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.
Terrye, ilk as used is NOT a bad word or thing. It only means of like kind or class. So he’s just saying AJ and people like that. Nothing wrong with that.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucgg/20061117/cm_ucgg/puzzlingoutasolutiontoourproblemsiniraq
Experts and expert studies say US occupation is the cause of much of the violence in Iraq, not the cure for it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111601509.html
The CIA’s Hayden says there are only 1300 foreign al Qaeda
in Iraq of the tens of thousands of NATIVE Iraqi insurgents
and thousands more who support them.
This means al Qaeda is about 3.5% of the violent Sunni/Baathist
anti-American resistance.
This inturn means Strata has been using al Qaeda as a straw man to indoctrinate you into a fantasy world.
Enlightened, I will attempt to answer a couple questions that you asked, BUT do not take me as an authority AND I am not attempting to change your (or anyone else’s) mind. just trying to answer your question.
The fence would be, as described on some site that was supposed to represent reality, about 100 yards wide, two fences, very strong about 20 feet high, a paved or upgraded gravel road between the two fences. A deep ditch on the outer side of each of the two fences to keep cars and trucks from driving thru the ditches. Motion detectors mounted in roadway the entire length of the road, video cameras (either infra red for night time and / or lighted.) Ground penetrating radar monitoring from drones. I haven’t seen any claim about withstanding explosives. I would expect anyone caught blowing them up would be guilty of a felony and cause for deporttion.
I would expect it would only stop people from crossing where the fence was in place, they certainly could still go around the ends, unless there were no ends. It would have no impact on anyone except those who would try to cross that way. Other methods of illegal entry would still be available.
How do you find illegals already here? you don’t. Pass a law that gives anyone in the country illegally some reasonable time period, say 90 days to register with Immigrations. If they fail to register and they are caught someway later, say in a traffic stop or any thing, they would be deported. There would be no roundup. Give them opportunity to register, failure to would be grounds for deport with no return. That would be the incentive to register. No penalty for just registering. Upon registering they would be fully informed of conditions to stay and work. If they are deported for failure to register and are found here again, it would be a criminal act: felony or misdemeanor.
They would not be treated as criminals until or unless they became criminals (other than how they got in question).
This is my understanding.
Thanks, A.J. for the great post. Count me as a Bush Conservative and a loyal Republican. I think many of the self-styled conservative pundits have forgotten that politics is the art of the possible. So instead of advocating getting rid of the Department of Education, President Bush tries to make the education system more accountable. Instead of thinking we could scrap Medicare, he introduces free market forces. I’d love to get rid of Social Security by totally privatizing (e.g. hand people what they’re owed in bonds), but that’s not going to make it through congress, so the president pushes for individual accounts – a great step in the right direction. I think if some of the conservatives had fought as hard for Social Security reform as they fought against Harriet Miers we’d have those individual accounts. I read an article once where President Bush was identified as a “choice and accountability conservative” and I think that’s about right.
Too many who think they represent the conservative base seem to have let their idea of the perfect get in the way of the good, and their idea of the perfect doesn’t necessarily match up with everyone else’s.
Thanks to the others who comented on this post. A very interesting discussion. Terrye, I often read your coments on this and other blogs and find myself in total agreement. Kudos.
Candy
Retire05,
You can prove you are not a Fence Only type if you say yes or no on whether you support a guest worker program which includes people here illegally now. Yes or no. “Yes” and I was wrong. “No” and your position defines where you stand – Fence Only. I don’t need a big long complaining post. I offered up how you can prove me wrong and all you need is two or three letters to set your record straight.
Yes or No. It is no more complex than that. Would accept the program (imperfect as we all know it will be)? If you do not say “yes” – we can all figure out what your real answer is. So don’t waste your effort on a lot of caveats .
An excellent post AJ; well done and well said. However I must respectfully take issue with you on two points. First, I may be misinterpreting your point,but it seems to me with your phrase “Bush conservatives” that you are putting labels on people to try to start a new classification of people. How about the right people just doing the right things for the right reasons;
that works a lot better for me than assigning labels. The labels game just leads to more of the same political gamesmanship that’s got us in such a mess to begin with.
As to your views on immigration, and I’m reluctant to criticize you without first going back and reading all of your posts on the subject,but I disagree with some of your opinions on the subject in general. I think you’re missing the point. Isn’t about being nice, or decent, although they do play a role. It is about the sovereignty of this nation and the right of the citizens to choose what is best for them. Good intent or not, there is a high price to pay to this country and its citizens for unfettered immigration, legal or illegal. I cannot and will not compromise on the security and sovereignty of my nation. There is nothing hard about this. Where this becomes difficult is in how to deal with human beings caught in the middle, specifically those who have been here for a while having conducted themselves as good citizens, indeed as good Americans.
There are many good and well reasoned points being made by you AJ, and by others commenting on the site. Although I’m not one for joining sites such as this, the overall quality of the people in the debate on this site makes me glad that I’d made an exception for this one. However, not only do these debates need to be made intelligently and with respect to the views of others, they need to be based on solid facts and logic. For example, and not to single you out, but the point was made that we need these immigrant workers-I would assume the commentator included illegal aliens in that assessment. But the fact is this nation has not needed immigration for quite a long time now. Does that make me anti-immigration or a racist? Well, only to those jackasses who can’t see a point other than their own and lack the intelligence to counter my points with reason and logic of their own.
This is a serious problem, which has been ignored for so long that it’s become a crisis. The answer, will not be anything akin to the total surrender of America, or the total annihilation of Mexico. If there is to be an answer, it won’t be perfect, but it will have to be something between the two extremes.
Gotta run for a while,I’ll check back later. Meantime, everyone hang tough and keep swinging.
If you read thru all these comments, I don’t see how you can reach but one conclusion. Don’t build a fence. Close down all checkpoints (leave gates open) just fire the border patrol. Quit pretending that we care who comes in. Everyone says a fence won’t stop them. If a fence won’t, short of machine guns, nothing will. so why even attempt to stop them. Declare the entire border open to any and all comers. Allow free importing of any and all drugs. Declare that if you get here you are a citizen, no provisions, full citizenship, full benefits as of day you arrive. All your relatives throughout the world are entitled to full benefits even if they never get here.
Now I’m not advocating this, in fact I would be strongly against it, but just reading about how IMPOSSIBLE it is to enforce the border, I say why not save all that money we are spending on border enforcement and give it to the new legals.
Ben, I just realized you made some of the same points I was trying to make, only you did it better. I do think President Bush is the kind of man who is trying to help solve problems for the long term.
Candy
FE,
Are you trying to go postal on us? Just kidding.
No one is against the Fence, what they want is the Fence and the guest worker program. The Fence Only crowd are the ones who got us all a whole lot of nothing (the Fence is not funded for building – only 700 million went into it).
AJ, you are asking for black and white guidelines. If you are for a guest worker program, then you MUST be for a guest worker program for those who violated our laws.
It just isn’t that damn simple, no matter how you try to make it that way.
Are you for stem cell research, AJ? If you say “yes” then you must be for the killing of embryos that are human in DNA and potential babies. But wait, you can be FOR stem cell research WITHOUT wanting to kill embryos. You can be for ADULT stem cell research, or cord blood stem cell research. So can I assume that if you are for adult and cord blood stem cell research you have no problem killing embryos, as well?
Sure, I can look at your side of the argument. The illegals are already here. They have melted into our society. SO WHAT? Pedophiles are already in our society. Are we to accept them because of that reason?
I can sense your anger at me. Why? Because I have a mind of my own, don’t march lockstep with anyone and make my own decisions about what is good and what is not good for this nation?
Why is it you never answer any of my questions? Why is it that you are so closed to the opinions of others who do not agree with you? You said you want compromise. It seems that compromise is your way or the highway.
So “YES” I am for a guest worker program for those who enter our nation legally. NO, I am not for a guest worker program for those here illegally and have no respect for our laws.
Are you for illegal immigration? You must be if you want no consequence for violating our immigration laws.
Enforcement – I think many Bush Conservatives agree that a fence won’t work because it is logistically impossible. Since the bill calls for a “partial” fence if-you-will, then what is the use of spending that much money when the immigrants will just bypass that section of the border? I don’t advocate “open” borders for any reason. I advocate laws that immigrants must follow or leave as you stated earlier.
Do you think that having the “fence” eliminates or lessens the need for Border Patrolmen in that 700 mile stretch, thereby deploying the patrols to the other, non-fenced borders? I seriously don’t understand how you think the fence will work.
My other bone of contention is hardliners that have negatively profiled the vast majority of illegal immigrants as criminals – they are not. And you cannot kick out millions of people because 50 illegal immigrants have committed heinous crimes, and I do not think that crossing the border illegally is the same as rape or murder or other violent crimes that are cherry-picked and used as fodder against all illegal immigrants.
If a white Canadian entered our country illegally over the northern border, and started a whole town of illegals that abide by all the rules, they would not even merit a blip on the hate radar some hard line republicans have exhibited. It is bigotry veiled in conservative values and I am against that.
There has to be a grassroots effort to upgrade our immigrant laws and current reporting infrastructure and procedures. There has to be enforcement of the laws. There cannot be liberal entities that support non-citizens with American civil rights. There cannot be witch hunts to find the “illegals” and kick them out or detain them. And there cannot be physical barriers that are transparent attempts to disguise bigotry and hatred. There has to be compassion for the plight of men and women and children that end up dead and dying in their own feces in truck trailers, or on makeshift boats sailed many miles to “freedom” in their desperate need to get out of their country and into ours. And it has to be a bipartisan effort, meaning compromise at all costs.
“NO, I am not for a guest worker program for those here illegally and have no respect for our laws.
Are you for illegal immigration? You must be if you want no consequence for violating our immigration laws. ”
Maybe its just the Catholic in me but where does justice play out in all this. I mean we have illegals that have produced our food, built our houses, Heck rebuliding my precious New Orleans right now all. Now for those that entered illegally there shall be no mercy, not even partial forgiveness. It is all your a criminal. But while that happens the ones that benifited over the last twenty years receive no punshiment. From the Construction companies to even us average everyday people that have benefited from their labor. Something doesnt seem right about this and very much goes against my pro life upbringing
“because 50 illegal immigrants have committed heinous crimes”
Enlightened, have you ever heard of MS-13? It is a street gang with it’s origins in El Salvador. Most of it’s members are illegals from El Salvador, other Central and South American nations and and Mexico. It is the most vicious street gang in the United States and has spread to 33 states. Drugs, human smuggling, prostitution, kidnapping and every other “heinous” crime you can think of is the forte of MS-13. And the estimate of their numbers are 10,000 strong. Hardly just 50 illegal immigrants that have committed heinous crimes. And when blanket amnesty is done, these gang members will be included. But they will be deported for their crimes, right? Do you think El Salvador is going to take them back? And if we prove they have committed no crime YET, what do we do with them?
You see, nothing is as black and white as one would like to make it.
A fence is a good start. And if you disagree, tell me why there is a fence around the White House and Area 51?
Pondering American, your Catholic rearing has nothing to do with it. What has to do with it, is the notion that has been pounded in our heads that if we protect our own nation, if we exercise our rights to sovereignty, if we view immigration as a benefit to our nation and not a benefit to other nations, we must somehow be callous and cold hearted.
Sure, there can be forgiveness. Those who have created a (false) life here by living a lie can be given the chance to make it right. They should be given the chance to enter our nation LEGALLY. That would require them returning to their native land to apply like all others apply. Like those from Bosnia, Uganda, Darfur, France and Ireland. They can be fast tracked. But they must also show good faith, not just the U.S. showing good faith.
Well Retire in the end much of ths is academic really. No matter how much Micky Kaus for instance tries to find the Democractic votes to stop immigration reform that is comprehensive its not there. There is going to a pathway to citizenship, and some form of guest worker it appears.
To me there is a simple choice. Performa Custers Last stand and possibily write off milions of hispanic votes forever plus get a way too liberal bill. Or work with the Democrats as well as other factions to make sure the best elements of security on the border and Pathway to can be had.
It will then be up top us in our communties to help assimilate our new countrymen
Enlightened, you said “I seriously don’t understand how you think the fence will work.
I didn’t express an opinion that I think the fence will work.
you said:
I don’t advocate “open†borders for any reason.
What do you advocate? How would you enforce the border?
If the emphasis is on enforcing laws AFTER people are here illegally, how do you deal with any illegal drugs or whatever that they brought over with them?
Maybe the answer is that we make sure that people wanting to come here are told that they can come thru the border at checkpoints, but will be sent back IF they come across the border illegally in the future, (from the date of notification that they can openly come thru the border checkpoints, just sign in) crossing the border illegally would be grounds for deporting them back, but wouldn’t prevent them from coming back thru the border checkpoints.
I don’t have an answer for what will work and have not heard anyone else’s idea that I believe will work.
My belief is that if the entire border were fenced it would slow illegal immigration acrossTHAT border by about 90% and drugs about 98%
Anyone planning to come in illegally across the southern border would just find another way. It would be harder probably and cost more so some percentage wouldn’t make it.
As I said, I don’t even pretend to have the answer. I do have a fence around my back yard. The White House has a fence. I have motion detector lights and I have security video cameras for my home.
To my knowledge, I have no illegal persons living in my house.
Don’t anyone accuse me of favoring anything other than having the immigration of people into the US under CONTROL.
The White House fence does not keep people out, it has been breached many times.
A fence delineates a boundary. My property from your property. Accessible area from inaccessible area. Anyone can breach a fence.
I don’t want any dead immigrants on my conscience because they tried to get over the “fence”, when they could have walked another 100 miles to the open border.
Area 51 does not exist in my opinion.
No one has proof that 10000 M-13 members exist. It is all conjecture, and most of it is tied to the immigration bandwagon by hardliners. And if they want to breach the border they will, fence or not. M13 thugs according to your estimates are roughly 1 percent of 11 Million illegals, and in my opinion does not warrant a partial fence.
Shall we also start to fence in the US metro areas that violent criminals, drug dealers, murderers, gangsters and thieves frequent? Shall we kick everyone out of our violent cities, fence it in and allow re-admittance only once they all get fingerprinted, DNA samples, Photo ID’s, sexual deviants get registered, prostitutes registered, johns registered, everyone deloused – all with current criminal proceedings against them are out – go somewhere else. All that commit a crime while in the “area” are kicked out, never to return. Those with previous criminal records, regardless if they have rehabilitated or not are out.
Hell, in California criminals get three strikes before they are in the slammer for good. Why should illegal immigrants deserve anything less?
Folks, It’s not about the Fence. Everyone wanted to tighten the border. The questions has and remains the Guest Worker program.
The election gave us a choice. Back Bush – the man that brought us all here, or back the Republican Gliterati (talking heads, paid mouth pieces, etc). Me, I am not a Republican and I stand by Bush.
And I stand by his call for a guest worker program to eliminate the underground economy, get the immigrant workers background checked and paying their fair tax burden, limiting the penalty to back taxes and not being able to use their prior time here to attain citizenship, a registration fee would make sense as well.
Anything else is too liberal or too Republican.
The passion that the immigration issue ignites, on all sides, suggests to me that this is one of those “problems from hell” — situations in which NO feasible action actually seems helpful. The current immigration regime is a big joke in pretty much every way, and things are getting worse. We gotta do something. But what?
One of the things that first made me sit up and pay attention to W back in the 2000 campaign was the way he talked about illegal immigration. He did not offer a solution. But the way he framed the problem set him apart from pretty much every other politician in the country. He did not speak of illegal aliens as a criminal threat to be hunted down, nor as a new victim class to be embraced and appeased. He recognized that illegals have come here because of natural human aspirations, and that these aspirations (however illegitimate under our law, and whatever the unfortunate consequences) will not simply go away.
I suppose some rolled their eyes at this and said, “What a squish.” My own reaction was, “Hmmmm. That sounds like someone actually thinking. What a weird thing to hear in a political campaign.”
Has W handled this subject well? Not particularly. And I can’t even give him a pass on immigration because national security issues have been a higher priority. This IS a national security issue. The INS has needed a drastic shakeup for decades, as anyone who knows any legal immigrants can testify. BUT … I haven’t seen much real political opportunity for changes of the magnitude required. Have you? Remember, for something to work it has to command something like a political consensus, because it has to operate over several political cycles, probably under administrations of both parties (to say nothing of changes of regimes in neighboring countries). The policies that the Administration has eventually endorsed do at least include some attempt to change the rules, some plan to alter the perverse incentive structures that have led to the present mess. Are the policies good ideas? I’m willing to be persuaded.
This is part of what I meant earlier about long-term thinking. I bet that W believes that our best long-term handles on this problem are free trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA. Someday, Ross Perot’s “giant sucking sound” could be Latin American workers returning home to take advantage of new economic opportunities. But the slow remedies will take a generation or more to work, if they do at all. Meanwhile, we have to manage the problem, tinker with the incentives at the margin, and avoid doing anything that will make eventual resolution of the political and social and economic issues impossible. Why is this course not wise, prudent, possible — and conservative?