06 March 2008

Why I won't be upset if McCain wins

Essentially, the reaction against Bush and Bushism has set in. Nothing can turn it back. I would much prefer a Democratic victory because I think it will take that to bore down deep enough into the Federal Bureaucracy and ferret out the political hacks and incompetents who have infested it since Bush entered office. It was at its most obvious with Gonzo at the Justice Department and his string of third rate lawyers from a fourth ranked law school, but other departments have had their problems. And, there are always the clowns at the American Embassy in Hanoi who decided to split up 26 American families and make their lives hell so they could score an ideological point against the Vietnamese government.

So it is a pleasant surprise to find this in an old issue of the Washington Post by Harold Meyerson.

McCain's whole campaign is anti-Rovian. His core supporters are Republican moderates and Republican-inclined independents, and then he picks off enough conservatives to prevail. Even if he didn't have a history of rocky relations with various right-wing leaders, the very trajectory of his campaign would pose a threat to the conservative movement, notwithstanding that McCain is philosophically an heir to Barry Goldwater.

Bush has been his own nemesis and now he finds himself publicly embracing the Un-Bush, a man he repeatedly insulted and smeared in his own run for the presidency. I think that Meyerson is right in the major thrust of his argument:

With his preemptive war and seemingly permanent occupation in Iraq, and his attempt to privatize Social Security, George W. Bush pushed American conservatism past the point where the American people were willing to go -- pushed them, in fact, to the point where they recoiled at the conservative project. And with that, American conservatism shuddered to a halt. In the 2005-06 congressional session, Republicans still controlled both houses of Congress, yet they introduced no major legislation.

This exhaustion of conservatism has been apparent all along in the Republican presidential contest, where the chief point of agreement among the leading candidates has been to make permanent both the Bush tax cuts for the rich and our occupation of Iraq. The conservative agenda has been winnowed down to supporting what remains of Bushism. That's not only a losing formula for November, it also means that intellectually, conservatism is running on empty.

So - I suppose that William F. Buckley really is gone, and if it is McCain in November, I can live with that.


but I don't think it will be.

Labels: , ,

2 Comments:

At 07 March, 2008 00:04, Blogger jack perry said...

I agree & disagree.

Agree: McCain is the anti-Bush, and runs a genuinely different kind of campaign. "The designated adult" over at NRO put it well: successful candidates for party nominations always run from the inside out, or as Nixon said, appeal to the extremists first, then moderate yourself for the general election. That's how Bush defeated McCain in 2000, and how Romney hoped to defeat McCain in 2008.It's how Obama and Clinton are planning to do. McCain, instead, has run from the outside in: win the nomination by starting out with a general election appeal, then try to unite the party afterwards. But will it work?

Disagree: Bush didn't push American conservatism as far as it could go. Bush, oddly enough, was a Rockefeller, Eisenhower, or Nixon-style Republican: big, activist government, adding new plans, wielding the power of the government to strengthen his party's rule.

McCain frequently opposed Bush on conservative principles when so-called "true conservatives" (esp. talk radio hosts and NRO columnists) were carrying water for the Bush administration. (Near-quote from NRO at the time: "Watch my words, we'll miss Rumsfeld one day." That day has yet to come.) McCain was generally opposing many of these trends: earmarks, new entitlements, social justice pandering, etc.

To say that American conservatism "screeched to a halt" in the Bush years is grossly misleading, because Bush wasn't a conservative. Maybe McCain isn't either, but I'm not going to trust those "true" conservatives who insisted for 8 years we had to stand by Bush because he was the conservatives' president. Nor will I trust Meyerson.

 
At 07 March, 2008 15:46, Blogger Clemens said...

Bush billed himself as the conservative president, his supporters have always called him conservative, and he does seem to represent what passes for conservatism in American politics.

You obviously know, and I know, that this has nothing much to do with true conservatism. But it is what they have been peddling for the last eight years.

That is why I think the Republican Party has to come so close to disaster this fall that it understands that it needs a new Bill Buckley to redefine conservatism as a responsible political philosophy that can do some good for the country. The current mishmash of self-serving coalitions and self-serving 'electoral-victory-at-any-cost' has to go.

It is the same reason I tend to favor Obama over Clinton. Now THERE is a politico who understands 'victory at any cost.'

I am not familiar with Meyerson other than this one column but otherwise I agree with your last paragraph. As far as I can tell, there is no genuinely conservative movement in this country (except maybe for you, the late Bill Buckley, and Andrew Sullivan, all crying in the wilderness).

These clowns have to go.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home