WFB: Bush not all that conservative
William F. Buckley
tells CBS News that President Bush has let down the side:
"I think Mr. Bush faces a singular problem best defined, I think, as the absence of effective conservative ideology — with the result that he ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending, extremely tolerant of excesses by Congress. And in respect of foreign policy, incapable of bringing together such forces as apparently were necessary to conclude the Iraq challenge."
By the way, I have high-level military scuttlebutt that says WaPo senior defense correspondent Tom Ricks' new book about the Iraq War,
"Fiasco," is going to set off some pretty big waves that could swamp Rumsfeld.
Daniel, some close relatives of mine have been conservatives for decades, and feel deeply let down by what's gone on the past 5 years. So, this can't be the funnest thing in the world for you, so thanks for being willing to go over it.
Now, history hasn't "proven" that conservatives can't govern, any more than history had "proven" in 1200 that Christian countries were forever to remain a wussy backwater, or in 1890 that East Asians were incapable of fathoming industrialization.
The question is, are today's conservatives like communists in 1990, or like... um... conservatives in December 1964?
You wrote: "That Republicans spent many years in the '90s using this as an argument in favour of their position (tax cuts don't reduce revenue, so there's no need to fear massive spending cuts!) showed how far gone they already were."
This might be at the root of our disagreement, if we decide we disagree. The problem, to me, is that Republicans didn't want to do the heavy lifting of making tax cuts fiscally responsible. They didn't want to fight politically difficult battles to change Americans' minds about the level of services that the government provides. So they continued to rail against government largesse, but would cut only relatively insignificant amounts from programs that primarily benefit the poor and the young. No cuts to the largest, most expensive, and most popular programs.
I was in HS in 1994, and my political memory doesn't go a whole lot further back than that. I have seen a Democratic president work with a Republican Congress to balance the budget responsibly. The whole "tax-and-spend Dems" charge means nothing to me. I genuinely believe, based on what I've seen in the past 10+ years, that if the Dems controlled Congress & the presidency, we'd be in much better hands, fiscally, then we are today. I may be setting myself up for the same kind of disappointment you feel today.
Now, it's hard for me to disprove the thesis that, even if they were more concerned with good governance initially, Dems after 10 years in power would be every bit as bad as the GOP today. Maybe Democrats just lack that killer instinct to try to restructure Washington for partisan gain like Gingirch, Delay, Abramoff, et all did with the K Street Project. Or maybe it just hadn't occurred to them.
Off the top of my head, I don't feel that Democratic "applause lines" are as dangerous as Republican ones. "Tax cuts uber alles" and "let's find us some enemies to smite!" are much more dangerous (and more difficult to caricature in an effective way politically) than "let's create conditions that allow good jobs at good wages". But that might just be because it's psychologically easier to see the speck in my brother's eye than the plank in my own.
You wrote: "supply-side theory was right enough that it ended up making the tax cuts of the '80s into a windfall for the feds."
Umm... well, let's agree to argue over that one at some later time.
Also, here's some good news for conservatives on the anti-tax front, bad news on the rule of law front.
">http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=26506>
I can't disagree with anything that you said, Mr. Larison. It's an excellent synopsis of what's happened in Washington.
The beast doesn't seem to be starving because we're borrowing to feed it. Voters would get angry if we had to pay for the mistakes and choices of this administration. Voters seem to be content to pass on a lot of debt to the next generation.>
It's about an unwillingness to make tough choices. If we want to start wars and build nations, then we need pay for that choice. If we aren't willing to pay for it, then we shouldn't make it a priority.
If we want to live in a society where the government helps the weakest among us(single mothers with children and the mentally/physically challenged), then we have to pay for it. If not, we should say that it's OK in America for people to go hungry or die from medical neglect and enjoy our tax cuts.
If we want to live in a society where the people(central government)contribute fair share to the advancement of science, then we have to pay for it. If not, we should let private corporations figure out how to do it and enjoy our tax cuts.
It's about making choices. My family makes them on a daily basis to manage a budget. Why should we expect less from our elected officials?>
I would mention the invisible tax increase that occurred, inflation, but thankfully the government has assured me there is no inflation or at least when discounting energy, transportation and food. Some folks who don't listen to our government - tsk! - have been claiming our dollar buys 8% fewer goods than it did the previous year. Thankfully, the government has reassured that no such thing has occurred.
(The previous paragraph may contain detectable elements of sarcasm.)>
I've no background in economics, but I remember reading that deficits lead to inflation.
It's scary to know that our Vice President, Dick Cheney, would proclaim that "deficits don't matter."
Is that a conservative view? Deficits don't matter?>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.