With President Bush's convincing win over John Kerry and an increased Congressional majority, all appears to be well in Republicanland. In fact, by any account, the President's victory is rather impressive: How could a rather uncharismatic president with a mediocre (at best) economy, a quagmire half way across the world, an accumulated debt that would make Lord Keynes blush, and who has earned the vitriolic hatred of a good part of his country's citizenry beat anyone?
While it may be somewhat astonishing that Bush and Karl Rove were able to convince enough voters who are not conservatives of the President's virtues (or Kerry's shortcomings), it seems even more perplexing that self-described right-wingers came out in droves to re-elect George Bush. They have their reasons of course – Many of them are ardent hawks; Bush has mouthed the language of moral conservatives; "John Kerry would be worse," and the perennially pathetic hope that George Bush will see the light on spending and limited government now that he has secured his second term.
On the issue of the war, conservatives love to feel patriotic. While they might feel a bit reticent about wars fought for the wrong reasons (by their standards) such as purely humanitarian efforts, peace keeping missions, and those started by Bill Clinton, nothing makes their hearts swell with nationalistic fervor more than one fought for the "right reasons." They simply won't come around on this issue, for that would be "unpatriotic." Besides, it would mean siding with those peaceniks, who quixotically seem to have objections to bombing other people's property and persons.
While my last piece on LRC (Military and the Market) sought to draw attention to the socialism of militarism, I won't make a similar appeal to conservatives here, but I do have an inquiry for them: Suppose the war in Iraq is justified and that the President made the right decision. Does occupying a foreign nation and (ostensibly) transforming it into a Western-style democracy really trump your interest in all other matters? Is military conquest really so important that the expansion of the Department of Education, record setting deficits, and a new entitlement program (prescription drugs) have become forgivable offenses on the part of the Bush administration? If so, then the Republicans are really nothing more than a meaner version of the Democrats who sometimes show up to church.
What about those social conservatives to whom the media ascribes Mr. Bush's (and the Republicans') victory? True, in his first term the President did eliminate funding to foreign nations for abortions (for the most part at least), and he did prohibit the use of federal funds for stem cell research. In fact, even from a libertarian perspective, these positions are tenable. After all, all foreign aid as well as corporate subsidies should be abolished.
But here's one for this crowd of Bush backers: You claim that this election marks some sort of moral and religious reprieve for our nation – I didn't realize that our Lord was a registered Republican – but who exactly has been running the show for the last four years? By your own admission, society has not become any less crass – vulgarity permeates our media, young folks (and even older ones) live Bacchanalian lifestyles, and it was under W's watch that the issue of gay "marriage" came to the forefront.
Ah, but, of course Bush will appoint the right guys to the courts. Let's just hope his future nominees are better than the Bush appointment who recently ruled that illegal immigrants have an inalienable right to leach off the state. Perhaps Bush was the more pro-life candidate (except in regard to those folks who live in Iraq), but what exactly can he do (besides make the aforementioned appointments) to stop abortion? As for the Constitutional amendment to prevent homosexual marriages, the president has absolutely no role to in amending the Constitution. Additionally, since when was marriage under the purview of the federal government, or is federalism now also irrelevant?
Some conservatives may agree that Bush has not exactly been ideal, but have propounded the same old argument that the Democrat (Kerry) would be much worse. They may have a point. After all, Kerry probably would have increased the Department of Education's funding, reduced corporate tax "loopholes," persecuted corporate executives for making poor business decisions so his administration could look tough on corporate crime, busted the budget year after year, appointed lousy judges, raised tariffs on steel and timber, proposed an amnesty for illegal immigrants, eroded civil liberties, expanded Medicare, engaged in nation building, increased unemployment insurance, and habitually lied to the American people. We certainly wouldn't want that.
Finally, there is that sad lot who has come to grips with Bush's sorry first term record, but who holds out hope that the re-election of the President and augmented Republican majority means that the revolution we've all been waiting for is about to be realized. However, it seems like the promoters of this less than prescient perspective have already been proven to be false prophets. The Congress recently voted to raise the debt ceiling with almost exclusively Republican votes. The GOP also assailed the opposition for preventing seniors and others from getting their checks from DC. I believe Murray Rothbard would be under-whelmed.
Despite all of this, conservatives haven't just tolerated George Bush, they've hailed him. Does this mean that conservatism these days simply amounts to aggressive militarism supplemented with socially conservative and economically libertarian rhetoric? Perhaps, but it also indicates the Bush's greatest virtue to the conservatives is that an u2018R' appeared next to his name on the November ballot.
If one recalls, Bill Kristol, John McCain and the most stalwart of the neo-conservatives were all for Bill Clinton's war with Kosovo, yet the Republicans as a whole were less enthusiastic, and some conservatives (not of the paleo or libertarian persuasion) were adamantly opposed to it. Rush Limbaugh even attempted to jog Clinton's memory of his old anti-war days by playing anti-Vietnam war protest music during his show.
The same can also be said for domestic policy. Just as Limbaugh and company had a cow every time Clinton proposed a new spending initiative, they've given Bush a pass on most of his equally socialist programs. In fact, some have even praised Bush for offering "market based" reforms despite the fact that his programs have done nothing but cost the taxpayers more money and liberty.
However, just as sports fans root for their favorite team (usually without any rationale other than their proximity to its host city), Republicans love Bush because either a) He's a Republican or b) He's not a Democrat. They feel this way because they were either raised in GOP households or at one point they had some intellectual inspiration to be a conservative but in the end decided that being on the winning team is more important.
In their view, it's okay for the government to take their money as long as a Republican is the caretaker, destroying cities and then funding public works projects spreads liberty across the globe, throwing in a few references to the Creator in every speech will curtail our cultural decline, and Bush is the only leader who has proven he can keep us safe from future attacks.
On the last point, one might be inclined to agree. After all, if Bush and the Republicans continue on their current trajectory, the United States will be transformed into such a socialist dump that it won't be worth anyone's effort to attack us.
December 14, 2004
