Why Sullivan is Wrong

Andrew Sullivan takes on the concept of "Bush Republicans" today--noting (accurately, in my mind) that Bush isn't much of a conservative and probably doesn't appeal to the conservative principles of much of the GOP. Fine, with some quibbles, throughout, but he completely misses the mark on this:

The sad truth is that if Bush Republicanism exists, it's one of the most ramshackle distillations of political expediency ever tarted up as an "ism". The only compelling conservative message that Bush can use to appeal to the country as a whole is that he stands between us and a new wave of terror. So his campaign will have to be based in fear. I'm not sure that, in America, that works very well. But we'll see.

First, Bush does appeal on a few more typical conservative levels. His tax policy has been solid, and the Kerry/Edwards promise of rolling back those Bush tax cuts won't do a thing to enhance any belief that Bush = Kerry. His stated desire to at least partially privatize Social Security is also a big selling point to Republicans like me.

[As an aside, to be utterly honest, the Clinton White House had a much better economic record than the Bush White House. Partly luck, partly skill, and partly because of resistance to his more expensive proposals. That is, he was lucky to come into office at the very beginning of an upswing, lucky to no longer have to fund the cold war, and lucky that he didn't have to face the economic fallout of an incident like 9/11. He also showed great instincts on free trade and didn't do nearly as much tinkering with taxes as I expected at the beginning of his term. But what damage would have been done to our long term fiscal health if his and Hillary's universal health care package would have been embraced by a friendly congress? Bush's pill benefits still don't sit well with me, and the thought of a Clinton health care package would have been even worse. Yes, in a way, it makes me long for the days of gridlock. Almost.]

Bush also speaks the right language for conservatives when it comes to relations with other nations. That is, he uses hard diplomacy, carrots and sticks, and a willingness to put American interest above what is largely perceived as the UN's interests. Conservatives are embracing that, but not out of fear. We're embracing it because we see it as a pro-active attitude toward this century's first global crisis--we see someone willing to stand on principles to achieve a goal that we believe is laudable.

And some of us--maybe not the most conservative of the bunch--also see that the Bush Doctrine attacks not only the short term threats (by putting the terrorists on "the run," at least in theory), but the long term interests of the nation (by pushing hard for political change in those countries where terrorism is most likely to incubate). This isn't a campaign being run on fear, it's being run on the push to action--the belief that if we work to solve the problem now, we might actually make a change in the world for the better.

It will also be a campaign run on an economy that is showing some strong legs (even though little setbacks still occur, the economy as a whole really does seem to be motoring along rather nicely), on a pro-active and principled war record, and the hope of an even better second term.

The very basic fact of the matter is that Bush is not the most conservative American President in memory and that some of his decisions are not even close to the ones that I would make. But that doesn't make his positions so close to Kerry's that he loses any edge with conservatives--or, at least, it shouldn't. Kerry will be much less willing to engage other nations on terrorism either with strong diplomacy or military might, he will roll taxes back to a level that will make me cranky, and he will not even make a vague attempt at Social Security reform.

His spending might be slightly better or slightly worse, but what would be the profit in me voting for Kerry? Honestly, we do need to cut government spending (although those projected record deficits will probably be much smaller when the final tally comes in--the strength of the economy will boost tax revenues) and I would like to see someone willing to push harder for more free trade agreements instead of pushing for steel tariffs. But if the choice is between Bush and Kerry, and I know that those free trade and economic issues will be the same or worse under the Democrat, what would be my motivation to abandon my party?

Bush isn't a staunch conservative, but he isn't the train wreck that Andrew Sullivan seems to think he is. Of course, I don't have that one overriding, personal issue that Sullivan does, and I can't imagine that it doesn't taint the way he looks at Bush.

Read the rest.

Posted by zombyboy at July 8, 2004 01:31 PM | TrackBack