George W Bush: Movement conservatism's true heir?

[motivez]

So I had an oped piece linked to me the other day that discussed Bush's various deeds while in office and the discussion taking place in many conservative circles that Bush has somehow strayed from the "conservative" path, and so forth.

Here's the article:

Same Old Party
By PAUL KRUGMAN

There have been a number of articles recently that portray President Bush as someone who strayed from the path of true conservatism. Republicans, these articles say, need to return to their roots.

Well, I don’t know what true conservatism is, but while doing research for my forthcoming book I spent a lot of time studying the history of the American political movement that calls itself conservatism — and Mr. Bush hasn’t strayed from the path at all. On the contrary, he’s the very model of a modern movement conservative.

For example, people claim to be shocked that Mr. Bush cut taxes while waging an expensive war. But Ronald Reagan also cut taxes while embarking on a huge military buildup.

People claim to be shocked by Mr. Bush’s general fiscal irresponsibility. But conservative intellectuals, by their own account, abandoned fiscal responsibility 30 years ago. Here’s how Irving Kristol, then the editor of The Public Interest, explained his embrace of supply-side economics in the 1970s: He had a “rather cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit and other monetary or fiscal problems” because “the task, as I saw it, was to create a new majority, which evidently would mean a conservative majority, which came to mean, in turn, a Republican majority — so political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government.”

People claim to be shocked by the way the Bush administration outsourced key government functions to private contractors yet refused to exert effective oversight over these contractors, a process exemplified by the failed reconstruction of Iraq and the Blackwater affair.

But back in 1993, Jonathan Cohn, writing in The American Prospect, explained that “under Reagan and Bush, the ranks of public officials necessary to supervise contractors have been so thinned that the putative gains of contracting out have evaporated. Agencies have been left with the worst of both worlds — demoralized and disorganized public officials and unaccountable private contractors.”

People claim to be shocked by the Bush administration’s general incompetence. But disinterest in good government has long been a principle of modern conservatism. In “The Conscience of a Conservative,” published in 1960, Barry Goldwater wrote that “I have little interest in streamlining government or making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size.”

People claim to be shocked that the Bush Justice Department, making a mockery of the Constitution, issued a secret opinion authorizing torture despite instructions by Congress and the courts that the practice should stop. But remember Iran-Contra? The Reagan administration secretly sold weapons to Iran, violating a legal embargo, and used the proceeds to support the Nicaraguan contras, defying an explicit Congressional ban on such support.

Oh, and if you think Iran-Contra was a rogue operation, rather than something done with the full knowledge and approval of people at the top — who were then protected by a careful cover-up, including convenient presidential pardons — I’ve got a letter from Niger you might want to buy.

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration’s efforts to disenfranchise minority groups, under the pretense of combating voting fraud. But Reagan opposed the Voting Rights Act, and as late as 1980 he described it as “humiliating to the South.”

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration’s attempts — which, for a time, were all too successful — to intimidate the press. But this administration’s media tactics, and to a large extent the people implementing those tactics, come straight out of the Nixon administration. Dick Cheney wanted to search Seymour Hersh’s apartment, not last week, but in 1975. Roger Ailes, the president of Fox News, was Nixon’s media adviser.

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration’s attempts to equate dissent with treason. But Goldwater — who, like Reagan, has been reinvented as an icon of conservative purity but was a much less attractive figure in real life — staunchly supported Joseph McCarthy, and was one of only 22 senators who voted against a motion censuring the demagogue.

Above all, people claim to be shocked by the Bush administration’s authoritarianism, its disdain for the rule of law. But a full half-century has passed since The National Review proclaimed that “the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail,” and dismissed as irrelevant objections that might be raised after “consulting a catalogue of the rights of American citizens, born Equal” — presumably a reference to the document known as the Constitution of the United States.

Now, as they survey the wreckage of their cause, conservatives may ask themselves: “Well, how did we get here?” They may tell themselves: “This is not my beautiful Right.” They may ask themselves: “My God, what have we done?”

But their movement is the same as it ever was. And Mr. Bush is movement conservatism’s true, loyal heir.

Same Old Party

Now obviously this guy isn't unbiased, and it's the New York times opinion section, so obviously factor that in to your thoughts about what he's saying

But what do you think?

I think the ideas behind what a word means change with time, and I think over the last few decades we've seen a real shift on what it means to be a conservative.. lip service is still paid to small government, fiscal responsibility, etc.. but rarely put into practice.

The more libertarian ideals have not been a true part of the Republican platform in a long time.

The primary reason people identify themselves as conservatives these days in my experience has been due to societal issues, gay marriage, abortion, and so forth.. rather than really caring much about the fiscal, small government side.. or ensuring that government abides by Constitutional limitations.. and I think there's proof of that in what really gets people out to vote these days. In general, people don't get too excited about reforming the tax code, or the tax on capital gains.. they get really heated over gay marriage and abortion.

The people we have on this forum who identify themselves as conservatives or lean conservative are in large part, I think, cut from a different cloth than the majority of the self identified conservative types who are out there.

Also, this isn't the first time I've seen someone make the rationale that "Conservatives preach about how bad government is, then get elected and prove it" .. and I'm really not sure that's so far off base as far as those who are in power right now are concerned.

If you go into something with the idea that it's bad, that it should be bad, and everyone needs to know that it IS bad, isn't it likely that along the way you're going to do something to prove it?

[Rouger2]

This guy keeps going back to Reagan to prove his point, but Reagan is Bushs model. Bush is just Reagan light. The republican party has been dumb every since Reagan just as dumb as he was. He and his big spending, Japanese money loving, hard ballers. You need to go past Reagan to find the real consveratives. The penny pinchers and small government people, but I think there has been conservatives in both parties. Conservatism has not been a republican monopoly.

[motivez]

He brings up Nixon, Goldwater, and Kristol as well though

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

Now obviously this guy isn't unbiased, and it's the New York times opinion section, so obviously factor that in to your thoughts about what he's saying

I read no further.

The answer is No.

I do not need Krugman or anyone in your party to lecture me about dishonesty. Just project the way your party operates on conservatives and or Republicans and that will do. Every Thief thinks the other man a crook!


I think Bush is honest, but he has been played a fool. I had a bad feeling when he started the "Compassionate Conservative" bit. He was told to sell off principles by being Democrat light. That Republicans could make big government run well. That he could be the Cowboy, but not too much, and still get the job done. Do you want me to say Bush has hurt the party? Yes he has! Does that make anybody right? It makes the left all the more spineless and self absorbed. Who the hell else would celebrate the destruction and humiliation of the light of freedom in the world?

Why don't you think about that and the consequences while you pride yourself on how clever you are?

[motivez]

If you haven't bothered to read any further then what is your basis for providing an opinion as a response? I can't really care about what someone has to say if they don't bother reading first

Secondly, I'm not a Democrat, so the "your party" stuff is nonsense.. and this thread isn't about me.

As far as Bush being honest, well, we know for a fact he's lied / spoken mistruths to the public on many occasions, but that's something all politicians do, so there's nothing really special there.. and I don't think he sold off any principles he truly cared about to begin with. I'm not sure why you do?

I really have no clue what you're saying about "celebrating the destruction and humiliation of the light of freedom in the world" -- If anything, it's the Republican party that has been cheering the demise of our reputation around the world through their idiotic foreign policy decisions... we don't have to go too far back to remember thinking it was a fantastic idea to hate France for disagreeing with us.. and that's just the tip of the iceberg.. perhaps you'd care to elaborate?

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I think Bush is honest

Now that has to be one of the funniest things I have read on here yet. Not much to say after that.

"I did not have sexual realtions with Mrs Lewinski"

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Roonie

Now that has to be one of the funniest things I have read on here yet. Not much to say after that.

"I did not have sexual realtions with Mrs Lewinski"

Well, you could have quoted "he has been played a fool" bit.

But I know when I stepped in it!

[SoFlaJDM]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I read no further.

The answer is No.

I do not need Krugman or anyone in your party to lecture me about dishonesty. Just project the way your party operates on conservatives and or Republicans and that will do. Every Thief thinks the other man a crook!


I think Bush is honest

says the man who is posting 5 different charles krauthammer articles... way to go broseph!!