This is today's Jonah Goldberg Column from National Review. He mentions
libertarians 3 times. And give a brillant analysis of conservatives' and
libertarians' current views on Bush. Jonah, a libertarian himself, gets it.
Perhaps for 2008 libertarians and economic conservatives should be more
forceful in ensuring that the GOP nominates someone with rockhard principles.
Is He One of Us?
Wondering about Bush.
The bile accumulating on the Right toward the White House has reached China
Syndrome proportions and is starting to melt through the floor.
document.write(''); ');} else if (_version ');}// --> Suddenly,
conservatives are starting to question whether George W. Bush is even a one of
them at all. One of my heroes, Robert Bork, recently wrote in the Wall Street
Journal that "George W. Bush has not governed as a conservative. This George
Bush, like his father, is showing himself to be indifferent, if not actively
hostile, to conservative values." Conservative columnist Bruce Bartlett opines:
"The truth that is now dawning on many movement conservatives is that George W.
Bush is not one of them and never has been." Even at National Review Online
where I hang my hat most of the time several of our contributors have echoed
these concerns.
I think this goes too far. Two factors contribute to this misdiagnosis:
confusion and disappointment.
Let's start with confusion. Contrary to most stereotypes, conservatism is a
much less dogmatic ideology than modern liberalism. The reason liberals don't
seem dogmatic and conservatives do is that liberals have settled their dogma,
so it has become invisible to them. No liberal disputes in a serious
philosophical way that the government should do good things where it can and
when it can. Their debates aren't about ideology, they're about tactics.
Indeed, the chief disagreement between leftists and liberals over the role of
the state is almost entirely pragmatic. Moderate liberals think it's not
practical either economically or politically to push for a dramatic
expansion of the role of the state. Leftists think it would be a good idea
politically and, despite all the evidence to the contrary, think it would work
economically.
Within conservatism, however, there are enormous philosophical arguments about
the proper role of the state. This debate isn't merely between libertarians and
social conservatives. It's also between conservatives who are "anti-left"
versus those who are "anti-state." Neoconservatives, for example, are famously
comfortable with an energetic, interventionist government as long as that
government isn't run by secular, atheistic radicals, and socialists (I
exaggerate a little for the sake of clarity).
Think of it this way. One line of conservative thought says that public schools
are bad because they are run by inefficient government bureaucrats who drain
resources. Moreover, they might say, running schools is simply not the proper
function of the government. Another line of conservative thought says that
public schools are fine (and they're not going anywhere anyway). But they
shouldn't be teaching crazy left-wing stuff about how America, traditional
religion and capitalism are the unholy trinity of the world's problems. Don't
get rid of public schools, they say, just make sure they get their values and
priorities in order.
Now, no conservative can be a full-blown statist, and very few conservatives
subscribe to one of these lines of thought to the exclusion of the other. Some
libertarians probably don't mind government funding of museums but take offense
at the idea of taxpayer-funded pornographic blasphemy. And, there are certainly
many social conservatives who'd love to privatize the U.S. Postal Service. But
the relevant point is that Bush is definitely more of an anti-left guy than an
anti-state guy (his valiant efforts at Social Security reform notwithstanding).
He's comfortable with a conservative welfare state, hence his expansion of
Medicare. Recall that he famously declared that "when someone hurts, government
has to move."
Libertarians spontaneously burst into flames when they say things like that.
What has so confused liberals, meanwhile, is that they are still talking about
Bush like he's primarily an anti-state guy, a la Reagan or Gingrich, even as
he's spent lavishly on education, labor and regulation.
Then there's disappointment. I don't think it violates my moratorium on writing
about Miers if I say that her nomination was a letdown for many conservatives.
And, while I don't think it's true of Bork himself, I do think many
conservatives are using their legitimate anger about Miers and Bush's
overspending as an excuse to jump ship from a lame duck presidency at its low
point. If Iraq were a huge success right now and if Bush had picked a
conservative stalwart for the bench, how many conservatives would be suggesting
Bush isn't one of us?
I have been critical of Bush's big-government conservatism for years. So I'm
not entirely displeased by the venom being unleashed at that aspect of his
presidency. However, Bush ran as a big-government conservative. And it's not
fair to call our own buyer's remorse a betrayal by the seller.
(c) 2005 Tribune Media Services
* * *
Eric Dondero, Interpreter & ESL Instructor
Author of "Worldwide Multilingual Phrase Book," "Vacation Spanish" & "Ingles
Real".
http://www.houstoninterpreter.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/VpgUKB/pzNLAA/cUmLAA/KlSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
