Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to NewsvineFor almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don't like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don't like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad.
But on immigration it has changed from "Too bad" to "You're bad."
The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism."
Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens? And often, though not exclusively, concerned conservatives? It is odd, but it is of a piece with, or a variation on, the "Too bad" governing style. And it is one that has, day by day for at least the past three years, been tearing apart the conservative movement.
And this:
What I came in time to believe is that the great shortcoming of this White House, the great thing it is missing, is simple wisdom. Just wisdom--a sense that they did not invent history, that this moment is not all there is, that man has lived a long time and there are things that are true of him, that maturity is not the same thing as cowardice, that personal loyalty is not a good enough reason to put anyone in charge of anything, that the way it works in politics is a friend becomes a loyalist becomes a hack, and actually at this point in history we don't need hacks.
It's called hubris, and now nemesis is upon the White House, and the Republican Party. Which of the GOP presidential candidates will be the first to break decisively and boldly with the president? Will it do him a bit of good, or will the public read it as opportunism, inasmuch as he didn't break with or criticize Bush when it stood to cost him something?
The sad thing for John McCain is he really could have been the credible anti-Bush. Everybody knows how much he and Bush can't stand each other. But McCain stuck by Bush on the war, which has proved Bush's undoing -- and will prove McCain's. Now he will never be president, because of Bush.
I've got no strong objection to Noonan's analysis, and indeed I'm thrilled to see it. But it seems to me that we conservatives need to avoid falling into a historical revisionism that allows us to portray ourselves as passive victims of a feckless president. Not saying she does this, but I think as the last wheel comes off this presidency, and the GOP comes to grips with what this presidency has meant for the Republican Party and the conservative movement, there will be a strong temptation to resist owning up to our own complicity. Success has a thousand fathers, after all, and failure is an orphan. This failure is not President Bush's alone. The Republican Party owns it. The conservative movement, with some exceptions, owns it.
Few of us stood up to Bush when he took us to this disastrous war in Iraq. Few, if any, stood up to him over his foolish support for Rumsfeld, long after it became obvious what a disaster Rumsfeld was. Few, if any, stood up to him over his amassing of power in the executive branch. Few, if any, stood up to him on the spending. Few, if any, stood up to him over the massive prescription drug benefit. Few stood up to him over the political hackery pervading his administration, which became distressingly obvious during Katrina (indeed, there are still Republicans now who insist that the corrupt politicization of the Department of Justice is a non-issue, because these people "serve at the president's pleasure"). Correct me if I'm wrong, but the first time any of us stood up in significant numbers, and with full-throated voice, against the president was over the Harriet Miers debacle. And then we fell silent again, for the most part.
So yes, by all means let's turn our backs on this failed presidency, and save what we can, while we can. But let's not kid ourselves: Bush has failed conservatives, yes, but we have also failed ourselves. It doesn't take much courage to stand up for conservative principle to a president as weak as this one has become. It would have taken real courage to stand up for conservative principle in 2002, 2003, 2004, even early 2005. How many did? I know I didn't -- not until Katrina and Miers, which came late in 2005. If we're looking to blame someone for the failure of Republican government and the conservative crack-up, look to the White House, yes, and look to the late, unlamented Republican Congress. But also look to the conservative talk show hosts, the conservative columnists, and finally, in the mirror. The only way we're going to rebuild after the present and coming political shattering is through honest reckoning, and taking responsibility for what we've done. It is tempting to blame Bush for everything. But it's not fair, and it's not honest. Bush is today who he always was. The difference is we conservatives pretty much loved the guy -- when he was a winner.
UPDATE: Larison's site is back up -- hooray -- and he weighs in on the Noonan column.
Subscribe
Comments
The intricacies of global economic interdependence didn't use to be so complex. Just as we are facing in the US with the disappearance of the middle class, the world used to have a very wide gap between the well-off nations and the not well-off nations. Just as the British Empire faded, so has number who occupy each side of the gap (no, I do not see that the gap has changed much, do you?). The US, Europe and Japan are no longer the focal points for manufacturing and trade. Interdependence is upon us, and the anti-globalists can gnash their teeth all they like over it. Angel offers an excellent example with chocolate. Chocolate in some form is in our shopping cart every week; I read the labels on the packages and I compare the unit prices on the shelves, and Belgian (actually, most non-US) chocolate is consistently less expensive than US-made. The free marketeers get no credibility with me. They continue to lie most times their lips move. So long as trade is politicized, there can be no such thing as free trade; I cannot find a more oxymoronic phrase than "free trade zone". Competition means that my company will succeed on a list of aspects: quality of product, price (of manufacture as well as sale), customer satisfaction and cost of replacement. Replacement is not just for cars and computers; it also applies to weather-related changes in supply of produce, for example. The final factor, one that looms large, is the American Right of Entitlement. Bosses express it in terms of lording their wealthy lifestyle over others. Middle and lower management love their little in-your-face perks like having an attractive personal assistant get coffee. Peons love the idea of acquiring those perks some day, and in the meantime use gossip and bullying to get their jollies over their fellows. That and more -- exaggerated to make a point -- gave us such terrible ills as labor unions (if you think their socialist rhetoric is what makes employers quake, think again...), govt-created unemployment programs, welfare and food stamps, and millions of children in poverty. Socialists have some pretty good ideas. Sure, they've come up with some very crappy ways to implement them, but what is more important to you: 100 individuals together worth 500 billion dollars and more, or health care that is both affordable and available to nearly everyone. You cannot have both, q.e.d.
Posted by: Franklin Evans | June 5, 2007 3:28 PM
"The free marketeers get no credibility with me. They continue to lie most times their lips move. So long as trade is politicized, there can be no such thing as free trade; I cannot find a more oxymoronic phrase than "free trade zone"." If all we are about is as per Angel a never-ending search for the cheapest price for good and services, consequences to our fellow man be damned, we woud be totally soulless.
Posted by: Bugg | June 5, 2007 4:35 PM
The goal of socialism, if not so explicitly stated, is to avoid politicizing trade (economics) as much as possible. In a moral society, "cheap" does not equal "that which requires the least amount of money". "Cheap" should mean "that which does not injure someone at some point between source and consumption." That's my view of consequences. I think we are in close agreement, Bugg. Strange days, eh? ;)
Posted by: Franklin Evans | June 5, 2007 5:23 PM
You mean Bush isn't one of us?
It was so hard to tell when he put up protectionist measures for steel and farming, passed the prescription drug benefit, increased the size of government and started spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave, and simply *forgot* that 9/11 was Bin Laden's baby. This isn't revisionist history for ALL of us. I didn't like him then, I don't like him now. He's was then and remains an idiot. The Original RINO.
Posted by: Matt | June 5, 2007 5:32 PM
Matt,
It was so hard to tell when he put up protectionist measures for steel and farming, passed the prescription drug benefit, increased the size of government and started spending like a drunken sailor..... I agree that Bush has not been a "conservative" (by my definition) on every issue during his presidency. I don't believe conservatives of any stripe are obligated to support Bush on any issue.
What is amusing to me is when Peggy Noonan, who supported Bush in the tight 2004 presidential race, now says she can no longer support Bush at a time when it's clear Bush will never be on the ballot again. If one is going to opppose someone in politics, it makes sense to do so when it might have an impact.
Personally, I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 and I don't regret those votes even as I realize that Bush has made decisions I disagree with.
Take the steel tariffs issue.
I opposed Bush when he put those steel tariffs in place. But I supported him when he removed them (he was probably influenced by companies that could not compete as long as they were forced to buy more expensive American steel while their competitors were purchasing less expensive steel from Korea and elsewhere.) Bugg wrote: If all we are about is as per Angel a never-ending search for the cheapest price for good and services, consequences to our fellow man be damned, we woud be totally soulless. People shop for the lowest price all the time, whether it's for gasoline, cars, washing machines, food, clothing, stereos.... And many Americans are on a limited budget. So, telling them that they must spend 20 percent more on a product to support an American worker who may or may not be "gouging" them isn't going to fly for most Americans if they have any choice in the matter.
Import substitution is all about denying American consumers and American businesses choice. It's about raising taxes (tariffs) on them so that they are manipulated by those higher import tariffs so as to purchase products they would not purchase otherwise.
If a Canadian can pull oil out of the ground in Canada for 20 dollars a barrel while it takes 40 dollars to pull a barrel of oil out of the ground in the US, does it really make sense to force the American consumer to pay double the price to heat his home?
That's why import substitution sounds good in theory but not in practice.
Posted by: Mark | June 6, 2007 3:57 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?