« Questions for Kerry | Home | More defence of outsourcing »
February 15, 2004
Is Bush a Conservative?
Daniel Casse writes an excellent critique in Commentary Magazine of various Bush critics, from both left and right.
Those who critisize him from the left will not like this piece much, but any conservative--especially fiscal conservative, concerned about a lack of spending discipline--would do well to read this essay before they leave the Bush camp.
Casse makes the case that Bush is redefining conservatism, emphasizing choice, accountability, and pro-growth policies rather than spending restraint, and emphasizing strong government and strong foreign policy rather than small government and limited foreign engagement. Some excerpts:
Michael Barone, likewise writing at the end of the year, suggested that Bush has successfully replaced the conservative touchstones of small government and spending cuts with the bolder more inspirational ideas of choice and accountability. That these are also the values most cherished in the world of business, and by today’s consumers, is no accident. As the columnist David Brooks has observed, the “ownership society” is a hallmark of Bush’s politics, appealing to Americans who want to be rewarded for self-reliance and responsibility.Casse essentially derides Bush's critics from the left for not putting forth a coherent alternative and by being so consumed with anger and hate as to be incapable of productive political engagement.To these two themes of choice and accountability, I would add a third: not big government but strong government. The notion of a strong central government sounds like a bitter pill for conservatives to swallow; but strong government need not be intrusive government, or even all that large. Indeed, the central error of liberalism over the past two decades has been to make government both large and weak—that is, ineffectual and unworthy of public respect. By contrast, a primary goal of conservative governance ought to be to restore to government the power to defend the nation’s interests while providing citizens with the services they want in the most efficient manner possible. Liberalism has failed at that task, and economic libertarianism has little or no interest in it. Hence the opportunity for a new era of conservative leadership.
... the bitter, prolonged battle over Florida ballots in November 2000 still deeply rankles. Never mind the thorough study of the 61,000 disputed ballots by USA Today and the Knight Ridder chain, with its ringing conclusion that “Bush would have won by 1,665 votes—more than triple his official 537-vote margin—if every dimple, hanging chad, and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes.” Despite such findings, Democratic leaders have continued to treat the Florida vote as a monumental act of injustice....Here's how Casse sums it up, but any conservative or Republican wavering in their support for Bush should give the whole article a read:A similar air of unreality, not to say irrationalism, hangs over much of the liberal and left wing case against Bush. ... today’s critics are conspicuous for their lack of sustained argument. Though all of the Democratic contenders want to repeal at least some of Bush’s tax cuts, none has offered a serious economic plan. Alarmed by the growing federal-budget deficit, they present no program to reform domestic spending; indeed, most argue that the country should be spending even more on education, the environment, and health care.
Democrats were divided last year on whether to support the war in Iraq. But, aside from mourning the loss of American life in Iraq, it is not clear what alternative policy Bush’s critics now have in mind. ...
More often, the case against Bush from the Left has degenerated into an exercise in name-calling and fear-mongering. ...
In his new book, Bush Country, John Podhoretz, has collected and carefully analyzed representative statements from the core liberal critique of Bush, maintaining persuasively that they have become so unmoored from the reality of the President’s policies as to take on “the paranoid style of American politics”—the phrase used nearly 40 years ago by the political scientist Richard Hofstader to describe the mentality of the John Birch Society and other fringe elements of the American Right. The result, Podhoretz writes, is an angry opposition that is no longer capable of participating constructively in political debate.
Looked at in this way, Bush's focus on the global expansion of democracy, the ongoing war against terrorism, economic growth (rather than government spending levels), and deconstructing domestic-policy monopolies (Medicare, Social Security, teachers' unions, etc.) does rise to the level of a new conservative approach to government. In his insightful memoir of working inside George W. Bush's White House, David Frum remarks that "Bush was not a lightweight. He was, rather, a very unfamiliar type of heavyweight." The same could be said for his politics: an unfamiliar type of conservatism, but one that will likely define the American political scene for some time to come.
So, in short, conservatives like yourself should be willing to abandon the core, and intellectually well-defined, goals of limited government and low taxes in pursuit of these more amorphous ends: "choice" and "accountability?"
This sounds transparently like political opportunism: Now that conservatives dominate government, and are able to enjoy the economic and political benefits of that dominance, they are suddenly comfortable with governance.
It is at moments like this that I see, quite clearly, that there is no intellectual coherence to the conservative agenda, and never was, despite all the angry rhetoric over the years about "freedom."
Instead, there was the naked pursuit of economic and political power: Republicans are, and ever have been, the party of the American business class, and will adopt their ideology depending on whether they are in opposition to liberal government or the ruling government itself.
You sound like a broken record, you know that? Did you read the article? Have a gander at that first.
First, who said anything about abandoning tax cuts--that's obviously core to the Bush economic strategy.
On the lmited government side, I think a better way of looking at this is that spending restraint is not the only path to limited government. Choice, while perhaps more indirect may be worth considering. While many conservatives are outraged at the expansion of prescription drugs to medicare entitlement, for example, there s also a case to be made that the introduction of the MSAs, which have the likes of Teddy Kennedy outraged, will do more in the long run for limited government. Whether its healthcare, medicare, social security, education, the environment, food & drug regulation, telecom regulation, etc. there is an argument to be made that the more viable path to limited government is to empower choice, rather than remove government entirely--which seems to be a practicle impossibility. Milton Friedman, for example, has said all along that his problem with education is not that the state PAYS for education but that it also RUNS education as a monopoly (and runs it poorly).
Bush seems to be making a calculation that it is worth giving in on spending to inject some choice, competition, and accountability into the system. I think that conservatives are mixed as to whether this approach will pay off in the end--but it is not somehting to be dismissed outright.
I read the Casse story. There is a curious air of unreality to it: one is through the looking glass. The triumphant president--albeit one who is hated by Liberals, and looked at askance by "Movement Conservatives"--that Casse describes is not one that I recognize. Whilst the Commentary piece was obviously written towards the end of 2003, I think the president was even then much more embattled that Casse lets on.
That said, what of his argument: as I say, there seems to be some special pleading going on. Even though Bush is abandoning the two core principles of Conservative governance--small government, and unintrusive government--in the interests of some new beast "small but strong government, it all reads... well, like a partisan trying to defend the party leader he is saddled with.