Breaking Political Stories and Commentary. "We're at the height of the Roman Empire for the Republican Party, but the tide slowly but surely goes out." --Republican US Senator Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
This piece is by Scott McConnell, one of the founders of The American Conservative:
To the surprise of virtually everyone, Bush has turned into an important president, and in many ways the most radical America has had since the 19th century. Because he is the leader of America’s conservative party, he has become the Left’s perfect foil—its dream candidate. The libertarian writer Lew Rockwell has mischievously noted parallels between Bush and Russia’s last tsar, Nicholas II: both gained office as a result of family connections, both initiated an unnecessary war that shattered their countries’ budgets. Lenin needed the calamitous reign of Nicholas II to create an opening for the Bolsheviks.

Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation’s children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy. Add to this his nation-breaking immigration proposal—Bush has laid out a mad scheme to import immigrants to fill any job where the wage is so low that an American can’t be found to do it—and you have a presidency that combines imperialist Right and open-borders Left in a uniquely noxious cocktail.

[snip]

Bush has accomplished this by giving the U.S. a novel foreign-policy doctrine under which it arrogates to itself the right to invade any country it wants if it feels threatened. It is an American version of the Brezhnev Doctrine, but the latter was at least confined to Eastern Europe. If the analogy seems extreme, what is an appropriate comparison when a country manufactures falsehoods about a foreign government, disseminates them widely, and invades the country on the basis of those falsehoods? It is not an action that any American president has ever taken before. It is not something that “good” countries do. It is the main reason that people all over the world who used to consider the United States a reliable and necessary bulwark of world stability now see us as a menace to their own peace and security.

These sentiments mean that as long as Bush is president, we have no real allies in the world, no friends to help us dig out from the Iraq quagmire. More tragically, they mean that if terrorists succeed in striking at the United States in another 9/11-type attack, many in the world will not only think of the American victims but also of the thousands and thousands of Iraqi civilians killed and maimed by American armed forces. The hatred Bush has generated has helped immeasurably those trying to recruit anti-American terrorists—indeed his policies are the gift to terrorism that keeps on giving, as the sons and brothers of slain Iraqis think how they may eventually take their own revenge. Only the seriously deluded could fail to see that a policy so central to America’s survival as a free country as getting hold of loose nuclear materials and controlling nuclear proliferation requires the willingness of foreign countries to provide full, 100 percent co-operation. Making yourself into the world’s most hated country is not an obvious way to secure that help.
Conservatives and other Republicans are waking up to the fact that Bush isn't one of them. He has served his supporters as poorly as he's served our country.

Comments (Page 1)
on Oct 19, 2004
This is the latest article I've read along these lines. Thanks for posting it.
on Oct 19, 2004
No problem. By the way, I thought your I Hate America post was great. Hopefully, it's put a dent in some of the lazy "all liberals are like this" thinking that, at times, permeates JoeUser.

The thing about Bush is that he's representing conservative values little better than he's representing liberal ones; and he's incompetent to boot. Even if you agree with all of Bush's policy goals, he's been a singular failure in accomplishing them. Iraq has become the quagmire about which his generals warned him months before the invasions, and he's created the largest deficit in history from a Clinton budget surplus that was the largest in decades.
on Oct 19, 2004
I think that fact the Bill Buckley has also come out against the current war in Iraq is also very telling.....
on Oct 19, 2004
Thanks, Blogic, glad you liked it. There's lazy thinking over here on our side, too, just to be fair. I've even been guilty of it myself. Salon ran a "Conservatives shouldn't vote for Bush article" -- but I can't find the darned link again. Bleh. If I do, I'll post it
on Oct 19, 2004
I agree that the Left is as quick to overgeneralize about the Right as vice-versa. As I've said before, I don't think Lefties and Righties are all that difference, except for their actual political opinions. At JoeUser, though, I think the fact that the conservatives have been more established and prominent has made it easier for them to stereotype the Left than it has been for liberals to do so to the Right.. Until recently, there were few enough on the Left that people on the Right could make these generalizations without anyone critquing their arguments -- meanwhile, bloggers on the Left haven't had that luxury. I think the increase in the number of liberal bloggers has changed this, which is one reason the discussions have grown more heated.
on Oct 20, 2004
Unfortunately, this election does not offer traditional conservatives an easy or natural choice and has left our editors as split as our readership. In an effort to deepen our readers’ and our own understanding of the options before us, we’ve asked several of our editors and contributors to make “the conservative case” for their favored candidate. Their pieces, plus Taki’s column closing out this issue, constitute TAC’s endorsement. —The Editors


There is little in John Kerry’s persona or platform that appeals to conservatives. The flip-flopper charge—the centerpiece of the Republican campaign against Kerry—seems overdone, as Kerry’s contrasting votes are the sort of baggage any senator of long service is likely to pick up. (Bob Dole could tell you all about it.) But Kerry is plainly a conventional liberal and no candidate for a future edition of Profiles in Courage. In my view, he will always deserve censure for his vote in favor of the Iraq War in 2002.

But this election is not about John Kerry. If he were to win, his dearth of charisma would likely ensure him a single term. He would face challenges from within his own party and a thwarting of his most expensive initiatives by a Republican Congress. Much of his presidency would be absorbed by trying to clean up the mess left to him in Iraq. He would be constrained by the swollen deficits and a ripe target for the next Republican nominee.


Coupla "snips" blogic conveniently left out. There's a ringing endorsement for ya. I suggest everyone actually read the editorial.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Oct 20, 2004
And in the interest of full disclosure, TAC is more a libertarian mouthpiece than anything and the other editors endorsed Nader & Peroutka, whoever he is.

Conservatives and other Republicans are waking up to the fact that Bush isn't one of them.


Once again, the source blogic cites doesn't exactly support his claim. If you bother looking at who TAC is you'll find that they dissociate themselves from the Republican Party - it's Pat Buchanan's rag for cryin' out loud. Look at his bio on their website and he doesn't even admit to having run for President. The word Republican appears nowhere in describing either the magazine or the principals behind. The assertion that "Republicans are waking up" to anything is not in any way supported by this source.

Has anyone else noticed the pattern here? Is it just me?

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Oct 20, 2004
And in the interest of full disclosure, TAC is a libertarian mouthpiece and the other editors endorsed Nader & Peroutka, whoever he is.


They don't support Badnarik what the heck?

Peroutka is the Constitution Party (Formerly Known as the US Taxpayers Party).
on Oct 20, 2004
The post title and the linked piece both focus on "conservatives" and on their serious problems with Bush. The piece isn't focused on Kerry, and neither was my entry. I also generally don't post about how liberals dislike Bush -- that's not newsworthy.

Many conservatives do have major issues with Bush, which is precisely why the Cato Institute (libertarian: fiscally conservative, socially liberal) is no friend of his. The Cato Institute's biggest problem with Bush is that he's not a conservative president: he's greatly increased spending while cutting taxes, and he's following a very non-conservative foreign policy.

I can see that my "and other Republicans" may have confused some readers, although to focus on that is to ignore the main thrust of the quote. I should have been more clear that the "and other Republicans" wasn't rooted in the quote, but is simply a statement of fact that a number of prominent moderate Republicans have come out against Bush. My blog has talked about 'Ike' Eisenhower's son, but the last two weeks have also had several Republican ex-governors say they can't vote for Bush.
on Oct 20, 2004

Yes. Clearly the piece was not about Kerry, as the title should have proven to anybody.


The post title and the linked piece both focus on "conservatives" and on their serious problems with Bush. The piece isn't focused on Kerry, and neither was my entry. I also generally don't post about how liberals dislike Bush -- that's not newsworthy.


You know what woudl be newsworthy? Posts about why liberals like Kerry.


I can see that my "and other Republicans" may have confused some readers, although to focus on that is to ignore the main thrust of the quote. I should have been more clear that the "and other Republicans" wasn't rooted in the quote, but is simply a statement of fact that a number of prominent moderate Republicans have come out against Bush. My blog has talked about 'Ike' Eisenhower's son, but the last two weeks have also had several Republican ex-governors say they can't vote for Bush.


So, they won't vote for Bush? Must mean they endorse Kerry!

on Oct 20, 2004
It is silly and downright *** to post these things. Should I also post the number of Democrat endorse Bush. Don't forget that Bush is either leading Kerry or tieing with Kerry. Yet we know for fact, there are at least 10% more registrated Democrat s in this country than Repubicans. Do the math. Why is Bush leading? Could it be alot of Democrat supporting Bush?
on Oct 20, 2004
Strange -

Wouldn't the far right conservatives being "unhappy" with Bush be a "good thing"? Wouldn't that make you "happy", blogic? Must mean there are some redeeming qualities to Bush, after all.

quote]I also generally don't post about how liberals dislike Bush -- that's not newsworthy.

Sadly, nothing you post is newsworthy.

Daiwa
on Oct 20, 2004
Daiwa,

I've periodically discussed whether Bush is actually a conservative. The linked piece fits into that discussion. I'm not sure how this has anything to do with whether I'm happy or not.

You may not think a conservative making a detailed argument about why a Republican president isn't conservative isn't newsworthy, but I think many would disagree with you.
on Oct 20, 2004
The Curse is Reversed. Nothing else matters.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Oct 20, 2004
Daiwa,

Yes!

I avoided watching the game because I seem to curse the teams I root for. I've seen my A's lose too many times, and I paid close attention to the Sox last year... and we all know how that turned out.

Great news.

Cheers and congratulations!
Meta
Views
» 319
Comments
» 16
Category
Sponsored Links