Bush’s betrayal of conservatism March 20, 2008
Posted by Paul Edwards in Barack Obama, Conservatism, George W. Bush.trackback
Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University. In the current issue of The American Conservative he gives an assessment of the Bush Administration that I am warming to:
In 2001, President Bush took command of a massive, inefficient federal bureaucracy. Since then, he has substantially increased the size of that apparatus, which during his tenure has displayed breathtaking ineptitude both at home and abroad. Over the course of Bush’s two terms in office, federal spending has increased 50 percent to $3 trillion per year. Disregarding any obligation to balance the budget, Bush has allowed the national debt to balloon from $5.7 to $9.4 trillion. Worse, under the guise of keeping Americans “safe,” he has arrogated to the executive branch unprecedented powers, thereby subverting the Constitution. Whatever else may be said about this record of achievement, it does not accord with conservative principles.
As with every Republican leader since Reagan, President Bush has routinely expressed his support for traditional values. He portrays himself as pro-life and pro-family. He offers testimonials to old-fashioned civic virtues. Yet apart from sporting an American flag lapel-pin, he has done little to promote these values. If anything, the reverse is true. In the defining moment of his presidency, rather than summoning Americans to rally to their country, he validated conspicuous consumption as the core function of 21st-century citizenship.
Should conservatives hold President Bush accountable for the nation’s cultural crisis? Of course not. The pursuit of instant gratification, the compulsion to accumulate, and the exaltation of celebrity that have become central to the American way of life predate this administration and derive from forces that lie far beyond the control of any president. Yet conservatives should fault the president and his party for pretending that they are seriously committed to curbing or reversing such tendencies. They might also blame themselves for failing to see the GOP’s cultural agenda as contrived and cynical.
Finally, there is President Bush’s misguided approach to foreign policy, based on expectations of deploying American military might to eliminate tyranny, transform the Greater Middle East, and expunge evil from the face of the earth. The result has been the very inverse of conservatism. For Bush, in the wake of 9/11, ideology supplanted statecraft. As a result, his administration has squandered American lives and treasure in the pursuit of objectives that make little strategic sense.
. . . . . . . .
Social conservatives counting on McCain to return the nation to the path of righteousness are kidding themselves. Within this camp, abortion has long been the flagship issue. Yet only a naïf would believe that today’s Republican Party has any real interest in overturning Roe v. Wade or that doing so now would contribute in any meaningful way to the restoration of “family values.” GOP support for such values is akin to the Democratic Party’s professed devotion to the “working poor”: each is a ploy to get votes, trotted out seasonally, quickly forgotten once the polls close.
HT: Rod Dreher
This is because, as I have been saying for a long time Paul, Bush and his group are NEOConservatives. They have betrayed their based on all fronts. I am mystified at times to still hear that you support him, it makes no sense. We just celebrated (right) 5 years in Iraq, and Bush says it was the right more and Chaney says “so what” to the fact that 2/3 of Americans think the war was a bad idea. They don’t care, they got 8 years to fill the pockets of their buddies, and themselves and they are going to leave this office next year with this country needing to repair the damage they inflicted.
Pixel,
My concern with the criticism of George W. Bush is centered in this notion that he is *personally* benefiting from policy decisions. I am warming to the notion that President Bush has made some gross errors of judgment, but I am not prepared to impugn his motives. I honestly believe that the president’s ideology, in the words of Professor Bacevich, supplanted statecraft. What is that ideology? Using American power and influence to create democratic states in the middle east. I believe he is motivated by this ideology, not personal aggrandizement.
I am prepared to agree that the president has made gross errors of judgment while totally rejecting those who would charge him with doing so out of personal self-interest.
Of course, judging one heart motives is impossible. However, you can look at patterns in a persons actions and lay out a pretty good case. The 3 books by John W. Dean do a great job at laying out the case of personal benefit for poor decisions.
Here is a link to the books I am referring to:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/105-4589554-8410065?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=John+W+Dean
Paul
Sylvia would fall from her wire should she hear you talk like this.
One more thought, from the desk of the late D. James.
“Don’t sweat the small stuff~~Everything is small stuff”!
Profound! Herein is the answer from a true Calvinist.
Now, don’t miss it.~~ If God does foreordain All, Whats the sweat?
Don,
I expected you to bring up Sylvia when I used the word “slut” in my post about the Eliot Spitzer scandal!
Paul,
Thanks for posting this. It does my heart good to see Christians realizing that this guy, however sincere in his beliefs, should no longer be given a free ride. I also agree with you that he (personally) has not done these things for personal gain, although I think Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Rove and the rest have done it because they love power and money.
Bush’s real crime is worse than greed. He is so absorbed in himself that he honestly believes that’s what’s best for him and his friends is what’s best for the country. He has so convinced himself that god is behind his actions that he can’t imagine having actually harmed the country.
He hasn’t just betrayed conservatism, however. He’s betrayed ALL of the people he pledged to serve under the constitution.
Like anything, just follow the money…
It seems the general pulse of the public has changed since 9/11. At first we all were ready to stand side by side with the President and eradicate terrorism. Now, this has turned into a presidential nightmare that is affecting the country. The sad part about this whole affair is that we have lost sight of WHY we are at this point in the first place! Let’s not tarnish the sacrifices our firefighters, police officers, and military have given because of 9/11 just to placate a few. Paul-check your last blog entry about Pastor Powell!
Tim Atkins TCS Class of 78′
Tim,
It might be tempting to view the current attitude toward Bush as that of the forgetful Israelites, grumbling against Moses as they wandered through the wilderness. Having seen great miracles, they still somehow got around to resenting Moses in short order. I’m sure if you saw 2001 as a spiritual revival, it would appear so to you.
Speaking only for myself, my anger at Bush is because I DO remember 9/11, and I realize that he gave the terrorists exactly what they wanted. He attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, while ignoring the real enemy, Muslim extremists. While Bush was holding hands with the butcher prince of Saudi Arabia, Osama bin Laden was getting another foothold. Now the Taliban is back in control of most of Afghanistan, opium production there is up five-fold since we invaded, and drug and oil money is being used to finance and plan the next attack. Meanwhile, draft-dodging Bush tells our troops that he envies them for the romantic experience they’re having.
I do believe Bush is sincere in his religion. Marie Antoinette was sincerely clueless as well.
With McCain’s winning the nomination - and Conservative Pundits trying to nominate anyone other than a “family values” candidate, I have to agree with that last article. however - I don’t think Social Conservatives are necissarily kidding themselves with McCain - I think we just have been cornered into a situation that it is either McCain or Hillary or Obama. One writer stated today that there is ZERO percent chance that Hillary or Obama will nominate a conservative supreme court justice. With McCain we might have a 25, 50, 75, or if we’re lucky a 100 percent chance - either of which is better than ZERO.
I despise being placed in a “lesser of two evils” voting position. I will only agree to vote for McCain if he chooses his VP wisely. I adamantly opposed Romney - and will continue to do so if he becomes the VP choice. I will campaign against a McCain/Romney ticket - though I’m not sure who or what I’ll campaign for. Possibly a write - in or stay home and “show-em” objective.
I believe the social conservatives are smarter than this article gives credit. In fact many of them have seen the err of their ways and realize the mistake they made in not backing Huckabee who was the vangaurd of their political vision…they missed it for the stardust in their eye - and the conservative, evangelical branch of the party was divided…hmmm let me see….someone wise once said “a house divided….”
I despise being placed in a “lesser of two evils” voting position as well, but how did we get backed into this corner?…by our (corporate) choices, or God’s global plan??? And, more importantly, what DO we do now??? Should we stage a 60’s style sit-in until we effect change??? Do we even know what that change should be??? Or, do we bear our teeth and suffer the consequences for what?…at least four years??? Maybe we should pull out our Serenity Prayer and start chanting it like a montra…
I would venture to say, that the majority of us that are reading these posts, are Christian and have already been seeking the answere to these questions in prayer. The scary thought…and I include myself in this, is, if God showed us a clear path out, would we take it???
Mike
The lesser of two evils has always been the ‘only’ choice in politics.
One thing for certain, if many follow this line of thinking in the conservative camp, the guaranteed outcome will be what you have so aptly described as “ZERO percent chance”. Are we all prepared for Hillary or Obama just to establish our disappointment?
As another wise man once stated:
“choose ye this day whom ye will serve….”
“The lesser of two evils has always been the ‘only’ choice in politics.”
Just so you know, it feels the same way from the other side of the fence. I always thought Bush would be a miserable president, if not the worst in history (and I was right). Still, it was hard to feel good about Gore or Kerry. This time around, however, I feel about Obama the way I felt about Reagan. I didn’t agree with everything he said, but I liked his humility. Regardless of whether Obama or McCain win, we should at least have a president who is able to treat dissenters with the minimal respect due to any American citizen.
And for those of you on the far right, don’t worry if McCain loses. Bush has so poisoned the government and the courts against religious freedom and other civil rights that the damage won’t be correctible even if we elect three liberal presidents in a row. The government will continue to be biased in your favor long after Bush’s next two successors have left office.
Skeptimal,
The problem is, many Christians don’t see it that way. In our subculture we are told over and over again that we are the persecuted ones. Secular humanists are trying to take away religious freedom because we can’t use government funds to display our personal religious symbols in public places. In our subculture we are told that around every corner evil people are influenced by Satan and therefore out to get us. We are the minority because our certain specific brand of the larger faith is the TRUE one, and even other so called christians are influenced by Satan and deceived. We are the elect, we are the ones who truly understand God’s calling and all other ones, Catholics, oneness modolist, Pentecostals, Baptists, Presbyterians, liberal Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans and “cults” like Mormons or Jehovah’s witnesses are deceived. WE know the Truth and we are told that over and over. WE understand scripture because it is crystal clear(esp if you never read the Old Testament). That is why “we” have the mindset that the “world” is out to get us. Of course, the subculture is protected because none dare get out of it and read an opposing views as it would literally be written by Satan.
I say all that to point out the mindset of a typical Christian. I want to be clear that I am not attacking these people, I love them, I am one. I am just point out that these types of messages are repeated to the typical person of faith over and over, on trusted “news” sites like onenewsnow, or on Christian radio and of course, in the pulpits.
The truth of the matter is, the ones who lead the faithful, control the republican party of our government. There is in no way the “persecution” that is repeated to us. The people who fight us, often times don’t want us to impose our faith on them or use public funds to promote a certain faith. No matter what we feel about our faith it is wrong to demand a person of no faith to pay for the promotion of our faith. History shows that our faith works best and is most effective when it has the least power. Jesus’s core message was about changing heart one at a time, not about politically legislating your values on a pluralistic society.
I will never share your atheistic worldview, but I will share your concern for the effects of the right on our society. I don’t think the left has all the answers but I think they have a better message then the right on many points.
Pixel
Finally!
I don’t agree with all these conclusions you draw, but well thought out and presented this time. Not nearly the anger either.
Thus the reason for a “personal relationship” with the Savior.
My anger had subsided, I still have many issues that I am working through in my faith but atleast I don’t feel like I have to punch someone to resolve them. What I have tried to adopt is a much more keen critical eye to deception, I did this before but now my focus is deception within the church not from without.
I do still get angry when I see people of my faith lying to protect a worldview. The hottest topic of the day is the movie expelled. It doesn’t take a lot of research to see through the propaganda. He lumps Biology and evolution with various other scientific disciplines which only confuses the matter. He talks about how life began, Biology studies the variety of life, abiogenesis tries to find out how it began(Good luck). He talks about gravity, the cosmos, etc, again, not biology. By hearing Stein it appears that his research of “two years” is shoddy at best. His production team also decieved the “other side” by misinforming them of the nature of the film, why be deceptive? I know Stein is jewish and not part of my faith but the christian subculture is all over this and churches all over America are forcing(er, encouraging) their folks to see the “truth” of what is going on. I believe that God is true but I reject any method of deception to prove that he is. Leave the study of life to science, take up the question of God in philosophy.
I leave you with this thought;
Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
don