On Republican Disillusionment

[ExecutiveJesus]

This election year, I am hoping a Democrat wins the presidency.

This has nothing to do with me being ecologically-minded, economically progressive, or virulently anti-war, because I am none of those things.

In fact, I am conservative in regards to most issues - as are many others that also will not be voting for Dubya.

Many of ‘us’ voted for Bush in the last election, own books by Rush Limbaugh, and despise Bill Clinton as fervently as Newt Gingrich.

So why are so many of us would-be Republicans turning into ersatz Democrats?

The answer is simple: the Republican Party has alienated its moderates.

A growing number of us find ourselves at odds with the party’s current direction, despite our approval of its economic policies and ‘limited government’ ideology.

And ultimately, our disillusionment as moderate Republicans may constitute the biggest threat to Bush’s re-election campaign and the future of the GOP as we know it.

A primary source of this disillusionment lies in the GOP’s ignorance of civil libertarian views.

In trying to win the votes and dollars of Robertson, Falwell, & Co., the Republican Party has side-stepped its ideological cry of “Limited Government!” in favor of “Free Enterprise, Religious Dictatorship!” Certain factions of the Republican Party have fought against civil rights by promoting bans on gay marriage, increased taxpayer funding of church programs, state-sponsored school prayer, and a host of other issues moderates do not support.

For decades, GOP leaders have resolved the power struggle between these factions and ‘Civil Libertarian-Republicans’ only to the extent that they could cut the latter group out of decision-making altogether. And yet, a growing number of Americans define themselves as economically-conservative civil libertarians—a political viewpoint shared by these GOP outsiders.

This growing sense of disenfranchisement reached its critical mass through the Bush Administration.

For one thing, President Bush is one of the most aggressive supporters of the Religious Right, particularly in terms of his judicial nominees and “Faith-based Initiatives.”

I’ve always said that the Republicans would have a perfectly nice platform if it weren’t for Jesus and crew.

In addition, his foreign policy orientation of stark unilateralism and his administration’s apparent dishonesty in regards to the Iraqi conflict have both drawn sharp criticism from many of his former supporters. Even those previously in favor of military intervention in Iraq—myself included—feel foolishly deceived.

Many are now convinced that Bush is unfit for office, regardless of political orientation.

The combination of the Republican Party’s slow slide into religious fundamentalism and the current administration’s blundering misuse of power has left many people without a political orientation beyond peripheral involvement with third-party politics.

Though the power bases of religious conservatives and extreme right-wingers may have brought them victory in the past, the Republicans ignore the moderate views of females, Gen Xers, and swing voters at their peril.

In the end, the downfall of the Republicans might be the one thing they can’t blame on *silly libs. *

[zoo]

In light of your OP, I wonder why there has been no mention of a challenger to the GOP nomination?

[Milum]

**The political advertisement above is paid for
by the ad hoc ersatz Republican Committee
to elect John Kerry in’04

• Executive Jesus, Vice-chair-human**

[mswas]

Heh, I want Bush to win because he’s doing a great job of dismantling the American Hegemony and ruining any legitimacy we built up in the international community. I think this rebellion he is leading against the United States of America is a good thing, and I can’t wait until he destroys it all. When that’s done he won’t have any legitimacy left at all, and all it’ll take is some assassins who hate him to take him and his cronies out, and I’m certain they won’t be in short supply at that point.

Erek (CNN armchair revolutionary)

[ExecutiveJesus]

I just don’t know guys.

I just don’t know.

I am of “conservative principle” - Bush is not that.

He is not a conservative.

He is a new breed of republican that needs to be taken out of power.

It’s all I know about this election.

Anything can happen between now and then… who knows.

If Bush is the Bush we know and love, then he will go up in the polls.

Something will happen to make that be.

I doubt, whatever it is, will backfire. I really do fear the next 4 years.

It’s to the point of keeping me awake at nights.

Which may be a problem in and of itself, mind you - know. (let’s not stray :P)

[BrainGlutton]

I’ve been saying this for a long time. Bush can’t win this year because he has done too much to alienate his own support base:

Libertarians and civil-libertarian conservatives won’t vote for Bush because of the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, and his “faith-based initiatives” breaking down the wall of separation between church and state.

Isolationist conservatives (e.g., Pat Buchanan and his American First Party) won’t vote for him because he led us into two wars and got us entangled in foreign military commitments we are going to have a very hard time getting out of.

Nativist, anti-immigration conservatives (once again, Buchanan etc.) won’t vote for him because of his amnesty for illegal aliens and his “guest-worker” program.

Populist, “Main-Street” conservatives (ditto) won’t vote for him because he has been entirely a servant of Wall Street and the big-business interests.

Decentralist, states’-rights conservatives won’t vote for him because he has only added to the power and importance of federal government.

Fiscal conservatives won’t vote for him because he cut taxes, went wild with both military and civilian spending, and gave us the biggest budget deficits since the Reagan years.

And now that the Democratic nominee has been more or less chosen . . . militarist conservatives won’t vote for Bush (even though he has been an arguably successful war-leader) because he is a “chickenhawk” who spent the Vietnam War (not) serving in the Air National Guard, and he’s going up against a decorated war hero.

The only constituencies Bush can really count on will be the big-business conservatives, and the social-religious conservatives. And some of the latter also happen to be isolationists, nativists, populists, and/or decentralists.

How can Bush possibly win?

[PatriotX]

Compare and Contrast: Conservative Principles and Bush Admin Policy

**Revitalizing Conservatism**

The Split on the Right. Conservatives are fighting each other… …David Frum [a NeoCon] made…a banner denunciation of any conservative with reservations about the invasion of Iraq. …conservative intellectuals and activists opposed or even those critical of it before the fighting or even those who mentioned that protecting Israel’s interests could complicate matters were all labeled paleo-conservatives and pushed off to the nutty fringe. …some of who differed on principle, but most simply saw the facts differently.

…today, Reagan mainstream conservatism lacks a public intellectual voice.

…neo-conservatism soon replaced limited government as the ideal and filled the pages of the journals on the right…[National Review] even called for a revival of colonialism under U.S. auspices and the building of an American empire. Bill Buckley…[condemned] empire-building as incompatible with American conservatism.

…NR and the [Weekly] Standard…[expressed] mild encomiums that it would be pleasant if [GWB] moved right domestically… By 2000, there was no opinion journal heralding the limited-government position…

…conservatives had agreed that all foreign policy had to be justified on the criterion–was it in “the just interests of the United States”? …Bill Kristol, Max Boot and Paul Johnson…[said] that a new American colonialism was required to bring peace and democracy to the world.

…If the U.S. government has the ability to bring peace and democracy to the world, big government can obviously also run America’s economy and plan its social life–and limited government becomes irrelevant.

…there is a need to…move back to [conservatisms’] first principles…to start returning power to states, communities and the people rather than support the lesser-evil big government solution.

• COPYRIGHT ©2003 AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION*

Big-Government Conservatism

…[Bush] has tolerated a surge in federal spending, downplayed swollen deficits, failed to use his veto, created a vast Department of Homeland Security, and fashioned an alliance of sorts with Teddy Kennedy on education and Medicare. But the real gripe is that Bush isn’t their kind of conventional conservative. Rather, he’s a big government conservative.

…[Reagan] declared in his inauguration address that government was the problem, not the solution. There, Bush begs to differ.

Big government conservatives prefer to be in favor of things because that puts them on the political offensive. Promoting spending cuts/minimalist government doesn’t do that.

Another trait is a far more benign view of government than traditional conservatives have. Big government conservatives are favorably disposed toward what neoconservative Irving Kristol has called a “conservative welfare state.” (Neocons tend to be big government conservatives.)

Bush has never put a name on his political philosophy, though he once joked that it was based on the premise that you could fool some of the people all of the time and he intended to concentrate on those people.

© Copyright 2004, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved

12

[El_Kabong]

The only constituencies Bush can really count on will be the big-business conservatives, and the social-religious conservatives. And some of the latter also happen to be isolationists, nativists, populists, and/or decentralists.

And Milum, of course. That oughta swing it.

[rjung]

@BrainGlutton

How can Bush possibly win?

By waving the terrorist bogeyman, of course.

“If John Kerry is elected President, he’s gonna raise all your taxes, then invite Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein over to the White House for tea! And while he’s offering them lemon cookies, them evil terrorists will rise out of their secret salt mines, swarm over our cities, and make everyone learn Muslem and wear dirty robes! Save your family from robe-wearin’ Islams and vote for ME (an’ Dick Cheney) in November!”
As for the OP, I’ve been saying something similar for a while – the Republican Party wouldn’t be a bad bunch to hang with, if it wasn’t for all the religious fundamentalists who’ve hijacked it since the days of the Reagan revolution. It’s now at a point where “Republicans” is a euphemism for “fundamentalist neo-cons”, and “Democrats” is an alias for “everyone else.” With any luck, perhaps the 2004 elections will be a solid rejection of the policies of the far right…

[Desmostylus]

@rjung

By waving the terrorist bogeyman, of course.

“If John Kerry is elected President, he’s gonna raise all your taxes, then invite Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein over to the White House for tea!”

Of course he would, wouldn’t he? Bush and Rumsfeld did, so naturally the Bushies think that it’s an effective smear.

“We’re traitors. We know the traitor business. We’re the experts. And it’s our expert opinion that Kerry is gonna be a traitor. So vote for us instead. Coz, well, we’re beter at it than Kerry.”

[Planet_of_the_Shapes]

What if there is another terrorist attack on the continental US though, not too long before the election, like the Madrid bombing? Do you think that will go against Bush (his anti-terrorist policies are not working) or in favour of him (we must support our leader)?

[Una_Persson]

I somehow think that culturally speaking, another terrorist attack before a US election would have the opposite response to what was seen in Spain. There is not an overwhelmingly large public groundswell of opposition to the Iraq war in the US, and there has always been a large portion of the public who feels “we have the strongest military in the world - let’s use it with effect.” An Al Queda attack in October is more likely to cause another invasion, the CIA being given free reign to commit and fund assassinations (or perhaps even terrorist responses, who knows), billion-dollar bounties on terrorists, etc.

A terrorist attack, I feel, would ensure a Bush victory.

One thing we know is that Al Queda does Big Things. I think in fact it’s very likely that the next attack on the US will be with a “lost” Soviet MIRV warhead packed into a U-Haul. No prizes for guessing which city they’re likely to go after…

[Dogface]

Conservative: America should be for the Americans. It is not our business to be world cop. It is not our business to go out of our way to get rid of “oppressive regimes”. The best US foreign policy is one that rejects foreign entanglements as much as possible.

Bushista: Violate all the above Conservative principles with glee.

Conservative: We are a federal republic. The powers of the federal government are not innate and inherent. They are delegated from the powers of the states and the people. Should a state wish to exercise its rights it must be permitted to do so as long as this exercise does not simultaneously tread on the rights of the citizens of that state.

Bushista: Violate all the above Conservative principles with glee.

Conservative: The US Constitution is an essential and delicately-balanced document. Its function is to outline the FUNDAMENTAL activities of government. It is not to be diddled with for other issues.

Bushista: Violate all the above Conservative principles with glee.

Conservative: Fiscal responsiblity is vital to good government. Government debt is bad. High government spending only leads to the enslavement of the people and must be avoided.

Bushista: Violate all the above Conservative principles with glee.

Conservative: Government is best when it is least. If a government grows in size, it is failing.

Bushista: Violate all the above Conservative principles with glee.

Bush and the Bushistas are anti-Conservatives. They are less Conservative than was Bill Clinton.

[Desmostylus]

@Una Persson

A terrorist attack, I feel, would ensure a Bush victory.

One thing we know is that Al Queda does Big Things. I think in fact it’s very likely that the next attack on the US will be with a “lost” Soviet MIRV warhead packed into a U-Haul. No prizes for guessing which city they’re likely to go after…

If I understand you correctly, about the target being the Iraq War Heroes Convention, then it wouldn’t ensure a Bush victory. Coz, like, he wouldn’t be a candidate anymore.

[Aro]

…despise Bill Clinton as fervently as Newt Gingrich …

On a complete and shameless hi-jack from the main point, I was curious about the above statement:

You say you (personally) lean to (traditional) conservative ideals in government - low taxes, low spending, less government interference, personal responsibility etc… - all completely valid ideals. But from my (European) perspective, Clinton was a much better ‘conservative’ (certainly fiscally) in this sense than Bush has been. Also, from what I understand, he elected conservative judges to SCoUS, wasn’t seen as weak with regard to National Security etc… From my perspective he fulfilled that type of conservative governmental role much better than Bush has.

I guess the question is: why the complete and abject hatred for Clinton from conservatives that claim to value traditional conservative ideals? (even if he was an ‘evil commo pinko’ democrat)

Does this attitude stem more from “party-line-pandering” than honest policy support?

[UncleBeer]

But from my (European) perspective, Clinton was a much better ‘conservative’ (certainly fiscally) in this sense than Bush has been.

Perhaps in fiscal matters, but in strictly social matters, Clinton was anything but a conservative. And let’s not forget that Clinton was president during the era of the Internet stock bubble - a time of great economic expansion and rising government revenues. I think this, more than anything, led to the appearance that he was a fiscal conservative. There’s also the fact that the House of Representatives, which was controlled by Republicans at the time, holds the purse strings. They have to approve the Executive branch’s proposed budget. But yeah, Bush is in no way a fiscal conservative - and many of us are upset about it.

[Shodan]

@Aro

On a complete and shameless hi-jack from the main point, I was curious about the above statement:

You say you (personally) lean to (traditional) conservative ideals in government - low taxes, low spending, less government interference, personal responsibility etc… - all completely valid ideals. But from my (European) perspective, Clinton was a much better ‘conservative’ (certainly fiscally) in this sense than Bush has been. Also, from what I understand, he elected conservative judges to SCoUS, wasn’t seen as weak with regard to National Security etc… From my perspective he fulfilled that type of conservative governmental role much better than Bush has.

No, Clinton did not appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court. He opposed welfare reform until it was clear it was going to pass without his support. He raised taxes and did not cut spending (Republicans had to shut down government to do that). He attempted to increase the deficit. The elimination of the deficit did not come about until the Republicans got control of Congress.

Clinton had an atrocious record on national security, ranging from gays in the military to wag the dog on the eve of his impeachment, selling secrets to the Chinese in return for campaign contributions, the treaty with North Korea in 1993 that they immediately began to violate, etc. He attempted a federal take over of the US health care system under socialistic principles.

Add to that his extensive record of abuse of government, personal dishonesty, Filegate, Travelgate, continuous and extensive lying on every topic under the sun, and you have a poor excuse for a President. About the only conservative initiative he made was NAFTA. The rest of it was him taking credit for things he didn’t do.

As far as rejecting Bush for Kerry because Kerry is more conservative, I don’t see how that is a reasonable position. Kerry is going to raise spending and taxes a hell of a lot more than Bush will (if he is elected and can get anything past a Republican Congress). Kerry is also weak on national security and very much in favor of a nanny state.

I think Apos made this point in another thread - Kerry’s only chance to cut spending will come when none of his bills make it out of Congress. He is not much of a legislator, and is therefore unlikely to overcome the Republican majority in Congress. And I expect it will be more difficult for Kerry to take credit for things than it was for Clinton, who was adept at that in ways that Kerry cannot approach.

The drawback of the “vote for Kerry - he can’t do anything” approach is when some genuine action is required - say against terrorism. Then we have an ineffectual President like Carter when we need a strong one, and we have to rely on Kerry’s handlers to push him to do the right thing.

The country needs a leader. Kerry is not a leader. He won medals with very honorable service in Viet Nam, and seems to have been coasting ever since. The Presidency is not an entry level position. This is the drawback with presenting experience in leadership as a handicap, as seems to be the task of Democrats in 2004.

Regards,
Shodan

[IzzyR]

I can’t argue with any individual’s feelings, but I would challenge the notion that there has been a widespread wave of “would-be Republicans turning into ersatz Democrats”. According to the NY Times:

The Times/CBS News poll offered the latest evidence that the race for president was as tight as has long been predicted. Even after two weeks in which Mr. Bush has run televised advertisements promoting himself and attacking Mr. Kerry, and in which Mr. Kerry has enjoyed the glow of favorable coverage that greeted his near-sweep of Democratic primaries, the two men are effectively tied, with 46 percent of voters saying they supported Mr. Bush and 43 percent backing Mr. Kerry.

Just where might all Bush’s support be coming from - Democrats? There is no doubt that a lot of conservatives are disillusioned by Bush - mostly on spending - but for the most part they are not going anywhere because they have no where to go.

[Johnny_L.A]

He attempted a federal take over of the US health care system under socialistic principles.

I think it’s shameful that in the U.S. people lose their health coverage if they lose their employment. Oh sure, you can use COBRA. You’re out of work, but you can pay hundreds of dollars per month to maintain your health coverage. Absolutely shameful!

[Aro]

I don’t have the time or inclination to wade into a fully-fledged debate on these issues, so would just like to thank you guys (Unclebeer & Shodan) for your comments and perhaps follow up on a couple of points (apologies to the OP for the continued mini-hijack):

@Shodan

No, Clinton did not appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court.

He certainly did have moderate or conservative appointees - and never pushed to have any liberal appointees. The majority of his selections were confirmed quickly and unanimously by the Republican senate, so they were hardly controversial. (But I’d be interested in seeing a balanced non-partisan synopsis of his appointees for comparison - if you know of one.)

Add to that his extensive record of abuse of government, personal dishonesty, Filegate, Travelgate, continuous and extensive lying on every topic under the sun, and you have a poor excuse for a President.

This is a completely personal assessment made all the more ironic (in my eyes) for the fact your hero the incumbent has compiled an arguably worse record in only 3 1/2 years in office. Do you believe that dishonesty in politics is limited solely to the Democrats?

Kerry is going to raise spending and taxes a hell of a lot more than Bush will (if he is elected and can get anything past a Republican Congress). Kerry is also weak on national security and very much in favor of a nanny state.

Can I have a go with your crystal ball? How do you happen to know so much about the future behaviour and policies of a particular candidate? Especially interested in the conclusion that Kerry is “weak on national security”. Can you elaborate? Thanks.