Is Bush truly a conservative?

[moe.ron]

For this dialogue, the definition of a conservative is one that espouse classical liberalism. Discuss among yourself.

eta: to expand the discussion, would you consider Kerry a liberal? For this dialogue, the definition of a liberal is one that espouse classical progressivism. Discuss among yourself.

[Kevin]

Bush has been a real confusing guy for me and it's hard to label him liberal or conservative. If you want to make the argument that he's a liberal, it's not hard... The guy has done more to grow the government than any President since FDR. Of course on the other hand, you could argue that no President has faced a crisis this serious since FDR and therefore, the need to grow the government like this just hasn't been there.

It's not all cut and dry, black and white like people seem to like things. I'd even go as far to say that the old labels of "liberal" and "conservative" just don't seem to apply here.

People have also assigned meanings to those words that just simply aren't in the true definitions. For example, it is thought that to be a conservative, you have to be pushing a religous agenda, you have to be hawkish, etc. On the other hand, to be liberal, you must believe in allowing people to do whatever they want as long as you don't perceive an injury being done to someone else, you believe that bombs don't solve anything, etc.. Those meanings, I'd argue need to be understood to be seperate from the labels liberal and conservative.

I'd say that I tend to lean more towards the libertarian side of things, but I can appreciate a President who's willing to take a stand on things and not just play politics with everything. I like a guy that sometimes does what he feels is right regardless of what anyone else thinks -- in other words, I like a guy that has convictions to be in office, even if I disagree with what he says and does over half of the time. Kerry worries me in that he doesn't seem to have any convictions, no one really, and I mean REALLY knows a damned thing about him. He has been in the Senate 20+ years and never really amounted to much more than a consistant vote for the "liberal" side of the aisle.

I don't believe that Bush is right on many things including his administration's drug policy, the policies against stem-cell research, his stance on gay marriage, etc. There are many things that I do agree with him on as well. All that said, if you guys have read anything I've posted in the last year or so (and if you read this whole post) you know where my vote's going to go.

[moe.ron]

ktsnake, I got this response from another board, which I asked exactly the same question. What do you think about it?

I think Bush's principles or lack of, are the exact oppisite of classic conservatism as espoused by great thinkers like William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater.

Classic conservatism preaches smaller government, states rights, elimination of welfare on both a personal and corporate level, strict adherance to the constitution, and personal responsibility. Bush seems to oppose all of these ideals. Like the classic conservatives Bush does believe in a strong national defense, he just doesn't know how to put it into practice.

I think Bush and the entire republican party are moving away from the coservative root and have gained a more populist bend in the past years. This seems to be coming about as the republican party tries to reach out to the Southern voter and the religious right. They are ignoring their principles in order to gain the votes of the so called "welfare state".

[Rudey]

Ugh this is annoying because it's making it seem as if conservative view points have no right to change.

As far as conservatives go there is a spectrum but there are the old line conservatives and the neo-conservatives who are able to influence the line of thinking. It is the neo-conservatives who have won virtually every nobel prize in economics and advanced the subject into prominence. Buckley would not agree with the neo-cons.

Edited to add: The Republican party is not beholden to one small section of thought. It is a party. In fact the Republican party was the first party to ever combine issues and platforms to gain political power during its establishment and its merging with the anti-slavery party at the time. Bush is not following Buckley or Wolfowitz...he is leading a party in which Buckley and Wolfowitz are a part of and not clinging to any of their views alone.

Also some of the groups that have joined the Republican party hold very different views from most conservatives. The group that comes to mind is Christian evangelicals. This is a historically Democrat group.

-Rudey

[PhiPsiRuss]

I believe that he is a conservative only when conservative views are simpatico with his own.

[IowaStatePhiPsi]

Bush is the new Nixon.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by IowaStatePhiPsi
Bush is the new Nixon.

What the hell does that even mean??

-Rudey

[Kevin]

Originally posted by IowaStatePhiPsi
Bush is the new Nixon.

You'll sometimes go for a few days and sound semi-intelligent with your posts.

Then you jump out with something like this.

[KSigkid]

I agree that this is not a cut and dry situation. As was said, conservatism changes, evolves over time. While Bush may not mesh exactly with "classic conservatism," I think he's an interesting mix.

I think it's a good point to look back in the history of the party. It's a party that changes with the times, and came about through changes (disagreements within the Whig party and responses to the times, as Rudey pointed out).

Liberalism and conservatism have changed with the times, with the people involved.

I'm not sure what the "new Nixon" comment was supposed to mean - care to elaborate?