Without debating GWB’s qualities or policies, I start from the assumption that while he has some positions that are classically “right-wing,” authoritarian, conservative, or other descriptor/pejorative of your choice (Patriot Act, free trade), he is closer to the middle, or the Left, on other issues (spending, immigration, etc.).
What national politician (or nationally-influential group/bloc) is the most visible, or credible, counter-voice to the Bush approach from a conservative (paleocon?) perspective? I don’t mean to limit this to the GOP – Zell Miller might be more of a paleo-con than John McCain, for instance; though I assume the more trenchant critics of Bush from a rightist perspective will more likely than not be from conservative/libertarian backgrounds.
Of course, the GOP has pretty good internal discipline, and there was no question of GWB facing an insurgent primary challenge this year; but if anyone had been able to pose a threat by “running to his right,” who would it have been? Is there anyone more mainstream than Ron Paul or Harry Browne?
Thoughts are also welcome on think tanks, organizations that may be (or could become) Bush critics from the right. Not so interested in pundits or commentators, as you can find one at any point on the spectrum that occupies a market niche.
Don’t know if it will be a factor this year (an alliance of paleo-cons and Kerry supporters or frustrated Deaniacs seems unlikely), but is there any danger that in a possible Bush second term, he will be handicapped (or whoever his chosen successor is will be thwarted) by conservatives making common cause with liberals in opposing “adventurist” foreign policies, or taking Bush on over spending, immigration, federalizing education, etc.?
My first thought of a response to the question in the title of this thread is “Genghis Khan.”
But to answer more seriously the part about think-tanks / organizations, he has been clearly been getting attacked from the right (libertarian) side by Heritage for his spending policies (using statistics quite deceptively to imply that non-defense, non-security spending has gone up more dramatically than it has) and the WSJ editorial page for his spending, protectionist (on steel), and climate change policies. (On climate change, they have attacked him for being inconsistent because he says the science shows it to be a real concern but then doesn’t propose any real action. They would prefer that he lie about the science [although obviously that isn’t quite the way they phrase it] so that it is more in line with his policy.)
John McCain I’d say. But I don’t think he’ll ever run for President again, unfortunately. But he’s a real power in the Republican party, and is also a cross over candidate, appealing to the center and even to the left somewhat…just on his personality and integrity.
A few observations on some of the comments here, though not relating directly to the question at hand:
xtismeJohn McCain is not a conservative and most conservatives dislike him intensely. And don’t be fooled by his act that he’s somehow a stand-up guy who is fighting against corrupt Washington. The man is a political opportunist, plain and simple. He plays to the media in a way that’s so blatant that I’m surprised it’s not noticed more. He is not courageous for championing the issues he chooses – tobacco regulation, campaign finance reform, gun control, anti-global warming initiatives, stopping the tax cuts, etc. He picks issues that are popular with the media and runs with them. He’s a politician, pure and simple; it’s just that he’s much more willing than most to put aside his principles for popularity. Unfortunately, it’s worked well for him.
jshore, I find it funny that liberals get so riled up about how “conservative” Bush is. As part of the libertarian camp of the Republican Party (only because the Libertarian Party is filled with people who are completely insane or who remind me of Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons a little too much), I find Bush’s policies to be little better than Clinton’s (of course, we did get welfare reform out of Clinton – I doubt Bush would have signed such a law). To just begin a list, Bush refuses to rein in Congress’s reckless spending, he waffles on free trade, he supports the renewal of the “assault weapons” ban, he signed the monstrous farm bill, etc. He really isn’t all that conservative on domestic matters, and I’m not sure his foreign policy can be labeled as either consrvative or liberal – it’s like nothing we’ve ever seen before, so there really is no precedent. But as far as what he’s done domestically, what has he done that’s so conservative besides cut taxes?
Sorry for the hijack, but I simply had to address those issues.
Renob: I find little to disagree with in your post. Especially about John McCain (although I do think he is more conservative than the democrats who fawn over him realize). He ain’t no caped crusader. I’ve seen him do his share of political grandstanding, and he just loves the limelight.
To the OP: Buchanan is visible, and he’s often described as a paleocon, but I don’t know how credible he is. There is a group of Pubs in Congress of about 50 or so who have tried to organize against defecit spending. They might count. But I think you need to look at things issue by issue, and not look for one guy to cover all the bases. I suspect W’s own brother, Jeb, would be a more traditional (small government) Republican. Don’t be surprised to see him on the ticket in '08, especially if W wins in '04.
I guess I mis-interperated the OP. My read was “Who in the Republican Party would be GW’s strongest rival at the moment”. As I don’t see GW himself as a ‘conservative’ I guess thats where my confusion is.
I like McCain. A lot. If he were running, thats who would be getting my vote. However I’m well aware of his faults, his selection of issues, his occational grandstanding, etc. He IS still a politician after all…a slimy breed to a man (or woman) IMO. Name me one that ISN’T like that and I’m betting if I dig harder I can prove you wrong.
He is a cut above most of the rest though…again, IMO. I’m also aware he isn’t radically conservative…I rate him middle of the road, with some issues where he leans right, some left…and thats why he’s my man. Thats exactly where I am myself. However, I didn’t really go into that in my own post earlier…all I said was that I think he is the biggest rival GW currently has in the Republican party, and that he’s well respected right and left. Afaik he’s NOT universally hated or whatever in the REPUBLICAN party, though there are some conservatives that are less than enamored with the man.
Anyway, as I obviously didn’t get the gist of the OP and responded in appropriately I withdraw my remarks. I really have no idea who is GW’s rival in his particular brand of ‘conservativism’…one of the neo-cons perhaps? JM put forth Buchanan and Jeb but neither of them (afaik) are even remotely close to GW’s brand of ‘conservatism’, so I don’t see how they would count. PB is an old time conservative and I think Jeb leans that way also though maybe not quite as far in as PB.
Well, I guess it is in the eyes of the beholder. As a liberal, I see McCain as generally fairly conservative but not one of these crony-capitalist conservatives that inhabit Washington. He is willing to look at issues and decide them on the merits, even if his philosophy differs considerably what from mine. And, he actually cares about and hears the concerns of the people as a whole rather than just the big campaign contributors. The problem with the rest of the Reps is that the blindly follow the line like lemmings on issues like global warming, campaign finance, etc. I think it is kind of pathetic that this sort of thing gets him lambasted by other Republicans.
Domestically:
(1) Tax cuts: In a time of exploding inequality where the majority of the monetary gains (as measured by after-tax income) in the economy have gone to the top 1%, he has enacted tax policies that actually increase this after-tax inequality. [Not to mention creating a fiscal train wreck…which does seem to be what conservatives do in practice these days although it is not explicit in their philosophy.]
(2) Judicial appointments. And who he says he likes on the Supreme Court (not moderately conservative folks like Kennedy and O’Connor but rabid ones like Scalia and Thomas).
(3) Crony capitalism: Cronyism and putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop has reached new heights under Bush. The major players in regulatory agencies in this administration are often former industry folk, and they are often essentially letting industry write the regulations.
(4) Environment: This relates closely to (3) but deserves special mention since in the past even Republican Presidents have generally not taken too many steps backwards on the environment. After all, Papa Bush signed the original framework convention on climate change and under his administration one or both of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts were renewed.
(5) Religious-right-leaning appointments to various scientific and science ethics committees (and international delegations regarding family planning etc.).
Foreign policy:
Well, I think you can characterize this neo-conservative foreign policy as conservative. In addition to the obvious, like Iraq, he has also made dangerous ideologically-driven decisions in terms of missile defense, nuclear weapons posture (e.g., funding of nuclear bunker-busting weapons which, if used or threatened against a non-nuclear signatory to the non-proliferation treaty would violate guarantees we made to these countries in order to get them to sign on [i.e., that we would not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations that sign this treaty]).
That’s a debatable point, and one for another thread. As I said above, though, I’m willing to concede that on tax policy, Bush has been conservative.
His appointments have been as conservative as Clinton’s were liberal. The fact is, he’s president, so he gets to appoint people who share his philosophy. That’s the way it’s always been. However, this is one area where I forgot to mention that he’s been conservative. So, I guess now I have to concede that in two areas Bush has been conservative – taxes and judicial appointments.
The power of bureaucrats, especially political appointees, to affect change is not all that great. They can merely change regulations; they can’t change laws. And since, again, this is the regular course of business – the president gets to appoint people with his philosophy to political appointments – I don’t see it as being that egregious. In fact, a lot of the people in these positions aren’t really all that conservative (Christie Whitman? C’mon). And even the ones that are generally conservative are hampered by the vast bureaucracy and the civil servants who are generally liberal and who will frustrate many of their efforts. So I’m not willing to concede this point to you.
Even though the Sierra Club and the rest of that ilk are crying about how Bush is raping Mother Earth, I don’t buy it. For one, Bush’s regulatory changes are most often going in the direction the enviros want, but just not as far. That’s what happened with the famous arsenic regulations and the roadless rule for national forests. On other issues, it’s often debatable that the things that these self-appointed “watchdogs of the environment” say will harm the environment – such as oil drilling on the North Shore of Alaska – will actually do so. The Sierra Club or the League of Conservation Voters are not the final arbiters of what is good for the environment, and I refuse to blindly accept their word regarding these issues.
Basically what I’m saying is that Bush hasn’t taken backwards steps on the environment. When he leaves office the environment will be cleaner than when he left it.
So? These committees have little real power.
If Bush were really all that conservative, and since he has a Republican Congress and Senate, you would expect to see a lot of new laws that move this country in a right-ward direction. Sure, we got tax cuts (twice), but what else? Dramatically increased federal spending (especially in areas such as health care and education, traditionally liberal causes), an increase in welfare to farmers, more federal control over education, a new entitlement program so old people can get cheaper drugs – these all sound like programs Democrats should love. Even on a law that might be considered conservative, the Patriot Act (which was supported overwhelmingly by Democrats, too), conservatives are increasingly joining in the criticism of that law. All in all, conservatives haven’t gotten too much out of Bush. A few federal judges, maybe, and some seats on meaningless committees and councils, and maybe a proposed regulation or two was made a little less harsh by the time it was finalized. But that’s about it. Much as Republicans criticized Clinton for being liberal when his legislative record was fairly conservative, Democrats are criticizing Bush for being conservative when his legislative record is fairly liberal. I guess that’s politics for you.
I think Bush’s most important and vocal rivals on the right, at the moment, would be Pat Buchanan and his America First Party (http://www.americafirstparty.org/). Bush is a foreign-policy neoconservative warhawk; the paleoconservative America Firsters are, not exactly pacifists, but isolationists, generally opposed to American military adventures abroad. Bush is an aristocrat and, judging by his actions rather than his rhetoric, an elitist; the America Firsters are populist conservatives who are just as suspicious of Wall Street as they are of the Washington insiders. Bush is all for NAFTA and economic globalization; the America Firsters are against it because it entails shipping American jobs abroad. Bush granted a limited amnesty to illegal aliens and established a “guest-worker” program; the America Firsters are nativists and want more restrictions on immigration (ostensibly for economic and cultural reasons, but one might be justified, especially after reading Buchanan’s Death of the West, in concluding that the AFP’s anti-immigration stance is based at least in part on white racism and a desire to keep out non-white immigrants). Bush has run up record deficits; the America Firsters are fiscal conservatives. Bush has expanded the role and power of the federal government; the America Firsters are states’-rights decentralists. Perhaps the only points on which Bush and the America Firsters would agree would be conservative social and religious positions. (But then there’s the Constitution Party (http://www.constitution-party.net/), which puts those concerns at its very core.) And gun control, I guess.
In short, Buchanan is undoubtedly an old-school conservative and he is clean against (almost) everything Bush stands for. I’m very surprised he hasn’t announced a third-party candidate for president this year; in an election as close as this one is going to be, it might tip the balance. Perhaps that’s why he hasn’t announced; as much as he hates Bush, he might like Kerry even less.
Buchanan did so badly in 2000 that I don’t think he’d make a repeat. When he announced everyone thought he’d have an effect on the race, and yet he barely did better than Harry Browne. I don’t think he wants to be humiliated again.
Roy Moore, the former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who got into trouble for his 10 Commandments shenanigans has made some noise about running as a social values conservative (maybe on the Constitution Party ticket). I think if he ran he might do OK, or at least well enough to cost Bush the election. Most social conservatives are very frustrated with Bush and his inaction on their issues, and Moore is a hero to them.
The GOP does indeed have extraordinary internal discipline; not just to keep potential rivals from making a run, but to keep** public** dissent to a bare minumum.
Nonetheless the died-in-the-wool conservatives find much to be unhappy with in the Bush presidency. (i.e. spending, immigration and others)
But how much of makes it to a newsperson? Not much.
So, IMO there is no “rival” as one would think about someone who might unseat him. As far a pure idealogical rival, I would submit Alan Keyes, and Steve Forbes.
John McCain, not a conservative? Horsehockey. He is a populist and a media hog – and maybe a bit loopy – but he is a conservative. The American Conservative Unioni has given him a lifetime rating of 84 – making him more conservative than Chuck Grassley but slightly less conservative than Bill Frist.
And McCain is my answer to GWB’s most formidable challenger.
[sub]Alas, I won’t be old enough to assume office until 2012… and that’s only if you can run at 34 if you’ll turn 35 before the election [/sub]
Joe Lieberman. No really, I’m being serious. While I’m confused as to why he identifies as a Democrat, he did find the aproval of a number of republicans, myself included, since he’s really cconservative for a Dem. Hell, he’s conservative compared to Bush. If he came over to the dark side, I think he’d do quite well for himself. Maybe by the next election he’ll come out and admit his republicaness and run against whoever the Dems put up next time.
[/sub]