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 2 of 2)
16. Thomas J.
I was initially chastised by some of the same talk radio personalities that are embracing simular arguments to the ones I have put forth, so I can say that if these are talking points that they developed from my heart. It is written, "Can two walk together except they be agreed?" I wouldn't say it if I didn't believe it and I will march with a man, but at this stage of my life I won't follow any man.
I may believe that president Bush believes in what he is doing, but I am stating that he has clearly not done his homework and that he has not presented we citizens with the kind of information that communicates mental clarity and thorough analysis in what is now called 'effort' in dealing with a big issue. There is no evidence that he is providing anything other than the failed policies of the past, as the solution to a problem that has persisted over forty years.
Anyone can use code words and declare good intentions, but many of us are not giving him the benefit of the doubt because he is not presenting anything new: he is only attempting to use variations and shades of words to make something old sound new and different. At the same time, we have no reason to believe that what has failed for all of this time will suddenly work now. If he is trying to solve the problem, we can't understand why he would use the same busted boat.
Cdalealden at 4:17PM on Jun 2nd 2007
17. I agree with T.J. Gassett; those who defy the alpha-male are herdbeasts. It's axiomatic. The real men are the ones who follow the alpha-tard no matter what the alpha-tard does.
lil_turk at 11:44PM on Jun 2nd 2007
18. Thomas J Gasset writes: "Second those that disagree should have real reasons ... not talking points."
I gave reasons - just because you don't like them or didn't read them doesn't mean they aren't reasons. In fact, I seldom see reasoning in your posts, just hyperbole.
Phil at 1:41AM on Jun 3rd 2007
19. After twenty plus years on the border I believe that I have some insight into the situation.
First, I don't think we have to deport or process all these people. We have to enforce the laws concerning hiring illegals. If we strengthen this aspect of the response to the problem many of the true migrants will head back south because there are no jobs.
We have to make penetrating our country much more difficult. It is still too easy and that needs to change. Fences and migre guys are good start but we also have to force the various haven cities into a policy changes. The current sanctuaries are defying us to our detriment.
Next, at some point we have to stop yelling at each other and start yelling at the Mexican Government. Let's face it if the migration were going the other way we'd be mortified. The Mexican government doesn't give a crap about its public image and is more than happy to let us solve its problem. That just wrong. We must publically discuss the reasons why the mexicans are leaving their homes. Its an abject failure in El Grande and we have to speak out.
Finally, we have to get past the entire racist issue. This isn't about race, this is about Americans deciding who joins us and who doesn't. Turning this into a racial issue is just a dodge.
skipsailing at 8:08PM on Jun 4th 2007