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.
Wiley,
I agree completely. I would have stomached the amnesty and guest worker plan. I wouldn’t have liked it, but I would have held my tongue.
I just wanted to see someone PROVE that they take border security seriously before we were asked to grant amnesty.
Especially given the war on terror!! Give grandma a cavity search at the airport and leave the borders wide open. Right………..
Makes perfect sense.
Apache IP
Agree — the gang of 14 was disaster for reps, and bad for the country. Roberts, Alito, and any number of other qualified judges would have been confirmed if the reps held strong because the public would have seen how empty and partisan the dems were being. This was a sure thing, except the G14 decided to take over the game, which meant bowing to dems pressure for no good reason.
And this points out another misconception that AJ has — the Meirs (sp?) fiasco was all about qualifications. There were/are many, many well-qualified conservative jurists with constitutional law experience, but Bush went beyond left field, into the parking lot, and chose a women, perhaps conservative, with no constitutional law experience. Why? Maybe he was being loyal to a friend, perhaps he thought she would make a good judge, but it sure appeared he was bending over backwards to please the politically correct and lefty MSM & assuage the dems, but look what that got his father (& all of us) with Souter. The outcry was simple – why choose an inexperienced, unknown quantity with so many deserving conservative candidates?
You know, this isn’t really that hard to understand.
Take my wife and I as an example.
My wife is a graduate of the United States Military Academy. I am an ex Apache Helicopter Instructor Pilot of many years of fine service and loyalty to this country.
My wife was born in this country. Her parents were born in this country. Her grandparents were born in this country. Her great-grandparents were born in this country.
Unfortunately, my wife works for a multi-national corporation and she does a lot of travel to unsavory countries that are popular for outsourcing American jobs. So even though she and I are loyal ex-Army patriots with 20+ years between us, she is still subject to extra scrutiny at the airports, just because of the countries she flies in and out of.
But, hey!!! We don’t want to offend anyone and put a fence on the border.
And that makes sense to you???????????????
It doesn’t make any sense to me. And I will bet you a dollar that it doesn’t make any sense to a lot of other people either.
Give my West Point graduate wife extra attention at the airport, but leave our borders wide open.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight……..
Killer plan that is.
I hate to say it, but we deserved to lose that election. We should count our blessings that our losses weren’t greater.
Apache IP
Wiley,
If I had expanded my list to 6, number 6 would have been –
6. Spinelessness (sp?) and the gang of 14.
That definitely played a role in our demise.
Apache IP
You know, I’ll bet a nickle that my wife would be subject to less airport scrutiny if our last name was Alijabmar.
Combine that with the fact that our borders are wide open and you can’t figure out why Republicans lost?
Not much more that I can offer in the way of clarity.
Apache IP
Love it. LOVE it. The only thing I may disagree about is whether W Cons should form a third party or attempt to recapture the GOP. It’s really hard for me to let go of the grand old party idea and years of financial and physical investment. Either way, we are not going to have our act together by ’08. But I think the AJ manifesto ought to be our guiding template for the future, regardless the exact political framework which develops.
The fence almost strikes me funny at this point. All those roaring 110% conservatives who demanded a largely symbolic gesture over substantive, comprehensive imm reform, and who apparently have no problem pouring x billion dollars down the garbage disposal to construct a fence to little effect while ignoring the many other necessary components related to our SECURITY… well I am sure those same 110-percenters screamed bloody murder over mindless rhetoric and wasteful spending for bridges to nowhere and such. But a fence without any supporting measures is okay with the sanctimonious ones? Makes little sense unless of course you factor in ego, ratings, and book sales based on creating fear and rage. Come to think of it, a fence alone pretty much guarantees the problem won’t be solved and the fear/rage industry will remain a prosperous one to exploit.
The fence only mob seems like a collection of angry, unhappy control freaks who have no use for an open tent. For them the fence is a perfectly Freudian model of how they think and how they regard themselves and their fellow human beings.
I think W’s “soft bigotry of low expectations” can be applied to Reps who have given up on Iraq and who pretty much treat immigration problems with the same elite exasperation. As if there is nothing we can do but coil up in a fetal position and try to keep them away from us. That is so un-American, so un-Reagan and so completely un-W Con.
You know AJ, something has been brewing in me for more than 24 hours now. And I won’t feel like much of a man if I don’t just say it.
The other day you declared someone a “lost cause” because of the book they were reading. WTF????????
If that is the quality and depth of your intellect, then I really don’t belong here.
You have been a gracious host and I appreciate your hospitality. You were most kind in allowing me to post my opinions here.
Thank you very much.
But please close my account. I don’t belong here. If you are going to write someone off because of what they are reading, then I don’t belong here.
Here’s a thought for you: try attacking the argument and not the messenger. And never, ever call someone a “lost cause” because you disapprove of their reading list.
Good bye and thank you for your hospitality.
Apache IP
Hate to see you go Apache IP, you are one of the good guys.
Ken, you need to get a tape of the planes flying into the WTC and watch them a few times all the way thru the buildings collapse. Then when you feel like the Islamo Fascists are the good guys, you need to watch it again.
Would all those that have changed their mind about the immigration issue (either way) after all this back and forth please identify yourself. I said when it started a few days ago that NO ONE would change their mind. I don’t think I’ve been proven wrong.
I think the larger point is that condidates like Allen and Santorum and Hostettler who are very hardline lost and candidates like Snowe and Lugar and Specter won easily.
The fence only people simply lost track of the fact that their tone is what turned people off. That might not seem like a big deal but it is. The hispanic vote abandoned the GOP. The loss in one election cycle was staggering. It was a lot harder to get those votes than it was to lose them.
So no one in saying that in order to win you have to turn a blind eye to illegal immigration, the point is to allow for some compromise so that a solution might actually be possible. So far the only thing people like Malkin have accomplished is to damage the President because he had the temerity to not agree with their views. They also alienate so many people they are losing elections. When the Minute Men candidate is losing on home turf your cause is lost, or at least the way you present it is lost.
Spin it how you want, but every poll, exit polls, surveys whatever make it plain that comprehensive immigration reform is what the vasst majority of the American people support. Because they think it is more practical.
Did Bush do a terrible job of explaining this war to people? I am not sure about that. I think of the days before WW2 when intelligent people like Lindberg were saying the Jews and the Brits were the problem not those nice Nazis and I think to myself if Churchill and Roosevelt could not make them see what was coming then how can Bush make people see this threat now.
As for pork, I think that most people do not even know what an earmark is. And given the choice between a government program that will help pay Mom’s medical bills or somehow coming up with 30 grand a year for the nursing home themselves …they will prefer the program. Old age and sickness are things that all families have to deal with and so it matters to people.
FE,
I think you understand the point of my post. Bush conservatives have been separated from the Reps by the Reps inabilty to compromise. The For Trent, who noted I was much more optimistic about a Rep win, he should note that I based that opposition on the idea Reps still had the independent center with them. I was wrong. I can see now, after the elections and puting the data together in hindsight, that Reps repulsed the center. The center did not care about Harriet Miers, except the way she was treated by those like Frumm who had a personal vendetta. And the Dems were just as bad as the Reps on Dubia Ports World – as was the country in general. The only schism point is immigrantion, with 2/3rds of the people supporting a guest worker program. I never said the Reps would figure it out. And in fact, as a post later this weekend will demonstrate, the Reps have a habit of doing this. So no, there will be no changing of minds. The coalition is gone, over. And it will remain that way for some time. The last time we got 8 years of Clintong before the far right pulled itself together enough to moderate and focus on conservative policies with broad appeal. More on this later. But don’t expect any change. The Bush Conservatives are ostrocized from the Reps. They pushed Bush under the bus years ago, what makes you think we are welcomed?
Apache_IP,
The author was uber nativist Buchanan – who left the party because it was too moderate. The poster was SteveWS, and since that comment we have come together on common ground. You may not like the fact I have boundaroes beyond which I will not go, but they are there. Buchanan is so far right he is anti-America, because the Americe he envisions is sick – like the Aryian Nation kind of sick. Maybe not to the same degree, but he is definitelty not a well person.
Sorry if you think you need to leave, but this is the political process. If we cannot let people know when they have gone too far, then what is the point in having the debate? In the end we agreed, what can I tell you.
Wiley,
You missed my point about Miers completely. She deserved to be treated with respect, not she deserved ther seat. And you are so wrong on the Gang of 14 because you ignore the results. You and many others will have to watch as compromise works for the next two years. The Gang of 14, which include Lieberman and McCain, will help hold the line on taxes, security, etc. They will team up with Bush and be the only defense we have against the liberal left. I suggest you just stop instulting those working to our benefit. It simply leads to defeat. The Gang of 14 faced no challenges – except one. And I now challenge you to tell all conservatives it was worth losing Congress to defeat DeWine and Chafee (the latter was not a Gang of 14 member). You tell everyone eliminating those two moderates was paramount to holding Congress. And you will see why your insulting those Senators who helped seat all those conservative justices makes no sense to anyone outside the far right.
One thing I never understood about the Dubai Ports thing was the willingness of Republicans like Duncan Hunter to follow the likes of Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer. When Schumer and Clinton started all that [and they did] it should have occured to certain bloggers and talk radio people that just maybe they were more interested in being loud mouth partisans than they were in national security. But noooooo, the right heard the word Muslim and went off the deep end. Their best thing.
I have to agree about Miers, the way some people treated her was just ugly. In fact I heard people who are not really all that political say that. Once again, it is the tone that turns people off.
I’ve been reading posts on Strata-Sphere for a few months now. I believe I heard about this web site from Rush. I’ve never felt compelled to respond to a post (although all of AJ’s are good IMO)
until I read AJ’s post on Bush Conservatives. I agree 100 % with every word. I was beginning to think I was the only “Bush Conservative” in existence. Since the Miers nomination I’ ve seen a side of conservatives that I had not seen before. I am a fan of conservative talk radio but I began to tire of the hosts I was listening to. (Ingraham really began to get on my nerves). I switched to Prager, Medved and Hewitt and have never looked back. I will sometimes listen to Rush for about an hour also.
Needless to say, I am happy to have found some like minded people on the web.
Thanks AJ and other “Bush Conservatives”.
I go out of town for a couple of days and the 3rd Reformation is announced.
Great post AJ. I do not agree with all of it but most of it. Am I angry at those parts I don’t like? Nope. It is all about common sense, common courtesy, and common good. I’ll fight like the devil on some issues but I am willing to shake your hand if you win on others. If anyone wants to know just how right they are all the time just ask your spouse.
AJ,
A REALLY excellent post! I just have one point about the “Gang of 14”. I thought at the time and still think that the Gang of 14 is not a compromise as much as a mutually agreed on coalition that removes the rest of the Senate in the process of confirming judges. It is comprised of 14 individuals who will “inform” the rest of the Senate on whether or not they can vote on judges. It was a terrible idea then and it remains so (that is just my opinion. Sorry, but I have always seen it as an attempt to protect the privilege of the Senate more than reach a “compromise” on anything). When the very next judge comes up for vote and confirmation in the Senate, we will see whether or not this was a good idea.
I also can’t help but wonder when the “gang of 14” changes with the next election (and it will), what will happen to this “compromise”? The margin in the Senate is now razor thin. Let’s put it this way, IF a “gang of 14” were put into place at every issue that the Senate couldn’t agree on, I think it would be a disaster. Don’t you?
Chuck Schumer has already made it abundantly clear that ANY candidate that Bush puts forward for a Federal judgeship (especially the SCOTUS) is basically dead in the water. Some compromise! Anyway, it just my opinion. I am sick of back-room deals. Yeah, I know MOST business in Congress is done that way, and its probably naive of me to expect anything else. I have seen alot of the really excellent proposals of the Bush administration go down the drain because of the unwillingness of the Democrats to compromise. Take a look at Social Security…they won’t even “discuss” privatizing (VOLUNTARILY) and voila! THAT issue is also dead in the water.
To truly be a compromise, both sides have to be willing to go the distance, and from what I’ve seen, that’s just not happening. Every time we come to a standstill on issues of national security or Social Security it is the same. The Dems say my way or the highway. “We can work with our friends on the other side of the ailse” is code for “as long as they see things our way”.
Aj, you certainly started something here. Look at all the comments and discussion. This a GREAT!! Thank you so much for posting this.
Carol
Carol:
If there had not been a gang of 14 and if the rules change had been made the Senate Republicans who are now a minority would be at the mercy of the Democrats without even the threat of filibuster to slow down the majority.
That is the problem. The use of the nuclear option is a great thing when you have the majority, but when it is your turn to be in the minority it is not such a good thing. Especially when the Legislative and Executive branches are held by opposing parties.