During the last four years, we have witnessed a bizarre occurrence in American politics: the complete transformation of a president’s philosophy. If you paid attention in the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush constantly defined himself as a “compassionate conservative.” Whatever spurred this assertion (perhaps an attempt to distract people from his uncompassionate term as governor of Texas, where he executed more inmates than any governor in history), this self-proclaimed piece of alliteration was presented as the “new wave” of the Republican Party. Bush was supposed to implement Reagan-esquely a different style of conservatism to return the GOP to, well, the GOP. He was able to get away with running his campaign on this ideological platform because he had yet to take office and spend four years contradicting conventional political principles. Yet last week, the president, while speaking at a campaign rally, redefined himself as a “compassionate conservative.” This is merely an attempt to revamp a “feel-good” classification of the president that he has failed to live up to; Bush has crumbled the conservative philosophy of American politics. Some of the contradictions seen in Bush’s ideology are merely a result of the faults that have come to define the Republican Party. Right-wingers have always said they support less government, yet they repeatedly attempt to increase government intervention in society. Bush, along with Republican leaders in Congress, has sought to expand the government’s stronghold on its citizens with such legislation as the Patriot Act and proposed bills attempting to abolish women’s rights and oppress the gay community. Bush’s conflicting policies, however, have gone even further to contradict the conservative basis, particularly in the area of foreign policy.
During his tenure, Bush has proceeded to sever decade-long treaty ties with numerous allies and withdraw from Middle Eastern peace negotiations while transforming United States foreign policy into one of radical occupation. Ironic, considering that in his 2000 campaign, Bush said he would not allow American forces to be used in democratizing countries because that was not their job. In the pure context of definitive ideologies, a global approach of attempting to liberate other countries can only be classified as fundamentally and blazingly liberal. Foreign policy was never expected to be Bush’s forte, but despite the events of 9/11, few would have expected this administration to adopt such an extreme method of international imperialism. It is quite paradoxical when a fundamentally declared born-again Christian rushes the United States into a war that the Pope himself (the true messenger of God, contrary to what the president may want you to believe) deemed unjust. Classifying one’s self as a “compassionate conservative” and then a “war time president” is as much a “flip-flop” as John Kerry stating he voted for and against $87 billion in military funding.
Face it, conservative Bush backers. The president does not share your ideology. Two invasions in two years? Shunning the international community? Threatening nations that haven’t even attacked us? Policing the world? Attempting to combine church and state? Making a mockery of the Constitution?
And I thought we were fighting against radicalism.
There is nothing compassionate or conservative about preemptive strikes on civilian cities. There is nothing conservative about a $415 billion deficit, the largest in the history of the country. There is nothing conservative about losing nearly one million jobs, the most since the Great Depression. There is nothing conservative about increasing the size of federal bureaucracies (expansion of the education sector and creation of the Department of Homeland Security) and then underfunding them substantially ($9 billion shortchanged from No Child Left Behind, $28 million repealed from the D.H.S.’s port security division). There is nothing compassionate about, in order to fund two wars and give more tax cuts to the rich, cutting $300 million from the budget of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps poor people pay their bills. There is nothing compassionate in trying to pass a constitutional amendment that promotes inequality and injustice by suppressing 10 percent of the country’s population. There is nothing conservative about stretching our military thin, and there is certainly nothing compassionate about sending soldiers to die for a questionable cause.
Love Bush or hate him, worship him or despise him, but don’t confuse his political ideology. He may use conservative rhetoric; he may approach issues with conservative viewpoints. But when it comes to his policies and his actions, he has been anything but conservative and anything but compassionate. He cannot again run on this platform when, for four years, he has contradicted classic traditionalist principles set forth by Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. You want a true conservative choice at a time when our nation faces such apprehension and peril? Then Bush is not your man, even if he says otherwise.
Adam Lichtenheld ([email protected]) is a freshman majoring in political science and international studies.
