Reject Conservatism or Bush?
by Matt Varvaro
Issue 128 - March 25, 2009

Following the Republican Party's 2006 and 2008 electoral drubbings, exuberant declarations of "conservatism's death" abound. Often inspired by nothing more than wishful thinking, writers like Sam Tanenhaus (whose prominent piece entitled "Conservatism is Dead" graced the cover of a recent issue of The New Republic) base their weighty assertions largely upon misleading generalities that are frankly lacking in historical accuracy. Premature though they may be, such claims indeed warrant attention, as they have become increasingly pervasive among the mainstream media.

According to their thesis, the conservative movement has been damaged beyond repair for two fundamental reasons: first, because it has been tried in earnest and failed, and second, because voters do not actually desire a conservative government. Both points must be thoroughly addressed. Here, we will examine in particular Mr. Tanenhaus's essay, as it is decidedly the most acclaimed piece written on this subject and employs many of the same arguments that appear in similar analyses.

The first assertion - that conservatism in practice has failed - presupposes that George W. Bush successfully pushed forth a conservative agenda during his administration, and did so to a greater extent than any other president in modern times. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth, and the critics' justifications for this contention are most unconvincing. Take, for example, Mr. Tanenhaus's interpretation of President Bush's commitment to conservative values and his appeal to the right wing:

Bush, so often labeled a traitor to conservative principles, was in fact more steadfastly devoted to them than any of his Republican predecessors - including Ronald Reagan. Few on the right acknowledge this today, for obvious reasons. But not so long ago many did. At his peak, following September 11, Bush commanded the loyalties of every major faction of the Republican Party.

First of all, the assertion that 9/11 was "not so long ago" is absurd. In a discussion of George W. Bush's presidency, of course it was long ago - he had only been president for less than a year! Conservatives had good reason to be happy with him at the time, namely because Bush's patently (and persistently) un-conservative behavior did not occur much during those first few months in office, but in subsequent years. Moreover, the author's remark about Bush's skyrocketing popularity amongst conservatives is equally disingenuous; with ninety percent approval ratings following 9/11, he clearly "commanded the loyalties" of almost every major faction of the country, not just of the Republican Party.

In his attempt to underscore Bush's "conservative" credentials, Mr. Tanenhaus makes pronouncements like "Bush went further than Reagan, too, in the war he waged against the federal bureaucracy," an assertion commonly echoed by others on the left. This is particularly bizarre, given the massive expansion of the federal bureaucracy that occurred during the Bush administration, be it at the Department of Education (which Reagan attempted to eliminate altogether), or Bush's very own Department of Homeland Security, which has been plagued by massive waste and inefficiency. And if Bush was so keen on reducing the federal bureaucracy and only cared about defense spending, as these authors suggest, why did domestic spending increase at a higher rate during his administration than during any other president's since LBJ's Great Society? (Incidentally, Reagan cut this non-defense discretionary spending.) Also, let's not forget the infamous Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, which President Bush signed into law in 2003 - the biggest expansion of the welfare state since the Great Society.

Clearly, George W. Bush was not as conservative as these writers would make him out to be; not only had he virtually no allegiance to limited government or fiscal restraint, but he believed it the federal government's job to intervene in matters that conservatives have traditionally felt should be left up to the states. Finally, claims of Bush's "blind faith in a deregulated, Wall Street-centric market" should be put to rest in light of the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars that he advocated using toward bailouts both of banks and automakers, as well as other costly regulations that he championed earlier in his administration, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

The second factor to which these authors attribute conservatism's "death" is the American electorate's rejection of conservative government. To quote Mr. Tanenhaus,

Some argue that the [Bush] administration wasn't conservative at all, at least not in the 'small government' sense. That is true, but then no president in modern times has seriously attempted to reduce the size of government, and for good reason: Voters don't want it reduced. What they want is government that's 'big' for them - whether it's Democrats who call for job-training programs and universal health care or Republicans eager to see billions funneled into 'much-needed and underfunded defense procurement,' as William Kristol recommended shortly after Obama's victory.

There are quite a few significant flaws in this analysis. First, as touched upon earlier, Ronald Reagan did seriously attempt to reduce the size of government and, in many ways, succeeded, particularly on domestic issues. Second, it is wrong to say that conservatives do not really want a limited government, and the author confuses issues that may appear in the Republican platform with issues that actually move voters. To use his examples, while universal health care may be a strong voting consideration for Democrats, few Republicans vote the way they do out of concern for "underfunded defense procurement." Perhaps foreign policy is a defining issue for many Republican voters, but not the quantity of dollars used to fund the defense budget.

The issues that historically have guided Republicans' voting behavior are indeed grounded in a desire for less government interference in their lives. For example, some of this country's most powerful conservative voting movements have been animated by a desire for the government to play a smaller role in their children's education, in their gun cabinets, and, most importantly, in their wallets. Contrary to Mr. Tanenhaus's claim, these voters do not want the government to be "big" for them; they just want to be left alone.

Perhaps these critics' thesis would have more credibility had George W. Bush actually implemented a conservative agenda, and voters threw the Republicans out of power as a result. But in reality, the size and scope of government has expanded dramatically, the states'-rights philosophy has nearly evaporated, and the federal government has established a new, prominent role in the marketplace - all under a supposedly conservative administration.

The Republican Party, after having abandoned its principles and abused its power, is doubtlessly in poor shape. But growing opposition to Democratic policy mismanagement will ultimately fuel a conservative comeback and the doom-and-gloom scenarios that we hear all too often will once again be invalidated. Just as night becomes day, Republicans will eventually come roaring back to power and the cyclical nature of politics will continue, as it always does.