Incompassionate corporatism

During his campaign to take the presidency, George W. Bush used the phrase compassionate conservatism as a way to misrepresent himself to the American people. His record as governor of Texas showed otherwise.

Under Bush the GOP can no longer be fairly called the conservative party. Conservatism, as I understand it, means to preserve the status quo. In a political sense, this would imply the Democratic Party is the new conservative party, since democrats are the ones trying to preserve the 40-year-old Great Society that has shaped modern America. Or perhaps because they believe in the goals of the New Deal of the 1930s, creating an America where people are not exploited by corporations.

The true nature of Bush was expressed well in this post on an ACLU forum (spelling corrected):

Me: Old-line, genuine Conservatism used to be characterized by such notions as the 1776-esque “Don't Tread On Me,” and a general sense that everyone should be pretty much free to do whatever they like in pursuit of their hearts so long as they didn't hurt others. A Live and Let Live atitude toward Life, the Universe and Everything.

Like that quote from Jurassic Park: “I don't blame people for their mistakes, Dennis, but I do expect people to pay for them.”

Because of this general atitude, Old-line Conservatives saw no need for powerful government, and especially powerful central government. Never trust anyone or anything who has power over you. And as they saw little need for powerful government, they could see no reason for paying enormous amounts in taxes.

And they tended to avoid debt, both in their personal lives and in finding it acceptable for government.

Yet President George W. Bush says he is a Conservative, and God-knows-how-many millions of Americans who like to think of themselves as Conservative believe and support him.

Well, given an objective analysis of the Bush presidency, either they and he are not Conservatives at all, or the defination of what it means to be a Conservative has been radically changed.

Because through the implementation of the Department of Homeland Security, and the passage of the Patriot Act, and the contemplation of its successor, Patriot Act II, George W. Bush is presiding over the largest expansion of Government Authority since Lyndon Johnson, as well as shepherding its increasing centralization, not only at the Federal level (a term which becomes ever more a mirage), but in the Executive Branch as well.

This is not Conservatism.

While Bush gives lip-service to open-market principals and saving taxpayer dollars, his actual deeds demonstrate an agenda that seems better described as giving taxpayer dollars aways by the billions to certain well-placed friends in industry. And how on Earth he thinks he is saving taxpayer dollars by embarking on a war and occupation in Iraq and looking seriously at further wars is beyond me. And that doesnŐt even take into account the vast sums that will be allocated to his new Homeland Security bureaucracy.

For too many in this country, politics and political identity does not involve any actual thought and more closely resembles the devotion of sports fans to their teams. “I donŐt care how the Braves win so long as they win.” “I donŐt care what my president does so long as he is from my party.”

Emphasis mine. Where did the principles of the GOP go? They can't manage money, don't believe in smaller government, don't believe in states' rights, don't believe in rule of law and they send the military to countries all over the world for nation building.

Republicans are the party of hypocrisy, apparently.

kherr @ 23:33 CDT | link | politics