Yesterday, Cenk Uygur wrote this line: "Come on, Mr. Conservative-I-support-the-Bush-administration-no-matter-what, you don't even believe that." As anyone with a passing familiarity of current events realizes, however, there are essentially no conservatives who support the Bush administration across-the-board.
This has become particularly obvious recently in the context of the current battle over immigration reform. As Peggy Noonan explains, Bush's support for, and ardent advocacy of, the Kennedy-Kyl immigration reform bill is only the latest in a series of conservative grievances against his administration. Conservatives have balked, to name a few examples, at the administration's extravagant spending and the creation of a new, super-expensive prescription drug benefit. Many conservatives dislike the No Child Left Behind program. Bush has also come in for criticism from conservatives on foreign policy issues, though most of us recognize these decisions are more difficult and less susceptible to an ideological answer. For example, I opposed the troop surge in Iraq and have been critical of current administration policy with respect to Israel.
So Noonan is clearly correct when she describes the widespread unhappiness with Bush on the part of conservatives. But Noonan is wide of the mark in viewing conservatives as victims (she goes so far as to invoke the phrase "battered wife syndrome"). In reality, Bush never presented himself as a true conservative. To the contrary, he made it clear from the beginning that he was a "compassionate conservative" who believes in a far more substantial role for government than do traditional conservatives. Moreover, Bush's support for the "comprehensive" immigration reform contained in the current bill does not represent a betrayal of conservatives; rather it embodies the position he has taken all along.
Why then did conservatives support Bush so strongly beginning in 2000? The main answer, I believe, is that we recognized that the public would not elect anyone more conservative than Bush. Back then, Bill Clinton was completing a popular presidency that would have been even more popular but for his massive personal shortcomings. Clinton based the last six years of his presidency (the years during which he was popular) on a purported middle ground between traditional big government liberalism (the kind that got him into trouble in 1994) and traditional limited government conservatism. Conservative leaders recognized that a successful Republican presidential candidate would have to occupy some sort of middle ground too. Bush offered this, as did John McCain, the only other Republican who received serious presidential consideration that year.
Seven years later, conservatives are disillusioned. This is normal. Liberals became disillusioned with Clinton's "middle ground" presidency to the point that large numbers of them defected to Ralph Nader in 2000, thus helping Bush become president. We have every right to be unhappy with Bush. What we lack, in my view, is the right to be outraged.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 2)
1. To my shock, I do not have more than picky disagreements with what is said in the blog. The general thesis of the blog to me is non-offensive.
Now, to pick-pick-pick. Ask any gay, lesbian, non-member of Evangelism, citizen of Iraq, one of the 47 million uninsured, and most disabled and senior citizens, and they will dispute that George Bush practices "compassionate" conservatism. He is a scapegoater, a mindless warhawk without the expertise to successfully complete his wars, and has no hesitation or guilt about a pile of dead bodies or millions of Americans left out of a chance to participate in the American dream or receive necessary healthcare.
In regard to the "super expensive" prescription drug program - most seniors and disabled, many of whom had to forego their own medicine to buy medicine for a loved one, would say the value of life is more important than the value of money. Plus, allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices would make the prescription benefit MUCH cheaper - but Republicans have obstructed it because they are the recipients of HUGE donations from Big Pharma.
I also believe the American people have every reason to be "OUTRAGED" with the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress. A foreign policy and war based on lies has resulted in a pile of dead bodies and scores of permanently disabled soldiers, as well as dangerously alienating our country from the rest of the world. It has turned our national political discourse into a battleground. Their domestic polices have gutted the American economy in terms of the reality of most Americans' lives through job outsourcing. Their attempt to turn the nation into a theocracy endangers our secular democracy and scapegoats gays, lesbians, and anyone else who disagrees with the Republican and Fundamentalist party line.
Paul, I congratulate you on writing a more balanced blog. To me, it adds to the credibility of the blog and allows the reader to actually look at the idea espoused as opposed to being immediately turned off by severe one sided advocacy. I also noticed a balanced credible approach in another recent blog that for some reason quickly disappeared. Good job.
Phil at 12:20PM on Jun 1st 2007
2. Your blog seems to turn the situation around and make me feel it is my fault for the Bush problem. I couldn't disagree more. Bush presented himself as being as much opposite to Clinton as one could get. Most particular he emphasized a moral component that was obviously lacking in Clinton and his gang. The voters were left with little choice, there was Gore and look at what he has become, this is much worse that Bush on his worse day. Then there was Kerry and even the libs don't like him, there is nothing real about the man.
Most Republicans and conservatives are upset because in reality Bush and those sourrounding him are really stupid. It is difficult to finally come to that reality, but how else would you describe all the failure? The war, a natural response to an event like 9/11. Yet instead of saying we have over 50 years of failed Middle East policy and are going to do something forcefull about it, gets us involved in another Vietnam with all the polical correctness that comes with a war managed by media and politicians. This is followed by one mistake after another with a congress and president spending as fast as they can and their party not being able to control them. Then the immigration deal, he can't do it piecemeal. He can't secure the border and restrict movement across it. He has to have a large, comprehensive bill that is full to pork, special considerations, amnesty and other aspects that no conservative can swallow. He then calls his supports names and spurns them. Belittles their concerns and in short does as much to side line them as possible. This is followed by the congressional leaders doing the same. The Republican party is dead. The frustration that has been unleashed will likely be carried on to a more violent conclusion and possible change in our government as in 1860.
David Caskey, MD at 2:10PM on Jun 1st 2007
3. Paul:
You give President Bush too much credit.
Anyone who uses name calling to alienate his base has gone far, far off the reservation. There is no excuse for it. When did he ever use language against the Democrats? In my mind, his attitude change started with the Harriet Miers nomination. You saw the same antics then. He now has zero (that's zero) support for any political activity he chooses to entertain for the remainder of his term. He will be pillaried by the presss and his own voters from here on in....a situation of his own making.
I voted for him twice. I can't wait for him to leave.
Ken
Ken Muller at 3:34PM on Jun 1st 2007
4. We have herd followers on the Left and the right. IN fact, the only real leader on the scene is Bush. He's the only one acting on what he believes, not what the polls tell him he can sell.
Yet the herd can't see it, all they can do is follow the ass in front of them.
I do support Bush over the limp and lying Left and over conservatives that would be lost in the wilderness without Bush and other republicans that blunt the worst side of conservativism. Just like the debate over illegal immigration. Bush is trying to solve a major problem and he's running up against bigots on the right, and clowns on the Left that see their share of the government tit limited by immigration. Bush is leading and the herd is scattering in every direction. Nothing new here.
Thomas J Gassett at 4:44PM on Jun 1st 2007
5. He now has zero (that's zero) support for any political activity he chooses to entertain for the remainder of his term. >>
What planet on you on? Bush got exactly what he wanted in the Iraq funding. He made them all back off and do what he told them they would do months ago. That's leadership ... something you only see in Bush. You have become another herd follower that chants Bush has zero support even as he gets his way on every issue. I bet there is a long Latin word that describes this sort of mental illness.
Thomas J Gassett at 4:49PM on Jun 1st 2007
6. Paul, I believe that you're wrong and need to stand down on this one.
I believe that the citizens have every right to be outraged on this issue; not simply because this bill (S 1348) does not represent a conservative view point. The cause and justification for outrage is that this bill is missing all of the necessary ingredients to secure the constitutional protections and safety for the citizens of the United States of America.
There is no impact analysis or sufficeint fiscal accounting.
There is no accountability for crimes that are committed, and the attack on the intelligence of the people by saying that it is not amnesty.
There is no way of dealing with and correcting the inefficiency of the USCIS and other bureaucracies to deal with processing over 20 million people, with the current 4 million backlog.
There is a history and demonstration of the lack of enforcement after legalization, which is a repeat of the past failed practices.
We are not outraged because he simply wants to grant legal status to illegal aliens. We are outraged because anyone that can balance their check book has to hold onto their wallets on this one. They're forcing the same failed policies onto the American public out our expense once again. WE HAVE EARNED THE RIGHT TO BE OUTRAGED AND THEY HAVE EARNED OUR DISTRUST!
Cdalealden at 5:08PM on Jun 1st 2007
7. My sister worked in Milawukee at Rath Packing as a bookkeeper for years. They closed her plant to move it to NE or IA where they could hire illegals. So she got a job with IBM. They closed the Milwaukee office and moved all those jobs to India this spring.
Repubs wonder why people are upset. There’s nothing you can do for a living that the Republican party won’t happily allow big business to outsource or import somebody who’ll work cheaper as long as the fatcats keep filling their campaign coffers. Nothing.
Case in point, the RNC announced yesterday they’re shutting down their DC fundraising office and firing all 65 solicitors because donations are off 40%. 99% of all callees express disgust about the immigration bill. The RNC also cites outmoded equipment that would be costly to replace.
Hogwash. Does anybody think the RNC is just folding it’s fundraising tent? They’re either outsourcing those calls like they did the phonejamming scam in NH in 2002 or switching over to robocalling. They still have a lot of those rc machines they used in last year’s elections to fool indy voters all over the country into believing Dems were flooding their phones with calls a dozen times a day. That little scam is going to be outlawed before the next election so letting most donors scream at a machine is a cheaper way to find the few true believers still dumb enough to pony up.
markg8 at 6:34PM on Jun 1st 2007
8. Excellent commentary.
Don Surber at 8:05PM on Jun 1st 2007
9. Hideously bad commentary.
Webster Hubble Telescope at 9:31PM on Jun 1st 2007
10. Typical cdalealden, Thomas, where's Berg... ain't you all the same guy.. skipsailing et al...D'Souza..
pboyfloyd at 2:21AM on Jun 2nd 2007
11. Thomas J.
I typically enjoy your postings and try to extract what wisdom I can from them, but I have to part ways with you on the illegal immigration issue and president Bush's position and assault against his own party members who disagree with him. I also have to acknowledge that he didn't find his "William Tecumseh Sherman" and no one is marching to victory in Iraq.
If I take my car to the repair shop, I don't care how tough the job is for the technitian: If it were easy I would have hired myself. If the technitian takes the job, I want my car professionally and properly repaired. I'll accept excuses from three year olds.
I hired Bush as president to do the hard jobs, like dealing with the immigration issue. I have a right to disagree with him, and if he is not willing to call out the Democrats, then I definately am not going to stand by silently when he directs his anger and frustration toward those of us that have supported him when he has made some very big mistakes.
While I disagree with his position on S 1348, I have the right and the duty to call into question the kind of legislation (however hard the compromise may have been) which is not the result of impact and fiscal analysis, which can cost the American citizen tax payers more than the potential benefits of hiring illegal immigrants, and possibly more than the cost of deportation. I didn't hire Bush as president to give the bank away: I choose and support my own charities.
The president has also created the kind of restrictions on the soldiers in harms way by not allowing them to defend their selves, even under fire in certain situations. How can they win a war like that. There are politicians that are ordering terrorists to be freed after our soldiers fought and captured them (people that are definately going to turn around and fire on our young people again).
The last thing that this man should be doing is insulting and calling the people that have supported him out of their names. I have honestly begun to wonder if he is not trying to torpedo his own party. He's gotten what he wanted out of the deal, and now he plans on building a Taj Mahal and burning the party with him as he goes. I probably wouldn't have been pushed that far were it not for his most recent attacks.
Cdalealden at 2:40AM on Jun 2nd 2007
12. It seems, at this point, that the country is even less likely to elect a true conservative (at least, in terms of social conservatism) than they were in 2000. Fiscal conservatism goes beyond party lines in my opinion, as to this day there has not been a conservative president who has been conservative fiscally since Nixon. Reagan? Nope, he drove up the debt/GDP ratio by over 10% through his presidency. George H.W. Bush? Nope, also drove it up over 10& in only 4 years. George W. Bush? Nope, he's already driven it up over 10%. Clinton? Surprisingly, yes, he cut the debt/GDP by 10% in his presidency. He was the only one of all of them to spend less than he matched with economic growth.
Now we look at the Republican frontrunners today, and they all have somewhat socially liberal stances. They could probably win, if any of those top 3 were to run, because they would draw considerable votes from the otherwise middle-left (as current polls have shown). But true conservatives are not satisfied with them, and if you elect a true conservative aside from the top tier candidacy, you're sure to lose.
Peter at 5:23AM on Jun 2nd 2007
13. hired Bush as president to do the hard jobs, like dealing with the immigration issue. I have a right to disagree with him, and if he is not willing to call out the Democrats, then I definately am not going to stand by silently when he directs his anger and frustration toward those of us that have supported him when he has made some very big mistakes.
You deserve to be called names, by Bush or anyone trying to solve a very big problem. First you should actually read the bill instead of chanting Amnesty. Those of the one word argument are highly suspect at best, and generally don't have the slightest understanding of the issue.
Second those that disagree should have real reasons ... not talking points. Last, agree with Bush or not, my point was Bush is the only one leading on this issue and many others. Yet all we hear from the herd is where is the leadership? Frankly, far too many people in this country seem to exhibit mental disease, not rationality.
Thomas J Gassett at 2:13PM on Jun 2nd 2007
14. Typical cdalealden, Thomas, where's Berg... ain't you all the same guy.. skipsailing et al...D'Souza..
Yeah, since we/I don't follow the herd I/we could only be one person. Typical conclusion of a herd follower.
Thomas J Gassett at 2:15PM on Jun 2nd 2007
15. I agree with T.J. Gassett and Stephen Colbert: Bush is a real leader because he believes the same thing on Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened on Tuesday.
lil_turk at 4:07PM on Jun 2nd 2007