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.
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS