Ideals vs. Parties: George Bush
Politics
| January 30, 2003
| Tim
During Bush's State of the Union address, he proposed a number of measures which don't sit well with many conservatives who want less, not more, government:
- Prescription drugs for seniors
- Lots of money to fights AIDs and its effects in Africa
- Federal funding of research into hydrogen fueled cars
- Sharp cuts in pollution emissions
- Expansion of the US Freedom Corps (Clinton's Americorps) program
Combine this with the fat education bill with Ted Kennedy, and fear of surveilence by the department of Homeland Security, and we have a picture of a president pushing some decidedly leftist positions.
So why do liberals often brand George Bush as being "far right"? Is it for his profession of Christianity? Then what of President Carter? Is it for his stance against abortion? Then what of Senator McCain and Al Gore, pre-VP?
I think it comes down to this: Some just feel he isn't "their" guy, and there's probably nothing he's going to be able to do to win these folks over, since their objections aren't actually based on reason, i.e. on consistant evaluation against principles and standards, as best as I can determine.
The author's assumptions are simply wrong--apparently his definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" are one-sided and disconnected from reality. FWIW, The current administration's ideology might be better identified as "so-called conservative"--not because their policies are liberal, but because they're right-wing, often far-right, and have little to do with conserving traditional values or the American way of life, at least as has been experienced since 1910. Some specific examples:
1) The Dept. or Homeland Security (and the so-called Patriot Act) are right wing things, not liberal things, as is the aggressively interventionist foreign policy.
2) Bush's judicial appointees have been overwhelmingly and often radically right-wing. They are largely judicial activists (and therefore not traditionally conservative), but their activism is hardly liberal.
3) Environmental actionis have been overwhelmingly pro-business and anti-ecologist, certainly not "liberal".
4) Actions of the Justice Department--restricting the abilities of prosecuters and judges to reduce sentences, in particular--are also unquestionably right-wing, as are extra-judicial actions, such as holding cilvian suspects without rights on military grounds.
I could go on--the examples are endless.
As for other things the author says, liberals have no problem with Christian faith--Martin Luther King and many other leaders have been religious Christians, and religious institions are part of the liberal mainstream--the problem is with the kind of right-wing Christianity that is followed by Bush, Ashcroft, and others. In other words, it ain't Christ, it is the right-wing part that is the problem. As for abortion, I'd say it is as hard for a liberal to be anti-choice as it is for a rich man to get through the eye of a needle. John McCain is hardly a liberal, except in the warped terms of the current Republican party. As for Gore, I don't know his abortion stance pre-VP, but he clearly needed to change in order to be electable, because the left half of the American electorate will not vote for an anti-choice candidate.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Tierney: French Weapons Inspectors Helped Saddam |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Ideals vs. Parties: Tom Daschle's Ravings »
|
The author's assumptions are simply wrong--apparently his definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" are one-sided and disconnected from reality. FWIW, The current administration's ideology might be better identified as "so-called conservative"--not because their policies are liberal, but because they're right-wing, often far-right, and have little to do with conserving traditional values or the American way of life, at least as has been experienced since 1910. Some specific examples:
1) The Dept. or Homeland Security (and the so-called Patriot Act) are right wing things, not liberal things, as is the aggressively interventionist foreign policy.
2) Bush's judicial appointees have been overwhelmingly and often radically right-wing. They are largely judicial activists (and therefore not traditionally conservative), but their activism is hardly liberal.
3) Environmental actionis have been overwhelmingly pro-business and anti-ecologist, certainly not "liberal".
4) Actions of the Justice Department--restricting the abilities of prosecuters and judges to reduce sentences, in particular--are also unquestionably right-wing, as are extra-judicial actions, such as holding cilvian suspects without rights on military grounds.
I could go on--the examples are endless.
As for other things the author says, liberals have no problem with Christian faith--Martin Luther King and many other leaders have been religious Christians, and religious institions are part of the liberal mainstream--the problem is with the kind of right-wing Christianity that is followed by Bush, Ashcroft, and others. In other words, it ain't Christ, it is the right-wing part that is the problem. As for abortion, I'd say it is as hard for a liberal to be anti-choice as it is for a rich man to get through the eye of a needle. John McCain is hardly a liberal, except in the warped terms of the current Republican party. As for Gore, I don't know his abortion stance pre-VP, but he clearly needed to change in order to be electable, because the left half of the American electorate will not vote for an anti-choice candidate.
Posted by: Jonathan on October 21, 2003 03:12 PM