Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
‘Bush Republican’ Is Catching on, Maybe
I don’t know that I minted the phrase “Bush Republican,” but I was using it before I heard anyone else use it. And now, Fox News Host Laura Ingraham has picked it up.
In her interview, Ingraham asked (Florida Senator Rick Scott), “What is going on here with Mitch McConnell?” adding he’s “not a populist” but instead “an old-style Bush Republican.”
I define a Bush-Republican as a Republican in the mode of George H.W. and George W. Bush … a Republican that pays lip service to conservatism while in reality being an establishment moderate. Bush Republicans believe in expanded Government (“compassionate conservatism” “a kinder, gentler nation”), high levels of legal and illegal immigration (“open borders,” in shorthand), globalism, open-ended foreign wars, tax cuts for the wealthy, and the supremacy of the Deep State. A Republican who doesn’t see Democrats as opponents to be defeated, but merely rivals whose socialist ambitions need to be moderated.
This description applies self-evidently to the vast majority of current Republican officeholders. They define opposition to these things as “Trumpism,” and they are not wrong.
The Bush Republicans are mad at Rick Scott because he has proposed the radical idea that more Americans should pay taxes. 61% of Americans currently don’t (normally, it’s about 40%). People getting stuff for free from the Government naturally see no problem in getting an expanded list of things for free from the Government. Scott thinks everybody should have skin in the game and I agree. Although I recognize my view isn’t going to be popular with the Bush Republicans or the freeloaders.
Something Ace said yesterday struck a nerve with me. See if you agree.
I’m not very pro-Trump myself, though I’m very opposed to the sorts of people who reflexively oppose Trump — not because I love Trump, but because the people who oppose Trump are not doing so because of “His Tweets!” or “His Character!,” but because they want to keep the greedy, corrupt DC Establishment in power forever.
That’s pretty much where I’ve been since mid-2017.
Published in General
I thought that Bush republican is just another word for GOPe. Basically just the more conservative aspect of the elite uniparty that runs the country.
I think this is right but Bush republican conveys the idea better, people who experienced rule under Bush and Democrats recognize the comparison. Neither will mean much to young voters.
Having lived through the whole cycle, and having supported Bush to include the Iraq War – up until around 2006 – I feel like an expert on the topic.
First, we have to remember how entrenched into the GOPe the Bush family network is.
G. H.W. Bush, was a formidable primary candidate versus Reagan in the late seventies. Reagan prevailed, but he had to pay the big business legacy Republicans tribute and take on Bush as VP. From there, Bush (who had been head of the CIA) gradually wielded his influence in appointments and connections for eight years. Then he won the Presidency riding on Reagan’s success, much of whose policies Bush had been against.
Then he became President for four years. That’s 12 years of being very influential in the GOP. In the 8 years of ‘exile’ from high office, Bush remained very influential in Republican politics, while his sons W and Jeb were rising stars in two crucial states, Republican bastion Texas and the swing state of Florida. As we know both ended up governors of those large states.
Then we had 8 years of G. W. Bush. That’s 20 years of appointments and network power consolidation, Congresspersons Senators, Governors and all down the line from the pinnacles of power.
But still, during the 8 years out of power under Clinton, the Bush family were still atop the GOP establishment since there were no other formidable Republicans i.e. (Dole?) , and after W’s term, McCain and later Romney having lost their bids for POTUS were not strong enough to form their own networks to eclipse the Bush influence, and neither was significantly different ideologically anyway (which was in part a function of the Bush influence itself)
We witnessed the Bush family presenting Jeb! as the next answer for 2016, who was able to raise a staggering 100 million dollars before his campaign for the nomination even started.
The Trump nomination was a slap in the face to the Bush dynasty and network. It was political, it was personal, and it was ideological.
So naturally, we are stuck with thousands of Republicans in positions of power – not to forget pundits and media – scattered throughout the country at every level. They have personal, and/or political, and/or ideological sympathies sufficient to be labeled Bush Republicans.
By the time they had the utter arrogance to present us with Jeb, I was disgusted. These people were no longer patriots if they ever really were.
Hope it catches on. It’s easier than explaining who Rockefeller was.
Bush Republicans are animated by war and flexing US military around the globe. They are New world Order believers, globalists and corporatists.
When I say corporatists, I don’t mean it the way the left used the term. Commies were against corporations back when they were fairly benign compared to today. Whether they were predicting this development now or not (I doubt it), corporations are now global and untethered to country or location, have no real moral compass in any way, are predatory and have co-opted our legislators and infiltrated government at every level and care not a whit about borders, culture, health, or human rights, here or elsewhere.
Bush Republicans are disproportionately wealthy and and safe gated communities. They generally are older and stuck in the past. They are afraid of change. They are insulated from ordinary people. They care about their status and what liberals think, to the point where they adopt whatever the liberals were saying ten years ago, thinking it’s a safe space politically, and focusing on the most outrageous excesses of the left to hector Democrats politically almost to a point where they are invested politically in these things continuing and even getting worse.
This is a very good short synopsis. Thanks.
I would add two points. I now think Bush’s CIA leadership in the late seventies might have had a lot of influence on the later direction of the intelligence function that has done so much damage (and maybe even hurt Reagan). And the uniparty concept might account for why Jeb was not Obama’s opponent in 2012.
I agree generally. I think they had Obama in a box regarding Gitmo, Iraq and Afghanistan, and as long as he wasn’t actually carrying out his promises, they were ok with it. Or simply Obama was smart enough not to press on these issues once in office, knowing he’d have a real fight with the deep state and Pentagon.
Bush Republicans are always deferential to minorities, because they don’t want to ever be accused of ‘racism’, so I don’t think Jeb had the stones to run against a popular black man with a sharp crease in his trousers. Obama would have made him look even more pathetic than Trump did.
Also it would have been really ridiculous for Jeb to be running only four years after his brother left office.
I strongly believe McCain strong-armed Bush in 2004 threatening to primary him, in return for full Bush support in 2008, which he got. I hated McCain even then and did not vote in 2008.
All of the above is why I now simply refer to myself, politically, as a Reagan Conservative. It’s a title I’m proud to identify with.
I don’t think there’s anything conservative about them. What have they conserved?
I’m tempted to start calling myself a liberal, because foremost in my mind is the strong desire for liberty.
They have done a great job of conserving Democratic policy gains: Obamacare, abortion-on-demand, EPA regulations, Dodd-Frank, CPB funding…
Ditto!
Sounds like a slightly modernized version of Rockafeller Republican. Same meaning conservative light, big government types who want to be liked so look like a Johnson Democrat. Never works just continues drift to the worst of the left.
Whole lotta Bush Republicans wanna call themselves “Reagan Conservatives.”
Paul Ryan – “Calling his political outlook fundamentally “Reagan conservative,” former U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan outlined a future course for the Republican Party”
Jeb Bush – “During a campaign office opening in Miami, Bush opened his white button-down shirt to reveal an emblem that’s iconic – at least to conservatives: The Ronald Reagan/George H.W. Bush 1984 campaign logo. “Let me show you something,” he told the crowd as he unbuttoned his shirt. “That’s the party I believe in: Reagan and Bush.”
Mitt Romney – Multiple examples at link.
Marco Rubio – “Republican presidential hopeful Marco Rubio in an ad released Thursday positions himself as the next Ronald Reagan, ready to spark a conservative revolution.”
Lindsey Graham – “I’m going to keep being a social and fiscal conservative that focuses on our national security … like Ronald Reagan.”
John Kasich – “The Ohio governor… compared himself twice to Ronald Reagan within a few minutes on Sunday in an interview with Jake Tapper on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
Bill Kristol (literally) – “I consider myself a Reagan conservative.”
As with all things, it’s actions that define a man, not whatever he proclaims himself to be.
Looking at your avatar, I thought you might say something like that, Gary.
You invented the term Bush Republican?
That’s Bush League.
Yes it’s pretty simple. The dominant players in both parties are those who get rich, exercise power, and hold most offices. Reagan and Trump were radically different. Reagan was a new version of the old party and had to fight the Cold War. Trump was new, from outside Washington and therefore able to focus on what mattered most at this particular time when the Republic is being destroyed. Even his outrageous tweets had a reason, he had to blast through the media. His reelection was obviously stolen and I’m amazed how many on our side who should know better think the senile old man in the basement actually won. We’ve got serious problems folks. I’m glad Trump is playing it cautiously and my hope is that he’ll throw support to a real non Washington guy late enough to have drained some hate and money from the Democrat machine and those who support it. A governor from Florida perhaps?
It’s time for the new GOP. The party for the people. Grass roots candidates only, need apply. F… The establishment. Let the Constitution be revered, and defended by those who swore an oath.
We do not need rino’s, weak willed, door mat, go-along, to get-along, neo- cons. Pragmatic in vision, and application. The candidates who speak with honest conviction, and love of Country. Let leftists be forever cast aside, as the venomous idealogues, that deserve no quid pro quo.
November could be the start of something great again. The establishment GOP, needs to cease existence. The GOP moniker, isn’t indicative of the character of the person who claims it. It’s indicative of the person, who has the character, to re-claim it, and make it Grand again.
I prefer a Calvin Coolidge Republican
Yes, personal networks are at the root of power, as Niall Ferguson reminds us.
Political leaders often bring pre-existing networks with them upon election. These don’t disperse easily when there are scionic wannabees around, though the voters mercifully headed off Teddy-on-the-bridge, Jeb!, and a certain Crooked lady-in-waiting.
Isn’t “Bush Republican” a self-limiting term, like 41’s presidency? One asks, Which Bush? Prescott, 41, W, and ! were very different types.
In media memory, 41 becomes his lyin’ lips, the elitist at the checkout scanner, and let’s not forget fitting SCOTUS for a new Souter. GOPe for sure and as a Texas wildcatter, no Jett Rink.
Yale never shook the Texan out of boomer boy W, rowdy-right enough to win a couple of elections and finish off Saddam. Still, their old Ford Administration gang had its divisions. Wasn’t conservatism’s real leader during both Bush presidencies Rush Limbaugh?
Bushies and their ideological progeny may now feel free to disperse. The emerging network doesn’t need members who vote to impeach a Republican president, whisper against him to the Fox Board, or accept funding from left wing foundations. Let’s be better than that.