Bush, The Liberal
Richard Cohen makes the case that Republicans have noted for the last six years -- that the Bush administration has not been conservative at all, but rather an exercise in big-government, liberal action. Calling Bush a "neo-liberal", Cohen hits some convincing points in his argument that Bush resembles a cross between Woodrow Wilson and Lyndon Johnson (via Memeorandum):
An overriding principle of conservatism is to limit the role and influence of the federal government. Nowhere is this truer than in education. For instance, there was a time when no group of Republicans could convene without passing a resolution calling for the abolition of the Education Department and turning the building -- I am extrapolating here -- into a museum of creationism.Now, though, not only are such calls no longer heard, but Bush has extended the department's reach in a manner that Democrats could not have envisaged. I am referring, of course, to the 2001 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, better known as No Child Left Behind. I will spare you the act's details, but it pretty much tells the states to shape up or face a loss of federal funds. It is precisely the sort of law that conservatives predicted Washington would someday seek -- and it did.
Similarly, let's take a look at the much-mocked notion of diversity. Bill Clinton was widely berated for his effort to have an administration that looked like America -- women, African Americans, Hispanics, you name it. Whether by design or not, Bush has also managed that feat. A female education secretary is one thing, but a national security adviser -- the uber-macho post -- is something else, and that went first to Condi Rice. And over at Justice, Bush chose Alberto Gonzales, the son of Hispanic migrant workers and, incidentally, a lawyer with the singular gift of forgetting meetings he attended. (In private practice, did he forget to bill?)
I am not suggesting that any of these appointees -- including Bush's former White House counsel, Harriet Miers -- are what is pejoratively known as affirmative action hires. I am suggesting, though, that Bush has not only diversified his Cabinet and staff but obviously got enormous satisfaction in doing so. You only have to listen to Bush talk about the virtues of immigration -- another liberal sentiment -- or his frequent mention of the "soft bigotry of low expectations" to appreciate that the president is a sentimental softie, what was once dismissively called a "mushy-headed liberal."
Allow me to make the case that this is also true when it comes to Iraq. I acknowledge that the war is a catastrophic mistake and was incompetently managed. But if you don't think it was waged on behalf of oil or empire, then one reason for our involvement was an attempt to do some good -- rid the world of a really bad guy and make life better for Iraqis and others in the region. This "liberal" intent may have left Dick Cheney cold and found Don Rumsfeld indifferent, but it appealed to Bush and it showed in his rhetoric and body language. Contrast it to the position of the so-called foreign policy realists, exemplified by the first President Bush and his trusted foreign policy sidekick, Brent Scowcroft.
I've made this same argument a number of times on this blog. In fact, most people forget that George Bush did not run as a doctrinaire conservative in 2000, but rather as a "compassionate conservative" -- one that would use the federal government as a solution to social ills, rather than cast it as a culprit for them. Bush added Dick Cheney to the ticket in large part to assuage conservative fears that he would turn into his father.
As Cohen notes, those fears have been mostly realized. The Bush administration has overseen profligate spending by successive Republican Congresses, and pushed that spending along with efforts that expanded federal oversight in areas conservatives fear to tread. Chief among these has been the expansion of the Department of Education, which has seen its spending more than double during his tenure. It seems that Bush has not yet seen a federal program he dislikes well enough to cast a veto on spending.
Iraq, as I have noted, is not an exercise in conservatism either. It is an expressly Wilsonian project, attempting to make the world safe for democracy by transforming the Middle East. The conservative strategy would have been to topple Saddam and leave the Iraqis to figure out the rest -- but that would have left vast oil resources in the hands of the strongest factions able to grasp power in the vacuum left behind. Instead, Bush and his team decided to attack terror by kicking out the struts that prop it up -- the oppression and despair in the Muslim world created by kleptocracies and mullahcracies in the region.
Cohen agrees, although reluctantly. Cohen calls the realism that Scowcroft and Bush 41 used to leave Saddam Hussein in power, and then to stand by while he decimated the Shi'ites in the immediate aftermath of the first Gulf War, "sickening". He worries that the "incompetently managed" effort will cause liberals to forget that it was John Kennedy who said that we would "pay any price, bear any burden . . . to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Cohen seems to be reaching a conclusion that many Democrats have reluctantly started to grasp; we cannot leave Iraq to the terrorists, and betray the Iraqis and our own values a second time.
If that conclusion means that Bush has to be accepted as a liberal, I'm fine with that. I think George Bush himself would accept that as a workable tradeoff.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on May 29, 2007 8:50 AM | Comments (31) | TrackBacks (1)
Comments (31)
Posted by RBMN | May 29, 2007 9:28 AM
I think George W Bush can't make up his mind whether his public policy hero is JFK or RWR. Fortunately, in his personal life it's RWR.
Posted by Tom Shipley | May 29, 2007 10:13 AM
Cohen seems to be reaching a conclusion that many Democrats have reluctantly started to grasp; we cannot leave Iraq to the terrorists, and betray the Iraqis and our own values a second time.
Murtha's plan that he put forth a year and a hhalf ago include the folowing steps:
"To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines. "
This is essentially the same idea that's being thrown about now about reducing our presence in Baghdad while contentrating our efforts on fighting AQ in the west. No one has evered called for a complete abandonment of Iraq (except for maybe Richardson).
The writing is on the wall. In the next year or so we'll start withdrawing troops and focus our attention on AQ in the country.
It's a pretty good comprimise between the left and right. We step out of the way of the insurgency/civil war and let Iraqis take control of the country while we help them take out AQ (our shared enemy).
Posted by Labamigo | May 29, 2007 10:13 AM
I don't think now is the time to gnash our teeth over whether Dub Yuh is a closet liberal. Let's get out from under him first.
I've said on here for quite some time that the GOP needs to run away from Dub Yuh if it is to have any chance to elect a president in 2008 and to re capture one or both houses of Congress.
And Newt agrees. In the recent New Yorker article, he says the only way to retain the White House in 2008 is for the GOP nominee to run against Bush. The GOP will get blown away if its nominee runs on a platform to continue the policies of the Bush administration.
Posted by jpe | May 29, 2007 10:35 AM
Cohen certainly did mangle the term. It's a little sad, and not a little disturbing, that a man with a column in a nationally renowned newspaper doesn't know what a neoliberal is.
Posted by james23 | May 29, 2007 11:55 AM
"In the recent New Yorker article, he says the only way to retain the White House in 2008 is for the GOP nominee to run against Bush. The GOP will get blown away if its nominee runs on a platform to continue the policies of the Bush administration."
I agree. Which is one reason, among many, that John McCain would not be a viable nominee. In too many senses, he is an extension of President Bush.
Posted by Tom | May 29, 2007 12:10 PM
Scapegoating homosexuals in national elections, opposing embryonic stem cell research, supporting the expansion of free trade, supporting Neo-Conservative shoot-first-ask-questions-later foreign policy, outlawing various forms of abortion.
Oh yeah, Bush is REAL liberal. Richard Cohen is an addition, and another example of how the Washington Post has a right-wing slant on its editorial pages by hiring actual conservatives like Krauthammer and Will to make partisan GOP arguments while hiring neoliberal and DLC weasels like Cohen and Brooks (not even a centre-left, a pure centrist) to make Dem arguments. Pathetic.
Posted by Okonkolo | May 29, 2007 12:15 PM
This article strikes me as one of those "I have a deadline and can't think of an opinion piece" exercises.
Capt said: The conservative strategy would have been to topple Saddam and leave the Iraqis to figure out the rest --
Would not a conservative strategy maybe just have kept the containment going (keep economic and political pressure, enforce no-fly zone and blasting any military building that so much as turned on a microwave oven), and worked through proxies?
And really, to defend Bush's Iraq strategy as deciding "to attack terror by kicking out the struts that prop it up -- the oppression and despair in the Muslim world created by kleptocracies and mullahcracies in the region" flies in the face of his claims at the time: the immediate threat of WMDs to the USA, not Muslim despair and kleptocrasies, not giving them freedom, or democracy...those goals came later, after the original one lost its credibility.
Posted by Tom | May 29, 2007 12:30 PM
Scapegoating homosexuals in national elections, opposing embryonic stem cell research, supporting the expansion of free trade, supporting Neo-Conservative shoot-first-ask-questions-later foreign policy, outlawing various forms of abortion.
Oh yeah, Bush is REAL liberal. Richard Cohen is an addition, and another example of how the Washington Post has a right-wing slant on its editorial pages by hiring actual conservatives like Krauthammer and Will to make partisan GOP arguments while hiring neoliberal and DLC weasels like Cohen and Brooks (not even a centre-left, a pure centrist) to make Dem arguments. Pathetic.
Posted by syn | May 29, 2007 1:18 PM
I'm glad the practice of sucking out babies brains is now illegal, that was some nasty stuff.
Posted by burt | May 29, 2007 1:43 PM
Is Cohen so obtuse that he has just realized that Bush had to invent a new term so that he could call himself some sort of conservative, a popular term at the time. Some while before, a couple of liberal Democrats who were more warlike than some other Democrats of the time, but not relative to previous generations of Democrats, pioneered the idea by founding the NEO conservative movement.
I do have one big disagreement with the newly conscious Cohen: "soft bigotry of low expectations" is a well accepted conservative idea.
Posted by FilthyMcNasty | May 29, 2007 2:45 PM
"opposing embryonic stem cell research"
Funny how Bush is routed for running up the debt but CERTAIN government expense are given a nod & a wink.
Why does the gov't have to fund this, Tom??
Posted by Dan | May 29, 2007 2:50 PM
Bush's Iraq war is no attempt "to make the world safe for democracy by transforming the Middle East"; it's an attempt to make middle-eastern oil available for western exploitation.
Posted by SteveZimmer | May 29, 2007 3:10 PM
"it's an attempt to make middle-eastern oil available for western exploitation."
Always nice to hear from Crackpipe Dan.
Posted by Monkei | May 29, 2007 3:15 PM
Liberals suck
Bush sucks
ergo, Bush must be a liberal.
Solid. Only in wingnut land.
Bush ran on a lot of things, including his pledge of No-Nation Building ... yet here we are ... building away in the middle east.
Hi ho, hi ho.
Posted by flenser | May 29, 2007 3:29 PM
Scapegoating homosexuals in national elections
I could have sworn that it was the Democrats making a big stink about Foley and Haggard last October. What were the Republicans doing?
Posted by Eric | May 29, 2007 4:35 PM
If in fact we're using the same definition of "scapegoat' (not a guaranteed in a thread about "neoliberal" being poached), Foley and Haggard were not scapegoats because they actually did what they did. Sure, sometimes they did it while not doing the crystal meth they were carrying, but the hypocrisy they were upbraided for was true and factual and they were the only ones guilty. Now, I don't know what form of "scapegoat" might be a synonym for "responsibility in the face of hypocrisy," but I'm willing to learn.
And that they were vilified for their hypocrisy is normal and expected. What else should have happened, that Democrats welcome these people who have preached intolerance for years?
Posted by TyCaptains | May 29, 2007 5:48 PM
For nearly the last two years now I have believed that Bush is the best thing the Dems got going on.
He's literally the gift that keeps on giving...
Posted by gaffo | May 29, 2007 7:03 PM
No Captain - conservative would not have removed Saddam in the first place.
As you say Bush-41, Schocroft were Conservatives and didn't no support toppling Saddam
STOP re-writting history bubba.
....................
Oh ya, Iraq is NOT East Germany - there is no USSR today. THAT makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE in terms of our National interests.
We have no business in Iraqnam.
Posted by grognard![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| May 29, 2007 8:41 PM
Bush was not alone, he had a whole lot of help from his fellow “conservatives” when it came to blowing off the pay as you go spending limits and deficit spending [long before the war made a convenient excuse]. We have two big government parties the only difference is Democrats don’t lie about it, they say they are for big government and deliver on it. But that’s OK, so long as you have Rush Limbaugh bashing libruls and diverting “conservatives” attention from what the Republicans are doing you can get away with it. But that is what conservatism has become, nothing more than a liberal bashing cult.
Posted by jaeger51 | May 29, 2007 8:52 PM
Yep, GWB is not a conservative except on religious-based issues.....he's more like a pre-hippie era Democrat. The GOP has betrayed the Reagan Revolution, and are paying the price. It always annoys me when people walk away from what works to do something else. I guess that's why I'm a conservative. lol. Only good thing is you KNOW the Dem ideas will fail and backfire, cause they always have before. Just wait till the taxes go up, and the new enviromental rules kick in, and the benefits for the illegals go up....and the economy tanks. Hello 1978! Only question is if they will be able to pass the "Fairness Doctrine" so their friends in the MSM can help them keep it a secret.
Posted by jaeger51 | May 29, 2007 8:56 PM
GWB is even doing a pretty good LBJ imitation in how he's handling Iraq. Never, ever, use the Army as police. THAT was the lesson of Vietnam. Find your enemies, and smash them. THAT was the lesson of WW1, and WW2.
Posted by brooklyn | May 29, 2007 11:48 PM
LOL !
More B-D-S...
So then President Reagan too, was a liberal...
Providing amnesty and enabling the Social Security mess with Tip O'NEILL.
Letting Democrats spend more percent of GDP than we do today, working compromise after compromise to focus on his priorities, such as fighting the Cold War.
I have watched a self destructive Conservative element, lose all context of reality, pushing this 'more super ultra Conservative' nonsense, which sounds an awful lot like the left wing extreme denial.
So now, a President who CUT TAXES is a liberal?
That is a real fine joke Captain.
It is entirely absurd.
These same cynics were so pleased with GW after 9-11, certainly in 2005 after he was reelected.
This is the same garbage, that helped empower Nancy Pelosi to the Speaker Position.
Democrats thank all the Conservatives who are embracing this embarrassing destruction of their own, helping to elect the Democrats to power in the future.
Pure madness...
As soon as immigration is reviewed, Conservatives seem to lose all sense of reason, and act like little upset children.
One would expect the Captain to lead?
Another example...
Ms. Malkin was on tv, saying that there are Right Wingers who support 'open borders'. That is such a generic misrepresentation of fact, that it is insulting.
Yes, some on the Right, want to find reasonable labor for their business. But they never would say, 'i want the borders open'.
That is utter hyperbole, and something a Conservative Pundit should feel embarrassed to say.
Fact and truth is essential.
But this irresponsible hyperbole, rhetoric, etc., is only going to unfairly represent a number of Americans, diminish support for the admirable GOP, and empower the likes of Hillary Clinton.
As if some of the jaded, didn't learn a thing from the NOV. 2006.
Long ago, we could expect responsible Conservative insight, but not now...
GW Bush rebuked Kyoto, CUT TAXATION, put Alito - Roberts on the SC, created the Patriot Act, produced an historic FREE TRADE DEAL WITH INDIA, put testing back in Schools, rejected International Courts for Our Armed Services, increased Military Spending, tried to bring Private Accounts to Social Security, improved Border Security, etc., etc...
But the children judging, who are now the 'end all - beat all' of Conservatism, are not happy.
'Boooo hooo', they seem so upset with an Immigration Reform plan to deal with Millions of Illegals already here.
Wow...
What logic...
Simply silly.
When did Conservatives become so wimpy?
Next, we will see a Hillary Presidency, because the next Candidate for the GOP just wasn't perfect enough for those who like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul.
And many Conservative Pundits who know better, are simply following the same 'bs' isolationist fashion.
It really is pathetic.
By these standards, there is no one who is truly a 'conservative'.
Posted by Canuck | May 29, 2007 11:56 PM
Similar thing happened in Canada. Mulroney was elected as a Conservative, but by the end of his term you couldn't distinguish him from a Liberal.
Schwarzenegger elected as a Republican, might as well be a Democract.
So on it goes...
I know this sounds like a cliche, but where is the next Reagan? Where is he hiding? America needs him.
Posted by Robert | May 29, 2007 11:57 PM
Bush is a Conservative (and republican).
He has shown those are failed ideologies in practice, like Soviet-style Communism.
To the scrapheap of history ye go!
Posted by brooklyn | May 29, 2007 11:57 PM
jaeger51 ?
Oh my...
Bush leads the removal of the Taliban and Saddam from power...
LBJ never could get the Vietcong to be removed from their control of the North.
Please...
get some facts before you pedal this baseless myth.
Iraq, in the middle of a very troubled Arab Region, has been liberated, given a Democracy with Constitution, with one of the lowest casualty rates in Military History.
and you compare it to Vietnam?
absurd.
Posted by Adjoran | May 30, 2007 12:30 AM
Absolutely, Bush did not run as a doctrinaire conservative. His record in Texas supported his claim to "compassionate [i.e., big spending and minority outreach] conservatism," and if he had ever intended that as an electoral ruse to be abandoned for Reaganism upon election, he had to shift gears after his narrow and hotly contested win in 2000, with a diminished majority in the House and no functional control in the Senate.
Therefore, he did exactly what he said he was going to do in the campaign: reach across the aisle, enlisted Ted Kennedy for NCLB. Did he fail to mention it would cost a bundle and only address the problems in public education at the margins? Well, maybe he assumed voters didn't just fall off the turnip truck, and have enough sense to know how things get "done" in DC.
Bush also avowed a touchy-feely foreign policy up until 9/11. His sole "conservative" credentials are his forceful response to attack and his support for tax cuts. And we cannot know how he might have acted on either foreign or economic policy if 9/11 had NOT happened.
From any conservative viewpoint, the Bush Administration has not been one where much progress was made.
Posted by MarkD | May 30, 2007 7:30 AM
I'll just add the judges, recognizing that one of them was a near thing. Me, I'd give GWB a gentleman's C as a conservative.
Posted by FilthyMcNasty | May 30, 2007 8:45 AM
Robert whelps...
"Bush is a Conservative (and republican).
He has shown those are failed ideologies in practice, like Soviet-style Communism."
Yeah, right. Bush has yet to do anything substantial that is in fact a conservative practice.
Keep flailing Robert, you've got all the makings of a Rosie wannabee.
Posted by jaeger51 | May 30, 2007 9:21 PM
Brooklyn...the war in the Middle East started out nicely..we defeated the enemy, and removed their leaders from power. THEN GWB lost track...instead of cracking down hard, using whatever force was necessary to crush insurgency and possibly spreading the effort by timely deterrence bombing of military assets in Syria & Iran...we went into a Vietnam mode. Patrol, be very careful not to offend the media's general conviction that we are the Nazi invaders, have majorly restrictive rules of engagement that put our troops in unnecessary danger, and allow the enemy outside the border to resupply and provide arms. Sounds like Vietnam to me..with the even worse angle that there is no Russia or China to threaten nuclear war if we go too far. And just like Vietnam, we could be there, using the Army as police, losing troops, for the forseeable future. Why should Syria & Iran stop supporting the insurgency? It's a no-lose scenario for them, just as it was a no-lose scenario for Russia and China to support the North Vietnamese. Oh, and in Vietnam, any time we wanted to hold any particular piece of ground, we could. Anywhere we wanted to bomb, including N. Vietnam, we could. However, without cutting off their supplies, we could not stop the insurgents. Where's the difference now?
Posted by harleycon5 | May 31, 2007 7:18 AM
Of course it is true that Bush is a Liberal among Republicans. But as we can see the party is no longer ruled BY conservatives; just look at the Amnesty sham. And of course, just as Liberals, our leaders, Bush included, are treating us as complete morons they wish to lead. I am sure they envy the Dems their constituency.
On the Issue of "No Child Left Behind" I know this is big govt intrusion. But in this case I don't think Bush was wrong. Public education in the US continues to fail in comparison to much of the world. While we are the 2nd best funded educational system in the world per capita, our students are hardly near the top. I know a teacher who noted that in her school there were other teachers who watched soap operas or read books as their students did very little. To these crumbs their jobs are an entitlement, and the students education, secondary. What NCLB does is puts pressure on these teachers, and requires at least modest educational improvements via testing. This is nothing that a good teacher should fear, but certainly the bad ones, and the teachers union, do.
Posted by Robert | May 31, 2007 8:59 AM
Hasn't done anything substantial as a conservative practice?
His abandonment of the poor in New Orleans after Katrina is a conservative "classic".
Abandsoning the poor while comforting the rich and powerful is the definition of Conservatism.
I know that , as an American, I'm not supposed to be smart enough to catch on.
But just because it's called "paying attention" doesn't mean it's expensive.