After Nov. 2 the Republican Party seems to have it all: continued possession of the US presidency and expanded control of Congress. Ironically, however, President George W. Bush's victory has killed the US' conservative movement. The Republican Party and conservative movement have lost their souls.
American conservatism grew out of the classical liberal tradition that birthed the US. Republicans emphasized their commitment to individual liberty and limited constitutional government.
ILLUSTRATION: YU SHA
They believed Washington to possess only specific enumerated powers. The most important domestic issues were matters for the states. Internationally the US needed to be strong but responsible: War was a tool to protect US security, not remake the world.
Most important was conservative recognition of the limitations of political action. Economist Thomas Sowell observed how the right had a "constrained" view of mankind: no amount of social engineering could transcend humanity's inherent imperfections. In contrast, modern liberals held an "unconstrained" view, that is, they believed in the perfectibility of human beings and institutions.
Although Republican Party operatives and their conservative supporters often placed political expediency before philosophical purity, most of them formally resisted expanding government power. And occasionally -- during Ronald Reagan's presidency, for instance -- they actually rolled back one or another program.
In 2000 candidate George W. Bush ran within this conservative tradition. But he has turned the Republican Party into another vehicle of modern liberalism, little different from the Democrats.
Spending by the national government has raced ahead at levels more often associated with the Democratic Party. The Bush administration has pushed to nationalize local issues, expanding federal controls over education, for instance.
Bush engineered the largest expansion of America's welfare state in decades, a poorly designed but hugely expensive pharmaceutical benefit. And Bush's officials shamelessly lied about the legislation's cost. The Republicans' spending excesses threaten to undo the president's celebrated tax cuts.
The administration terms its expansion of government as a form of "empowerment." But this is just another name for nanny-state regulation. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card admitted that Bush "sees America as we think about a 10-year-old child," requiring Washington's benevolent guidance.
In international affairs, Bush most dramatically diverged from traditional conservativism, advancing an international agenda breath-taking in its arrogance. First, he launched a preventive war based on bad intelligence, but offered no apologies for his mistake.
His substitute justification, that of promoting -- or really imposing -- democracy on a recalcitrant Islamic society harkened back to liberal warmaking in the tradition of former president Woodrow Wilson. Abandoning traditional Republican skepticism of foreign aid, Bush sought to win Iraqi hearts and minds by providing garbage trucks and creating a postal zip code system. Such utopian social engineering seemed more appropriate for liberal Democrats such as Senator John Kerry.
Equally disappointing was Bush's commitment to executive prerogative. Administration supporters explicitly and administration members implicitly questioned the patriotism of anyone who criticized the president's Iraq policy. He brusquely dismissed fiscally-responsible members of Congress who advocated trimming the administration's Iraqi aid program.
Although a decent person, he represents the worst anti-intellectual caricature of religious ones. He admits that he doesn't read or "do nuance." If religious broadcaster Pat Robertson is correct, the president didn't expect casualties in Iraq.
Bush believes in presidential infallibility and exhibits an irresponsible, juvenile cockiness ("bring 'em on," he said, as US soldiers were being killed in Iraq). He holds no one in his administration accountable for anything, even lying to Congress and the public.
Alas, he has influenced much of the Republican Party and conservative movement. Leading Republican congressmen have given up attempting to eliminate even the most wasteful programs. Conservative intellectuals also want to make peace with Leviathan.
Although the Republican Party often violated conservative principles, there once was a real difference between the philosophies and parties. No one could mistake the governing philosophies of Reagan and former president Jimmy Carter. That difference is no longer discernible. Under Bush, modern conservatism has become a slightly fainter version of modern liberalism. Both groups believe that the right application of spending, regulation and war can perfect people and their institutions.
Conservatism was the primary political repository of the classical liberal commitment to individual liberty in America. But Bush has destroyed the right's opposition to the growth of statism in the US By embracing Bush conservatives have won power, but they have sold their souls -- along with the individual liberty that is so integral to the American experience -- for a mess of pottage.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to former president Ronald Reagan.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations