Where Have Conservatives Been All These Years?
Judging from the reaction on the right to the preview of what’s in former Bush speechwriter Matt Latimer’s new book, they all have been terribly disappointed with Dubya for years now, and Latimer’s book is just a sad and sorry confirmation of what they have all known for such a long time.
Here is Byron York in the Washington Examiner:
How many times during the last eight years did you hear that George W. Bush was a dangerous right-wing extremist? Probably too many to count.
What you heard less often were expressions of the deep reservations some conservatives felt about Bush’s governing philosophy.
Maybe because those expressions of deep reservations weren’t expressed?
Conservatives greatly admired Bush for his steadfastness in the War on Terror — to use that outlawed phrase — and they were delighted by his choices of John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. But when it came to a fundamental conservative principle like fiscal discipline, many conservatives felt the president just wasn’t with them.
Okay, I understand the logic behind Roberts and Alito — that has nothing to do with spending. But how does York get to the place where he can declare that “conservatives greatly admired Bush for his steadfastness in the War on Terror” and in the next breath bemoan his betrayal of “a fundamental conservative principle like fiscal discipline”? Aside from the fact that that “fundamental conservative principle” has rarely if ever actually been practiced by conservatives, where precisely does York imagine Bush’s lack of “fiscal discipline” showed itself? Where does he think the deficit came from?
Over at The Corner, Steve Hayward writes, without a trace of irony:
So last week at the “death of conservatism” panel at AEI, Sam Tanenhaus closed by recommending that the conservative movement cease to think of itself as a movement. Turns out there is one right-leaning Republican who apparently agrees with Tanenhaus: George W. Bush! See Byron York’s column in today’s Washington Examiner, where Byron dilates the revelations of Matt Latimer’s forthcoming book, Speechless.
As Byron recounts Latimer’s tale, when reviewing a speech draft for an appearance at CPAC, Bush demanded that all references to the conservative “movement” be stricken because, among other reasons, “I whupped Gary Bauer’s a— in 2000. . . . There is no movement.” Now I know Bauer is diminutive in stature, but who’s the little man here? [Emphasis added.]
Where have you been, Steve? That kind of smallness in Bush’s character did not start day before yesterday. Perhaps even more to the point: What are conservatives like Hayward doing to address the smallness of character that still exists in the GOP, and appears to be getting worse?
I might have some sympathy for conservatives who feel disillusioned or disappointed in former Pres. Bush if I thought they had learned anything from it. If instead of demonizing Pres. Obama, calling him nasty names, and comparing him to Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini, conservatives in general showed a bit of humility — given that they put their complete and unquestionng trust and faith in a flim-flam man whose mess Obama now has to clean up — and a willingness to negotiate in good faith and be a loyal opposition rather than a wrecking crew, then I might have some sympathy.
As it is, though, I feel exactly like this:
… [W]ho could have predicted that the right, after earnestly supporting EVERYTHING Bush and the Republicans did the last eight years, would determine that the tattered wreckage left behind was not the fault of… conservatism? It is just priceless. Again, I ask, do you remember all the mass protests organized by Freedom Works and the fiscal conservative teabaggers when Bush and DeLay were jamming through the Prescription Drug bill? You remember 60-100,000 wingnuts descending on DC screaming “I want my country back?” while wailing about out of control spending? Me either.This isn’t about principle. This is about cynical partisan politics, with an assist from the media and the glibertarian excuse makers- only a complete fool would be blaming Obama for our current mess, and only a complete fool could look at the last few decades and think the solution to our nation’s woes is giving the Republicans another shot in 2010 and 2012. Only this time, they really will take us towards that elusive conservative Utopia that eluded them while they ran the house, the Senate, and the White House! I promise! The check is in the mail! I will respect you in the morning!
65 Responses to “Where Have Conservatives Been All These Years?”
I believe history will show former President George W. Bush to have been a centrist. On abortion policy, for example, his main accomplishment was shepherding through legislation outlawing partial-birth abortion, and he was most definitely with the mainstream of public opinion on that. As for the War on Terror, he was centrist in attacking Afghanistan (not so, admittedly, in attacking Iraq). On fiscal policy, he was left of center — that made me angry, because with our rising deficits, we needed someone who was right-of-center at-least, perhaps even ultra-conservative. So for the book to argue that Bush wasn't conservative is actually a good thesis.
I've been wondering about some of the questions raised here myself for quite sometime & still have not found a satisfactory answer. I hear people say “Bush is not a Conservative” & then try to make him into something he patently doesn't fit.
The best answer I've gotten so far is that Bush was a tool & an opportunist & political ideology was merely a means to an end, that end being power. Even that, though, seems trivial & simplistic in it's scope when compared to the hypocrisies & contradictions that surround him & his associates.
Keep up the great work, & keep asking questions.
redbus, I'm curious what your definition is of conservativism or being right of center. The Republican plan has been and is today “privatize, deregulate, cut social spending.” That's from Milton Friedman, hero and friend to Reagan who implemented it as “Reaganomics” (see also “Thatcherism”). Bush and Bush followed that credo, as did to a lesser extent, Clinton. Friedman's “neoliberal” economics have been forced on a dozen or so countries by the World Bank and IMF. The result is ALWAYS the same, and that result is in play in the USA right now: A shift of public wealth to private hands (privatize profit), a shift of private debt to public hands (nationalize debt) and an increasing wealth gap. There is not a single example in the world in which the implementation of A has not led to the result B. So. Do you not believe that Friedman's principles accurately describe conservative economic policy?
I was more astonished at how Bush got his way than what he did. The Patriot act, the TARP fund, and his stimulus plans were all sold using door-to-door tactics — the chicken little “don't think, it's too urgent” stuff. Personally, if someone doesn't want to give me time to think about something, I don't. I'd personally put W in the category of authoritarian — the belief that most people are too dumb to make their own choices and that the government is a trustworthy tool to fix their problems. He did a great job of driving away the mainstream of his party.
I guess that my answer to her question is: don't confuse conservatives with Republicans; don't confuse liberals with Democrats; don't confuse moderates with either of them.
Keep up the great work, & keep asking questions.
Thank you, Frith. I appreciate that.
I can't talk economic theory without quickly being out of my depth. When I say “fiscally conservative,” I'm thinking of a Ross Perot approach to things, i.e. keeping national debt low, balancing budgets, and encouraging a similar low debt ration among the citizenry, preferably with a high savings rate. To my mind, “liberal” means expanding government to take care of things that the private sector should take care of itself. There is some role for government, regulation being a large part of it, but the common defense also important. When it comes to taking care of each other, those things should be left largely to private charity. Here, I'm thinking caring for the aged, providing for the sick, etc. I am a government minimalist, as opposed to our current President, who is a government maximalist.
GD,
Bush signed Sarbanes-Oxley and the Patriot Act and put import quotas on steel. Not exactly a free marketer.
Under the Bush ADministraiton, people working in blood banks, research labs, and even oil refineries had to be fingerprinted to keep their jobs. Under Bush people were treated like criminals while trying to board an aircraft but the border between Mexico and the U.S. was left unprotected.
Unless you can name something where bush lessened the burden of regulation, comparing Bush to Friedman is incorrect. The Bush Administraiton even prepared the national response plan to give the federal government more control over disaster response.
Clinton was closer to Friedman because the Republicans in Congress would not pass any new government programs.
Try reading this, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism it will will explain where we are and how we got there…
Youtube – Naomi Klein: Disaster Capitalism
When is the last time you have seen a republican do any of those things? Reagan-Bush tripled the National Debt in twelve years, Bush Jr doubled the National Debt in eight years…
Thanks, Don, for the links on the book. And to think Reagan said that government wasn't the solution to the problem, government was the problem. We haven't had a President with a libertarian streak like that in a while. It would do us all some good.
Reagan didn't have a libertarian streak, he had a big business conservative streak, had he had a libertarian streak, the war on certain drugs would have never occurred. He was just another “Cheap Labor Conservative” .interested in keeping wages down and transferring as much wealth as possible to the upper classes, his supporters.
Redbus, the way I see it, Bush 41 was fairly centrist while Bush 43 probably averaged out to center right (but the variance was greater- he was farther right on some things but then also implemented more big govt, center left policies.) Bush 43 used more of the rhetoric that attracted the voters who are more right wing though, and that included a lot of overtures to Christian/social conservatives (which were mostly empty slogans without much action attached) and a tendency to define fiscal conservatism as the Club for Growth does- low taxation.
I tend to agree more with you about fiscal conservatism- it's the spending that matters. And I think the masses that are turning out to protest now are the people who see this, and it's the same sentiment that Ross Perot rode in on (too bad he was a bit, um, insane LOL)
At any rate, on the article itself- I think Kathy that you're seeing hypocrisy where it doesn't exist. Bush was criticized by many on the right, but the criticisms weren't the same ones that you focused on so you felt that conservatives were never agreeing with you then. Did you read any conservative blogs during the Bush administration? If so, you'd have seen people who were very critical of No Child Left Behind, the Medicare expansion, and his push for immigration reform, among other things.
It's really no different than now- one could say that liberals are giving Obama a pass but really there are criticisms from the far left on many issues- gay rights, wiretapping, Gitmo closure, Afghanistan, and even health care (those who say he sold out by taking single payer off the table right away.)
But you have to make an effort to find the people who are making those criticisms, and if you don't look for it,it would be easy to say that there's hypocrisy as people ignore his deviations from liberal/progressive orthodoxy.
Salient as always, cs.
Thanks, CO.
That explains everything, we live in parallel universes, in mine GW Bush is a right wing authoritarian neo- fascist war-monger who used his authority with the full support of his neo-fascist party to invade two defenseless countries and to steal every thing that wasn't nailed down. Like all such right-wingers( Mussolini, Pinochet, Franco, Hitler ) he left the country in far worse shape than it was when he came to power.
That explains everything, we live in parallel universes
Indeed. You've described the filter through which you view things very well.
If you want to take off the glasses, you might note that this article focuses mainly on fiscal policy, and the discussion is about whether or not Bush was a fiscal conservative (as well as whether or not fiscally conservative voters are late to the game of criticizing him if they felt he wasn't fiscally conservative enough.)
My comment in response to redbus was pointing out the two different ways that fiscal conservatism is defined- low taxation or low spending. The latter is the more responsible manner of governance, which we unfortunately almost never see (because politicians know that people might agree with it in theory but when push comes to shove they want their goodies from the govt too.)
ROTFLMAO…
Standard Republican policy for the last 40 years has been low taxes and high spending. Generally, it's low taxes on the wealthy and high spending on the wealthy (Corporate Subsidies, Agricultural Subsidies, Deregulation & Corporate Bailouts, Military, etc) combined with a demonisation of the unfortunate who need government help (Welfare Queens, Katerina Victims, etc… ). The poor or former members of the working class who need help, after jumping through as many humiliating hoops as possible to get it, get as little help as humanly possible.
Standard fascism…
The question of where the fiscal conservatives were and where they have gone is sort of humorous, since many of them are right here on this site. CStanley and I have talked about this several times. There was a large rift that developed between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives which led to many fiscons, including myself, to leave or otherwise distance themselves from the GOP. Someone enveloped in the MoveOn/DailyKos cocoon probably didn't notice this very much, as they seemed to regard conservatives as a huge monolith.
Even among social conservatives there was considerable dismay over Bush's spending, but in general they seemed to feel the issues of national security, the Iraq War and social conservatism in general outweighed those concerns. I agree with CStanley that there are probably many parallels between conservatives then and liberals now, ie there are many liberals who don't agree with Obama on every major issue but on balance support him and don't actively oppose him on those issues.
I don't agree that the GOP has never been fiscally responsible. During the Clinton/Gingrich years fiscal responsibility was practiced fairly well for several reasons. I think many conservatives felt when Bush became president that fiscal responsibility would continue, and things probably would be even better since the GOP had the presidency. That of course turned out to be wrong.
in mine GW Bush is a right wing authoritarian neo- fascist war-monger
So, given the fact that Obama has continued the VAST majority of Bush 43 initiatives, especially in Foreign Policy, security, Patriot Act, etc., then I guess you also agree that Obama is a left-wing authoritarian neo-fascist/socialist war-monger.
I always knew you would come around DQ!
Bush has barely been gone 8 months now, and already history is being rewritten to pretend that Bush wasn't actually a conservative. I suppose that was the next logical step after pretending he wasn't President and responsible for things like the recession or the bank bailouts.
Why did the Republican party lose the last election?
Because the Republican political ideology and pratice is brain dead, or, because George W. Bush was a brain dead president?
Republicans are going to have to admit to one or the other.
The Republican Congress was just as guilty, if not more, of putting politics and power ahead of ideology. Both parties value seniority and power over ideals…
The last two fiscal conservatives we had were presidents were Jimmy Carter and Clinton. Both were dems and both failed to balloon the deficit like any of the last three republicans did. Obama is on a different track right now but I think he will have to shift course once the economic issues calm enough. He could of course bolt to the fiscal conservative side now but history tells us that raising taxes and pulling the plug on the economic plan mid-flight would only help the economy tank again. Of course if you would like to attempt to get the big spending party to stop buying huge amounts from the military and prison industrial complexes I think thats a wonderful idea but I wont hold my breath waiting for it to succeed. In fact in the last election we had that choice, Ron Paul, he was booed and ignored in the primary. Not to say he did not have his problems, he did, but being a far out social conservative has never been known to scare off repub voters unless of course you are talking about pulling the plug on the programs and investments they like.
So, where were they in the GOP-led Congress during the Bush 43 years?
If there was this massive outburst from party fiscal conservatives against the growth of government spending, why were Republicans in Congress voting as one to promote it?
Why did so many fiscal conservatives support the neocons, whose foreign policy led us into two financially unsustainable wars? Were they hypnotized by the brilliance of the president's leadership??
I guess I'd like to know just in which parallel universe these fiscally conservative presidents reside? If you look at Government growth and National debt, it is a complete fiction that Republicans have demonstrated those values that CS and casual believe in. Unrealized rhetoric is great for debate, but poor governance.
At the very best, side by side comparisons are a wash between Repubs and Dems.
Spending:
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail…
Deficit graph:
http://mikelove.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/defici…
And BTW, defense spending versus Non-discretionary spending is really a bogus distinction, IMO.
What about cutting taxes and increasing spending?
(Ooops, I see DQ beat me to the punch.)
Very well said, DQ.
I agree with CStanley that there are probably many parallels between conservatives then and liberals now, ie there are many liberals who don't agree with Obama on every major issue but on balance support him and don't actively oppose him on those issues.
Yes, but there's a difference between opposing on some issues but supporting overall, and supporting a specific issue that is the cause (or a leading cause) of the issue you oppose. I am, of course, referring to the Iraq war and also, in terms of the way it was managed, the invasion of Afghanistan. The latter was justified in principle, but the Bush admin's sabotaging of the effort there by going into Iraq makes the whole venture a total waste of money.
The point, in a nutshell, is that conservatives who criticized Bush back then, or criticize him now, for not being a fiscal conservative while simultaneously supporting Bush's military and war policies, are being totally inconsistent.
I agree with you CS, Bush 41 was more Centrist like Regan where Bush 43 was farther to the right and did fluctuate more to the left/right depending on the issue.
“Bush was criticized by many on the right”
Really?! Show me the march on Washington that the fiscial conservatives did from 2000-2008, I must have forgotten. The few conservatives that said anything remotely critical of Bush 43 was quickly slapped down and silenced. None of it was all that loud either, it was more of a whisper.
The facts are that the Republican Congress voted for everything Bush 43 asked for with very little criticism but as soon as the White House changed hands, they all start screaming about spending.
My thoughts on Bush.
In normal times he would have been a centrist perhaps, his immigration policy, his view on government spending, etc point to this. He was definately no fiscal Conservative and many republicans conservative and moderate alike, as well as some blue dogs were not happy with this. But after 9-11 he was certainly no moderate.
Do I think him a bad president? Without a doubt. Horrible, again yes without a doubt? Evil? no. What I see is a man who tried to do what he thought was right, but who lacked enough experience during a time of crisis and narrowed his circle too far, relying on those with greater experience to guide him. Unfortunately that inner circle had a political agenda being members of the Project for a New American Century group. And unfortunately they knew how to politically maneuver and shut out other voices of experience with better reason like Colin Powell. Whatever you say about Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, you have to admit when they assumed their posts they had impressive resumes. I can understand Bush falling back on their judgement.
What I cannot justify, however, is his reluctance for so long to look to other voices when it became obvious that they were leading poorly. He did eventually reach that conclusion and shift policy out of their hands, at least to some degree, but it took him far too long to do so. I put Bush at the bottom of my rankings of Presidents, in the bottom 3.
Standard Republican policy for the last 40 years has been low taxes and high spending.
Which is why they're being criticized, including from people who define themselves as fiscal conservatives.
Here's a partial list compliments of Davebo, just from Bush's first 100 days. SD, Bush was the GOP's guy, no doubt about it, and his actions are completely consistent with “privatize, deregulate, cut social services”.
Significantly eased field-testing controls of genetically engineered crops, Cut federal spending on libraries by $39 million. Cut $35 million in funding for doctors to get advanced pediatric training. Cut funding for research into renewable energy sources by 50%. Revoked rules that reduced the acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water. Blocked rules that would require federal agencies to offer bilingual assistance to non-English speaking persons. Proposed to eliminate new marine protections for the Channel Islands and the coral reefs of northwest Hawaii (please see San Francisco Chronicle, April 6, 2001). Cut funding for research into cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks by 28% Suspended rules that would have strengthened the government's ability to deny contracts to companies that violated workplace safety, environmental and other federal laws. Approved the sending of letters by Interior Department appointee Gale Norton to state officials soliciting suggestions for opening up national monuments for oil and gas drilling, coal mining, and foresting. Abandoned a campaign pledge to invest $100 million for rainforest conservation. Reduced by 86% the Community Access Program for public hospitals, clinics and providers of care for people without insurance. Rescinded a proposal to increase public access to information about the potential consequences resulting from chemical plant accidents. Suspended rules that would require hardrock miners to clean up sites on public lands. Cut $60 million from a Boy's and Girl's Clubs of America program for public housing. Proposed to eliminate a federal program, designed and successfully used in Seattle, to help communities prepare for natural disasters. Pulled out of the 1997 Kyoto Treaty global warming agreement. Cut $200 million of work force training for dislocated workers. Eliminated funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program, which encourages farmers to maintain wetlands habitat on their property. Cut program to provide childcare to low-income families as they move from welfare to work. Cut a program that provided prescription contraceptive coverage to federal employees (though it still pays for Viagra). Cut $700 million in capital funds for repairs in public housing. Cut the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency by $500 million. Rescinded the rule that mandated increased energy-saving efficiency regulations for central air conditioners and heat pumps. Repealed workplace ergonomic rules designed to improve worker health and safety. Abandoned campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide, the waste gas that contributes to global warming. Banned federal aid to international family planning programs that offer abortion counseling with other independent funds. Closed the White House Office for Women's Health Initiatives and Outreach. Nominated David Lauriski — an ex-mining company executive — to post of Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health. Approved a controversial plan by Interior Secretary Gale Norton to auction oil and gas development tracts off the coast of eastern Florida. Announced intention to open up Montana's Lewis and Clark National Forest to oil and drilling. Proposes to re-draw boundaries of nation's monuments, which would technically allow oil and gas drilling outside of national monuments. Gutted the White House AIDS Office. Renegotiated a free trade agreement with Jordan to eliminate workers' rights and safeguards for the environment. Appointed recycling foe Lynn Scarlett as Undersecretary of the Interior.. Took steps to abolish the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Cut the Community Oriented Policing Services program. Allowed Interior Secretary Gale Norton to shelve citizen-led grizzly bear re-introduction plan scheduled for Idaho and Montana wilderness. Continues to hold up federal funding for stem cell research projects. Makes sure convicted misdemeanor drug users cannot get financial aid for college, though convicted murderers can. Refused to fund continued cleanup of uranium-slag heap in Utah. Refused to fund continued litigation of the government's tobacco company lawsuit. Signed a bill making it harder for poor and middle-class Americans to file for bankruptcy, even in the case of daunting medical bills. Cut $15.7 million earmarked for states to investigate cases of child abuse and neglect. Helped kill a law designed to make it tougher for teenagers to get credit cards. Proposed elimination of the Reading is Fundamental program that gives free books to poor children. Proposes to reverse regulation protecting 60 million acres of national forest from logging and road building. Nominated Linda Fisher, an executive with Monsanto, for the number-two job at the Environmental Protection Agency. Canceled 2004 deadline for automakers to develop prototype high mileage cars. Nominated J. Steven Giles, an oil and coal lobbyist, for Deputy Secretary of the Interior. Nominated Bennett Raley, who advocates repealing the Endangered Species Act, for Assistant Secretary for Water and Science. Sought the dismissal of class-action lawsuit filed in the US against Japan by Asian women forced to work as sex slaves during WWII. Earmarked $4 million in new federal grant money for HIV and drug abuse prevention programs to go only to religious groups and not secular equivalents. Reduced the Low Income Home Assistance Program by 40%; it aided low-income individuals who need assistance paying energy bills. Proposed to ease permit process, including environmental considerations, for refinery, nuclear and hydroelectric dam construction. (Washington Post, May 18, 2001.) Proposes to give government the authority to take private property through eminent domain for power lines. Proposes that $1.2 billion in funding for alternative renewable energy come from selling oil and gas lease tracts in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve. Planned to serve genetically engineered foods at all official government functions. Forced out Forest Service chief Mike Dombeck and appointed a timber industry lobbyist.
Chris, fiscal conservatives have been critical of Bush for much longer than the past eight months. Again, it's no different from the various factions of the Democratic party. Some factions will back their parties president no matter what (the water carriers), some actually belong to the faction that the president best represents, and some oppose him from left or right of where he stands on any particular issue.
Do you think for a minute that if Obama's policies fail, that we won't hear from some corners that this is because he wasn't far enough to the left? That has already started, with Krugman and others saying that the stimulus was too small.
If you look at Government growth and National debt, it is a complete fiction that Republicans have demonstrated those values that CS and casual believe in.
Why do you and a few others here keep responding to points that are the opposite of what we've said? I was pointing out that fiscal conservative consituents DID NOT feel that Bush (and other GOP presidents, for that matter) have represented a responsible version of fiscal conservative. I named two big examples of that with GWB- NCLB and Medicare. Both were huge, expansionistic, and unfunded mandates.
What I'm also trying to point out though is that it's a fiction that fiscal conservatives were silent while that was going on. Even people that I generally think of as partisan, like Michelle Malkin, were highly and vocally critical of Bush during the time those policies were being debated. Other people that I'd more or less expect to be more thoughtful, like Ed Morrissey, were as well.
But Reagan, had his tax cuts not been scaled back by Dems, would have been even worse for the economy, according to his own OMB. Reagan was the start of the GOP's decline, the first I think to promote “voodoo economics” by claiming that tax cuts for the rich would “trickle down”, then borrowing massively to accomplish those cuts, claiming that it would actually increase tax revenue. Surprise, it didn't.
Increasing spending without raising revenue is highly irresponsible, Kathy. It goes without saying that cutting taxes, if a net decrease in revenues would be expected from that tax cut, in the face of spending increases, is not a good example of fiscal conservatism.
So, I presume then that since Bush did cut taxes and increase spending, you are agreeing with those of us who say that he really wasn't fiscally conservative?
The point, in a nutshell, is that conservatives who criticized Bush back then, or criticize him now, for not being a fiscal conservative while simultaneously supporting Bush's military and war policies, are being totally inconsistent.
I think the problem though, Kathy, is that most conservatives are extremely reluctant to criticize a president with regard to an ongoing war. That deference is probably taken too far, but I think it explains the inconsistency even if it doesn't justify it.
Really?! Show me the march on Washington that the fiscial conservatives did from 2000-2008, I must have forgotten. The few conservatives that said anything remotely critical of Bush 43 was quickly slapped down and silenced. None of it was all that loud either, it was more of a whisper.
A march on Washington is not a fair threshold to say whether or not there was opposition.
And I completely disagree with you about 'silencing'. People like Michelle Malkin rose to prominence in part because she was criticizing Bush from the right.
Actually Malkin gained most of her notoriety attacking all that opposed the Iraq War or Bush as anti-american terrorist sympathizers. I remember, I used to read RealClearPolitics and read many of her posts until I got tired of being insulted by someone that did not realize she was being lied to or was so corrupt that she just did not care. She became “famous” because she was a cute young female that sounded like Rush though a tad bit more shrill at times. She was quickly picked up by Fox for those same reasons.
Yes, all of that is true- but at the same time she was also laying thick criticism on Bush for expansionist programs, and she certainly wasn't silenced for it.
CStanley,
I guess the trouble is that there were no prominent fiscal conservatives. Can you even name someone prominent within the party that was concerned with Bush at the time? The point is, the Republican party and the conservative movement was largely unified behind Bush until Jan. 20th. They had plenty of time to complain and distance themselves, but they didn't, so they own the mess he created.
By the way, I'm with Krugman. Obama and the Democrats will regret not having passed more effective legislation. Instead they're compromising for minimal Republican cover (didn't the stimulus package get somewhere around 5 total Republican votes in all of Congress?) or to please their corporate masters.
The citations I gave go back to Kennedy. If fiscal conservatives complained about Bush jr, the fact remains there's not been appreciable differences for any of the Republicans in your voting lifetime.
That said, I'm not ignoring you contention that some complained, I'm saying who have you had reason to like in the political universe? Some Democrats actually did better than many Republicans but I've never heard you tout Democrats. By your criteria, Clinton preformed the best of any recent presidents, so are you becoming a Democrat?
I guess the trouble is that there were no prominent fiscal conservatives. Can you even name someone prominent within the party that was concerned with Bush at the time?
Sure, Rush Limbaugh. He frequently criticized Bush's spending. The problem was he would usually follow that by saying Bush was better than the alternative, a Democratic president. During the 8 Bush years I would say #1 issue for the GOP were national security, then the war, then social issues. Fiscal responsibility was down the line and wasn't ignored, but certainly placed on the back burner and rationalized away by saying other things were more important.
Moving beyond whether or not Bush was a “real conservative,” it is a dangerous belief to think that the “fiscal conservative” mantra of “deregulate, privatize, cut social spending” would actually produce the right results if it were done more. That's what Friedman and Rumsfeld convinced Pinochet to do in Chile; double down on the privatization and deregulation and slash social safety net even more. Applying these measures to an even greater extent does not change the outcome; it accelerates it. Exploding wealth gap, privatizing profit, socializing debt; that is the consistent result of these policies.
Malkin criticized Bush for “expansionist programs”? Like which expansionist programs?
Which were the exact same arguments made under Reagan. “We cant cut spending we are to busy outspending the USSR” all while ignoring that the USSR had stopped that trick in the 70's when their economic world imploded. I think the question to fiscal conservatives is do you keep believing the rhetoric or your own damn lying eyes? I am not saying vote Dem but I have seen no reason other than irrationality and hopefulness as to why a fiscal conservative would vote Repub since they have actually been worse than Dems. I could say the same for New Deal types voting for Dems since Reagan as well though. Both sides still vote for a party that no longer exists because the parties still act like that is the party they still are, even though its not true.
I see what you're saying DaGoat, but here's a question: Why are fiscal concerns so far down on the list when Republicans are in power, and at the top of the list when Democrats hold the levers?
I think the answer is fairly clear. The bulk of movement conservatives like Rush aren't concerned about fiscal responsibility as a principle, just as a weapon to use against their opponents. It's really about the pursuit and exercise of power, and nothing else. Bush fits perfectly into that definition; there was hardly a campaign promise he didn't abandon in the course of eight years.
I see what you're saying DaGoat, but here's a question: Why are fiscal concerns so far down on the list when Republicans are in power, and at the top of the list when Democrats hold the levers?
It's the nature of partisanship I guess. I'm not going to defend the GOP on this since I think they were wrong to handle fiscal issues the way they did.
I think we are seeing the same phenomenon now with Democrats who were very concerned about the deficit last year, now they are not, or find reasons to justify it.
Yeah, no doubt the current crop of Democrats will mostly forget they ever bothered to complain about Republican spending sprees. In their defense, the current spending spree won't amount to much versus the Bush spending spree and does seem necessary in the wake of the economic meltdown.
The real test will be after we emerge from the recession. At that point, we should really either raise taxes or cut government spending. Who wants to bet either will happen?
“There was a large rift that developed between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives”
Amitai Etzioni had it named right, too: Whigs versus Tories.
Interestingly, I read someone's claim today that the mushy middle is the battleground when it comes to winning elections (really?) and that the problem isn't that we need to see the GOP be even more friendly to Big Government and be what I call a “comic book” imitation of the Dems and a token toothless kind of opposition. The writeup I read said that there's no problem with a more, not less, conservative agenda for the GOP, but that the message needs to be more moderate, less scorched-earth or take-no-prisoners. This was overdoing things, as was the predictable cliche' that followed, that Reagan is (of course) the model that the GOP needs to follow. I believe the real problem is with identification and a neglect of the fiscal and anti-big-government (libertarian) side of things in favor of big government, and of authoritarianism and excess interventionism. We need to see more Whig, less Tory — and as I thought when reading the writeup, we do need the GOP to seek right-sizing government, like medical doctors and related medical people who are trying to research and practice themselves out of work eventually.
I'll give Obama some time. His spending so far is being exaggerated. I do expect him to be more fiscally responsible than Republicans, since EVERY Democratic President has reduced debt as a % of GDP. The 11.8 trillion national debt is entirely a Republican administration creation. See?
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html