As Bush nears the end of his term as President and thus the end of his time as an active force for conservatism, it’s inevitable that there will be some consideration amongst conservatives whether the dogged defense of his policies has helped or hurt their cause (and granted, there is no consensus on what the exact cause is, as with all political philosophies.
A recent post by conservative (but recently turned Bush critic) Glen Greenwald has set the conservative blogosphere ablaze with recrimination, denouncements, and so forth. There’s a lot to digest, so I suggest reading both of the key threads:
Do Bush followers have a political ideology?
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/02/do-bush-followers-have-political.html
Follow up:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/02/follow-up-to-bush-post-yesterday.html
Greenwald makes a lot of pretty important points. He points out that a lot of the conservative blogosphere has become what it decries: as the now defunct site “Spinsanity” chronicled, the rise of emotional codewords over arguments has reached a fever pitch.
Greenwald also searched out and found a fascinating slice of the past: a Free Republic article on Clinton’s use of a secret warrant system called FISA.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a27337612f5.htm
The most amazing comment: “Any chance of Bush rolling some of this back? It sounds amazing on its face. Why didn’t Wen Ho Lee just “disappear” into one of these Star Chambers, never to return?”
Contrast those responses to the reactions of the Free Republic crowd on Bush’s warrentLESS wiretapping programs.
While certainly one could argue that 9/11 played a part in changing people’s opinions, Greenwald rightly points out that a distrust of government power, even in times of danger, has always been a conservative principle, and it seems more like knee-jerk defense of Bush is as much at the heart of this as any change in opinion. Certianly, there’s been none of the signs of any one rethinking anything that would signify and acknowledged change in opinion. At the very least, you’d think that people that criticized Clinton for doing things far far tamer than Bush has done would, if 9/11 had changed their minds, at least turn around an admit that Clinton had foresight that they lacked. Instead, they seem to blame Clinton for being too timid: forgetting that he was opposed by them and many conservative Congresspeople at the time.
Anyway, Greenwald makes a lot of points more sincerely than I can. He’s in big trouble, because of course liberals are going to unthinkingly seize on his opinions as a celebration of division within the ranks. (I wonder if they’ll give equally due conseridation to his views on government spending, abortion, and so on?) But there’s a lot worth debating here outside that noise chamber: about the future of conservatism after Bush, about how Bush has changed things for the conservative movement, and so on.