August 4, 2004
CONSERVATIVES FOR THE 70s!:
THE CONSERVATIVE CASE AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH (WILLIAM BRYK, 8/04/04, NY Press)
Theodore Roosevelt, that most virile of presidents, insisted that, "To announce that there should be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people." With that in mind, I say: George W. Bush is no conservative, and his unprincipled abandonment of conservatism under the pressure of events is no statesmanship. The Republic would be well-served by his defeat this November.William F. Buckley's recent retirement from the National Review, nearly half a century after he founded it, led me to reflect on American conservatism's first principles, which Buckley helped define for our time. Beneath Buckley's scintillating phrases and rapier wit lay, as Churchill wrote of Lord Birkenhead, "settled and somewhat somber conclusions upon… questions about which many people are content to remain in placid suspense": that political and economic liberty were indivisible; that government's purpose was protecting those liberties; that the Constitution empowered government to fulfill its proper role while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power; and that its genius lay in the Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit that the powers not delegated to government are reserved to the states or to the people.
More generally, American conservatives seek what Lord Acton called the highest political good: to secure liberty, which is the freedom to obey one's own will and conscience rather than the will and conscience of others. Any government, of any political shade, that erodes personal liberty in the name of social and economic progress must face a conservative's reasoned dissent, for allowing one to choose between right and wrong, between wisdom and foolishness, is the essential condition of human progress. Although sometimes the State has a duty to impose restrictions, such curbs on the liberty of the individual are analogous to a brace, crutch or bandage: However necessary in the moment, as they tend to weaken and to cramp, they are best removed as soon as possible. Thus American conservative politics championed private property, an institution sacred in itself and vital to the well-being of society. It favored limited government, balanced budgets, fiscal prudence and avoidance of foreign entanglements.
More subtly, American conservatism viewed human society as something of an organism in itself. This sense of society's organic character urged the necessity of continuity with the past, with change implemented gradually and with as little disruption as possible. Thus, conservatism emphasized the "civil society"—the private voluntary institutions developed over time by passing the reality test—i.e., because they work—such as families, private property, religious congregations and neighborhoods—rather than the State. In nearly every sense, these institutions were much closer to the individuals who composed them than the State could ever be and had the incidental and beneficial effect of protecting one's personal liberty against undue intrusion from governments controlled by fanatics and busybodies, that which Edmund Burke presciently called the "armed ideologies," and thus upheld our way of life as flying buttresses supported a Gothic cathedral.
But the policies of this administration self-labeled "conservative" have little to do with the essence of tradition.
Let us suppose that everything that Mr. Bryk says here is true, which, of course it was not even when Edmund Burke was alive. Here's what he's asking us to swallow: the seventy year rule of America by the Democrats--from 1932 to 2002--left civil society in such pristine condition that it is even today the obligation of the genuine conservative to defend the status quo. In essence, he requires that Republicans accept the New Deal, Great Society, Sexual Revolution, Youth Movement, various "civil rights" movements, the rise of Islamicism/terrorism, etc. These, after all, are the traditions of the past few decades.
When Burke wrote his Reflections he considered much of the defense of tradition already lost:
...the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever.
In our descent from Burke to Bryk have we really arrived at the sorry point where conservatism is supposed to mean nothing more than preserving the gains of the sophisters? Posted by Orrin Judd at August 4, 2004 9:44 PM
Of course, Roosevelt's "criticism" of Taft, driven mostly by egotism, led directly to Wilson and the 20th century.
Posted by: David Cohen at August 4, 2004 10:23 PMAnd TR was the liberal, while Taft was the conservative.
Posted by: oj at August 4, 2004 10:33 PMBryk is right on with the following critiques:
"Forty years ago, when Lyndon Johnson believed the United States could afford both Great Society and the Vietnam War, conservatives attacked his fiscal policies as extravagant and reckless. Ten years ago, the Republican Party regained control of Congress with the Contract with America, which included a balanced-budget amendment to restore fiscal responsibility. But today, thanks to tax cuts and massively increased military spending, the Bush administration has transformed, according to the Congressional Budget Office, a ten-year projected surplus of $5.6 trillion to a deficit of $4.4 trillion: a turnaround of $10 trillion in roughly 32 months."
This deficit spending also helps Bush avoid the debate on national priorities we would have if these expenditures were being financed through higher taxes on a pay-as-you-go basis. After all, we're not paying the bill now; instead, it will come due far in the future, long after today's policy-makers are out of office. And this debt is being incurred just as the baby boomers are about to retire. In January 2004, Charles Kolb, who served in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush White Houses, testified before Congress that, at a time when demographics project more retirees and fewer workers, projected government debt will rise from 37 percent of the economy today to 69 percent in 2020 and 250 percent in 2040. This is the sort of level one associates with a Third World kleptocracy. "
Posted by: Robert Duquette at August 4, 2004 11:09 PMMmmm, why is that a bad thing? The welfare state was inaugurated in this country after the market crash of '29. Whatever comes after the welfare state crash of '40, it won't be any worse than what we've got now. Democracies eventually become welfare states. Welfare states eventually go bankrupt -- they bleed out. Ours is no exception, so let it.
Posted by: joe shropshire at August 4, 2004 11:36 PMI think it's hilarious when people bring up projections. Did they take 9/11 into account when making their calculations? What were the projections for the NASDAQ?
Posted by: andy at August 5, 2004 12:19 AMClassic case of chipping away at Bush from the right. (Nothing new; though rather interesting when taken in conjunction with Kerry's attempt to similarly outflank Bush from the right regarding foreign policy.)
So that the question for those who might view such an article favorably is not, "Has George W. Bush been doing a job that, everything considered, can be described as creditable"? but rather, "Is George W. Bush a conservative candidate, a Republican, in the true sense of the word"?
Would it be too bizarre to speculate that Kerry and Nader might well be running neck and neck (unless the later bails, spectacularly, shortly before November 2)?
Posted by: Barry Meislin at August 5, 2004 8:12 AMPresent-day Germany; present-day France. Their governments may still technically be solvent but their economies are deader than Monty Python's parrot. Give it another thirty years and the same thing happens to us.
Posted by: joe shropshire at August 5, 2004 9:14 AMjoe shropshire:
"Less vibrant than America's" does not equal "dead".
If you'd like, I can point out fifty economies that are doing more poorly than France and Germany's.
andy:
I agree completely. As Thomas Sowell has written, ten year economic projections all have one thing in common: They're always wrong.
Barry:
Yes, too bizarre.
Maybe in some alternate reality...
As for William Bryk, he once again strengthens the perception that fanatics would rather go down in flames than take half a loaf.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at August 5, 2004 5:49 PMAs the strongest, most powerful country in the world, indeed, in all history, have we no obligation to the oppressed and tortured of the rest of the world?
Should we avert our eyes from Darfur, Belarus, North Korea?
Posted by: Paula Mochel at October 22, 2004 3:57 PM