Comments on Comments - The Nature of Conservatism

Anonymous said...

Not sure that I agree with your assessment, Terry. Dubya is not interested in shrinking government. He is far more interested in the aggrandizement of power. Fiscal conservatives, the type that would have us choose between lower taxes and eating, are appalled by the guy.

We need to update our taxonomy of the Right. DUbya represents a convergence of interest between corporate privilege and a centralized State. Every one of Bush's programs represents an increase in government patronage. Think of "No Child Left Behind" as a model. Think of the prescription drug benefit. Think of the brand spanking new agencies devoted to Fatherland Security. The proposed Social Security debacle would necessitate a mammoth bureaucracy. How else to force federally mandated subsidies of Wall Street?

This will all cost. Dubya may go out of his way to screw single mothers, but he is not remotely close to bankrupting the treasury. Too many of his cronies depend on it. Something will give. Payroll taxes will go up. We'll get a national sales tax. The dollar will continue to tank. Inflation will reach Weimer proportions. But the Bush behemoth is here for the duration.

So if our Prez is not a Conservative as understood by our parlance before "9-11 changed everything", then what is he? I recently had an exchange with a Paleo-Conservative wherein I described the Prez as the first Harry Truman Republican. (Bush strikes me as a fair facsimile of that war-criminal.)

End quote ----------------------------------------------------

Bush and his gang remind me of an old schoolmate I ran into some years ago while waiting for a bus on San Francisco’s Market Street. The guy was one of the biggest crap distburbers in class, yet he became a decorated City police officer. You gotta explain that to me, I asked.

Easy, he said. The only problem I had with authority was that it wasn’t me.

Same with Dubya’s brand of corporate Republicanism. Government “gets in the way”, except when doling out tax breaks, loan guarantees, protected trade arrangements and direct subsidies. You’re damn right when you note that Bush ain’t about shrinking government, just redirecting it. But that’s got a long a glorious history in the Republican Party too.

He’s really a modern remake of a Rockefeller Republican, only allied with social conservative ground pounders because guys and gals in suits and ties ain’t gonna stand in sub-zero weather to win the New Hampshire primary for you and moderate Republican field organizations have withered on the vine. But he’s not one of them, and a lot of them know it. Jon Stewart recently pointed out that Bush phoned in comments to an anti-abortion demonstration taking place right outside his house in DC. Richard Viguerie, the conservative direct mail king, that night’s guest, said, “Yes, that’s right. That’s why even though Republicans are in charge, -conservatives- aren’t."

We need to update our political dictionary in part –because- Republicans are in charge. The internal wraps come off once you’re on top. This shouldn’t be news to Democrats, a party which once had Hubert Humphrey and Lester Maddox in the same room. We’ll see even more flavors of the GOP over the next term too. With no re-re-election to worry about they can fight all they want without being blamed for costing the Oval Office.

We see this already with Social Security, immigration and No Child Left Behind. The very Red states of Utah and Virginia object to the mandates without money and big federal nose in all their business. The fiscal conservatives are getting annoyed at all the money spent in Iraq. The question is whether or not Democrats, progressives, etc. will be able to make tactical hay out of all this.