| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Yet Another WaPo OpEd Hit Piece: Cynical Conservatism |
| 2005-10-05 |
| George W. Bush entered the White House preaching "compassionate conservatism," but he may leave known for cynical conservatism. By this, I don't mean that his presidency will fail. The judgment of history, I suspect, will rest heavily on the outcomes of the struggle against terrorism and the war in Iraq, subjects about which I know no more than ordinary readers. For all the administration's miscalculations and setbacks, the ultimate results could still be more good than bad. But compassionate conservatism was never about foreign policy. It purported to be a new approach to governing at home that blended traditional values and modern sensibilities. As a political pitch, it aimed to create a permanent Republican majority by convincing millions of centrists that conservatives had souls and that Bush himself was a new breed of moderate -- all the while without frightening the conservative Republican "base." As a governing philosophy, it suggested that Bush could pursue the goals of modern liberalism, helping the poor and promoting social justice, without forsaking the values of modern conservatism -- including individual responsibility and disciplined government. There was always an ambiguity about this brilliant phrase. Is compassionate conservatism (a) a genuine governing philosophy or (b) merely a clever sound bite? Five years later, we know that the answer is (b). There is no obvious agenda that a successor could claim to follow as, for example, Lyndon Johnson claimed the Great Society followed the New Deal. In practice, Bush has taken the most self-serving aspect of modern liberalism (its instinct to buy public support with massive government handouts) and fused it with the most self-serving aspect of modern conservatism (its instinct to buy support with massive tax cuts). To be fair, Bush has made some legitimate efforts to define compassionate conservatism. The No Child Left Behind Act is one. It tries, through standardized tests and achievement benchmarks, to make schools, teachers, principals and students more responsible for their own performance. The goals are difficult to achieve for many reasons: the fact that public K-12 education is mostly a state and local responsibility; the reality that learning depends on many factors beyond government control (family, innate ability, popular culture); the difficulty in crafting mass standards that are fair and appropriate for all students. Still, the experiment is worth undertaking. The same might be said for Bush's effort to enlist "faith-based" organizations in public anti-poverty campaigns, though it, too, is fraught with practical and philosophical problems. But these programs are sideshows. "Compassion" for Bush has consisted mostly of distributing new benefits to large constituencies in the hope of purchasing their gratitude and support. He persuaded the Republican Congress (albeit with vigorous arm-twisting) to enact a Medicare drug benefit, the biggest new social program since the Great Society. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost at $851 billion from 2005 to 2015. Bush proposed not a penny of taxes to cover these immense outlays, which will continue rising after 2015. Next, he advocated "individual investment accounts" for Social Security -- a program designed to win the allegiance of younger voters by assuring them of future Social Security benefits. From 2009 to 2015, the cost could reach nearly $1 trillion, says the CBO. Bush proposed no tax increases for that either. I think Bush's initial tax cuts were justified. Not only did he promise them in the 2000 campaign but their fortuitous timing helped prevent a deep recession. Recall all the economic threats: the popping of the stock and tech bubbles; corporate scandals; and Sept. 11. It was also inevitable that any sizable tax cut would be tilted toward the upper middle class and the wealthy, because they pay most taxes. In 2001 the wealthiest fifth of taxpayers (pretax incomes then exceeding $185,000) paid 65 percent of federal taxes, estimates the CBO; the top 1 percent (pretax incomes above $1,065,000) paid 23 percent. But as the economy revived, the tax cuts could be justified permanently only if gradually matched by spending cuts. Except in rhetoric, Bush has declined. It would seem "uncompassionate" to curtail benefits or programs, regardless of their value. Nor did he want to offend affluent supporters by trimming their tax cuts. Spend more, tax less. That's a brazen political strategy, not a serious governing philosophy. A flimsy rationalization is that the resulting budget deficits don't immediately harm the economy. This is true. At present levels, the deficits are not as harmful as many critics contend. But note the paradox of using this as an excuse for jettisoning budget discipline. Bush has significantly raised present and future federal spending -- especially the exploding cost when baby boomers retire. Because that spending must ultimately be covered by larger deficits (which could be dangerous) or higher taxes (which could also harm the economy), the prospects for both have increased. A president who boasts of lower taxes is actually laying the groundwork for the opposite. Now, with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, even Republican members of Congress say that borrowing should not pay for all the added costs. The White House agrees but scorns one obvious step, repealing the Medicare drug benefit (projected 2006-08 spending: $151 billion), that would make a big difference. The outlook is for tokenism. Just what conservative values Bush's approach embodies is unclear. He has not tried to purge government of ineffective or unneeded programs. He has not laid a foundation for permanent tax reductions. He has not been straightforward with the public. He has not shown a true regard for the future. He has mostly been expedient or, more pointedly, cynical. Some people live in a fantasy of their own design: Yes, you can have your cake and eat it too. Some live in reality, where bad shit happens that no one can predict, and you just have to deal with it as it comes. There is no MagiK and you can't wait for Good Timing. You just have to slog it out. And yes, George, Karl, et al, you'll have shitloads of little wankers with lockjaw attached to your ankles all the way. Will the solid grown-up folks outnumber the ponces and pooftas at the end? Well, given the whining and seething fair-weather wankers I see most everywhere I look, it's not looking good. |
| Posted by:.com |
| #16 Goddamnit, he's spending too much! Wha? Oh... Goddamnit, he's not spending enough! |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-05 18:19 |
| #15 Steve, the 1.4% GDP difference (and more) is accounted by the difference in military spending. During the Reagan years, military spending averaged 6% of GDP, today with a war on, it is 4.0% and in 2000 it was 3.0% of GDP. Tack in differences in intelligence and DOE spending and gap widens even more. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-10-05 13:04 |
| #14 But he's wasting the money. No. Your Republican Senators and Representatives are wasting money. How many have quickly come forward with their own Porkbusters list of home town spending that can be deferred? Tap, tap, tap. The meter is not broke. |
| Posted by: Javirt Thrusing6823 2005-10-05 13:00 |
| #13 Reagan was spending to build a military shattered by Johnson, Nixon and Carter to defeat the Soviet Union. Bush is trying to defeat the terrorists with Clinton's military and Intelligence services. If the spending was for that, no problem. But he's wasting the money. And the bill for elderdrugs hasn't arrived yet. But the tax cuts get automatically repealed, so I guess that will take care of everything. Bush spends like a drunken sailor and thinks veto is a four letter word. Well, I guess it is. but he still needs to stop spending my money like I have a lot more. |
| Posted by: Snereger Creper8887 2005-10-05 12:52 |
| #12 All agreed, Steve. Big picture (% of GDP) we're not in the mess we were after the hangover of the 60's/70's. That being said, as a conservative who is cynical ("Trust, but verify"), I'd argue that doesn't excuse the ENORMOUS increases in spending we've seen from Dubya. Increased spending (outside of spending on the WoT) and the border issue are the 2 things that Dubya better begin paying attention to before his true conservative base does desert him. I could totally see the true Republicans on the Judicial committee voting against Ms. Miers (heck, personally, I do trust Bush to get the job done on the judges), exactly because she doesn't have a track record. I can think of many more qualified people to become judges whose names have already been thrown around. And, too many of these secretive judges have been nominated before by Repubs to become complete disappointments to conservatives after taking the Prez's word to "trust me on this one." Me? I would've elevated Scalia or Thomas to Chief Justice and nominated Priscilla Owens or Janice Rogers Brown to fill O'Conner's spot (if you really needed a woman). Heck, I might've just nominated Ann Coulter just to watch Teddy Kennedy's big head explode! |
| Posted by: BA 2005-10-05 12:20 |
| #11 Aw Steve, why d'ya have to go and throw cold water on a perfectly good pity party? |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2005-10-05 12:00 |
| #10 C'mon folks. Spending today by the Feds is at about 19.6% of GDP. Under Reagan it was 21%. Bush would have to push the budget up by a couple hundred billion dollars to get close to Ronnie. Not that the MSM or the Dems will ever tell you this. The conservatives who are kvetching right now need a) a chill pill and b) a vigorous facial slap ("thanks, I needed that!"). Spending is NOT out of control, Miers is NOT a weak USSC nominee, the WoT is NOT grinding to an ignominous halt, and cats and dogs are NOT living in sin. Criminy folks, conservatives are supposed to be good at thinking long-term. Let's start acting like it. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2005-10-05 10:48 |
| #9 Whine, whine, whine. Even if it is a good thing Bush has done, why, it's still going to be difficult and only time will tell. And the Dems have never bought votes? Well, not the dead ones, of course. That is what democracy is about, after all. Bush bought my vote by leading the war on terror (and other things). Dems buy votes by taking poor folks to the polls. Even outstanding representation of voter groups is a way of "buying" votes. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-10-05 09:43 |
| #8 I am convinced that the Democrats are blackmailing Bush into this spending. They won't support the WoT unless he funds their pet programs. The problem with this theory -- and believe me, I'd like to think it's true -- is that we're getting the spending but NOT getting the support for the WoT. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-10-05 09:38 |
| #7 11A5S - This and this eventually lead to this or this. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-05 09:31 |
| #6 Caesar is always an invited guest. Like FDR? |
| Posted by: Hupulet Shains3088 2005-10-05 09:14 |
| #5 As a conservative who is sometimes cynical (as opposed the the article's cynical conservatism), I am convinced that the Democrats are blackmailing Bush into this spending. They won't support the WoT unless he funds their pet programs. I don't think that any of the shrill anti-war talk has anything to do with principled opposition to the war. Every time Bush and the Republicans try to make a stand on a budget issue, the anti-war rhetoric rises to a higher level and they back down. I pity Bush. He's fighting a war for civilization and he can't publicly identify the enemy lest the opposition accuse him of racism. He can't get the funding he needs for it without getting blackmailed by the same opposition. My worry: One day, the same electorate that allowed all of this to pass -- ignoring all of the stupidity and corruption while contemplating the latest pop tart's navel -- will wake up when things really get bad and cry out for a strongman to save us all. Caesar is always an invited guest. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2005-10-05 09:09 |
| #4 Ah, true OE - I misspoke. Of course, losing the margins in the House and Senate will be disastrous, as well, but we don't want to spoil a good old-fashioned three yr old tantrum with reality. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-05 07:50 |
| #3 Pres Billary is the 2008 election. That's why dumb conservatives may sit out 2006 to teach Bush, soon to fade into history and irrelevance, a lesson for the last two years of his administration. |
| Posted by: Elmerong Omalet8099 2005-10-05 07:43 |
| #2 Yielding Prez Billary. A very singular pivot point in American History, I (safely, lol) predict. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-05 07:18 |
| #1 Bush and republicans are in a difficult spot. They are in danger of suffering politically for failing to deal with the conservative part of compassionate conservatism. The thinking is now Bush's base may well stay home in 2006 to teach republicans a lesson about departing from conservatism. |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-10-05 07:16 |
