Bush backers are crumbling away in dismay

I'm probably over-sharing a bit here. I hope 
you'll forgive me wrapping up the "hate" thread 
with a conservative columnist's
conclusions. You'll have to read through Doug 
Bandow, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and 
a former Special Assistant to President Ronald 
Reagan, reaffirming his anti-Clinton right wing 
credentials to get to his objections to Bush 
policy and his own camp's hypocrisy.

-Tim

From: t r u t h o u t <messenger@truthout.org>
  Go to Original
http://www.amconmag.com/12_1_03/cover.html

  Editor's Note | There are a large number of 
arguments presented in the editorial below that 
we do not agree with - one being that the Clinton 
impeachment was justified, another being that the 
Bush administration is not as far-right as it 
seems - but it is profoundly important to take 
note of the schism that is appearing between 
supporters of Bush and mainstream conservatives. 
This week's edition of Newsweek carried a 'Last 
Word' column by noted conservative pundit George 
Will. The sum and substance of his comments are a 
close copy to what is captioned below. - wrp

From "The American Conservative"
-masthead-
"the conservative movement has been highjacked 
and turned into a globalist, interventionist, 
open borders ideology, which is not the the 
conservative movement I grew up with"

-Pat Buchanan, NYTimes. September 8, 2002

  The Conservative Case Against George W. Bush
  By Doug Bandow
  The American Conservative

  Monday 01 December 2003

  Some liberals admit that they hate President 
George W. Bush. Many conservatives say they are 
appalled at this phenomenon. Indeed, some of them 
believe any criticism of the president to be akin 
to treason. So much for the political tone in 
Washington.

  American politics have never been for the 
faint-hearted. Even George Washington suffered 
some public abuse, and presidential campaigns 
involving revolutionary luminaries John Adams and 
Thomas Jefferson were vitriolic. After the Civil 
War, Republican candidates routinely waved the 
ìbloody shirtî; one GOP stalwart denounced the 
Democrats as the party of ìRum, Romanism and 
Rebellion.î

  The GOP did not treat Harry Truman with kid 
gloves, and Democrats never let fairness impede 
their attacks on Barry Goldwater in 1964. Richard 
Nixon was widely reviled on the Left. Some fringe 
partisans expressed sorrow that John Hinckley 
failed in his assassination attempt against 
Ronald Reagan. And then there was Bill Clinton. 
Some Republicans saw him as a drug-dealing 
murderer whose wife killed family friend Vincent 
Foster.

  Now Jonathan Chait of the New Republic says 
simply, ìI hate President George W. Bush.î Not 
one to hold back, he explains, ìYou decide Bush 
is a dullard lacking any moral constraints in his 
pursuit of partisan gain, loyal to no principle 
save the comfort of the very rich, unburdened by 
any thoughtful consideration of the national 
interest, and a man who, on those occasions when 
he actually does make a correct decision, does so 
almost by accident.î More concisely, charges 
James Traub in the New York Times Magazine, 
ìGeorge Bush is a craven, lazy, hypocritical 
nitwit.î

  Chaitís recent essay has triggered a spate of 
conservative responses. Bush is wonderful, 
liberals are irrational, and the whole thing is 
bad for America. These are rather hilarious 
arguments coming from conservatives. For 
instance, New York Times columnist David Brooks 
calls the phenomenon of the Bush haters a ìcore 
threat to democracy.î Yet, as Brooks 
acknowledges, the Clinton years were also well 
populated with haters. Brooks now regrets having 
not spoken out more clearly against the latter.

  Better late than never, perhaps, but his 
conversion looks awfully convenient, as does that 
of other conservative Bush defenders. Hatred of 
Bill Clinton never made sense. In contrast, anger 
was fully justified.

  I never understood why conservatives invested 
so much emotion in Clinton. He was a charming and 
bright but enormously flawed, highly ambitious 
man of few principles. That warranted criticism, 
not hatred. But I joined in early and often. 
During his first summer of discontent I urged 
Clintonís critics to ìpile onî as opposition 
mounted to his policies. Over the years there was 
a moral imperative to take aim in the target-rich 
environment: the attempted government takeover of 
the health-care system, the pork-barrel stimulus 
package, the use of jackboot tactics against 
critics of federal policies, the endless claims 
of victimization, the unjustified Kosovo war, the 
sale of administration access for campaign 
contributions, the special-interest Whitewater 
and cattle-futures pay-offs, the sustained 
efforts to cover up such abuses, and the 
presidential perjury in federal court proceedings.

  Clinton was properly impeached. He should have 
been removed from office. The rule of law 
demanded no less.

  Similarly, though George W. Bush is very 
different from Bill Clinton, hatred makes no 
sense. But anger is appropriate.

  Much of the liberal case against President Bush 
is barely short of silly. His election was not 
illegitimate. Whether or not the candidate with 
the most votes should win, thatís not what the 
U.S. Constitution says. Blame the Founders, not 
George W. Bush.

  Complaints about Bushís fabled inarticulateness 
and privileged background are superficial. More 
worrisome are his partisan focus, demand for 
personal loyalty, and tendency to keep score, but 
these are hardly characteristics warranting 
hatred.

  The charge that heís a crazy right-winger is 
beyond silly. Other than tax cutsówhich have 
benefited the rich only because the rich paid, 
and still pay, most of the taxesóvirtually 
nothing of conservative substance has happened. 
Government is more expansive and expensive than 
ever before.

  Jonathan Chait must have been smoking funny 
cigarettes when he wrote, ì[I]tís not much of an 
exaggeration to say that Bush would like to roll 
back the federal government to something 
resembling its pre-New Deal state.î Sad to say, 
inaugurating limited private retirement accounts 
is not the same as eliminating Social Security, 
let alone dismantling the Leviathan that has 
grown up in Washington.

  James Traub contends, ìTodayís Republican Party 
is arguably the most extremeóthe furthest from 
the centeróof any governing majority in the 
nationís history.î This is the Republican Party 
that has embraced as its own every liberal 
initiative, from Lyndon Johnsonís Medicare to 
Jimmy Carterís Department of Education to Bill 
Clintonís AmeriCorps. This is the Republican 
Party preparing to enact a Medicare drug benefit 
that would represent the largest expansion of the 
welfare state in 40 years. This is the Republican 
Party that is increasing federal education 
spending as if doing so had something to do with 
the quality of local schools. This is the 
Republican Party that is increasing spending 
faster than during the Clinton years. Right-wing 
extremists? For the Left, liberal means centrist, 
and moderate conservative approaches fascist. 
Really conservative is off the spectrum.

  But this president deserves to be criticized. 
Sharply. By anyone who believes in limited, 
constitutional government.

  First, George W. Bush, despite laudable 
personal and family characteristics, is 
remarkably incurious and ill read. Gut instincts 
can carry even a gifted politician only so far. 
And a lack of knowledge leaves him vulnerable to 
simplistic remedies to complex problems, 
especially when it comes to turning America into 
the globeís governess.

  Second, despite occasional exceptions, the Bush 
administration, backed by the 
Republican-controlled Congress, has been 
promoting larger government at almost every turn. 
Its spending policies have been irresponsible, 
and its trade strategies have been destructive. 
The president has been quite willing to sell out 
the national interest for perceived political 
gain, whether the votes sought are from seniors 
or farmers. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 
encouraged the administration to push into law 
civil-liberties restrictions that should worry 
anyone, whether they are wielded by a Bush or a 
Clinton administration.

  The president and his aides have given 
imperiousness new meaning. Officials are 
apparently incapable of acknowledging that their 
pre-war assertions about Iraqís WMD capabilities 
were incorrect; indeed, they resent that the 
president is being questioned about his 
administrationís claims before the war. They are 
unwilling to accept a role for Congress in 
deciding how much aid money to spend.

  Some of Bushís supporters have been even worse, 
charging critics with a lack of patriotism. Not 
to genuflect at the presidentís every decision is 
treason. In two decades of criticizing liberal 
politicians and positions, I have rarely endured 
the vitriol that was routinely spewed by 
conservatives when I argued against war with Iraq 
over the last year. Conservative papers stopped 
running my column; conservative Web sites removed 
it from their archives. That was their right, of 
course, but they demonstrated that it was not 
just the Clintons who were fair-weather friends.

  Third, President George W. Bush has made 
Woodrow Wilson the guiding spirit of Republican 
foreign policy. A candidate who criticized nation 
building is now pursuing global social 
engineering. The representative of a party that 
once criticized foreign aid is now pushing lavish 
U.S. social spending abroad, demanding that it be 
a gift rather than a loan.

  And the administration has advanced a doctrine 
of pre-emption that encourages war for allegedly 
humanitarian ends. Attempting to justify the 
Iraqi war retrospectively by pointing to Saddam 
Husseinís manifold crimes, the president 
apparently believes he may attack any nation to 
advance human rights. Ironically, the Bush 
administration has adopted as its policy the 
question posed by then UN Ambassador Madeleine 
Albright to then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff Colin Powell: whatís the use of having this 
fine military you keep talking about if we donít 
use it?

  The negative practical consequences of this 
policy are all too evident. Ugly foreign 
governments from Iran to North Korea have an 
incentive to arm themselves, quickly, with WMD to 
deter a U.S. preventive assault.

  Iraq has become a magnet for terrorist attacks 
while becoming a long-term dependent under U.S. 
military occupation.

  Anger towardsóindeed, hatred ofóWashington is 
likely to continue growing, even in once friendly 
nations. It will be difficult to maintain an 
imperial foreign policy with a volunteer military.

  Liberals should identify with the Bush record. 
He is increasing the size and power of the U.S. 
government both at home and abroad. He has 
expanded social engineering from the American 
nation to the entire globe. He is lavish with 
dollars on both domestic and foreign programs. 
For this the Left hates him?

  The tendency to hate, really hate, opposing 
politicians surely is not good for American 
democracy. It is not rational to hate George W. 
Bush, just as it was not rational to hate Bill 
Clinton. But after spending eight years hating 
Clinton, conservatives who complain about the 
Bush-haters appear to be hypocrites.

  George W. Bush enjoys neither royal nor 
religious status that would place him beyond 
criticism. Whether or not he is a real 
conservative, he is no friend of limited, 
constitutional government. And for that the 
American people should be very, very angry.

  -------
 Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato 
Institute and a former Special Assistant to 
President Ronald Reagan.
 -------

© Copyright 2003 by TruthOut.org

--
<http://www.groundtruthinvestigations.com/>