|
Volume CXXXIII, Number 14 |
 |
A "compassionate conservative"?
JAMES BAUMBERGER
COLUMNIST
When George W. Bush ran for president in 2000, he described himself as a "compassionate conservative." To many, the term was a paradox of sorts-along the lines of "postal service" and "airplane food."
At the face of it, the two words carry with them antithetical connotations.
But that was the beauty of the term. It was a way to describe Bush as the best of both worlds-a perfect strategy in an electoral system often dominated by the attitudes of the independent voter. This seemingly oxymoronic term has guided the Bush political strategy since he took office.
A majority of Americans describe themselves as conservative (it's a much more popular word than liberal), but they have become accustomed to America's compassionate social welfare programs and don't want to see them go. By calling himself a "compassionate conservative" Bush was saying to the electorate: "Like me because I'm a conservative, but don't worry, I won't take away Social Security and Medicare."
He's a conservative because he's cut trillions in taxes and he's increased defense spending.
He's compassionate because he's refrained from making huge budget cuts and he signed a huge expansion of Medicare and increased federal spending on education.
But can a president be all things to all people? Bush has at least tried to appear that he is, and to do so he's had to spend money. After all, it's rather hard for a government to show compassion without fiscal resources.
Even most conservatives do not buy the argument that Bush's tax cuts will in effect pay for itself by spurring economic growth. Therefore, by cutting revenues we're left with deficits unless the president is prepared to accompany the tax cuts with politically-difficult budget cuts, something we've all learned Bush is unwilling to do. And why would he? That wouldn't be compassionate.
Let's figure out the math. Tax cuts + increased defense spending + virtually no cuts in social programs + new social programs = deficits.
So, clearly the main casualty of Bush's political strategy has been the balanced budget and-some would say-our children's future. The negative effects of deficits are frequently overstated, but nonetheless real.
It is for this reason that Bush is being attacked from the right. True, fiscally conservative members of Congress sure do love tax cuts, but only when they can be paid for by surpluses or budget cuts. This isn't happening. Moreover, Bush's Medicare prescription drug plan almost didn't pass the House because of a conservative revolt in his own party over the cost of the program. Ire over Bush's risk strategy comes from both sides of the aisle.
So after three years of Bush's administration we have a clear sense of what "compassionate conservative" really means. I've done my best to develop a dictionary definition: A politician who appeals to his conservative base by cutting taxes (without accompanying budget cuts) while simultaneously spending money on various "compassionate" programs to appeal to the political center-in effect abandoning any sense of fiscal conservatism and driving up the national debt.
But this is really nothing new to the Republican Party. Reagan did the same thing. During his eight years in office spending on social welfare programs actually increased, even though he gained politically by calling the government the source of all our problems. Defense spending was up. Taxes were down. Deficit: way up.
"Compassionate conservative" is just the new name for an old play taken from Reagan's playbook. But this certainly shouldn't be confused with a "fiscal conservative." Bush and Reagan are anything but that.
For information on sending a letter to the editor, please click here.
|
FastCounter by bCentral |