2006: A World Awash in Fear and Fascism — The Year in Review
If the words “Conservative” or “Liberal” are to have any meaning at all, there are criteria by which you must judge a person’s political disposition.
“Liberal” has undergone a huge transformation over the last century as various interest groups have twisted it to their advantage. However, support for greater government control of the economy and a more expansive view of the government’s capacity for social engineering are the primary hallmarks of Liberalism since 1968.
Conservatism has been marked by pretty consistent standards since Edmund Burke: rejection of utopianism, respect for organically-evolved political solutions. By these measures, I am pretty Conservative despite the fact that I don’t buy in to stem-cell bans or prayer in the schools or a bunch of other issues of the day.
So, for example, I find myself in agreement more with Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan than John Maynard Keynes and Jimmy Carter. I do not find myself in agreement with George Bush on many issues.
What is happening here is that Bill is trying to treat “Conservative” with the same plastic disregard for its meaning as “Liberal” has been treated. And, surprise, surprise, he is doing it for political gain (another modern liberal trait).
If you would like to see a true Conservative – one of the fathers of modern Conservatism – take Bush to the woodshed – then I would encourage you to start here:
http://www.supremefiction.com/theidea/2006/12/how_the_right_w.html
As I say, it is a start. The fact is that Bush has violated both of the central tenents of Conservatism in his execution of the war in Iraq: he has acted in broadly utopian terms pursuing change in the Middle East and he has shown little respect for organically-evolved political solutions. Combine this with an almost impenetrable wall of yes-men that make it almost impossible for him to see the real political needs on the ground in this war and you have a prescription for a failed war and a failed presidency (it pains me to say that as I originally supported the war). For more on that topic see here (a more balanced article than I expected given the source):
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/061218fa_fact2
The fact is that Bush has been a disappointment to anyone who can reasonably be called a “Conservative” by relevant philosophical definitions.
*That* is why I won’t “take him at his word” and call him a “Conservative” as Bill suggests.
