Nov 17 2006
The Bush Conservatives
It seems I and many other conservatives need to just step back and re-assess the political landscape. As I mentioned in the post below on immigration, I do not see the Republican Party offering a very palatable form of conservatism any more. So let me describe what I think is an attractive conservative vision. It begins with supporting and respecting our President and all his accomplishments. And since I and many others still have unflinching support and admiration for the man, I decided to steal some from the commenters here and dub this conservative view “Bush Conservatives”.
Bush Conservatives not only believe in Reagan’s 11th commandment to not speak ill of fellow conservatives – we live it. From the Gang of 14, to Harriet Miers, to Dubai Ports World and to the immigration issue – there has been a brand of Republican which eschewed the 11th commandment. So let the Republicans be defined by that group – Bush Conservatives will be defined by their antithesis. Bush conservatives are not afraid of the word ‘compromise’. They despise the word ‘failure’. If there is a good idea, we do not care what party gets credit – we care that the good ideas get enacted. It is not Party uber America anymore.
Bush Conservatives, like Bush himself, are for lower taxes and focused government (someplace between liberals and libertarians is the proper role of government). They are not for destroying the public education system, they are for making it work. And they understand private school access is one option. They understand that a prescription drug benefit for Medicare/Medicaid will reduce overall costs and provide a respectable end of life for our seniors who came before us. Yes, it costs a lot to care for our elderly. But it doesn’t represent big government. It represents a big heart. I am not for throwing money away. The prescription drug benefit was a nice optimizing solution to a broken system. It was consumer driven (which is why the liberals should not be allowed to go in and insert bureacratic price controls) and it will save money that was being wasted in emergency room treatments for normal problems.
Bush Conservatives respect the immigrant worker in the sense we understand people need to make a life (not just a living). We do not want the broken current system to stay hostage to the “Fence Only” crowd. The illegal immigrant worker will pay a penalty in back taxes and lost time towards citizenship. That level of penalty is sufficient for the crime of missing paperwork. We respect those who are trying to do nothing more than raise a family. The Republicans can now have the mantle of harshness towards otherwise good people. They can focus on their vision of the few bad apples representing the entire immigrant population. They can ignore the more realistic, broader images that include aliens fighting for our country – the other immigrant worker. The only people who get my support will embrace Bush’s comprehensive vision of workers who are registered, background checked, working in the open economy, and who must avoid criminal activities if they stay here. They will not become citizens immediately, and in fact will not be able to apply any time here as illegal aliens towards citizenship. They will become our neighbors working by our side, raising their children with ours. And like the good neighbors we are, we will reach out and help them assimiliate to our society. The Reps can be the party of rounding up aliens for deportation. They are apparently clinging to that image with a death grip anyway.
Bush Conservatives do not see failure in Iraq, they see the long hard, generational fight we were warned was coming. Bush conservatives will not ally with liberals to find an exit and let the terrorists follow our troops home. Bush Conservatives do not blame Bush for Al Qaeda’s tenacity. We salute Bush for his tenacity.
Bush conservatives see success in the Gang of 14, who paved the way for some of the largest shifts to the federal bench in a generation. And we would welcome a repeat of the Gang of 14 in the upcoming senate to quelsh the partisan bickering between Reps and Dems. Go for it Gang – with my blessing. If they can keep the results going like they did in the last Congress, true conservatism will be able to flow into our court systems – as opposed to imposing Republican versions of the Liberal activism in the courts now.
Bush Conservatives are not necessarily Republicans – though obviously they are welcomed. Bush Conservatism is the broad-tent conservative movement that can include a McCain, DeWine, Snowe, etc. The only litmus test for Bush Conservatives is there is no litmus tests. There are no ‘real’ conservatives or ‘pure’ conservatives. Republicans can have their purity tests. Bush Conservatives will strive for enhancing the conservative vision and making progress towards those ends.
So how can Republicans (or Democrats) attract Bush Conservatives? Show respect to the President. Don’t blame Bush for your problems or mistakes. Allow processes to unfold without vitriol and panic. Admit the errors made on Miers (she should have been heard, then rejected), Dubai Ports World (not all Muslim Arabs are our enemies, especially ones willing to fund our outer defenses), and immigration (support the guest worker program for all the immigrants now here in this country). Failure to admit the mistakes means failure to correct the mistakes. These minimum changes could woo the Bush Conservatives back into the Republican tent – but there as to be unmistakable shift on these matters. No sliding around these examples of what we do not want to see more of. In many of these cases Dems and Reps both have some atoning to do.
Stop blaming the Gang of 14 and support the results they gave us on all those new judges and justices we are blessed to have. Look positively on efforts that are bi-partisan and are rolling back liberalism’s last vestiges: the liberal courts.
Don’t surrender on Iraq. Don’t pull a Kerry. We went into Iraq and made commitments. Honor those commitments and strive for nothing short of success. We do not follow people who go back on their word. Reps and Dems can tolerate that – Bush Conservatives never will.
Be positive, show respect, and use decorum. And this is not a Chinese menu. We are not looking for ideaological purity. But we are looking for a common vision, a common goal, something we can work together towards. We can debate the details of how to achieve these, but there is no doubt we need to do these things.
Here is the alternative: Reps and Dems can be against fixing immigration. Reps and Dems can be for bashing Bush. Reps and Dems can run from Iraq even though they supported the effort going in. The parties can continue to go their partisan ways. If they do, then I hope a moderate new party can arise from the ashes these scorched earth partisan efforts have been producing. We are at war, and these partisan are fighting us, not our enemies. America’s patience with these two squabbling camps will run out.
Addendum: I forgot one important subject – Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR). Bush opposes the killing of human beings, as do Bush Conservatives. This is why Bush Conservatives are not soft on life issues. Arlen Specter would not be a Bush Conservative. ESCR is snake oil compared to the Adult Stem Cell Research (ASCR) results which keep poring in. Even one of Michael J Fox’s top scientists who studies the full range of stem cell options has leaned towards faster, better cures coming from ASCR than ESCR. Bush is very pro-life. From his Stem Cell stance to parental notification to partial birth abortion, he has successfully moved the country towards the pro life side in a massive way. That is why Reps who bash Bush are just not being true to conservatism, they are only being true to their pet issues at the expense of conservatism. How many ways did Reps hurt the conservative cause? They stayted home. They turned on Bush when they did not get one thing their way. They never refused to acknowledge all Bush did, only what Bush did not do for them, they refused compromise, they refused progress, they refused to participate, they refused to be civil. Now all Bush did accompolish is at risk while the losers keep blaming him because they turned on him. The Reps have a lot to learn. Too much, in my opinion, to be ready for 2008.
Addendum II: I must also point out why Bush bashing without any thought is really, really bad. I am now of the opinion that the Democrat wave was much, much higher than what we ended up with. There could have easily been more House seats lost and one more Senate seat gone. I can easily see Bush’s last minute push taking some of the force out of the political tsunami that hit, along with Kerry’s last minute gaffe. We did see a turn to the reps in the last weekend’s polls. If I am right, and people were returning to Bush in some small way, the Bush bashing/blame we see now is really destructive. It is pushing those who DID turn back to the reps off and making them doubt, if not regret, there last minute change of heart to the right. Reps will react like this, without thinking. Bush Conservatives are much less volatile.
Addendum III: I would like to also add zero tolerance for pork barrel spending and ear-marks. The runaway spending was not pushed by Bush, it was done by Congress. They demanded a price to support Bush’s goals and inflated the budget with useless bridges, etc. There was no way Bush would have vetoed SLIMMED DOWN budgets. That one is all at the feet of the Reps in Congress. Ed Morrissey does this subject great justice today.
Addendum IV: Reader Luker noted these fine additions to the list:
– habeas corpus reserved to US citizens and not granted to the foreigners, especially the terrorists and the GITMO detainees.
– Balance between civil liberties and security of our own country and its assets, namely the preservation of the NSA foreign terrorist surveillance program.
– Tax reform, especially the abolishment of the death tax.
– Social Security reform.
Note that the last two REQUIRE compromise so we can attract democrat support. The first two will be salvaged by folks like Lieberman (and hopefully Harman) putting national security above partisanship. We will now be indebted any democrat who helps save these items.
AMEN.
Kathie:
You took the words right out of my mouth. Wonderful piece and oh so true.
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Precisely.
Me too.
I can only echo everyone else. Well said, AJ.I am a Bush conservative and proud of it!
I see a few things left out:
– habeas corpus reserved to US citizens and not granted to the foreigners, especially the terrorists and the GITMO detainees.
– Balance between civil liberties and security of our own country and its assets, namely the preservation of the NSA foreign terrorist surveillance program.
– Reduction of earmarks and pork programs within reasonable limits.
– Tax reform, especially the abolishment of the death tax.
– Social Security reform.
All good points Lurker! All of them.
Precisely! Could not have said any better! Finally, found my niche! Thanks.
I would also point out for the purity seekers, Bush did everything he said he was going to do. So, we entered into this 4 year agreement with him with eyes wide open. For that you have to respect that Bush is a man of honesty and integrity.
The idea that conservatives should alter their course so as to “attract Bush Conservatives” is asinine. Bush Conservatives need to make some alterations to thier platform to “attract” REAL conservatives. Why don’t they try showing some small amount of fiscal constraint perhaps. Despite your belief to the contrary, big heart and big cost are directly proportional. How about Bush pull out a veto or two to put a halt the the rampant amount of earmarks and pork spending. Regan once vetoed a bill that had 150 earmarks. Bush recently signed into law a bill with 6731 earmarks. Conservative? I think not.
Bush has led the Republican party from its roots in true economic and social conservatism into the mires of socialism.
Third time is the charm AJ — AMEN!
I call my new Bush Conservative party the SUCCESS party or SCCS (Seasoned Citizens for Common Sense). It is a party who recognizes that a good leader forms and dissolves coalitions as needed, issue by issue, and this requires compromise and listening to and taking good ideas from wherever they come from. The President calls himself the “Decider” and, IMHO, he is masterful at listening to all sides and then applying his principles and making a decision based on those principles rather than who was the source of the good idea.
I’ve made my own feelings pretty clear on who I think is responsible for the losses suffered in the election. I am appalled at the idiocy of some of these vocal neo-rights. Just in the last 10 days we’ve seen the constant trashing of Gates, Lott, Martinez, Baker, the Iraq Study Group (the insulting “Daddy’s Rescue Team”), and the ever present idea that Bush is too dumb to understand his “base.” In other words, the I’m right and I don’t care whether you are an R or a D, if you don’t agree with me, it is open season. Masters of the politics of personal destruction, they undermine the President constantly and then whine when they lose the right to govern at all.
The Captain and his commenters identifiy many of the same issues, but with a different solution. If 2 years is too short a time to reform the Republican party, how on earth do we get a third party up and running?
Wouldn’t it be more effective to consolidate your ideas, his, Newt’s et.al. into a new contract with America and push for candidates who “take the pledge” during the 2008 elections and beyond?
Kyl may have voted for Lott, but I trust him to stick personally to the conservative values that caused me to vote for him in the first place.
It would seem to be far more effective to seek out candidates who subscribe to newly-defined conservative principles in order to ‘fire’ those we are currently unhappy with.
A flood of letters to incumbents demanding adherence to those principles should also influence many of them to reject “business as usual”. We could set up online petitions endorsing those principles that are sent to incumbents and ask the right blogosphere to assist in spreading the word.
A Bush Conservative? or why the neo-right needs to sit down and shut up!…
Here are the opening paragraphs of a brilliant post by A.J. Strata. As far as I’m concerned, this is a MUST READ! I am in total agreement with everything AJ says and I hope against hope that some of the more vocal neo-right read it and see themselves …
DMilton,
If you think calling me asinine is going to garner my support – you have a lot to learn about politics. And now you know why Reps lost.
Perhaps it would be better to call those of you who consider yourselves “Bush” conservatives to “pseudo” conservatives. For after having Bush as governor and now as president, many times there is little that is conservative about our 43rd president.
I do agree with George W. Bush’s stand on terrorism and the threat that now faces our nation as being the most serious threat we have ever faced as a nation. But in reality, that has little to do with conservatism, and has everything to do with national security and reality toward the threat we face. I agree with NCLB policies that make teachers who have been accountable only to their unions and not their wards. And ironically, it is many in the minorities that want school vouchers because they realize that public schools are failing their children. Most of these parents in the minority groups would consider themselves moderate to liberal. I agree with lower taxes and prescription drugs for the elderly.
What I do object to is the label of “fence only” Repubicans when if y’all were being honest, you would admit that most of us you label as “fence only” are “fence first”. While you tout your humanity to man by advocating the legalization of millions of people who sneaked into your home without permission (our nation is, after all, your home) you fail to acknowledge the perils that will ensue with that policy. You fail to accept that the illegals who are on the low rung of the wage ladder will not pay taxes, just as those who are on the low rung of the wage ladder that are citizens, do not pay taxes. And you ignore the fact that the very same people will then be eligible for even more social services and that will drive up your taxes. Nor do you deal with the fact that a man earning minimum wage will not have the ability to repay the government the taxes due on the wages he earned. By making millions of people legal, you will have effectively made them eligible for the Earned Income Tax credit and therefor not only will they not pay taxes, they will be eligible for a refund of up to $3,500.00 in taxes they never paid. So if they are not capable of paying back taxes, will you then demand that they be sent back to their native lands until they do?
You have objections to these very same people violating housing standards in your community but have no problem with them violating federal laws that were designed to protect our citizens and our sovereignty. And you would be the first to call law enforcement to evict someone who had moved into your basement or attic without your permission. The agrument that they will be required to pay back taxes and that they will go to the back of the line is moot. There will be no taxes payable and being in the back of the line is waiting in your native land to come here, not being able to stay here and work, which is the goal in the first place for anyone wanting to migrate to the United States. Being in the back of the line is staying in Darfur and Uganda until your entry into the United States is approved.
And I am still waiting for the answer to my questions; the latest being “how many of the approximately 75 foreign born in our military who took the oath of citizenship were “il” legal aliens?”
Great post. I am going to circulate this far and wide. Its useless but I shall send notice of this to the National Reviews Corner blog. It would be nice if they realize we exist
Retire is correct the fence only crowd can be counted on one hand. Fence first to reduce the flow is the main group of support.
Since the time of the Reagen amnesty we have observed a massive growth of the illegal population.
Part of the impact from that is all those anchor babies who are legal under our current system are now coming into legal voter status. As their numbers grow they will surely influence what type of legislation comes out of all houses of government at all levels.
Retire05: I live in So. California and have worked here for thirty years. Over that time, I have known multiple dozens of people who were either here illegally or who are children of those who came illegally. They live in subdivisions where housing can cost up to $500-$600-$700,000. Their jobs pay in the ranges of $40,000 up to over 6 figures. Many are small business owners who employ many others, both legal and illegal. They pay taxes, they support charities, they coach Little League and become Girl Scout and Boy Scout leaders. This idea of illegals remaining 2nd class citizens is racist and bigoted. It presumes that after years of being in this country they have not bettered their circumstance in any way. It is a point of view mired in ignorance. A fence will do nothing to advance a solution to a large problem. A comprehensive multi-part solution must be undertaken. Each part important, including very tough enforcement to limit the flow, but no part is more important.
If you want to see effective solutions, start with tough enforcement of the borders but at the same time eliminate the bilingual requirements that cost us millions and do more to cost jobs to Americans than anything else. If someone cannot demonstrate they can speak and understand English, they should not be given any employment or services. And crack down on the employers, but give them the tools needed to police their own hires.
A comprehensive approach gives you your precious, although useless, fence, but it also includes equally important steps that must be implemented if the problem is going to be solved in any meaningful manner.
I could care less about the illegals already here and working hard and raising families, I do care about the flow that could be infiltrated by terrorists because of borders too free and open. But, unlike the “fence first” crowd, I understand that the southern border is 1951 miles long, not the 700 miles the “fence first” crowd is so hot over and that the northern border is 5525 miles long and offers an even more attractive entry point for those seeking to do us harm.
As their numbers grow they will surely influence what type of legislation comes out of all houses of government at all levels.
So your answer is to round them up and deport them, alienating everyone. The President’s answer and the GOP answer is to appoint Mel Martinez (the latest whipping boy of the neo-right) to go out and reach them and bring them into the fold. Who is smarter? My money is on George W. Bush.