Political: Is Bush a Conservative?

[roni]

I have read that Bush and the Republican party have strayed from their conservative roots, and that is why the Grand Old Party has been having some problems.

Paul Krugman is a liberal columnist with the New York Times, making him immediately suspect to many, but his column today tries to make the case that Bush has not veered from conservatism, but rather stays close to the conservatism of the past few decades.

Here is the start of his column

Same Old Party

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 8, 2007

There have been a number of articles recently that portray President Bush as someone who strayed from the path of true conservatism. Republicans, these articles say, need to return to their roots.

Well, I don’t know what true conservatism is, but while doing research for my forthcoming book I spent a lot of time studying the history of the American political movement that calls itself conservatism — and Mr. Bush hasn’t strayed from the path at all. On the contrary, he’s the very model of a modern movement conservative.

The rest of it is here.

[MWC]

W's problem is that he is an incompetent. So whatever ideology that claims him will always end up sorely disappointed.

[eccentrictinker]

Nope.

[Brent & Kim]

Originally Posted by MWC

W's problem is that he is an incompetent. So whatever ideology that claims him will always end up sorely disappointed.

He did'nt get to where he is today, a world leader, because he is an incompetent. Thats a very broad comment.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by MWC

W's problem is that he is an incompetent. So whatever ideology that claims him will always end up sorely disappointed.

You don't think he could be a kind of front man guided along by others, do you? That would pretty much explain all that about how he got where he is, I mean...



Steve

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by ryberg

You don't think he could be a kind of front man guided along by others, do you? That would pretty much explain all that about how he got where he is, I mean...



Steve

[MWC]

Originally Posted by Brent & Kim

He did'nt get to where he is today, a world leader, because he is an incompetent. Thats a very broad comment.

I don't think that career trajectory was necessarily W's own idea. I think he was backed, and promoted, by some very powerful folks in the shadows.

I would question whether he is, indeed, viewed by the world as a leader.

Back to my original use of the word -- I have yet to see a consistent set of core ideals being put to work on Bush's agenda. Unless he is a conservative to a nihilistic degree -- in that he so wants the federal government to be diminished in power that he has purposefully set about to destroy it. If that's the case, he's been doing a bang-up job.

[eccentrictinker]

W's problem is that he is an incompetent. So whatever ideology that claims him will always end up sorely disappointed.

You don't think he could be a kind of front man guided along by others, do you? That would pretty much explain all that about how he got where he is, I mean...

I don't think that career trajectory was necessarily W's own idea. I think he was backed, and promoted, by some very powerful folks in the shadows.

I would question whether he is, indeed, viewed by the world as a leader.

Back to my original use of the word -- I have yet to see a consistent set of core ideals being put to work on Bush's agenda. Unless he is a conservative to a nihilistic degree -- in that he so wants the federal government to be diminished in power that he has purposefully set about to destroy it. If that's the case, he's been doing a bang-up job.

And some of you folks wonder why PDS is taking a break.

I've pretty much given up on this board. For polite, civil, political discourse, I now go to DailyKos.


Please, please nominate Hillary!

[roni]

Originally Posted by eccentrictinker

And some of you folks wonder why PDS is taking a break.

I've pretty much given up on this board. For polite, civil, political discourse, I now go to DailyKos.


Please, please nominate Hillary!

How easily people forget the record. Nothing you quoted was impolite or uncivil toward you or any other poster here. All your quotes demonstrated was that individuals felt free to post civil and polite posts that disagree with your ideology or view of the world. The posts were not complimentary toward the USA's current president, that is for sure.

So, express your dislike of that sort of treatment, but do not try to justify by saying that these posters were impolite or uncivil to other posters here, because your quotes do not come anywhere close to making that case.

[MWC]

Originally Posted by eccentrictinker

And some of you folks wonder why PDS is taking a break.

I've pretty much given up on this board. For polite, civil, political discourse, I now go to DailyKos.


Please, please nominate Hillary!

I don't think Mark would have minded this at all. Yes, he would have corrected my points ... teehee! ... liberally, but I think what he objected to in the past was the personal invective that crept in with other posters' comments.

[ryberg]

I also wonder that you could find anything impolite in there. Even the light joking is (tee hee) liberally sprinkled with s and s and s.

It all has a pretty clear logic, too. I mean, our current President is not exactly a Bill Clinton or a John Edwards, born into a lower or even middle class single parent family and having to claw his way up to a position of some prominence. Claiming he must have worked very hard and been very smart and capable to get where he is is like claiming that a handsome and successful son in the Kennedy clan must have had to work hard and been very smart and capable to get where he is. Either one of them starts the race to success a couple of steps from the finish line, way ahead of the vast majority of people in our society. This is just objectively clear whether the person in question or the person making the observation is on the left or right of the political spectrum.

Steve

[MWC]

For me, the big issue swirling around W is his pronounced anti-intellectualism. He's publicly pronounced that he's proud of not over-thinking problems, that "in his heart" he knows he has good instincts for coming up with solutions. Not! What he has come up with is a hodgepodge of God-knows-what (literally, according to W) ... that leaves him incapable of adhering to an ideology which, whether I agreed with it or not, would at least lend some cohesiveness and overarching sense to US policy.

Which touches on what Steve writes about his upbringing. W was born on third base and thinks he's a great batter as a result. Any lip service he gives to the idea of compassion is shown to be just that -- lip service -- when it comes time for his administration to deliver the kind and kinds of service folks had come to expect from their federal government.

In contrast, I don't think I would have similar complaints about an administration run by, say, William F. Buckley Jr., or James Baker III. Both men born of privilege, both extremely conservative -- but both place a high value on education and expertise, and as a result have a cohesive world view. One I would might not always agree with -- but I would always know where they were coming from.

[Jacko]

I hear the moderate's rage and frustration......

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by MWC

For me, the big issue swirling around W is his pronounced anti-intellectualism. He's publicly pronounced that he's proud of not over-thinking problems, that "in his heart" he knows he has good instincts for coming up with solutions. Not! What he has come up with is a hodgepodge of God-knows-what (literally, according to W) ... that leaves him incapable of adhering to an ideology which, whether I agreed with it or not, would at least lend some cohesiveness and overarching sense to US policy.

Unfortunately I sense that in this respect, for the most part, he accurately reflects a trend in American society over the past decade or so. It's cool not to think. Or just regular, real thoughtfulness = bad over thinking almost by definition. Research and commentary from those experienced and educated in a given area are routinely rejected as spurious, if not worthless, without consideration, and with heavy sarcasm and scoffing usually thrown in for good measure, underscoring the point that it's not that particular bit of research but the very idea of research and thinking that is being rejected.

These are then replaced with a mumbo-jumbo style belief in gut decisions. There was always a tension between the two approaches, but I don't remember even during the conservative high point of the Reagan years or during father Bush's follow-on term the kind of out-and-out disdain for reason and thought and science and research and planning based on it that we have seen since I think about the mid/late 90s. It's like some kind of revenge ON the nerds or something, though that idea makes it sound funnier than it is, by a good margin.

I like that baseball analogy, by the way. Strikes me as a bit more accurate or complete than mine about the finish line.

Steve

[roni]

Sounds like an Assault on Reason to me.

The below comes from Al's message to readers on Amazon.com's page for the book

I've dedicated my book, The Assault on Reason, to my father, Senator Albert Gore Sr., the bravest politician I've ever known. In the 1970 mid-term elections, President Richard Nixon relied on a campaign of fear to consolidate his power. I was in the military at the time, on my way to Vietnam as an army journalist, and I watched as my father was accused of being unpatriotic because he was steadfast in his opposition to the War--and as he was labeled an atheist because he dared to oppose a constitutional amendment to foster government-sponsored prayer in the public schools. The 1970 campaign is now regarded by political historians as a watershed, marking a sharp decline in the tone of our national discourse--a decline that has only worsened in recent years as fear has become a more powerful political tool than trust, public consumption of entertainment has dramatically surpassed that of serious news, and blind faith has proven more potent than truth.

We are at a pivotal moment in American democracy. The persistent and sustained reliance on falsehoods as the basis of policy, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, has reached levels that were previously unimaginable. It's too easy and too partisan to simply place the blame on the policies of President George W. Bush. We are all responsible for the decisions our country makes.

Reasoned, focused discourse is vital to our democracy to ensure a well-informed citizenry. But this is difficult in an environment in which we are experiencing a new pattern of serial obsessions that periodically take over the airwaves for weeks at a time--from the O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson trials to Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith.

Never has it been more vital for us to face the reality of our long-term challenges, from the climate crisis to the war in Iraq to the deficits and health and social welfare. Today, reason is under assault by forces using sophisticated techniques such as propaganda, psychology, and electronic mass media. Yet, democracy's advocates are beginning to use their own sophisticated techniques: the Internet, online organizing, blogs, and wikis. Although the challenges we face are great, I am more confident than ever before that democracy will prevail and that the American people are rising to the challenge of reinvigorating self-government. It is my great hope that those who read my book will choose to become part of a new movement to rekindle the true spirit of America.