« "Wherever We Went, They Loved Us" | Main | "All that time. This is all we get?" »
October 25, 2005
When Is a Liberal Not a Liberal? When He's a Conservative
Rush Limbaugh, "America's Truth Detector," explains how George W. Bush can govern like a liberal but still be a conservative:
The problem here is that not being ideological cost him . . . . Not being a true, down in-his-bones conservative. And don't misunderstand that, by the way. He's conservative. But he's not an ideologue in the sense that he doesn't view the presidency as an opportunity to lead and build a movement. Yeah, he'll do conservative things on policy. He'll have tax cuts and he'll beat the hell out of the enemy in the war on terror and the war on Iraq, but he'll also get together with the Democrats and let 'em write the education bill. He'll go along with Senator McCain's campaign finance reform. He'll do a number of these kind of things. A conservative ideologue would not do that. But he doesn't view ideology as having a role in the presidency, in the White House. . . .
(Big speech about the greatness of Ronald Reagan snipped.)
That's what's been missing here, and I think part of that quite simply is born of this notion that, "Well, you know, I know these liberals hate us but I think we can make them like us. We can get along with them. We need to work together anyway to move the country forward, blah, blah." An ideologue doesn't think that. An ideologue will look at the liberals and say they are the primary obstacle to this country's future and we've got to defeat them, in a political sense. That's what's been missing here. I mean, you can't possibly want to defeat the left if you're letting them write the education bill with you. For whatever reason, I mean, if you're trying to promote goodwill. . . . Sometimes you get [conservative ideas] in policy, like tax cuts and this, that, and the other thing. And there have been quite a few of them, so don't misunderstand me. On balance this has been a far more conservative presidency than not, by any stretch of the imagination. (Emphasis mine.)
Got it. Bush is a conservative, but he's not so conservative as actually to implement any of his conservatism. (Note, too, that "beat[ing] the hell out of the enemy" is defined as a conservative policy.) That's like saying, "Bob is right-handed, but he's not so dogmatic about it that he won't use his left hand 98 percent of the time."
Someone has been drinking deeply from the GOP's bucket of Bull-Aid.
Posted by Mike Tennant at October 25, 2005 04:28 PM
Comments
Mike,
Bush is a social conservative mercantilist who uses the state to implement his views. Principle has very little to do with it. Why do you put so much faith in Limbaugh to discern that? Limbaugh is a flack for any and all things Republican, much as MSM pundits are for the Dems.
Ali
Posted by: Ali_Massoud ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.strike-the-root.com/blog/nav-commenters.gif){kind=small}
at October 25, 2005 05:36 PM
Ali, I have no faith in Limbaugh anymore. I once had a certain amount of faith in his professed principles, but ever since Bush took office it's been obvious that he's nothing but a flack for the GOP. My point in posting these things is just to show the ridiculous lengths to which so-called conservatives will go to defend Bush. This week has been a bonanza for such commentary and will continue to be one, with the furious spinning going on from all the right-wing media pundits vis a vis the Plame investigation and likely indictments. It's fun and frustrating at the same time.
Posted by: Mike Tennant at October 26, 2005 09:39 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)