Hi Oboe,
Originally posted by oboe
I'm trying to recall his role in the Terry Schiavo case - were those the actions of a social moderate?
During the Schiavo debacle, Bush issued one public statement supporting the Terry's right not to be starved, and then signed the hastily cobbled together "Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act" and then failed to enforce it. Essentially, he tried to play to both sides of the issue, making supportive gestures towards Terry's parents in order not to alienate his base, but not actually spending the political capital that would have been necessary to actually intervene. His actions ended up frustrating conservatives to no end, not only on the right to life issues, but because by not acting he reinforced the notion that all "life issues" are to be decided in the courts by judges rather than by the nations elected officials. In essence, his decision confirmed the rationale for the Roe decision.
That refusal to "pull the trigger" on anything except Iraq and to actually confront the ideological issues is one of the many things that makes Bush more of a politician than a conservative statesman in the mold of say Reagan, Thatcher, and Churchill. The statesman says,
"if something is right I will do everything legal in my power to bring it about, no matter what it costs me" So, for instance, Churchill opposed the appeasement and disarmament policies of successive
conservative administrations because he rightly saw that the rise of Nazi Germany was a grave threat and a great evil that would someday have to be confronted militarily. His decision to do so cost him so greatly that he ended up in the "political wilderness" estranged from his own party, but history has vindicated him. Bush, on the other hand, constantly "blinks", perhaps in an effort to "go along to get along."
A far better indicator of this tendency than say the Schiavo case would be his actions on the gay marriage issue. As you are probably aware, opposing gay marriage is not exactly a politically risky action. As statewide referendums have shown, even in otherwise blue states, a majority of Americans are against them. The vast majority of Republicans are against them, and yet Bush remained almost silent on the issue, making vague noises, until finally coming out in favor of Gay Civil unions.
He is a politician, therefore he constantly seeks consensus, which inevitably involves making compromises, but what irritates conservatives is that as people who believe both in standing on principle and in objective truth they hold that the worst approach to deciding between two positions is to adopt a position in-between both. To put it more simply, in an argument between two sides where one insists that 2+2=4 and the other who insists that 2+2=5 the correct approach is not to agree to 4.5 as a compromise answer. So, for instance, a conservative says that if we are going to remain true to our principles we have to cut taxes and cut spending on entitlements (or at least freeze their growth). Bush, as a Moderate, has been unwilling to expend the political capital and enter the fight necessary to cut entitlements, and as a result he has adopted a Cut Taxes/Grow Entitlements approach that will send deficits through the roof. Whatever you believe the correct answer to the tax and spend question is, it certainly isn't that one.
A moderate wants consensus, seeks compromise, and wants everyone to like him, forgetting or not realizing that the men who end up most admired are those who are remembered and honored for the strength of their convictions and that no one admires a man whose backbone is made of rubber. Even Gandhi didn't want
some independence for India and some
some rule by Britain, he campaigned tirelessly, and worked step by step towards
total independence.
I know this won't be a popular opinion, and for that I'm sorry. I don't gain any great joy in speaking highly critically of anyone, much less the president. But I'm not beholden to the Republican party and I'm not a believer in compromise over issues of great importance. I believe firmly that no man should go against his conscience, if its right, then do it and let God and history be the judge. Enough with pragmatism, compromise, and namby, pambyism.
- SEAGOON
