A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency (6 page)

THROWING BUSH OVERBOARD

B
ush’s unpopularity has become so intense and toxic that self-identified political conservatives have taken to distancing themselves from Bush by insisting he was never really a “conservative” at all. In the aftermath of the 2006 midterm elections, the
New York Times
reported:

Since the election, a chorus from the right has been noisily distinguishing between conservative and Republican, blaming deviation from conservative principles for the election losses. From George Will to Rush Limbaugh, conservatives cut loose with criticisms of the Republicans for spending too much at home and getting bogged down in Iraq.

The day following the election, Rush Limbaugh assured his conservative audience: “Liberalism didn’t win anything yesterday; Republicanism lost. Conservatism was nowhere to be found except on the Democratic side.” Writing in
National Review
, Jonah Goldberg in 2006 actually went so far as to claim that Bush is a “liberal” Republican: “But there is one area where we can make somewhat useful comparisons between Nixon and Bush:
their status as liberal Republicans
(emphasis added).” Thus, reasoned Goldberg, Bush is exactly the opposite of what “conservatives” support: “The modern conservative movement, from Goldwater to Reagan, was formed as a backlash against Nixonism.”

Yet when Bush was highly popular, Goldberg decreed precisely the opposite—namely, he anointed George W. Bush as the heir to Reagan conservatism and the Bush-led Republican Party as the vessel of pure Reaganism:

But it is now clear that Bush’s own son takes far more after his father’s old boss than he does his own father, at least politically speaking. From tax cuts (and deficits, alas), to his personal conviction on abortion, to aligning America with the historical tide of liberty in the world,
George W. Bush has proved that he’s a Reaganite, not a “Bushie.” He may not be a natural heir to Reagan, but that’s the point. The party is all Reaganite now
[emphasis added]. What better sign that this is now truly and totally the Gipper’s Party than the obvious conversion of George Bush’s own son?

The dramatic turnabout in conservative characterizations of Bush is nowhere better demonstrated than by comparing Goldberg’s accusation in 2006 that Bush’s governing approach is like his father’s rather than Ronald Reagan’s (“Bush was always loyal to his father, who came out of the Nixon wing of the party”) to Goldberg’s 2002 polar opposite claim that Bush “takes far more after his father’s old boss [Ronald Reagan] than he does his own father” and that “George W. Bush has proved that he’s a Reaganite, not a ‘Bushie.’”

As Bush’s popularity has plummeted, so, too, has the esteem in which his own followers hold him. Self-identified conservatives during Bush’s first term were writing truly worshipful books about George Bush, devoted to paying homage to his greatness as a leader and as a wise, resolute yet humble man; in 2006 they were denouncing him as a stubborn and weak failure who, in addition to those “sins,” was never a conservative at all, and perhaps was even a closeted “liberal.” The conservatives’ frantic scampering to distance themselves and to disassociate their political movement from Bush stands as a powerful testament to the president’s steep fall and isolation.

In that regard, there is a serious, and quite revealing, fraud emerging in the political landscape—namely, that the so-called conservative movement is
not responsible
for the destruction wrought on the country by the Bush presidency and the loyal Republican Congress that followed him. Even more audacious, the claim is emerging that the conservative movement is actually the prime
victim
here, because its lofty “principles” have been betrayed and repudiated by the Republican president and Congress that have ruled our country for the last six years.

This cry of victimization was the principal theme at the National Review Institute Conservative Summit held in January 2007, at which one conservative luminary after the next paraded on stage to lament that the unpopular president and rejected GOP-controlled Congress “abandoned” conservatism and failed for that reason. As but one illustrative example, the following is a passage from
National Review
editor Rich Lowry’s opening remarks, introducing Newt Gingrich (whom Lowry afterward described as “inspiring, brilliant, creative, visionary”):

It is, in all seriousness, it is a distressing and depressing time to be a conservative. I’m reminded of the old saying by Mao—things are always darkest before they go completely black.

In recent years, we have watched a Republican Congress disgrace itself with its association with scandal, with its willful lack of fiscal discipline, and with its utter disinterest in the reforms that America needs. And at the same time, we watched a Republican President abet or passively accept the excesses of his Congressional party and, more importantly, fail to take the steps—until perhaps now—fail to take the steps to win a major foreign war….

So we need to figure out a way how to make conservative policy and principles appealing and relevant again to the American public, and we need to do it together.

Note the passive tone Lowry uses to signify a lack of agency, even victimhood—“we have watched a Republican Congress disgrace itself” and “we watched a Republican President abet or passively accept the excesses of his Congressional party.” Lowry depicts himself and his poor fellow movement conservatives as victims: They have stood by helplessly and with such sadness as the country was damaged by a president and Congress that abandoned and violated their conservative principles and left conservatives isolated and with nowhere to turn.

But the deceit here is manifest. Lowry and his “conservative” comrades were anything but passive observers over the last six years. They did far more than “watch” as the president and the Congress “disgraced” themselves and damaged this country. It was self-identified “conservatives” who were the principal cheerleaders, the most ardent and loyal propagandists, propping up George Bush and his blindly loyal Republican Congress.

It was they who continuously told America that George Bush was the reincarnation of the Great American Conservative Hero Ronald Reagan and the Great Warrior Defender of Freedom Winston Churchill all wrapped up in one glorious, powerful package. It was this same conservative movement—now pretending to lament the abandonment of conservatism by Bush and the Congress—that was the single greatest source of Bush’s political support, that twice elected him and propped up his presidency and the movement that followed it.

So why, after six years of glorifying George Bush and devoting their full-fledged loyalty to him and the Hastert-and-DeLay-controlled Congress are conservatives like Lowry, Limbaugh, and Gingrich suddenly insisting that Bush is an anti-conservative and the GOP-led Congress the opposite of conservative virtue? The dynamic is as obvious as it is corrupt. They are desperately trying to disclaim responsibility for the disasters that they wrought in the name of “conservatism” by repudiating the political figures whom they named as the standard-bearers of their movement but whom America has now so decisively rejected.

George Bush has not changed in the slightest. He is exactly the same as he was when he was converted into the hero and icon of the conservative movement. The only thing that has changed is that Bush is no longer the wildly popular president that conservatives sought to embrace, but instead is a deeply disliked figure, increasingly detested by Americans, from whom conservatives now wish to shield themselves. And in this regard, these self-proclaimed great devotees of conservative political principles have revealed themselves to have
none
.

When he was popular, George Bush was the embodiment of conservatism. Now that he is rejected on a historic scale, he is the betrayer of conservatism. That is because “conservatism”—while definable on a theoretical plane—has come to have no practical meaning in this country other than a quest for ever-expanding government power for its own sake. When George Bush enabled those ends, he was the Great Conservative. Now that he impedes them due to his unprecedented unpopularity, he is the Judas of the conservative movement.

What is going on here, quite transparently, is a rehabilitation project. Bush’s presidency cannot be salvaged, but the reputation of conservatives and conservatism can be—though only by separating the former from the latter. Given Bush’s policies—massive increases in federal spending (including discretionary domestic spending), wildly expanding deficits, drastically increased domestic surveillance powers, and foreign wars fought ostensibly to export American values—there is and always has been a strong case to make that the Bush administration adhered to very few of the defining tenets of political conservatism, at least as it exists in theory. For that reason, had a substantial cohort of conservatives insisted upon distinguishing between Bush and conservatism when the Bush presidency was an epic success, the argument that the president is not a “true conservative” would have been reasonable. During Bush’s high-flying years, however, conservatives overwhelmingly claimed him as one of their own. Further, even as Bush’s popularity ratings tumbled, his remaining loyal supporters were preponderantly self-identified conservatives.

According to Pew, in March 2006, the president’s approval ratings had plummeted to an all-time low of just 33 percent. But a robust 78 percent of self-identified “conservatives” continued to approve of his job performance.

Thus, it is disingenuous, to put it generously, for right-wing activists to disclaim Bush so belatedly as a member of the fold, for it is the “conservative” movement that is centrally responsible for Bush’s presidency. Until his popularity plunged steeply and irrevocably, they claimed him as one of their own and engineered both of his electoral victories.

Means exist for political movements to eject the leaders they choose in the event that those leaders stray from the “right beliefs.” In 1976, Gerald Ford was the Republican president, but conservatives believed he was insufficiently conservative: so they supported the primary challenge of Ronald Reagan.

In 1980, Jimmy Carter was the Democratic president, but liberals believed he was insufficiently liberal, so they supported the primary challenge of Ted Kennedy. As
The Washington Monthly
recounted: “By 1980, many liberals were in open revolt against Carter, abandoning him to support Ted Kennedy’s ultimately-doomed primary challenge even as the public was sending unmistakable signals that it was sick of Kennedy-style big government.”

In 1992, the first George Bush was the Republican president, but many conservatives believed he was insufficiently conservative, so they supported the primary challenge of Pat Buchanan. As
New York Times
columnist William Safire described it at the time: “Buchanan is using the Republican primary campaign in 1992 as the springboard for his long-range plan to wrest control of the party from hawkish neoconservatives and pragmatic moderates. Right from the start, he was a Goldwater ‘true believer,’ never happy with the necessary compromises of Nixon and Reagan.”

George W. Bush, however, with very rare exception, was enthusiastically embraced by conservatives—in his 2000 primary fight against John McCain, in the 2000 general election, and again in the 2004 general election. Conservatives made George Bush (and the individuals who controlled Congress) the standard-bearer of their political movement for the last six years, and there was little attempt to separate conservatism from the president or from the GOP leadership embodied by Denny Hastert and Tom DeLay. The handful of right-wing figures who insisted that the Bush presidency deviated fundamentally from political conservatism—a Pat Buchanan here or an Andrew Sullivan there—were castigated and declared not to be “real conservatives” solely by virtue of their refusal to support George Bush’s policies.

Who, then, are the ostensible “real conservatives” who were repudiating George Bush and the GOP Congressional leaders when Bush’s approval ratings were respectable? Is it Mitt Romney, who in 2004 hailed “the courageous and compassionate leadership of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney”? Is it Rick Santorum, who solemnly told Americans: “every generation has but a moment to carry the torch that defines who we are and what we will be,” and then identified who he thinks will do that for conservatives: “George Bush has shown his compassion by advancing his faith-based initiatives, strengthening marriage, and fighting to let the American people define marriage, not left-wing judges”?

Perhaps it is Rush Limbaugh, who, at the time of Reagan’s 2004 death, said: “Reagan was right just as George W. Bush is today, and I really believe that if Reagan had been able he would have put his hand on Bush’s shoulder and say to him, ‘Stay the course, George.’ I really believe that.” Or James Dobson, who boasted of the critical role played by conservatives in re-electing George Bush: “According to Dobson, evangelical Protestants played a major role in re-electing President George W. Bush, giving him a ‘great mandate.’” And in May 2003, longtime conservative pundit Bob Novak called Bush “a president who may be more basically conservative than Ronald Reagan.”

The leading right-wing political magazine,
National Review
—with the aforementioned Rich Lowry at the helm—in 2004 told its readership about George Bush and “conservatism”: “In his bid for re-election, George W. Bush deserves the support of conservatives.” Although the editors acknowledged that “mistakes” were made, they said that “Bush has shown evidence of being able to learn from his mistakes. We have made political strides in Iraq.” While noting the “legitimate conservative criticisms that can be made of his record,” they also wrote that “Bush deserves conservative support, as well, on domestic issues.” Thus, “For conservatives…backing Bush’s re-election should be an easy decision.”