Q: I agree with you that President Bush is a conservative who embodies yesterday’s liberals, as exemplified by his massive domestic spending, expansion of Medicare, campaign finance reform, etc. But don’t you think this is just his political opportunism at work — namely, he’s spending his first term posturing as a centrist for votes, and once reelected will become more of a free marketer?
A: This is quite possibly his motive. If so, then it proves how Bush is not a free marketer and never will be. First of all, a true free marketer would never advocate an expansion of the welfare state, especially on the scale of the trillion-dollar prescription drugs program that the President pushed through Congress. A principled politician would be motivated by what’s right — at least as he sees it. A principled politician — even one who’s wrong, like Franklin Delano Roosevelt — would never advocate and sign off on policies in opposition to what he believes. In the case of free market conservatism, a principled politician would be realistic in understanding that all of his policies in favor of trimming or eliminating the welfare state might not be capable of immediate passage in Congress; but he would certainly hold his ground on not expanding the welfare state. It’s important to understand that Bush did not merely go wobbly, like his father did in the face of pressure to raise taxes. Bush Jr. actually initiated and rammed through a reluctant Republican Congress the largest expansion of government entitlement programs since the administrations of LBJ and FDR.
Bush is actually worse than a politician of the leftist variety who sincerely believes that the welfare state should be expanded and thereby seeks to act on his beliefs (like Clinton did when he tried to nationalize what’s left of the private health care sector). Bush is trying to have it both ways. He wants to be seen as an advocate of limited government by cutting income taxes — and to be seen as an advocate of the welfare state constituencies who (in the context of Medicare and Social Security) make up a majority of the population. In short, he’s too timid to advocate partial privatization of these programs — something he hinted at doing in his 2000 campaign for President.
To be objective, however, Bush gave us the clue to his motivations a long time ago. He described his mission as President to be one of “compassionate” conservatism. This very statement implies an apology for the very policies and principles of conservatism he claims to advocate. To date, he seems to be succeeding in having it both ways. Like Clinton before him, he gets to be both things to both members of his own party and independents at the same time. This is making Democrats absolutely insane, which is one reason why the Democratic candidates hate Bush so much.
The Democrats seem so hapless and helpless in their rage that Bush, at present, appears to be the slight favorite to win in 2004 — particularly if national security is a central theme of the campaign. This doesn’t mean Bush particularly deserves to win. There are no candidates with high moral character who deserve to win. It’s frightening considering the fiscal and national security threats we face today and in the coming years. But it’s where we are. Tough times call for great men and women: to date, none have emerged on the American political scene in the aftermath of 9/11. Hold to hope that this could change in a few more years. But we’re certainly not there yet.
