It's official: Bush not a true conservative

IglooDame

Enforcing Rule 34
Supporter
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 2, 2003
Messages
23,530
Location
Igloo, New Hampshire
I think if William F. Buckley Jr. says you're not a 'true conservative' then you can consider yourself officially excommunicated from the conservative ranks.

Does anyone disagree with his take on this?

article said:
Buckley: Bush Not A True Conservative
CBS News Exclusive: Buckley Criticizes President For Interventionist Policies

Stamford, Conn., July 22, 2006

President Bush ran for office as a "compassionate conservative." And he continues to nurture his conservative base — even issuing his first veto this week against embryonic stem cell research.

But lately his foreign policy has come under fire from some conservatives — including the father of modern conservatism, William F. Buckley.

CBS Evening News Saturday anchor Thalia Assuras sat down for an exclusive interview with Buckley about his disagreements with President Bush.

Buckley's Stamford, Conn., home is a tranquil place that allows Buckley to think, write and spend time with his canine companion, Sebastian.

"He's practically always with me," Buckley says.

Buckley finds himself parting ways with President Bush, whom he praises as a decisive leader but admonishes for having strayed from true conservative principles in his foreign policy.

In particular, Buckley views the three-and-a-half-year Iraq War as a failure.

"If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we've experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign," Buckley says.

Asked if the Bush administration has been distracted by Iraq, Buckley says "I think it has been engulfed by Iraq, by which I mean no other subject interests anybody other than Iraq... The continued tumult in Iraq has overwhelmed what perspectives one might otherwise have entertained with respect to, well, other parts of the Middle East with respect to Iran in particular."

Despite evidence that Iran is supplying weapons and expertise to Hezbollah in the conflict with Israel, Buckley rejects neo-conservatives who favor a more interventionist foreign policy, including a pre-emptive air strike against Iran and its nuclear facilities.

"If we find there is a warhead there that is poised, the range of it is tested, then we have no alternative. But pending that, we have to ask ourselves, 'What would the Iranian population do?'"

Buckley does support the administration's approach to the North Korea's nuclear weapons threat, believing that working with Russia, China, Japan and South Korea is the best way to get Pyongyang back to the negotiating table. But that's about where the agreement ends.

"Has Mr. Bush found himself in any different circumstances than any of the other presidents you've known in terms of these crises?" Assuras asks.

"I think Mr. Bush faces a singular problem best defined, I think, as the absence of effective conservative ideology — with the result that he ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending, extremely tolerant of excesses by Congress," Buckley says. "And in respect of foreign policy, incapable of bringing together such forces as apparently were necessary to conclude the Iraq challenge."

Asked what President Bush's foreign policy legacy will be to his successor, Buckley says "There will be no legacy for Mr. Bush. I don't believe his successor would re-enunciate the words he used in his second inaugural address because they were too ambitious. So therefore I think his legacy is indecipherable"

At 81, Mr. Buckley still continues to contribute a regular column to the National Review, the magazine he started 51 years ago.
 
Sorry Igloo, he's a true conservative. I've made it official. And he's painted y'all with his brush.

I mean, if USSR gets to poison the well for communism, then Bush poisons the well for conservatism. You might as well just get a new word to lable yourself with. Maybe "Pre-modern Conservative"?
 
Isn't it common knowledge that Conservatives aren't conservatives usually? Same goes for any one else on the political spectrum who tries to define themselves under one banner.
 
Bush is like a captialist ideological fundamentalist stalinist. Or something....

He is a rubbish statesman, in any case.

.
 
El_Machinae said:
Sorry Igloo, he's a true conservative. I've made it official. And he's painted y'all with his brush.

'Ceptin' "y'all" doesn't include me, what with bein' libertarian and all... :D

El_Machinae said:
I mean, if USSR gets to poison the well for communism, then Bush poisons the well for conservatism. You might as well just get a new word to lable yourself with. Maybe "Pre-modern Conservative"?

There's a few differences there, though - there already exist examples of 'true conservatives' (even 'true conservative' politicians). I don't think anyone is disavowing Bush because he's not doing well - no one ever said Dan Quayle wasn't a 'true conservative' and if anyone was going to get disowned for lack of results, it would be him, yes?

Furthermore, this is almost akin to Karl Marx miraculously rising from the dead and offering a point-by-point on how the Soviets didn't adhere to his philosophy.
 
CurtSibling said:
Bush is like a captialist ideological fundamentalist stalinist. Or something....

He is a rubbish statesman, in any case.

Yeah, way to advance the discussion there. :rolleyes:

@Eran: I think that's what torches the conservatives the most, or most often anyway. But "Buckley rejects neo-conservatives who favor a more interventionist foreign policy" is an interesting way to disavow the Iraq War.
 
True conservatives do not support federal involvement in areas which it has no business. And you're right, if the elder sage of the conservative movement says you are not one, that's the end of it.
 
IglooDude said:
Yeah, way to advance the discussion there. :rolleyes:

@Eran: I think that's what torches the conservatives the most, or most often anyway. But "Buckley rejects neo-conservatives who favor a more interventionist foreign policy" is an interesting way to disavow the Iraq War.

What exactly is the definition of "neo-conservative" anyway? It doesn't seem like it's used to describe anyone except with respect to foreign policy. I haven't heard anyone describe where a neo-conservative aligns on abortion or taxes or gun control.

As I recall, Reagan and GHWB both took interventionist actions.

GWB has not done well to control spending and he should have vetoed McCain-Feingold.
 
I call bullcrap.

I don't recall Buckley speaking out against Bush's policies back when Bush first implemented them. If Bush's policies weren't those of a true conservative, then it took Mr. Buckly five years to figure out that they aren't.

In fact, I seem to recall Mr. Buckley vigorously defending the very policies he now decries. Buckley and other conservatives insisted that we had to invade Iraq to stabilize the middle east and make America safer, while it was mostly liberals who insisted that invading Iraq would destabilize the middle east and make America less safe.

Bush is everything conservatives love: authoritarian, anti-racial minority, running a secretive government, anti-sexual minority, fiscally irresponsible, anti-women, corrupt, using the intelligence community and law enforcement to spy on and harrass political dissidents, etc., etc.

Bush is just a more extreme version of Nixon and Reagan, and America conservatives everywhere still defend those two.

Buckley can say that Bush isn't a conservative all he wants, but hiding your head in the sand doesn't change reality. You'd think conservatives would've learned that after Nixon.
 
Underseer said:
Bush is everything conservatives love: authoritarian, anti-racial minority, running a secretive government, anti-sexual minority, fiscally irresponsible, anti-women, corrupt, using the intelligence community and law enforcement to spy on and harrass political dissidents, etc., etc.

That is ridiculous. That is not what makes one a conservative - I am a conservative and none of those things. But I suppose hyperbole and strawmen are just part of any political discussion, no?
 
Eran of Arcadia said:
That is ridiculous. That is not what makes one a conservative - I am a conservative and none of those things. But I suppose hyperbole and strawmen are just part of any political discussion, no?

Indeed!

I too am convervative, and I am not in-line with any of GWB's initiatives.

.
 
Underseer said:
I call bullcrap.

No, Mr. Buckley's spot on. Bush's presidency violates many tenets of traditional US conservatism.

But, who cares? I don't care what a person wants to call him or any other politician, I care what they do.

---
---

Side note...

More evidence of lack of "conservative" credentials? Point being that Bush, via his "signing statements", besides, in the opinion of the ABA group (which is apolitical AND bi-partisan) being unconstitutional, be un-conservative in that they continue to expand federal power and, esp., executive power.

TBH, I'd never heard of "signing statements" before.
 
Keshik said:
What exactly is the definition of "neo-conservative" anyway? It doesn't seem like it's used to describe anyone except with respect to foreign policy. I haven't heard anyone describe where a neo-conservative aligns on abortion or taxes or gun control.

As I recall, Reagan and GHWB both took interventionist actions.

GWB has not done well to control spending and he should have vetoed McCain-Feingold.

From everything I've read, interventionist foreign policy is 70% of it, with no concern for fiscal conservatism a distant second.

Reagan and GHWB both took interventionist actions, and to some extent they get slapped with neocon tags as well, but theirs were more explainable by anticommunism and/or defense of American interests than by the current sort of domino-democracy theory.

Edit: as I think about it, neocons seem characterized by simple populism domestically - they just don't seem to care either way about gun control, abortion, or most other traditional conservative causes.
 
IglooDude said:
domino-democracy theory.

This is about all I ever hear associated with neo-conservitism. Are they supposed to be the same people who believed in fighting the communist domino effect just turning it 180 degrees starting dominos of their own? That would indicate consistency of strategy, I guess.

I really don't understand how Buckley can say what GWB has done with regard to Iraq is not conservative. What is it, liberal?
 
Keshik said:
This is about all I ever hear associated with neo-conservitism. Are they supposed to be the same people who believed in fighting the communist domino effect just turning it 180 degrees starting dominos of their own? That would indicate consistency of strategy, I guess.

I suppose that if you believe that communism can tip regional governments over one by one, it isn't any kind of dilemma to think that democracy can work the same way.

Keshik said:
I really don't understand how Buckley can say what GWB has done with regard to Iraq is not conservative. What is it, liberal?

Here's a bit that may explain it better than I have (this written in May 04, by the way):
http://acuf.org/issues/issue49/051204news.asp said:
The closest National Review magazine comes today to passion is its support for the war in Iraq and in what it calls Bush’s “twilight struggle” against terrorism. In an editorial just last month, the editors reviewed the realist foreign policy views of former national security chief under President George H.W. Bush, Brent Scowcroft. The former general expressed his reservations regarding the possibility of democracy in the Middle East by saying “The bad guys are always better organized.” He called Lebanon’s recent so-called democratic revival “something we have to worry about.” And he concluded “I’m a realist in the sense that I’m a cynic about human nature.”

The current editors concluded their analysis by asking: “Snowcroft wants us to be hopeless and insecure. Any takers?” Note that the issue for them is not whether he is correct but who wants to feel hopeless and insecure—putting feelings before truth or reality, which were not considered at all in their analysis. This is a radical turning from Mr. Buckley’s thinking about human nature, realism and conservatism. Indeed, in the interview, Buckley declared the war on terrorism “detached from national dimensions” and requiring new ideas.

More important, Buckley declared the war in Iraq is “anything but conservative. The reality of the situation is that missions abroad to effect regime change in countries without a bill of rights or democratic tradition are terribly arduous.” He was careful to add: “This isn’t to say that the [Iraq] war is wrong, or that history will judge it to be wrong. But it is absolutely to say that conservatism implies a certain submission to reality; and this war has an unrealistic frank and is being conscripted by events.”
 
Back
Top Bottom