OPINION & EDITORIAL
Republicans must find conservatism
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Joe Trovato:
- Conservative voice needs recognition (November 9, 2007)
- Ethno-political lobbying anti-American (October 24, 2007)
- Ahmadinejad invite unpatriotic insult (September 26, 2007)
- Play ball now: UW deserves baseball (September 12, 2007)
- Personal responsibility lacking in U.S. (May 8, 2007)
Related Stories:
- GOP still has shot at salvation (May 9, 2007)
- '08 hopefuls test political climate (November 15, 2006)
- Finding philosophy dichtomy (September 17, 2004)
- Forget the base: Take middle path on voter issues (November 6, 2007)
- GOP lacks social conservatism (October 13, 2003)
by Joe Trovato
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
As the 2008 presidential election draws closer and candidates announce their bids to become heir to the free world, it seems appropriate to step back and take measure of the issues that supposedly divide our country. It is increasingly clear that the issues that divide candidates and political parties are no longer ideological; they are instead almost completely political. Both sides of the political aisle are guilty of playing partisan politics, and never has this been more evident than during the era of the Bush administration.
Both Democrats and Republicans have abandoned their ideological bases in recent years, yet the American people still blindly vote for candidates simply because they have either an R or a D next to their names. Republicans, in particular, led by President Bush, paid dearly for the folly of abandoning deep-rooted conservative underpinnings in the fall 2006 elections.
Under Bush, Republicans have distanced themselves from traditional conservative principles in favor of listening to a president who has turned his back on the small government principles of the traditional Grand Old Party and other conservatives. But conservatives, ever-weary of keeping liberals out of office at any cost, have been left with no choice but to vote for the lesser of two evils. This is the only thing keeping conservatives voting Republican.
Basically, President Bush has gotten away from the essence of true conservatism. Consider this: Under the Bush administration, traditional conservatives have watched helplessly as government has grown in all directions. Expansions in Medicare, the nationalization of education and an 80-percent increase in education spending through the No Child Left Behind Act and continuous deficit spending, including a proposed 2008 budget that would bring deficit spending to $244 billion, have alienated conservatives who have long stood on principles of smaller government and fiscal responsibility.
Add to this the creation of the Department of Homeland Security under the Patriot Act (a massive expansion of federal power) and enormous agricultural subsidies in the farm bill of 2002, and any real conservative must cringe.
President Bush has thus far represented nothing close to the conservative principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility he was elected to restore. In fact, in the 2006 fiscal year, Bush approved an estimated $67 billion in earmarks, which turned out to be nothing more than pork-barrel spending.
The last seven years have been nothing but a disappointment to true conservatives, as the federal budget has increased at its "fastest rate in 30 years" according to an Independent Institute study. And it appears there is no relief in sight as the 2008 budget introduced by the president projects an increase of 4.2 percent over last year's already gargantuan budget.
A 2003 report from the Brookings Institute published by The Wall Street Journal concluded the "number of full-time employees working on government contracts and grants has zoomed by more than one million people since 1999, bringing the overall head count to more than 12.1 million as of this past October."
Ironically, the size of government was kept smaller under the Clinton administration. According to Daniel Mitchell of the Heritage Foundation, this was mostly due to a conservative Congress dictating and controlling most of Clinton's agenda.
Mitchell told The Wall Street Journal the increase in the size of government under President Bush was "very troubling for conservatives." He went on to say that this was discouraging, "particularly since we made so much progress under Clinton in reducing the size of government."
In the end, any small-government conservative must feel betrayed by the Bush administration's pursuit of the expansion of government, but what other options did conservatives even have to vote for? The 2004 election was almost a choice of the lesser of two evils to true conservatives.
No conservative in his right mind would have voted for Kerry — or any liberal for that matter — as the idea of liberalism itself advocates an increased role of government in domestic issues along with a general trend toward increases in taxes. Liberalism seeks a greater role for the government in social issues, which in turn leads to more government spending and a decrease in personal responsibility. This, of course, is contrary to what a traditional conservative would fight for. Thus, in 2004, the right was left with no choice but to vote for President Bush over a liberal party that openly advocated the creation of a bigger government.
This still doesn't take away the fact that the president betrayed the very ideological basis of the Republican Party: small government and fiscal responsibility. Hopefully the fall 2006 elections will serve as a wakeup call to Republican lawmakers, and they will recommit themselves to the longstanding responsible principles of true conservatism.
Joe Trovato (jtrovato@wisc.edu) is a freshman majoring in journalism.
Anonymous (March 7, 2007 @ 2:07am):
I'm sure they will get right on that for you.
Anonymous (March 7, 2007 @ 7:14am):
You would think the liberal spending tendencies of the Bush administration would make real conservatives cringe, but there's one thing that you must consider: conservatives ignore everything else when bombs are dropping, flags are waving, and Liberals are protesting.
Anonymous (March 7, 2007 @ 7:21am):
Joey, did the Big 10 Republican party release a memo today?
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2007/03/03-07-07tdc/03-07-07dops-column-01.asp
Anonymous (March 7, 2007 @ 9:16am):
would that be the Ann Coulter type of conservatism?
Anonymous (March 7, 2007 @ 10:36am):
Anonymous @ 9:16am: "Coulter type of conservatism?"... as opposed to (say) Gephardt liberalism?
"Dean staffer called 'faggot' by Gephardt event staff"
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2003/10/29/144352/15
Or (Say) progressive Indymedia progressivism?
"Bush is a closet faggot"
http://www.indymedia.org/fr/2006/10/847790.shtml
Get over it already, you hypersensitive poof.
Anonymous (March 7, 2007 @ 11:54am):
IndyMedia isn't exactly "progressive," but the article was French anyways. Not to mention that ANYONE can post articles. All the crazies post on the newswire, the real reporting is on the front page. That said, they did have a point.
Anonymous (March 7, 2007 @ 12:06pm):
Gephardt's daughter is actually a homosexual. Do your research.
Anonymous (March 7, 2007 @ 1:48pm):
Government spending isn't the only thing important to conservatives, and it's not likely to be the sole determining factor when voting. What about all the other hot items: Iraq, stem cell research, faith based initiatives, abortion, health insurance, etc...
Anonymous (March 7, 2007 @ 3:10pm):
What about all the other hot items:
Iraq- So far so good, right?
Stem cell research- obvious work of the devil... even if it might save ACTUAL lives.
Faith based initiatives- what does that mean? Government sanctioned do-gooding?
Abortion- Still legal, 30 years and counting
Health insurance- as long as rich white men are insured, there isn't a problem
Anonymous (March 7, 2007 @ 3:11pm):
Cheap shots at progressives aside, this is actually a fairly decent article. I've long asked my "conservative" friends why they still support an administration who spends money the way no conservative ever has, and has advocated for huge expansion in the federal government and in the role of the executive. Ultimately they have no answer. Finally a politician progressives and (true) conservatives (read: no Freepers) can agree is bad for the nation.
Anonymous (March 7, 2007 @ 3:29pm):
The GOP certainly has lost the plt, that's why I became a moderate independent.
Anonymous (March 7, 2007 @ 8:14pm):
Great Editorial! Hopefully Republicans will learn from their past mistakes and go back to the true conservativism like you said. Excellant OpEd piece.
- Germain E. Stemme
Anonymous (March 8, 2007 @ 12:42pm):
Interesting point. However, in terms of regaining credibility at the Congressional level, the Republican party is a bit late. It's hard to cry for ethics and fiscal responsibility after you've gone on a spend & lie spree.
That doesn't mean that both Democrats and Republicans in congress can't work together to fix this mess that both sides have gotten us into. They have to.
By the way, a liberal does not necessarily advocate for "big government", just as you so aptly point out that a conservative does not necessarily advocate for "small government". Ronald Reagan, for instance, increased government spending by a grandiose amount. We need to see beyond the labels and take a look at what is actually happening in our legislative bodies and make sure our representatives know what our spending priorities are.
-Adam James
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
