Sturm und Drang and President Bush

by Sean Hackbarth

Paul Mirengoff goes back in time to 2000 when it was candidate George W. Bush seeking conservatives’ support:

Why then did conservatives support Bush so strongly beginning in 2000? The main answer, I believe, is that we recognized that the public would not elect anyone more conservative than Bush. Back then, Bill Clinton was completing a popular presidency that would have been even more popular but for his massive personal shortcomings. Clinton based the last six years of his presidency (the years during which he was popular) on a purported middle ground between traditional big government liberalism (the kind that got him into trouble in 1994) and traditional limited government conservatism. Conservative leaders recognized that a successful Republican presidential candidate would have to occupy some sort of middle ground too. Bush offered this, as did John McCain, the only other Republican who received serious presidential consideration that year.

That’s about right. During the 2000 primaries I was a Steve Forbes backer. I loved his flat tax and was more confident with him on fiscal issues. I preferred Bush to Sen. McCain who bugged me with his first amendment restriction crusade. So when Bush won the nomination it was either him or AlGore with whom I had no political agreements with.

Maybe there were millions of conservatives who thought “compassionate conservatism” was Reagan/Goldwater conservatism. More likely there are a lot of angry, myopic former Bush backers who’ve learned the hard lesson that you shouldn’t put a ton of faith in any politician.

“Buyer’s Remorse

Save and Share: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • NewsVine
  • Furl
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Fark

4 Responses to “Sturm und Drang and President Bush”

1

“The main answer, I believe, is that we recognized that the public would not elect anyone more conservative than Bush.”

This is pure hogwash.

The Clinton Scandal offered the optimum point in history in which a much more conservative prez could have been put office if only the such a candidate would have stepped forward and been available.

These were the choices:

Lamar Alexander
Gary Bauer
Elizabeth Dole
Steve Forbes
Orrin Hatch
John Kasich
Alan Keyes
John McCain
Dan Quayle

Forbes, Dole, and Quayle were unelectable from the git-go. Bauer was to much a religionist. Hatch’s links to Kennedy, Waxman, AlGore, and the NannyState made him one of the finest examples of RINOism. And prezez never come from congress anyway.

In the end the choices were Bush, McCain, and Keyes.

In the end the ONLY choice for conservatives was was Bush.

That or AlGore.

2

So ultimately conservatives shouldn’t gripe for thinking Bush betrayed them since he wasn’t that great a choice to begin with.

3

People who bought into Bush As Conservative were/are fools. Anyone with a keen eye knew right away: the squishy “Compassionate Conservative” was the bright warning sign. (yeah, go ahead chester, jump all over that one)

I hate bumper-sticker politics.

If one is griping about being betrayed look only in the mirror, for the person you see there is to blame for the distress. You know the proverb: trust, but verify. Seems like far to many forgot the latter.

Let’s be real. Bush was not all the fine a choice. For republicans, perhaps, but not for conservatives. I held my nose twice. The lesser of two evils is still the better choice.

All this is not to say I don’t support him in regards to certain issues, such as the WOT. But one certainly doesn’t have to be conservative to understand the nature and importance of the WOT (see: Tony Blair). However, this latest spat about immigration really has me frosted. Still, I ain’t about to cry wolf. Because I knew.

4

I know I’m really late to this thread, but let me point out a HUGE difference.

Goldwater wanted lower taxes and smaller government.

Reagan provided lower taxes and medium sized government (the difference funded by deficit).

Bush, both of them, continued this policy.

I’d rather have medium-taxes and medium-government (Clinton) and a balanced budget than low-taxes and medium-government (Bush) and a deficit.

Deficit spending is committing us to a coming moment where taxes must be substantially higher than services received, in order to pay off old debts. This is NOT a conservative position and I’m a continually puzzled by those who wish to borrowed heavily in the name of conservatism.

Leave a Reply




You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>