Bush, destroyer of conservatism

Pretty much my feeling. I have voted Republican my entire adult life (being a Gen Xer as well...Bush Sr was my first chance at voting in 1988)

I voted for Obama this time because the Republican Party has ruined itself in my eyes. Not only the insult of using GLBT people as a wedge issue distraction from real problems, but in turning conservatism on its' head to make government MORE intrusive, less accountable, and (frighteningly) attack our Constitutional division of powers and make a mockery of the rule of law. "Conservative" pundits closed ranks and ignored these incidents. They excused and even praised conduct that would have been considered impeachable in a Democratic administration.

At the end of the day, I had to take stock:

Do I feel safer as an American...not just from terrorists but from malfeasance from my own government?

Do I feel my government has my best interests at heart?

Am I better off now then I was 8 years ago?

No.

Resoundingly no.

I'm with bob c. In what way was Carter 'ruinous'?

He wasn't the greatest president, but the reason he seems to get singled out is that he is the weakest Democratic president we've had in a long time, so conservatives like to trot him out like he, oh, redirected the CIA into a domestic spying scandal like Nixon, or committed treason by negotiating with the Iranians to hold their hostages until he took office like Reagan.

Seriously, Carter was not a strong president, but I can't even think of a way in which he was a bad president, much less 'ruinous'. And, has been repeatedly pointed out, he now sounds prescient on energy and foreign oil policy.

And can I point out the absurity in calling Bush a 'Katrina-scale disaster'. That's rather like saying WWII resulted in a 'Hiroshima-scale of deaths' or that our current economic woes are a 'Lehman-Brothers-collape-scale disaster' or a trip from New York to Miami is an 'Atlanta-to-Miami-scale trip'.

Katrina is a subset of Bush's disastrous governance, you can't use a subset of a thing as an analogy for how big the thing is!

Rod: "If Obama has even a halfway successful first term ..."

Well, it is a "big if" that this will happen. Moreover, how do you define "halfway successful" and on whose terms?

Note to amateur historians: Barack is no Reagan. He's a serious man, to be sure, with an earnest manner that kind of reminds you of .... Jimmy Carter !

Bill Clinton nailed this dynamic in his convention speech. Very intentionally speaking to the entire nation, he said that for the first time since the modern conservative movement began, under Bush and the GOP congress it had effectively gained a free hand to implement its policies. ... And look at what it wrought.

"I keep hearing how awful Bush was, but I'm still racking my brain as to how exactly.'

Maybe you weren't paying attention, or more likely you didn't want to pay attention.

From Sullivan...

"All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage -- torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians -- which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by 'our' side ... The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them" -- George Orwell.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/01/quote-for-the-5.html

If you think that violating rights does not damage the rule of law, then you willingly support tyranny. If you are okay with torturing suspects (not even convicted people, mind now, but SUSPECTS who may or may not be guilty) to "save lives", then you destroy this country more surely then any terrorist ever could. So much for "Give me liberty or give me death!". Never mind Franklin's admonition that sacrificing essential liberty for safety means you deserve neither. If torture and the ability of one man to declare anybody an "enemy combatant" and remove that person from our Anglo-Saxon tradition of legal review is fine with you, then you have no problem here.

If you are okay with the Executive branch believing it has near dictatorial power to violate laws at will (as per analysis by Michael Goldfarb, David Addington and John Yoo), then you have no problem here.

If you think that taking us into a mistaken and needless war in Iraq and then PRETENDING EVERYTHING WAS FINE, when it was horribly obvious it was a Hobbesian nightmare, then you have no problem here.

If you are okay with Bush having a SecDef who left our Army and (amazingly) wounded vets underfunded and underequipped for YEARS into both wars, then you have no problem here.

If losing a major American City to a storm and letting the world watch for days...DAYS(!)...as bodies float in the streets while aid convoys go nowhere is a mere "mistake", you have no problem here.

If sending 22 year old fresh grads straight from unknown, small colleges to staff major government positions both here and in the Green Zone is sound hiring practice, and people should be asked their opinions on birth control and abortion for civil service jobs, you have no problem here.

If you believe that rampant secrecy is healthy for an open society, then you have no problem here.

If you believe that attacking the patriotism and fidelity of other Americans who disagree with you is not only merited but is an actual, legitimate GOAL of governance in of itself, then you have no problem here.

If you think that distracting Americans with "teh fags" while watching jobs disappear overseas, 47 million Americans live and die without health coverage and our economy tumble off a cliff is good, sound and wise governance, then you have no problem here.

I could go on, but I suspect that anything I say will be pointless. If you haven't found reason to question Bush by now, you never will.

Cheers.

>> Considering Carter as inept and ruinous for the country, and in turn Carter as representative of the Democrats, was the emotional touchstone for me.

The funny part of this to me, Rod, is that a lot of what you write sounds remarkably like Jimmy Carter and the eco-liberalism of the '70s. You often write about how we've been betrayed by materialism, lost sight of traditional (read Christian) values, haven't been good stewards of the environment, etc. Have you read Carter's much-derided "malaise" speech lately? It's pretty crunchy, in your sense.

I bet you even wear cardigans.

Umm.. You definitely aren't a lifelong Republican... This sentence gives you away.

"If you think that distracting Americans with "teh fags" while watching jobs disappear overseas, 47 million Americans live and die without health coverage and our economy tumble off a cliff is good, sound and wise governance, then you have no problem here."

Lifelong Republicans favor capitalism and the free market and none would whine that Bush was a bad President because he didn't implement a single payer health system and prevent companies from shipping their low wage crappy jobs overseas. Instead, many are mad at Bush for being too liberal and spending too much money on education, not reigning in Congressional earmarks, and pushing for immigration reform.

If you're going to pretend to be a Republican, at least try to sound like one rather than spewing Kos talking points.

by the way Illinidiva, this is not a partisan thing

Bush is by any credible evaluation the single worst President in modern times

"If you're going to pretend to be a Republican, at least try to sound like one rather than spewing Kos talking points."

Heh!

I voted for Bush in 1988. I voted for Bush in 1992. I voted for my Republican congressman (Jerry Lewis, Ca) both times. I voted against Feinstein and Boxer. (I can't remember who I was voting for...I just didn't want them in the Senate and I still feel that way now. I can't stand either of them) I missed voting for Dole in 96 as I was in the Army and I didn't bother with an absentee ballot. I voted for Bush Jr both times, and I regret it.

Apparently you can magically divine the party registration and record of people via some internal litmus test you have devised.

Whatever. If you feel better about your situation by believing I am one of the Kossacks, then do so by all means. It isn't even remotely true, but don't let that get in your way.

I really love how criticism of this President gets you excommunicated or labeled as a "RINO". A strong GOP with ideas and energy wouldn't have this crisis of confidence or need for ideological purity and litmus test idiocy. It just shows how badly in trouble the party of Reagan and Goldwater has sunk, and how little it resembles what those two men envisioned and built.

Somebody wake me up when Goldwater ideals get back in the platform. Until then....I am not bothering to be a supporter anymore. I'm content to watch and laugh on occasion.

"Lifelong Republicans favor capitalism and the free market and none would whine that Bush was a bad President because he didn't implement a single payer health system and prevent companies from shipping their low wage crappy jobs overseas."

That doesn't really deserve a response, except to note that favoring capitalism doesn't need to mandate helping workers in other countries at the expense of workers here, and that "crappy jobs" may include the one you are doing now. This kind of jingoism has a desperate sound to it.

You don't have to agree that the 2000-2006 GOP reign was the full application of the post-WWII conservative movement, to agree that Clinton effectively "nailed" them together in his speech. Who else does the public have as the face of modern conservatism?

And as a liberal, Rod, thank you for helping Bush get elected twice. Without the help of so many people like you, we would not have such a clear example of the intellectual destitution of the American right.

"With more than 200 years of history to draw upon our consumer culture convinces even the most "traditional" among us that "nothing that happened before I was born matters" and so we calcify our politics around who was popular/unpopular when we started paying attention. What a small view of the world."

***

I'm going to defend Rod on this one. How exactly do you expect people learn, except by drawing in what stimuli are around them at that time? I was born in 1967. I certainly remember the intense anger and shame I felt as the US was humiliated by Iran...a third rate power!

I remember my impression of Carter, and Dems in general, was that they were impotent, facile, soft and incompetent. First impressions are important, and the Dems first impression with me as a youngster was very, very bad.

It took monumental incompetence, arrogance and malfeasance on the part of this president and his enablers in the Senate and Congress to break my GOP brand loyalty.

>> I certainly remember the intense anger and shame I felt as the US was humiliated by Iran...a third rate power!

I remember it too. Neither of us personally remembers--but millions of Iranians did then, and many still do--that the USA thought "regime change" was a good idea in 1953 and helped depose an elected Iranian prime minister. That came back to bite us in the ass in the '70s. Propping up the Shah would have been a violent and futile business.

Regarding inflation, I DO remember Nixon responding to it with wage and price controls--yes, Republicans dictating the prices of goods and services--and Gerry Ford's inane "Whip Inflation Now" campaign, which involved wearing big red buttons. I am not making this up. Carter, on the other hand, when faced with the second oil shock, appointed Paul Volcker to the Fed and backed him up in the tough monetary policy that eventually stopped stagflation.

Carter was not the best of presidents, but he was nowhere near the worst even of his era, and he was unusual in speaking hard truths and doing difficult, principled things based on a long-term view. What we're living through now may be directly the legacy of Bush 43, but it's also very much the denouement of Reagan's "morning in America" message: that the USA can do no wrong internationally, that greed is good, that the environment can take care of itself, that regulation is always bad, that deficit spending is fine if it's done by Republicans. Those of you following the crunchy path toward a new conservatism are going to have to rethink the legacy of St. Ronald. And here's a quote to help you--which could have been written by Rod himself:

"In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we've discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We've learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose."

"That doesn't really deserve a response, except to note that favoring capitalism doesn't need to mandate helping workers in other countries at the expense of workers here, and that "crappy jobs" may include the one you are doing now. This kind of jingoism has a desperate sound to it."

Umm... okay, no it doesn't include my crappy job, because I'm not making shoes in a factory or working at a call center. Both these jobs are minimum wage jobs that can be done for less overseas. The colleges should be encouraged to prepare people for good jobs and those not smart enough to attend college should be encouraged to go to trade school. It is not my fault that more aren't.

As for the ridiculousness of your claims to be a Republican. I again doubt that this is the case. Anyone who defends single payer health care system and moans about the number of people without health insurance (including people who make more than I do but happen to be self-employed) or demands laws be set up to "protect" jobs by regulating that they stay in the US despite the fact that it inflates the goods for consumers.

"I really love how criticism of this President gets you excommunicated or labeled as a "RINO". A strong GOP with ideas and energy wouldn't have this crisis of confidence or need for ideological purity and litmus test idiocy. It just shows how badly in trouble the party of Reagan and Goldwater has sunk, and how little it resembles what those two men envisioned and built."

Yes the Republicans need new ideas... like say Compassionate Conservatism?? That was a pretty new idea, wasn't it?? You know NCLB and everything. I think that there is some good ideas regarding lowering taxes on the middle class and getting some of the crap out of the gov't. (Like Obama's stimulus package 'o pork).

However, I don't think that your version of "ideas" really apply to the RNC as they basically involve forcing me into a crappy gov't health care system and making me pay more taxes in the future so that Obama's stimulus 'o pork gets funded that is full of vital national programs like making snow in MN, whitewater rafting in ME, and an organized crime museum in Vegas.

"Learn the lesson: Citizenship is not a consumer product, loyalty to the Constitution is not a "brand"."

I have no need for lectures on citizenship from you, thank you very much. It is this kind of condescending snark that makes me hold liberalism in such disdain.

Ha. Ha.

~Nelson Muntz

Good riddance to the conservative movement. Reagan was highly overrated. It's thanks to him that the social welfare system was gutted and we have mentally ill homeless people on the streets. I'm also a Generation X'er and I have never in my life voted for a Republican. Reagan convinced me otherwise as soon as I was old enough to be politically aware. I'm looking forward to seeing liberals have real power to change society again.

"`If they would rather die,'' said Scrooge, ``they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

Shorter illinidiva.

We have now reached parody, ladies and gentleman.

"Anyone who links to Juan Cole on their blog is definitely not even a moderate Republican; even moderate Republicans defend Israel and don't support anti-Semitic bloggers."

This isn't conservatism. This is farce.

"Nor do even moderate Republicans support the massive expansion of government and the gutting of our current health care system in favor of a single payer system."

I don't recall ever blogging any specifics about health care, except to note that 47 million Americans without it is far too much. I have no idea what a single payer system even is, but that doesn't stop our friend from his fanciful straw man building. I blog about defense policy and weapons systems, not health care.

Rdr Joseph

"These "crappy" jobs as you put it put food on people's table, allow them to support their families, pay their share of taxes, and contribute to the local economy. What utter disregard for people you have. How elitist"

That about sums it up. I suspect that illinidiva is actually rather young. I generally associate that level of contempt and utter certainty with someone who really hasn't lived long enough to discover that life is messy and your assumptions may be wrong.

"What is this God you worship, where people's lives are so utterly despised? This is the failure of the conservative movement, this worship of the almighty dollar that leaves behind spiritual emptiness..."

I have no idea what or who people like illinidiva worship, but I cannot find a hint of humanity or Christian compassion in anything he/she wrote. Nothing at all. In fact, the statements border on misanthropy, which is why I quoted Scrooge above. It shows an actual, malicious contempt for people that is disturbing to say the least. If anything is worshiped at all, I would say it is an idolatrous adoration of "the invisible hand of the market".

Wealth of nations indeed.

Ron
I remember it too. Neither of us personally remembers--but millions of Iranians did then, and many still do--that the USA thought "regime change" was a good idea in 1953 and helped depose an elected Iranian prime minister. That came back to bite us in the ass in the '70s. Propping up the Shah would have been a violent and futile business.

Oh, you think that's what Bugg wanted? Seriously? That's literally crazy talk. The worse idea ever.

Although, heh, Carter would have come out better. The problem would be punted down the road until Reagan when Iran finally won their revolution anyway.

And if you think they don't like us now, imagine that future, where we actually fought to keep the Shah in power.

Although, ironically, Carter might have won reelection in that universe and had to deal with it anyway. Although perhaps that would have swung things the other way...America was in no mode to get in another foreign war to fight 'communism' by propping up unpopular leaders. We just, um, got out of one of those.

I assumed Bugg was going in the opposite direction and asserting we shouldn't have let him into this country for humanitarian medical reasons, or grabbed him and turned him back over to Iran. Which probably would have avoided the hostage crisis. We could have shown ourselves to be immediate friends of the new regime and perhaps gained an ally.

But that was 'crazy cold war' time, where we'd prop up someone, and the soviets would support the other side, or vis versa, and none of us would actually consider stop trying to undermine 'the other side's' government and working with them in any manner.

This is why, for the longest time, we supported Iraq against Iran, Iraq was 'our guy' (Until he wasn't) whereas Iran wasn't. When, of course, Iraq was actually a fascist dictatorship that committed war crimes against their own people, whereas Iran was about as democratic a theocracy could get, where people were mostly free, with an actual system of justice, etc etc.

But Iran was 'Their country' and Iraq was 'Our country', and while we eventually rethought Iraq when it invaded a country that was even more our country, Kuwait, we've never sat down and rethought Iran, who, in any logical universe, should not be our enemy.

Regarding inflation, I DO remember Nixon responding to it with wage and price controls--yes, Republicans dictating the prices of goods and services--and Gerry Ford's inane "Whip Inflation Now" campaign, which involved wearing big red buttons. I am not making this up.

Yeah, we can condemn Carter's response all we want, but the previous Republican's response was much less useful.

And I personally don't think Reagan's response was what solved the problem, I think it basically ran itself out. Although part of stagflation is, indeed, mental, and I'll give credit to Reagan's 'Morning in America' campaign for helping dissipate that. (Although, like I said, that's a bit overshadowed by committing treason by independently negotiating with the Iranians before his election.)

Carter presided over a stagflation recession, caused a by a bunch of factors outside his control, most of which happened before he was even elected, and the rest happening as the result of things that was started before he was elected. He's not remembered fondly as a result of that, no president that has a recession the whole time he's in office will be remembered fondly, but it is hardly any shortcoming of his.

Carter, on the other hand, when faced with the second oil shock, appointed Paul Volcker to the Fed and backed him up in the tough monetary policy that eventually stopped stagflation.

Right. He caused 20% mortgage rates, as was mentioned, by raising the interest rate, to stop stagflation, and it mostly worked. Maybe not the best policy, but stagflation is a weird problem, one we'd never faced before, and traditional methods of fighting inflation just make it worse.

"How arrogant of Illinidiva to say that making shoes in a factory is a crappy job, or working in a call center. If every person in the US went to university or trade school, there wouldn't be jobs for all of them. These "crappy" jobs as you put it put food on people's table, allow them to support their families, pay their share of taxes, and contribute to the local economy. What utter disregard for people you have. How elitist. What is this God you worship, where people's lives are so utterly despised? This is the failure of the conservative movement, this worship of the almighty dollar that leaves behind spiritual emptiness and encourages the radical individualism that Crunchy Conservatism abhors.

Modern conservatism is Ayn Randism."

Eyes roll... why exactly would you want any American to make $11/hr answering phones in a call center or working on a factory is beyond me? It isn't the sort of life I'd wish on anyone. Instead of keeping such low-paying menial jobs in America, it is a win-win to ship them off to other countries where $11/hour is a good wage and then develop new, high paying jobs for Americans involved with technology and service industries. Of course, such investment occurs only in an environment that encourages business and has low taxes. Instead, Obama is apparently against such an environment and would prefer to give people jobs digging holes for $10/hr.

As for money, I'm a big fan of it because I barely have enough to make ends meet and perhaps save a little each month. I live in a high cost, high tax area, and rent eats up a good portion of my salary each month.

Not to pick on Illinidiva, but she(?) made a comment in her first post that sticks out to me and hasn't been discussed yet. That is with regards to the comment that--paraphrasing here--Bush's policies have kept us safe for the past 7 years. I hear this frequently among the Bush-faithful. There's several points I want to make:

1. Its difficult to tell if there's a causal relationship between instituting extraordinary rendition, torture techniques, etc and no attacks on America proper in 7 years. As an aside I assume we have to count only attacks on America proper because obviously there have been numerous terrorist attacks against our citizens and military abroad and against our European allies. Since we are talking, then, only about attacks on the US proper, the question for me becomes "would one have predicted an attack on the US directly" based on probabilities and historical statistics. Attacks on the US mainland are rare. How many have occurred since the rise of modern Islamic radicalism? 1993 (WTC), Oklahoma City (domestic terror), 1998 (US Embassy--I'll count it as US soil for the sake of argument), 2001. How many others in the since around mid 1970's? If we measure from 1980, then that's 4 in about 30 years, or once per 7+ years. You can quibble over the dates and numbers a bit, but the fact remains that attacks on US soil by Islamic radicals is exceedingly rare and was rare before torture and warrantless wiretaps and all of that. So I think its a reasonable point to question whether we would have even expected to be hit again over the past 7 years. I should also mention that your need for tranquilizers for flying (if your sole fear is terrorism) is scientifically irrational when considering probabilities.

2. If we are hit tomorrow, does your defense of Bush's controversial policies change? I mean your argument seems to me to be predicated on the fact that we haven't been hit directly since the policies were enacted. Again, if you measure terrorist attacks world-wide, they are probably gone up (and dramatically so) since in the Iraq war and Bush doctrine and all that. Looking at the Bush legacy we were hit once and it was a big one. Can the blame for 9/11 be laid solely at the feet of GWB? No. In fact, I've heard many conservatives blame Clinton and his policies (argument for another day). I wonder though, if there was an attack in the first 9 months of an Obama presidency, would you blame Obama or would it be evidence of failure of the Bush policies of the preceding 7-ish years.

3. The real Bush legacy with regards to the torture, rendition, wiretapping, etc, really hasn't been written yet. How have these unpopular policies affected terrorist recruitment long-term? Lets say, for argument sake these policies have directly led to us being attack free (US mainland) for 7 years. But what if the cost has been a generation of young Arabs being radicalized? Is the trade worth it? What if its led to the destabilization of allies so that their ability to fight uptick in radicalism has been diminished with consequences that will be felt for the next 20-30 years?

Heck these are questions above my pay grade, but I think "he's kept us safe" is a bit myopic and simplistic. It also--and this will be my last point--relies on a FALSE CHOICE. That is, the choice was between torturing a potential bad guy vs. 1000's of innocent Americans dying. That ignores a bevy of other choices/scenarios that existed. Howabout using tried and true, proven effective means of information extraction--information that can be trusted and used in a tribunal to save those same lives. The pro-torture argument relies on both a false choice and a ticking-time-bomb logical fallacy.

Matt, it is important to remember that many of the programs that we use today were first started by Bill Clinton, so I don't think that it is fair to tag Bush with the policies. Frankly, any President up to and including Obama would have done the same things that Bush did to keep us safe. In fact, I remember after 9/11, some Democrats were upset that we didn't move fast enough with the action against Afghanistan and the Democrats actually knew about and approved of Bush's actions. This is because during war the President has extraordinary powers. Bush's use of secret wiretaps or even Gitmo is nothing compared to the actions of FDR and Lincoln. If he didn't use some programs, he'd have likely allowed an attack on the U.S. I think that Bush is a convenient whipping boy because he has done a poor job defending himself and liberals despise him because of the 2000 election.

As for our allies, I think that many of them do not do a good job integrating the Muslim population into their countries. In America, there may be some radicals, but most Muslims are pretty mainstream. There's a mosque right outside the town that I grew up that serves the surrounding county. (It is an actual mosque, not a storefront). An iman came to my Catholic HS to discuss his religion with his wife. Europe does not do as good a job integrating Muslims into their population, and I think that is why Muslims are so radicalized. It is impossible for them to integrate into society and find a good balance between their traditions and our culture.