Should Conservatives Vote for George Bush?

Judging by our readers' comments, conservatives are upset with George W. Bush on a wide range of issues. The most frequent complaint is the explosion in government spending. Not only have entitlements soared by $8 trillion with the new Medicare prescription drug benefit under President Bush, the greatest increase since Lyndon Johnson, but non-defense discretionary spending has jumped by an average of 8.2 percent a year, more than since Franklin Roosevelt. Other complaints run to foreign policy, immigration, guns, education, farm policy and even moral issues.

But the president's defenders claim that John Kerry will do worse, and that is a valid consideration. They say that Sen. Kerry has one of the most liberal voting ratings of any Democrat in the upper house, which is true, and he promised the moon during the nomination contest to every special interest group waiting at the spending trough. He wants to increase taxes, at least at the higher income levels, and likes government regulation of business and everything else except abortion. Kerry is especially liberal on social issues, where the president is generally conceded high grades. The Massachusetts' senator's court appointments and administrative policies can be predicted to be favorable to the left. So, there is a case for Mr. Bush even if it aims mostly at his opponent.

So what is a conservative to do? One could simply conclude that the Republican Party is the more conservative one and that all on the right must vote for it. Yet, that is not always the best strategy. If Gerald Ford had won in 1976, Ronald Reagan would not have become president. A recession would still have taken place in 1980 but it would be under Ford policies that would not have differed greatly from those adopted by Jimmy Carter. With a Republican president responsible for a high "misery index" that year, there would have been no Reagan, no recovery, no defeat of the Soviet Union, no revival of traditional social values, no end to the seventies malaise, no cuts in government spending and no restoration of the standing of conservatism as a successful philosophy of government.

The only way to decide whom to support in November is for conservatives to rank the issues in order of importance and decide which of the two candidates is better on them. Conservatives might differ somewhat on the ranking but that will not greatly affect the final result. A political scientist who is supposed to look at long term factors as most important must conclude that the greatest problem is the coming bankruptcy or hyper-inflation that will result from the unprecedented red ink that will be generated by Medicare and Social Security over the next few years, now calculated to become bankrupt by their official government Trustees beginning in 2019. Political science data demonstrate conclusively that many more nations fall from economic bankruptcy than from violence or even war.

Germany, the number one power even after World War I, fell because the government could not pay its debts, resulting in run-away inflation and, finally, Adolph Hitler and World War II. In more recent times, the Soviet Union fell first from its economic bankruptcy and Mexico, Argentina, Indonesia and many others were saved from the same fate only by resources pumped in by the U.S. But there is no one to save the U.S. if its finances fall. The immanent national bankruptcy predicted by the government itself, within a mere 15 years, must be the first issue of importance upon which a serious conservative should cast his or her vote in 2004.

The staggering liability for Medicare is about $40 trillion (not billion) and Social Security totals $10 trillion. Yet, no politician is courageous enough to tackle the problem. Indeed, they all agreed to make it worse with the new prescription drug benefit, given its $8 trillion price tab. President Bush did initially introduce a proposal to provide the drug benefit at little additional cost with other restructuring of the Medicare program but the GOP Speaker of the House said that approach was "dead on arrival" and the president backed down and accepted what Congress sent him. The new drug benefit was the major factor advancing the date of projected bankruptcy of Medicare by seven years since the last report a mere twelve months ago. The president has also proposed some sound ideas to reform Social Security but he would have to be willing to veto a bad bill to make sure the entitlements budget was not busted a second time.

If entitlements are the measure, and they are the largest and most expensive government programs, Sen. Kerry must be given the edge come election day. Of course, Kerry supported an even more expensive drug bill but there is no way the Democratic senator could have convinced a Republican Congress, or even a narrowly divided Democratic Congress, to pass the prescription drug bill. Congressional Republicans supported this budget-buster only out of misguided party loyalty and they never would have voted for such a monstrosity proposed by Democratic president.

The second most important problem facing the nation is the war in Iraq. American soldiers are dying and suffering casualties at a rate of 200 a month, which will increase as a result of the escalation of fighting this Spring. The U.S. is scheduled to hand power to an Iraqi government by June 30 of this year and there is no agreement how this government is to be formed. The most powerful Shiite leader, The Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sustani, disrupted American plans for caucuses and no method has yet been chosen to replace them. Beyond that, al-Sustani opposes the temporary constitutional "basic law" provisions establishing federalism, a check-and-balance multiple executive and regional vetoes on final constitutional provisions. He has convinced 12 of the 13 Shiite members of the American-appointed temporary council to support him on this rather than his U.S. benefactors.

The difficulty is that the one-fifth Kurd population and the one-fifth Sunni Arab group demand these three provisions or they will not support the constitution. And they, especially, the Kurds can back it up with force. The recent Sunni and Shia uprisings are not the major problem as they can be contained by force in the short term. The trick is turning over authority by June 30 and isolating American troops in defensible fortresses, holding elections for a constitutional assembly in January and, finally, elections to select the permanent Iraqi government on December 15, 2005. President Bush considers the December 2005 date as the one that will mark "the completion of Iraq's transition from dictatorship to freedom."

Many of those on the right who opposed a land invasion of Iraq by large American units and mushy dreams to democratize it before considering leaving, might assume that Sen. Kerry would be the obvious choice to disengage from Iraq. Actually, Kerry voted for the war and--more importantly--he has said he wants to delay the June 30 transfer and the rest of the Bush-scheduled withdrawal. The war-obsessed neoconservative magazine, The Weekly Standard, this week praised Kerry for taking this stand. Yet, even the hawkish National Review has now had second thoughts and finally realizes it is time to start looking for an exit. Any realistic view of the situation in Iraq must now recognize that Bush's withdrawal schedule must be kept or the U.S. will be caught in an eternal quagmire that will drain already stretched resources and weaken America. Moreover, deferral of the schedule would be taken as absolute proof in the Moslem world of American tyranny and broken promises that would inflame the region and the world. So whatever concerns that might remain about his initial steps, President Bush must be given a decisive edge on this issue so he can implement his all-important withdrawal schedule.

The general war on terrorism is undoubtedly the third most important issue. Both candidates have made credible proclamations that they would continue the current worldwide pressure on extremist Muslim terrorists. Indeed, on their platforms, it is difficult to choose one over the other. Certainly, the 9/11 commission has proved that both political parties were equally unprepared for 9/11. To those who would argue that Mr. Bush would be more likely to engage in another mass land invasion, he has said he will use "all other means necessary" before military force. For those concerned with civil liberties being eroded under the Patriot Act, Sen. Kerry voted for it also. Call this issue a draw, with a possible leaning to the president as the man already experienced in handling the job.

The problem of moral issues is probably the fourth most important one, perhaps higher over the longer term. To take one example, population replacement, if people do not have the moral courage to produce children, there can be no country at all after a single generation. Europe is already fast approaching this situation. With a rate of 2.1 children per child-baring aged woman required to simply replace the existing population, Europe is down to a 1.5 children rate, plummeting from 1.8 only a few years ago. Even the U.S. European population is now down to the old continental rate. Abortion, embryo research, marriage, children's issues, homosexuality, immigration and many other such social issues must be calculated also. While some fault President Bush on these matters, especially immigration, most conservatives would rate him much higher than his opponent. For his positions on the overwhelming number of these moral issues, George Bush would deserve conservative support.

Education and welfare policies generally can be considered together under the category of non-defense discretionary spending as the fifth major issue of the election. This spending has increased more under President Bush than under any president since the Democrats created the modern welfare state. National education spending has exploded and new national standards have been placed on the states, overturning a longstanding Republican preference for local initiative. Even worse, under the direction of the National Education Association, that union has encouraged schools to "comply" by creating tests that measure effort rather than learning to dilute local standards too. Each year the Bush Administration has thrown more money at a problem that keeps getting worse, but now under national rather than local citizen control. The same could be said for farm policy, the environment, transportation, housing and welfare. No substantial programs have been terminated and few haven even been subject to budget discipline. Of course, Sen. Kerry, would like to increase spending on these even more but he has at least promised spending limits on them and, more importantly, would meet substantial Republican opposition in Congress, unlike under President Bush. So a rational conservative would calculate a vote for Kerry as likely to do less damage.

A sixth major area covers appointments, regulation and administrative matters generally. Here President Bush has nominated jurists with conservative backgrounds. Yet, he is considering appointing his White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, as his first Supreme Court selection--who, based on his record, would not be conservative on either economic or social matters. Executive appointments on the domestic side have not been particularly conservative either. A good number of lower ranking selections have been sound but they have little power to affect results. Most right-leaning think tanks consider the present administration's regulatory policies mixed to poor except on matters important to big business, which is not always conservative. Gun rights activists are concerned with Bush support of some gun registration. In recent acts, the Bush Administration has even backed down to liberal critics on environmental and labor policies it had previously opposed as burdensome on business, citing the need for "reasonableness" in the face of an election. Even with this mixed assessment, it is difficult to see Sen. Kerry being more to the right on these matters--although it is bracing to consider that the worst liberal judges were appointed by Republicans--so the president would have to get the conservative nod for these administrative matters

The final area is tax policy. Here there is no contest as far as conservatives are concerned. Sen. Kerry was one of the biggest taxers in Congress during his years in office. He even has pledged to revoke several of the tax cuts enacted temporarily by Mr. Bush. On taxes, President Bush clearly is the conservative choice.

So, how does it add up? The possibility of creating a fiscal deadlock on entitlements and a stalemate on welfare policy would cause a conservative to vote strategically for Sen. Kerry. Yet, to enforce a withdrawal deadline for Iraq, to combat moral decay, to score administrative victories, and to reduce the tax burden, President Bush should be the choice. Four issues go to the president, two go for the challenger and there is one tie. Voting theorists suggest that the uninformed only vote their most important issue but a rational conservative should consider all of the important issues. When carefully examining all of them, a rational conservative would probably weigh his or her vote toward President Bush.

It is a close call and much could happen between now and the election, more than seven months away. Either candidate could change positions or move in a more positive or negative direction on a number of issues. There is much the president could do to make the choice less difficult for conservatives, actions that could also provide an incentive to actually get out and vote. He could promise to revisit the prescription drug bill and limit its costs. He could promise to veto any Social Security reform that did not meet his standards and was not affordable, whatever the Speaker thought about it. He could actually veto a few appropriation bills this very year. He could promise he would not appoint his counsel to the Supreme Court. He could keep to his schedule for Iraq.

It is too early to cast one's ballot, and the matter must be revisited again just before the election to assess whether the careful calculus remains the same; yet--as the pollsters say--if the election were held today, a rational conservative would vote to re-elect George W. Bush President of the United States. Stay tuned to ConservativeBattline for further developments.

By Donald Devine, editor.