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.
Enlightenment, are you really serious? There is no proof of MS-13? Excuse me, but do you live in some cave? Every major publication and new program has done a special on MS-13 and they are not saying that MAYBE it exists.
And yes, the fence at the White House has been breached. But how many people who have climbed over it has made it inside the White House. And how many times has it been breached? Fences work. They are deterrents to illegal entry. Many municipalities have fence requirements around swimming pools. What would be the point in that if they were not a deterrent?
What you seem to be advocating is that we continue to import criminals along with other normally hard working people because we already have them. Wassa matter? Are you not content with the number of criminals that are home grown? Or are you wanting to give job security to law enforcement officers?
So let me ask you this; are you willing to pick up my share of the tax money to support the services illegals require in this nation or are you just one of these people who doesn’t mind spending other people’s money on your pet projects?
Retire05,
There are penalties in the Comprehensive plan and guest worker program. Back taxes is a heavy burden to pay.
But now you have faced reality. You are a Fence Only Republican and your views are now the out of party view. Many thanks to you and your Rep friends for impaling yourselves on a lost cause. You can complain all you want. But Bush and the rest of us will make the changes necessary and you can call us all the names in the world you can think of.
It means nothing and only reflects on you.
I don’t have the answers. I just know which ideas, and tactics do not meet my standards.
AJ, you continue to dodge the questions.
How will you do background checks when other nations (i.e. Mexico) refuse to cooperate?
When all these newly made legal immigrants are now earning honest wages, do you think the people that hire them will stop looking for more illegals to fill their shoes? What about the companies that will relocate to other nations that offer cheaper labor or go out of business completely? Who then supports all those now legal immigrants?
Amnesty (which is exactly what your form of a guest worker program would be) will not work. What will work is ending the reason they come here illegally in the first place.
I said there is no proof that there are TEN THOUSAND M13 gang members in the US.
There are estimates that there are 11 million illegal immigrants in our country.
I just don’t believe in using the former to vilify the latter.
Enlightened,you said
A fence delineates a boundary
Not the ones around my back yard, I’m on several acres and only the immediate area around by yard are fenced, none of it on the boundary.
Ken, when can I expect your answer on which countries LEFT the British Empire while Churchill was Prime Minister?
AJ, what does it feel like to be so dogmatic in your opinions? You have yet to answer my questions. In fact, you have totally avoided them. You continue to call me a “fence only” proponent, yet I have, time after time, explained to you how that assumption is false.
My cause my be lost. And if it is, and the disaster that you are proposing comes to fruition, you will only have yourself to blame. Don’t cry to anyone who was “fence first” because your school taxes have just doubled in three years or your son can’t find a job during the summer to help pay for that car he wants.
What names have I called you, AJ? Wrong headed? You think that is name calling? You have railed on those like me who do not agree with your opinion by slamming us time and time again. Yet you have the audacity to say I call you names?
What is reflective in this whole discussion is your reluctance to answer any questions put to you. You dodge them like the plague. Perhaps you would like to explain to your readers why that is. Why do you not answer logical questions that are put to you? Is it because you don’t like the answers? Bush and the rest of you? Since when did you get appointed to the Bush cabinet? Since when have you been elevated to the decision making workings of this nation?
Well you may get your caveat emptor. But there is a little thing called state’s rights and the laws that states are able to enact that cannot be changed by the federal government.
Enlightened:
for your enlightenment:
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress05/swecker042005.htm
Ben—-I think you have it exactly right. I hope Bush can change what I call the “MacDonald” culture, I’m hungry, drive through, now I’m full. There are many problems that we face and we will need to keep the big picture in mind, have stamina, and work through the components that will complete the picture. Our need to be “quickly gratified” will be hard to change.
Retire – Please try and comprehend what I write.
From your link: (Precisely what I stated twice previously)
“Due to the lack of a national database and standard reporting criteria for the identification of gang members, the frequent use of aliases by gang members, and the transient nature of gang members, the actual number of MS-13 members in the United States is difficult to determine.”
Do you get it now? There is no PROOF of the number of M13 members in the US. None. You are embellishing the danger to suit your views of fencing out what you consider “unwanteds”
Retire05,
Dogmatic? LOL! Nothing you said changes my opinion. It is time to stop dancing around. Reps lost. The Fence Only position is bad policy and bad politics. I have no interest flayling away in a lost cause. I am not a Republican. I am a conservative. Which means when the Reps go too far they go by themselves. The Reps today, the talking heads, I never voted for them and do not care for them. I cannot stop them from imploding. So why sweat it.
Reagan was despised by Reps in his second term. I recall the stunning back stabbing because I had just left the Democrat party and understood what Reagan was really for – and I found the Reps blaming him for everything. You think Ross Perot was a product of Bush I? Perot and Buchanan felt Bush I represented all they despised in Reagan. So they threw Bush I and Reagan under the bus and gave us Clinton.
The fact Reps are repeating their suicidal, knee jerk, trademark circular firing squad is disappointing – but not surprising. A lot of people are just like me,. Very sharp, very observant, and not wedded to losing strategies. Like I said – purity is not a word we care about. Compromise doesn\’t scare us. Failure is not an option.
The Fence Only crowd failed. You can think up all the reason you want not to do something. And each time you will lose ground to those of us who think of ways of making things work better. No contest.
Squiggler
Where did I ever say round up and deport?
You are obviously confusing me with someone else.
What I am saying, like every other fence first supporter is saying is if you have a hole in the bottom of your boat, it is smart to plug it as best you can to slow down the flow rather than just start bailing and hope you can keep up.
700 miles of fence wasn’t my number, it is what the wizards of washington dc came up with.
Yes the northern border is longer and a possible terrorist entry point, but few central american illegals choose to enter from that side.
Deport them all is not a likely workable agenda, even if we did, the effect it would have on their home countries would come back to haunt us.
Right now a lot of the original flow of the illegals worked in low paying non skilled jobs , then as their total number exceeded those job openings they could compete for, they moved into higher paying jobs like carpenters and roofers for just a example for arguments sake.
There are many illegals who have skilled trade knowledge but don’t use it because hiring into places that primarily use those skills increases their risk of exposure.
Once they are legalized, that fear goes away and there can be many unintended impacts that we do not have the good base data to project.
Last time we had an amnesty program we were dealing with 3 million illegals, now we are dealing with 12 million or more depending on whose numbers you use.
Give me any assurance that this will be the amnesty to end all amnestys , I don’t think you can.
My point on the anchor baby voter is , there is no firm knowledge if they will fall toward supporting measures pro or con to the immigration issue, but that they are the product of a wrongly based concept of anchor babies validity to begin with.
AJ, nothing I have said has changed your mind one iota. Hence, the word dogmatic. Yes, AJ, your opinion is dogmatic.
And while you ramble on about Reagan and past history, you still have failed to answer my questions which have basis in the present and the future.
So you keep on with your “fence only” mantra. It seems to be all you have. That, and your claim that it will bring underpaid workers out of the shadows. But you fail to take into account all it will do is create another segment of “in the shadows” society. There will always be more illegals to replace those you have fought so hard to make legal because the driving force that brings those illegals here in the first place is not going away; businesses looking for labor at substandard wages. And nothing YOU can do will change that. So then what? Another amnesty in 2016?
I would think someone who is so pro illegal immigrant as you are would want to tout the benefits of amnesty. But you don’t. You just continue to rail on those of us who don’t agree with you. I can only surmise that it is because you know that your argument is weak and cannot be supported in fact.
I have presented you with question after question of problems that will arise out of your bleating heart policy. To this point, you have refused to answer any of them.
I realize you are not a Republican. But neither are you a conservative when it comes to immigration and neither is our president. He wasn’t as governor, he is not as president. And neither one of you have offered any solution to the problems that will come from another blanket amnesty. And yes, AJ, no matter how much lipstick you put on that amnesty pig, it is still a pig.
If we are not going to enforce our immigration laws, why bother having a border? Why bother even making it illegal to enter our nation without permission? But once again, these are questions you will not answer.
AJ,
A very well-written post.
I think there is a core principle of Bush Conservativism in the subtext of each of your points that remains unstated: that it is not even the specific agenda you list, but an attitude towards politics and political support that leads one to still support Bush even in this “dark hour” of conservatism.
Take the immigration argument which seems to be consuming the discussion here. Personally, nothing would please me more than a high border fence, enforced penalties for employers, and using the power of disincentives to drive the illegal aliens back into Mexico. In my heart, I am an immigration absolutist. I think that this is not only possible, but desireable; it would ultimately do greater good for not just the US, but Mexico itself. As a corrollary, I think that a guest worker program is morally corrupt, as it will create second-class (non-)citizens who will, nevertheless, eventually be given all the rights that the program was originally created to avoid.
HOWEVER…
I also acknowledge that the actual workability of a strong anti-illegal program and the political workability are in two completely different spheres.
The hard, unpleasant fact is that any strong anti-illegal program would not last long past the sob stories in the first news cycle, no matter how many explanations or facts or reasons I or anyone else can give.
When Bush took office, the mantra was that the ‘grown-ups’ were in charge. And it is exactly how Bush governed. While the Democrats shrilly caterwauled like sophomore college students, he found places to calmly advance Conservatism, and moved forward.
To me, that is the essence of Bush Conservatism: a patient, measured approach to politics that measures achievement in decades, not weeks. I would rather take a small, compromised step forward than an extreme leap… back. Because lasting change comes through broad coalitions, not swift legislative hammerstrokes.
I liken it to the situation that existed after the Civil War. The radical reconstructionists held sway in Congress. They had a dream which was undeniably admirable: they wished to remake the South, destroy racism, give the freemen what they obviously deserved– equality.
They had their way for a while, but by the elections of 1874, Northerners had tired of the constant battle with the Bourbons. Perhaps the combination of post-war fatigue and a tiring, seemingly endless police action have some parallels in our age.
When the Republicans were swept from power, everything evaporated, because they had made no allies for their policy in the South. Absolutist views, no matter how right, cannot survive the ebb and flow of an unwilling democracy. And what we want to be possible, may not be possible, no matter how much we want it.
This does not mean that we eschew principles, Henry Clay style, and reduce everything to politics and calculations. Rather, it means that we look to legislate in those areas where change is broadly supported now, and use the power of persuasion to build coalitions for future areas of change.
Washington hated the rancor of party politics, and here he did not understand the genius of Madison’s creation. By channeling the efforts of thousands of individual positions into two– and only two– opposing political parties, the tendency was for decisive action only on those issues that represented the true collective will of the people.
It is not the red-meat sound bite, or the Hannity-style ‘gotcha’ smackdown, that will remain here for my children to benefit from. Leave the over-the-top histrionics to Howard Dean.
I prefer to patiently win by finding not only what is good, but what is good enough.
“Perot and Buchanan felt Bush I represented all they despised in Reagan. So they threw Bush I and Reagan under the bus and gave us Clinton”
Right on, AJ! I am so with you…as you know, I adore George W. Bush and am proud to have been a voice for him over the past 6 years…and will be so very proud 20 years from now to have stood tall with him….History will prove this out.
I want to be more like him…than anyone I know on the scene today…
The Best President we have ever had, imho…Our MBA.
He had the courage to answer The Call. I admire him so much for that.
All hail Bush Conservatives!
AJ, You wrote –
“Stop blaming the Gang of 14 and support the results they gave us …”
and you also wrote –
“habeas corpus reserved to US citizens and not granted to the foreigners, especially the terrorists and the GITMO detainees.”
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…..
Wasn’t it your buddy who pushed for and got the Al Queda “Bill of Rights”. The leader of the “Gang of 14”.
How does that square with you?
And have you seen this study –
http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/electionanalysis.html
That study doesn’t bode well for your theory that the Republicans were punished for an anti-illegal immigration stand. Actually, it proves quite the opposite.
Of the Republicans who were up for re-election, those with a soft stance on illegal immigration (a “D” or an “F”), 34.5% lost their bid for re-election. Of the Republicans who were up for re-election, those with a firm stance on illegal immigration (an “A” or a “B”), 18.8% lost their bid for re-election.
Result – twice as many Republicans that were soft on immigration and were up for re-election lost their seats compared to those Republicans that were firm on immigration.
Sort of shoots the heck out of your theory, doesn’t it?
Would you like to know the stats on the Blue Dogs that were firm on illegal immigration and won their election bids? I would be more than happy to provide it to you. You won’t be happy with the info and perhaps you should avoid it so as not to upset your world view.
Apache IP
AJ,
I am still waiting on that link for the text of President Bush’s proposed comprehensive immigration bill.
I was much more timely in providing you a direct link to your buddy McCain’s proposed bill. Is there some sort of reason for the delay in you returning the favor? Should I stop anticipating a reply from you?
Apache IP
The Republicans lost the House and the Senate because of the following five primary reasons (excluding local factors obviously) –
1. President Bush did a horrible job of explaining why we are fighting the war in Iraq they way we are. Personally, I know and understand why we are fighting it they way we are. And I completely agree with the logic. But unfortunately 99.9% of the population doesn’t know why we are using the force level that we are.
2. President Bush did a **HORRIBLE** job of “selling” his amnesty plan. Not that I agree with it anyway. I understand the necessity of it, and I would probably go along with it under the right conditions, but I truthfully don’t like it. I don’t like feeling like the Hispanic vote is more important than my vote. Makes me feel disinfranchised.
3. You can’t have (1) – a war on terror and (2) – open borders. It just does not square. This was the killer deal. People can’t grasp this, and who can blame them? Frisk grandma at the airport and leave our borders open? Something is not right there.
4. Pork. Need I say more? Hello! Veto pen!!
5. The relentless negativity of the MSM. It was endless and unbelievably biased. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people still get their news from the MSM. Not sure how to solve that. 🙁
All things considered, we were darn lucky we lost as few seats as we did. It could have been a lot worse.
Apache IP
It’s quite striking the intolerance and railing against so-called “hardline reps” and those who support a fence along much of the southern border. The vast majority of fence supporters (like Retire & myself) also support the guest-worker program and other elements of comprehensive reform. But a guest-worker program without stopping the flood spells disaster — it’s what happened 20 years ago. And many here hold the incorrect view that a “hardline” stance (it’s actually the majority stance) on immigration cost reps the election — it did not. Perceived corruption & scandal (Foley), big-spending, negative economic news pushed by MSM, and Iraq, and dems going way right on immigration, is what determined the elections. I like Bush, but he has strayed from conservative positions or has not adhered to them in some cases, immigration being one.
And, yes, a fence does work. Ask the Israelis.
The Senate is made up of 100 Senators. And the gang of 14 held them all hostage.
The will of 14 overpowered the will of 40 or more.
That doesn’t sit well with some people. It is unlikely that it ever will.
Apache IP