|
|
|
Jewish World Review Oct 31, 2005 / 28 Tishrei, 5766 Is Bush a conservative? By Robert Robb
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
Probably no president in American history has so persistently proclaimed
himself to be a conservative as George W. Bush.
The only possible exception would be Ronald Reagan. But Reagan didn't
really need to do much proclaiming. Reagan embodied the conservatism of his
era.
So, it was somewhat of a surreal moment when, at a press conference a few
weeks ago, Bush was asked whether he was still a conservative. Bush's
response was: Yes, and proudly so.
Yet the question of whether Bush is, in fact, a conservative has
intensified in recent weeks. The answer is important not only to
understanding and assessing the Bush presidency, but in shaping the
governing alternatives available to the country.
The question of whether Bush is a conservative is a fair one. But the event
that precipitated it, the Miers nomination, isn't particularly
illuminating.
In fact, the area in which the Bush track record as a conservative has been
the strongest is in his appointment of judges. He has consistently
nominated judges with a clear conservative judicial philosophy and solid
qualifications. He has invested political capital in fighting for their
confirmation.
Paradoxically, Bush's outstanding track record on judges was part of what
triggered the adverse conservative reaction to the Miers nomination.
Conservatives had come to expect more from Bush on judges. Yet, when the
stakes were the highest, he went with less than the best.
This, however, was a mistake, not an indication of a lack of commitment to
conservative reform of the judiciary.
The track record elsewhere isn't nearly as strong. The questions that the
Miers nomination triggered should have been being asked for some time,
about other things.
Even while Bush was persistently proclaiming himself to be a conservative,
it was clear that he also intended to change conservatism, conventionally
understood.
Conservatives have traditionally believed that the power and scope of the
federal government should be curtailed, in favor of state and local
governments and the private sector.
Bush, however, believes in an activist federal government, but one yoked in
service to conservative purposes.
The difference is best illustrated by Bush's education program.
Traditionally, conservatives have favored eliminating the federal role in
education, believing it to be more properly a local responsibility. Bush,
however, pushed for a large expansion of the federal role in education, but
to implement a conservative reform: a regimen of accountability through
testing.
This can also be seen in Bush's faith-based initiative. Traditionally,
conservatives have faulted the welfare state for undermining
self-responsibility and proposed to reduce and reform it. Bush instead
pushed to expand its delivery mechanisms to include religious
organizations.
The Bush administration initially also pursued the same approach with a
prescription drug benefit under Medicare. The administration was quite
willing to see a large expansion of the entitlement state, provided it was
tied to reforming Medicare into a premium support system. It ultimately
flinched and accepted the entitlement expansion in exchange for highly
marginal reforms.
Some believe that Bush is modernizing conservatism and improving its
political prospects. Others, including me, doubt that a conservatism rooted
in greater centralization of power and authority in the federal government
merits the name.
Social conservatives, who are less fastidious about the principle of
subsidiarity, have reason to be generally satisfied with Bush. He has been
openly pro-life and reinstated a ban on international organizations using
U.S. funds to promote abortions. He signed a partial-birth abortion ban.
And he supported a constitutional amendment that would preclude states
permitting gay marriage.
Economic conservatives, however, have become increasingly agitated about
the failure of the president and the Republican Congress to control federal
spending. Federal spending has been growing under Bush at more than twice
the rate it did under the divided government of the Clinton years.
Bush's chief claim to being an economic conservative is his tax cuts. And,
indeed, Bush provided essential leadership in easing discriminatory and
counterproductive tax treatment of investment income and lowering marginal
personal income tax rates.
But, despite the bellowing from the opposition, the marginal rate
reductions have actually been quite modest. Reagan reduced the highest
marginal tax rate on wage income from 50 percent to 28 percent. Bush has
reduced it from around 40 percent to 35 percent.
A true supply-sider understands that to get marginal rates down, erosions
to the tax base have to be resisted. Yet Bush has been as promiscuous in
supporting tax credits and deductions as Clinton was.
The result has been to undermine the opportunity for true tax reform. The
incidence of the income tax has become so top heavy that generating
political support for fundamental reform is difficult. And the tax base has
become so eroded that it is difficult to craft reductions in rates that do
not result in regressive shifts in the burden that are politically
unacceptable.
On free trade, Bush has certainly talked the talk and completed a number of
small trade agreements. But overall, this has been a protectionist
administration, with a huge increase in farm subsidies and tariffs slapped
on steel, lumber and textiles.
Moreover, his administration has ignored international trade decisions that
go against the United States while pursuing trade complaints against other
countries. To other countries, the Bush administration has appeared to
treat trade as something to be gamed to the advantage of the United States.
Overall, domestic support for free trade has diminished under Bush, as has
U.S. credibility as an advocate for free trade internationally.
Bush has supported fundamental conservative reforms. But he has not been
willing to take political risks to make them happen.
Bush supports vouchers for private schools, but quickly dropped them to
gain Democratic support for No Child Left Behind. He abandoned fundamental
Medicare reform so he didn't have to run for re-election without having
delivered on a prescription drug benefit.
Bush wanted personal retirement accounts in Social Security and fundamental
tax reform to be his second-term accomplishments. But he wasn't specific
enough about either in the 2004 election to claim a mandate on their
behalf, and will probably leave office having accomplished neither.
Conservatives have instinctively rallied to Bush's leadership in his
efforts to protect the country against terrorist attack. Conservatives are
distrustful of international organizations and favor Bush's approach of
taking needed action through what he has described as coalitions of the
willing.
When it was believed that Saddam Hussein was a threat to help terrorists
acquire weapons of mass destruction, they supported taking him out. (I was
an exception, writing at the time that the Iraq war, while justifiable, was
an imprudent use of U.S. military power.)
There is, however, a broader dimension of the Bush doctrine that
conservatives have insufficiently debated. Traditional conservatives have
believed that the default foreign policy approach of the United States
should be to expand commercial ties with other countries but leave their
internal affairs to themselves. Exceptions are to be made in cases of
security threats, such as existed during the Cold War. But, generally, the
United States should stick to its own business.
Neoconservatives, however, believe that the United States should use its
status and power to influence international events to its advantage and to
advance the spread of democratic capitalism in the world.
In 2000, Bush seemed to run more as a traditional conservative than a
neocon on these matters. But, after 9/11, he became convinced that
protecting the United States against terrorist attack requires pushing
aggressively for democratic and market reforms in other countries,
particularly in the Middle East. Because of the security threat,
conservatives have tended to support Bush's premise. But it's not an
entirely comfortable position for traditional conservatives.
I accept Bush at his word that he regards himself as a conservative, and
proudly so. And he has certainly advanced more fundamental conservative
reforms than anyone since Reagan.
But under his leadership, Republicans have lost any credible claim to be
the party of less spending or a smaller role for the federal government.
They have also lost much of any rationale to argue for a circumspect U.S.
approach to international affairs.
In fact, the primary political effect of the Bush tenure may very well be
to have seriously undermined the traditional conservative cause of limited
government.
That isn't the sort of legacy to which a true conservative should aspire.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Robert Robb is a columnist for The Arizona Republic. Comment by clicking here.
© 2005, The Arizona Republic |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||
