The Bush Paradox

This article was featured in The Bulletin (Philadelphia-area newspaper) on 3/20/09. See the newspaper print version here (go to pg. 22).

When President Obama was on the campaign trail, his message was simple and clear: Hope and change. But no one ever asked him, “Change from what?” The answer from most liberal circles, which persists with venom today, was that we needed to depart from the hated Bush Administration and its conservative ideology. Now, as debate over President Obama’s radical agenda rages, supporters of his agenda dismiss conservatism as tried and failed under the Bush Administration. The argument goes as follows: If President Bush embodied conservatism, and the majority of the country wanted him out of office, then surely we ought to try liberalism. If conservatism failed, then its opposite must succeed. But did conservatism really fail under President Bush? Was President Bush even truly conservative?

During the Bush Administration, something very strange happened to conservatism: It became inextricably linked with President Bush and the whole of his policies. Conservatism came to mean pro-war, anti-homosexual, anti-abortion, pro-guns, anti-environment, anti-global warming, anti-Europe, anti-science, pro-God (and only the evangelical version), pro-big oil companies, pro-wealthy Americans/anti-poor Americans and minorities, and pro-Israel. To most Americans, this is what made a conservative a conservative. And with the incredible polarization of the last eight years, you had to either support or hate each facet of the ‘conservative’ agenda. If you were conservative, it was unthinkable to believe global warming might be a legitimate problem, or that the Iraq War was possibly founded on faulty ideology. If you were liberal, it was necessary to bash President Bush, and the thought of tax cuts or welfare reform was supposed to make you cringe. As often happens in politics, conservatism was dismissed along with its headline leader as a failed and unpopular ideology. It was time for a change, it seemed, and in came President Obama with an agenda sharply departed from his predecessor’s.

One of the great political tragedies of recent memory is the demonization and polarization of conservatism in its tie with President Bush. Issues that have little or no relevancy to conservatism, such as climate change or the Iraq War, now color an ideology that has bred success in our country since its founding. The sad irony of the situation is that President Bush, while he accomplished many great things–national security and strong judicial nominations, to name a few–was not a true conservative. He expanded government programs, deeply widened agency bureaucracy, and spent more than any President since WWII. He came into office with a surplus, and left with a gaping deficit. President Bush was a part-time conservative, cutting taxes while spending heavily.  In conservatism, tax cuts are the result of small government, not the driver. Small government means less government spending; less government spending means less need for tax revenue; less need for tax revenue means lower taxes. President Bush, however, widened government while still cutting taxes. What does that do? It creates the type of inflation and instability that debunks efficient markets.

It is even more troubling that people look back on Bill Clinton and hail him as proof of liberalism’s success. Clinton was one of the most fiscally conservative presidents in our nation’s history (many argue the most), slashing budgets and restoring prudent spending to Congress. He left President Bush with a $120 billion surplus by keeping spending low and government relatively small. His restraint was indeed helped by a strong Republican Congress led by Newt Gingrich, but you cannot ignore the bottom line results. At least in fiscal matters, Clinton was indisputably more conservative than Bush.

This all leads to two important points: 1. Conservatism should not be tied with the Bush Administration’s practice of “neo-conservatism”; 2. When practiced correctly, conservatism drives growth, liberty, and prosperity. Consider the four simple principles of Reagan-era conservatism: 1. Small government; 2. Low taxes; 3. Personal responsibility; 4. Strong national defense. These ideals brought the country roaring back under President Reagan, reinvigorating a stalled economy and downtrodden public spirit following the sharply liberal Carter era. Besides, who can’t stand behind low taxes and strong national defense? Who doesn’t want people to take responsibility for their actions, and for government to resist wasteful handouts? Who doesn’t want money to be in the hands of the efficient consumer and marketplace? Who doesn’t support individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Conservatism was never meant to be tied with a controversial Iraq War, Creationism, Christianity, or big oil. Those issues all have merit, but are not debated here. Conservatism was never meant to be polarizing or divisive, or even political. Rather, conservatism is meant to be the unifying answer to the undying question of government’s proper role in society. For conservatives, that answer is simple: Small and limited. And that type of government has never failed–it is the underpinning of what has differentiated our great nation since its founding.  

-Matt Benchener from TruPolitics.net