors of large states.
Posted by: Casey Abell at February 11, 2004 9:34 AMPrescott was re-elected too.
Posted by: oj at February 11, 2004 9:42 AMI agree with whoever it was that said, "You ARE where you went to junior high school." GWB is Midland Texas...
(Funny thing is that Laura was in the same Jr High, and the two families crossed paths frequently, yet George and Laura didn't meet until years later and far away.)
Posted by: John Weidner at February 11, 2004 8:08 PMRon Paul is not the patron saint of conservative Republicans. Frankly, neither is Jesse Helms.
Kevin Phillips reminds me more and more of John Dean (I get them mixed up in photos). But he has Bill Moyers-like stature for the Left. Good for him.
Posted by: jim hamlen at February 11, 2004 10:30 PM