Where's the Beef?

New at Reason: John Hood says the lack of conservative red meat in the State of the Union address could leave President Bush's re-election campaign feeling anemic.

Comments

[Lakeside104]

I like to consider myself a conservative independant, but didn't vote for Bush in 2000 (Pat Buchanen sp?) and certainly won't in 2004. I don't trust him, and see way too many connections between his actions and his connections to the elite.

So my vote choice is limited to third party or Kerry. I thought his speech was very well delivered, both in content and style, to appeal to the Republican party faithful who will vote for him because of the love of him/the party. From a political point of view, if I was a Democratic presidential contender he would look invincible. The Democratic responses seem juvenile.

The masses will continue to vote for their own interests, without concern for history, freedoms, fiscal realities, or the pending surrender of our nation to the world system. What effects that surrender is my concern, I suspect it will be economic before political or warfare. In that realm, the Democrats are more stable... after all it was Bush senior that brought the old phrase "New World Order" to the fore.

Largely, the Democrats and Republicans worship at the same alter, they just appeal to different groups as a means to acheive a common end.

Lakeside104

[Burg]

"Lack of conservative red meat"? The problem with that speech is that was all there was.

[Andrew]

Ideological purists in both parties make this sort of argument in every election-- and that is just the trouble...they make this argument in EVERY election, and it can't possibly be ALWAYS true, or equally true, or true in quite the same way every time.

The credibility of conservative-- and other ideologically "pure"-- activists who presume to give Karl Rove political advice, (for me) depends a lot on whether I have ever heard them say anything different.

Two thirds of Iowa caucus voters WHO CLAIMED TO BE ANTI-WAR did not vote for Howard Dean (who made a case similar to John Hood's), because they were concerned about his "electibility". Iowa caucus voters are well to the left of most self-described Democrats, and far more politically sophisticated. They see THIS election as being about the political Center (at least from the point of view of their party), and I see little reason to doubt their judgement.

That doesn't mean Bush should craft an identical strategy, but the Center should be among his concerns-- where is the evidence he has any real problems with his base? Why doesn't his base worry a bit more about his "electibility".

[Bo Peep]

The "red meat" compassionate conservatives eat is lamb. Lamb with sharp, steel teeth. Baaah!

[Mark S.]

It doesn't matter. The vast majority of conservatives will fall in line and re-elect Dubbya regardless of what he does, because: 1)They may not like his fiscal policies, but he's fighting the moose-lims and homos. 2)Big spending and Big Government programs really are not that bad as long they are proposed and run by Republicans. 3) Where else are they going to go? Those dope-smokin', abortion lovin', flag burnin', godless ACLU libertarians?

Bin Ladin could run as a Republican and these morons would vote for him. "Hey! At least he's for traditional values."

[David]

I agree. While there are some conservatives who still believe in limited government, far too many are only against big government programs and social engineering when the Left is in charge. However, when social conservatives are in charge, social engineering is good. Just examine the president?s proposal to use the powers of the federal government to get the poor married. Not only is the proposal not a proper function of the federal government, but also there is an absence of scientific evidence to justify the assumption that the federal government will be successful at getting the poor married.

[Jean Bart]

Have conservatives ever believed in limited government? Or at least the particular strain that Bush represents (if he does so)?

[Nick B]

How big is this libertarian-conservative base that the article is talking about anyways? Here is why Bush isn't pushing a smaller government, for every libertarian-conservative who may not vote for Bush in 2004 because he is throwing a sack of taxpayer dollars at Mars, there are probably 10 moderates who will vote for him because he is proposing all these programs which they like. Don't blame the president (he is just being a politician, if you expect him to be anything else you are an idiot), don't blame the system (even though it doesn't always choose the right thing, democracy is better than the alternatives), blame the people. Big government is just more popular today.

[Jean Bart]

BTW, it is generally my European experience that conservatives in Europe are not interested in limited government, but government which promotes their agenda. Ergo, you have an extremely conservative German government in the 19th century creating an unfunded national pension system (a deplorable idea inherited by first the British, and then rest of the "West").

[ed]

"...extremely conservative German government in the 19th century..."

So, JB? Nothing bad happened as a result, did it?
😉

[joe]

JB, the answer to your question is complicated by the fact that there are a host of different definitions of "conservative" floating around, based on the anti-Left coalition of the Cold War. So you end up with racist pork lovers in Dixie, urban libertarians, and security-minded suburbanites all laying claim to being "true conservatives."

Some conservatives support small government, some support activist government.

[John Hood]

A couple of quick responses. First, the conservative movement -- talking heads, institutions, radio shows, state and local leaders, etc. -- are not "falling in line" with the Bush domestic agenda. They are attacking it, as is evident throughout the media reaction this morning. I don't think mass defections to other candidates are likely, as I argued in the piece, but turnout and energy problems are quite possible.

Second, to JB, your post illustrates perfectly the important distinction to be made between "conservatism" as advanced in Europe and the American conservative tradition, which is fundamentally different. Part of the problem is the language: what is consider liberal in much of the world is called "conservative" in the US, and what is considered social democracy elsewhere is called "liberal" here. The Reagan rhetorical version of American conservatism is still popular among Republicans, at least in the abstract (hypocrisy abounds throughout politics), which is why I think the disappointment with Bush on that score is growing, as it did with his dad.

As far as how big a base within the GOP this is, my polling is a little dated but essentially you can consider it to be at least a third, more if you add some moderates on the one side and libertarians on the other who aren't precisely Reagan-style Republicans but who have similar concerns about spending. The social-conservative faction is somewhat larger in votes, but they are less reliable and represent far less campaign money, intellectual firepower, and communications assets.

[Jean Bart]

ed,

Well, it is often said that the twin evils of Bismark were his pension-state and militarism; its a largely reductionist remark but it has a measure of truth. 🙂

[Nick B]

"As far as how big a base within the GOP this is, my polling is a little dated but essentially you can consider it to be at least a third, more if you add some moderates on the one side and libertarians on the other who aren't precisely Reagan-style Republicans but who have similar concerns about spending."
But what percentage of those may actually leave the Republican ticket and go with Kerry or no one at all (I consider those who vote for third party candidates amoung the latter)? Compared to what percentage of those who like big government will leave because the mean old small government people get their way and billions of tax dollars are not thrown to wasteful government programs?

"The social-conservative faction is somewhat larger in votes, but they are less reliable and represent far less campaign money, intellectual firepower, and communications assets."
The CC did have enough power to win Bush the primary back in 2000.

[matt]

Hood - a few questions: Will the conservatives turned off by Bush's big government ways stay away as they did in '92 and '00, or will they be more likely to show up this time because they fear a Dem might botch the "war on terror"? Will a token veto happen before the election and would that appease the conservatives who might stay away? It seems to me that spending might bother folks, but they are willing to rally on other issues and throw up their hands on massive government growth.

[J. Alexander Lowman]

This is a little off-topic, but I thought it was funny (sad?) that in Bush's speech he talks about the American people spending money more wisely than the government (which they were able to thanks to the tax cuts), but then soon after talks about how much spending has increased on education. Hello? Does that make any sense? Not to mention the rest of his spending spree.

Boy, I sure don't want him in office again...I've voted Libertarian the past few elections and I was just about ready to change that and vote Dem to try and get Bush out of office, but I must say, it'll be a tough decision. Luckily I have time to think about it. 🙂

[R. C. Dean]

I voted Libertarian the past few elections and I was just about ready to change that and vote Dem to try and get Bush out of office, but I must say, it'll be a tough decision.

Leaving aside the war, in what way would a Dem be more libertarian than Bush? They will raise taxes, raise spending even faster than Bush has, proliferate regulation, and do God knows what on free trade. Most of them voted for the Patriot Act, none of them have the balls to come out against the War on Drugs. Is there any libertarian complaint against GWB that doesn't apply in spades to Dem?

[dan]

Whoa there Dean. Slow down a bit why don't ya. Kerry and Edwards are both more or less free traders. Even Dean to some extent (was at least). Pretty much all of them are running against bush's deficit which means they may raise taxes but I seriously doubt they would ramp up spending like Bush has. Not one of them has called for this insane drug testing spree. And I doubt most would vote to continue the Patriot Act. In fact about half of them rant and rave against it any chance they get. I think Bush has got all the spades in pretty much every case you mention except for taxes.

[dude]

Dean - a vote for a democratic president is a vote for gridlock, which is a Good Thing. I sort of want to like Kerry. . . is he halfway decent? (compared to Bush).

[Rick Barton]

From John's article:
It is difficult to overstate the extent to which the limited-government, free-market faction of their coalition?including mainstream Reagan Republicans, old-style balanced-budget moderates, and small-l libertarians?have been dismayed by Bush's dismal record on federal spending and entitlements.

So, what should limited government types do now? Voting for Bush makes all the sense of giving a chronically abusive relationship "one more try".

We need to move the political center of gravity in our direction. When we defect (I'm thinking, the Libertarian candidate of course.- Disclosure: I have voted for the Libertarian candidate for president in every election since Reagan) in the presidential race we should be quite vocal about it. We should expatiate at length as to why we judge the Bush administration to be unworthy.

We should also explain to every one who will listen, why we are voting for more limited government Republican candidates (in those very rare cases Dems. as well) for other offices and extol the virtues of these candidates and delineate the differences between them and Bush and other RINOs (Republicans in name only) and of course, their Democrat opponents.

It is possible to once again have a Republican candidate for president for whom a case can be made that he/she is worthy of our support. Under Reagan budgetary control from 1982-89 the average annual real domestic discretionary spending was down 1.3%. Also, the Federal Registry, the compilation of all federal regulations actually shrank during the Reagan years.

We can have a political landscape where a smaller government candidate for president can be viable but first we must insist that the center of gravity move in our direction.

[anonymous coward]

What do you mean, there's no conservative red meat?

* Defense of marriage amendment
* Abortion stuff
* the rise of the religious-bureaucratic complex.
* Kick terrorist ass in the past
* Kick some more terrorist ass in the future.

[Lakeside104]

Anonymous Coward said:

"What do you mean, there's no conservative red meat?

* Defense of marriage amendment
* Abortion stuff
* the rise of the religious-bureaucratic complex.
* Kick terrorist ass in the past
* Kick some more terrorist ass in the future."

I took the marriage amendment comments more as a statement against a judicial branch that overstepping their constitutional borders.

Abortion stuff comments were the standard obligatory soundbyte, more like a bullion cube.

The rise of the religious/bureaucratic system bothers this conservative. I am not in favor of any of it. It is just more government spending, and it comes with strings attached. Wise religious organizations will refuse the money.

Seriously... Kicking terrorist's ass is not a liberal/conservative issue, certainly not in the context of this debate.

[Sarantitis Joshua]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 80.53.159.22
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/20/2004 09:05:51
There is no end to the adventures we can have if we seek them with our eyes wide open.