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.
W vs. Trump: Who Is the Real “Conservative?”
There was a long discussion after a Harvard Lunch Club podcast called the “Never Trump Edition” in which the conversation veered into a place I found interesting. There is a notion now on many Ricochet threads that asserts that Donald Trump is the “most conservative president in the White House since Eisenhower.”
So @drlorentz asked this question: “What good did GWB do during his tenure besides being NotGore or NotKerry?” I think that question deserves some exploration.
George W. Bush was definitely not as conservative as Ronald Reagan, but it seems to me that people have forgotten some of the things that he did that were very, very, very conservative.
For example, as the healthcare debate continues with no resolution in sight, I would remind my fellow Ricochet members that Health Savings Accounts came into being during W’s tenure.
How did those work?
Younger people could buy high deductible insurance plans in the healthiest stages of life, while putting aside tax-deferred money in a special account to meet future healthcare needs.
What was the idea there?
Instead of being disconnected from the cost of going to a doctor because of a plan that required a $10 co-pay, these people paid more bills out of their HSAs. This added a free market element to healthcare, which is ultimately what conservatives — per my understanding of what those are — believe is necessary to fix our God awful healthcare mess.
How did HSAs work in the real world?
I will never forget my son breaking his arm while we had a high deductible and a Health Savings Account. When I got the bill, I thought it was ridiculous. I went to our doctor’s office manager to discuss this. I whipped out my HSA card and said I’d clear up the bill right then, but I was paying it all outright, and the bill was too high. Couldn’t we talk about the charges?
She smiled and said, “You’ll pay right now? You know what? It’s your lucky day. We’re having a fire sale on broken arms. How about a 20% discount?”
YES!
So under Bush I got an HSA and more control over my family’s healthcare, whereas Donald Trump calls cuts to Medicaid “mean.”
To be honest, I’m not truly sure what it is Trump likes or doesn’t like about the current proposals for healthcare reform apart from the idea that he wants to sign something, but Bush did help with a conservative initiative there.
One of the things that completely flummoxed me about Obamacare is that it limited HSAs. (Whyyy?) Those would have allowed young people to save for the big costs when they were older, which might have eventually allowed us to think about reforming Medicare.
Do you remember when Trump signed an executive order to end the Johnson Amendment? Do you also remember that this executive order—while applauded for being in the right spirit—was so weak that the ACLU decided not to challenge it?
Well, I remember George W. Bush’s Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives, which allowed faith-based organizations to have access to federal funds. This is tied to the idea that religious organizations should not be discriminated against simply because the people who work within them wish to serve others because of their devotion to Jesus Christ. (The horror!) Isn’t that pretty conservative?
The first person Bush appointed to lead the OFBCI was none other than Don Willett, a judge who made Trump’s “short list” for the Supreme Court and is well known for how he uses Twitter to communicate with constituents. (I think Trump should take lessons from Don. That Willett feed is fabulous and a great example of how social media can be a positive workaround of the media without getting anyone in trouble.)
The ACLU bothered to sue over Bush’s program.
Speaking of the Supreme Court, one might recall that Bush appointed John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
I know, I know.
People have issues with the Roberts’ ruling on Obamacare, and these objections are principled objections for sure.
But Roberts has had an overall conservative approach to the law. His dissent on Obergefell is absolutely spot on. He is no Kennedy squish, that’s for sure.
Then there’s Samuel Alito. Goodness gracious. He’s almost in the Clarence Thomas camp, and Clarence Thomas? While a George H. W. Bush appointee, he is the most conservative judge on the Supreme Court.
So if Trump gets massive conservative cred for Gorsuch — as he should — we can’t forget Sam. Bush did that. And, uh, if Gore or Kerry had been elected? The court’s balance would look very different today.
Looking at entitlement reform, George W. Bush pushed to privatize Social Security. That was about conservative ideology. It didn’t happen, but Donald Trump has been clear on the fact that he won’t touch this program at all. I’m not sure how Trump gets “more conservative” points on that front.
For those of you who are now screaming about Medicare, I’ll say, yes. W had the Medicare expansion that got senior citizens free drugs. I’ll grant every day that bit of “compassionate conservatism” didn’t end up great, and Bush was horrible with restraining spending.
But isn’t the Medicare expansion kind of equivalent to pushing for more funds to combat opioid addiction? Or let me go a little further.
As an entitlement, how is Trump’s proposal to create paid parent leave ideologically different — or ultimately less expensive — than paying for some seniors’ drugs?
Per the reasoning behind W’s drugs and Trump’s babies, aren’t we kinda on the same “compassion” page when we get right down to it?
Then there’s foreign policy.
I don’t understand the complete amnesia people have about 9/11.
Did we as a people not want to lift W up on our shoulders and start weeping in gratitude when he stood atop the rubble of our buildings and put his arm around the fireman? When he took that megaphone within his own hand and spoke to all of us? Was that not W saying the United States is the greatest country on Earth, and we will not tolerate people attacking us?
Granted, during those years he made plenty of mistakes. I’m not denying this.
Perhaps he was sometimes too Wilsonesque with his speeches about spreading democracy around the world, but didn’t Reagan use some of the same sort of language?
On that front, I think some people say Trump is more conservative than Bush because his rhetoric is more about staying out of other countries. Trump is less neo-con, more paleo-con. (In general, I think that’s true.)
Yet these people go back to Eisenhower as the last “real conservative” before Trump, and I recall Ike meddled quite a bit in the affairs of other countries.
Do people mean something different?
So … Iraq again.
Wasn’t that a stable country when Bush left office? I mean, I kinda thought it was. Afghanistan? Not so much. Iraq?
George W. Bush took the advice of his commanders, which conservatives tend to think is a good thing to do, and pushed for the Surge, right?
Wasn’t it Obama who messed that whole thing up?
Then there’s North Korea.
Isn’t Donald Trump trying to work his way back to the same level of sanctions that Bush had?
Now, let me say, I love me some Mattis, but how is what Trump is doing that different from that which Bush did?
Some say Trump is “stronger” as people believe he’ll use force when necessary.
But people clearly thought Bush would use the military to do things. He did! People called him a “cowboy” in the press, which I always thought was funny because — well — who doesn’t like John Wayne?
So Bush made mistakes, but he also communicated strength.
By the way, George W. Bush was pretty popular as far as members of the military go. If anything, he’s become more popular with them because of how he has treated the men and women who have served. And, while Dan Rather may have derided Bush’s service, there is a bit of cachet in the fact that the man could pilot a plane. (As a sidenote, George H. W. Bush’s service cannot be derided at all, and I think that normally gets a bit of respect from conservatives.)
Then there was Iran.
Bush was pretty unequivocal about the Iranian regime being part of an axis of evil. Didn’t his policies help set up the Green Revolution, which — again — Obama squandered? (How is that Bush’s fault?)
Per Russia, after he got over gazing into eyes and thinking he knew “Putin’s heart” — Good Lord! — Bush had the sense to start lining up deals to increase our missile defense shield.
Isn’t that what Trump is doing now? Reviving what Bush had already done in Poland?
Look. I’m not trying to take away anything from Donald Trump in this post, but I don’t understand why so many people here sound like they work for the New York Times when talking about W.
Bush was more moderate than Reagan, more conservative than his father.
I’ll have to wait and see if Trump is “more conservative” than Bush. However, I think I’ve shown Bush was more than “Not Gore” or “Not Kerry” in ways that were more substantive than just being polite.
I hope I have anyway.
I’ve got a soft spot in my heart for W, and I don’t think his legacy in the pantheon of American presidents is anywhere close to being understood.
As for Trump?
He’s just started. We have a long way to go to understand the real impact of either of these men.
Published in Politics
That’s cute. :)
You’re talking about the NR issue where conservatives wrote about why Trump would be a bad choice? That issue was during the primary, right? When we were choosing who would carry the Republican banner for the first time after the Obama Era? Isn’t that a much, much different context from opposing a sitting president?
Now I see NR writers being critical of Trump as they were critical of Bush. They’ve become cafeteria Trump supporters in that they pick the things they like to put on their “positive” tray and walk away from the things they don’t like.
Well, those NR writers complained that W was not acting like a conservative when he approved of many of the things that you have listed. They applauded him when he pushed forward other items they viewed as conservative.
I think they respected Bush as a man a lot more, but I hear over and over and over from enthusiastic Trump supporters that they see all the flaws in Trump and don’t like a lot of them but only care about policy. (That’s not a ringing endorsement of Trump as a man, so who cares where the NR writers fall on this?)
The first statement is undeniable. The second statement sounds completely reasonable to me.
Yep. I’m not trying to start a shooting war either. I just think Bush gets hung out in effigy a lot, and I thought it was worth revisiting some of the things that were more “conservative” about his agenda that we seem to have forgotten.
C’mon, Lois. You’re smarter than that. The “idea” may have been intended to let religious people disburse tax monies just like secular progressives do, but the purpose of the (especially federal) government is not, I repeat, to redistribute tax money to and through the favored clients of those in power. That is most definitely not conservatism.
I believe the Lutheran case was one where local funds were denied because of their religious affiliation, but I didn’t follow the case closely. Either way, the redistributionist impulse is wrong and corrupting of both government and religion. The utter inability of (establishment) conservatives to articulate the purpose of government (to secure our God-given liberties) will be the death of the American experiment. As decent a man as Dubya is, he’s not helpful in this regard.
I hear what you’re saying. I totally do. In principle, I don’t disagree with you either. However, the system is already in place, and the faith based initiatives were not about expanding money in the pot but allowing equal access to that money, which is similar to the Lutheran church case.
I am not opposed to dismantling all of that, but… That’s a very, very, very difficult thing to do. Especially without a supermajority, which I can’t remember a Republican ever having in my lifetime. So I’d rather faith based organizations not face discrimination because of a religious undergirding that is conservative. Bush recognized the rights of religious groups to be in the public square in the same way that secular organizations are, which I think allowed those groups to advance conservatism.
It is possible to lock yourself out of the public square if you don’t recognize this, yes? If you just allow the secular state with their secular religions to control every dime that they’ve already picked from the federal purse? (Feel free to disagree. That point just seems obvious to me.)
Especially since we don’t even talk about the purpose of limited/separated powers of government and the sovereignty of the people with our fellow citizens.
I agree there should be equal treatment for religious and secular folks, but the Faith Based Initiative was a surrender to the status quo, not an intrinsically conservative policy.
I disagree. But I can see what you’re thinking, and I appreciate your opinion.
Yes the primary was still going on, but you are not acknowledging the underlying issue here. It’s not that National Review took to picking a guy in the primary that they wished to see win and then later support in the general. They dedicated an entire issue to allowing the big wigs of the “Conservative Movement” a platform from which to explain why this man would do great harm to that Movement and to the country. That’s a pretty big difference of description if you ask me. Had it just been merely an endorsement edition, no one would have cared. But it was much much more than that wasn’t it?
Again, you are kind of missing the underlying point to the Bush v. Trump reaction of NR. It’s not just about “did they critique policies they disagreed with.” It’s about “did the level of that critique rise to the level of ‘these policies are going to do great harm to the Conservative Movement'”. Look, thanks to Bush “Conservatives” now have to explain how bailouts, for instance, are consistent with the ideological principles of the Movement. I know, I have been asked to explain it. We have to be asked about deficits when cutting taxes. (It’s one thing to say Reagan had to deal with Tip, but Bush had to deal with….Tom Delay?) And of course you know the litany of issues. What I don’t understand is how Trump can be a great threat to the “Conservative Movement” but a man who signed restrictions on the First Amendment, built the foundation for the surveillance state, expanded entitlements, grew non-discretionary spending, and allowed Ted Kennedy to write an education bill was absolutely zero threat. This is why, for many here on Ricochet, these people no longer have any credibility. And the people who hold these people up in our faces as paragons of what good “Conservatives” should think are also losing credibility.
I don’t see how that relates to supporting a sitting president facing his second election.
Those writers felt that Donald Trump would do “great harm.” Many of those people are paid to offer their opinions, and that’s what they did in that issue.
NR still does not view Trump as a “conservative” and certainly not “the most conservative” since Eisenhower. Unlike many Trump supporters, those writers felt any other Republican candidate would have beaten Clinton, too, so they were working with different assumptions about Trump from the get go.
The answer there is, “These are the reasons that happened, but they weren’t consistent with the ideological principles of the movement.”
No defense is necessary.
See response to your first point.
I believe Bush was criticized for all of these things–though the Patriot Act certainly garners multiple opinions from the right–but the majority of them were not actually foreseeable as the actions Bush was going to take.
If you return to that 2000 election, Bush certainly sounded more conservative than he governed over 8 years. You’re memory rewind is taking into account all you know now, and not all they knew then.
On the other hand, the Trump campaign had a lot of rather alarming attributes that were clear during the primary, hence the different reaction to Trump.
I think the different reactions boil down to one thing: he ain’t part of the club, period.
I think people are being inconsistent in applying or not applying the label “conservative” to Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, Romney, and Trump. I think that is because conservative opinion itself is divided on most major issues. Furthermore, how can a single person please all sides in all things at all times?
This division on the right could be seen most clearly during the primary debates a year ago. I felt sorry for all of the candidates. The best any of them could do was appeal to a small fraction of Republican voters.
I wonder if Republicans would be happier and more supportive of their candidates and elected officials if the party leaders wrote up a platform that all Republicans agreed upon before the party began soliciting candidates. Writing up the platform and then finding candidates willing to support it to the bitter end would force the Republican Party members to establish their priorities.
The truth is that we cannot have everything on our wish list. So we have to do two things: strengthen and preserve our states’ individual sovereignty (there’s no earthly reason for Vermont to control Texas in any way) and then whittle down our core expectations of our national candidates.
I would call the end result a win for conservatism.
Who could argue with this? My husband doesn’t even please me all the time.
However, while I think having a general platform that candidates can support from the start is great, that would always be just about loose principles because the devil will remain in the details.
You want more robust federalism? Yes. Me, too. That’s a very conservative position. The reason people get so bent out of shape about the president–any president–is that he has too much power now. The federal government is too involved in everyone’s lives.
From the men in your list, Reagan was the most consistent on the importance of states’ rights. I’m not really sure Trump has made a big deal out of state power mattering most much at all, but maybe I’m just not remembering when he’s done this. I remember Romney continually talking about states as the laboratories for legislation, which was his defense for his actions as a governor when enacting a state-wide healthcare.
If all the candidates agreed to the platform, how would they distinguish themselves? On minor issues?
Honestly Lois, I think one of the reasons we prefer to cartoon Bush is our reluctance to revisit the unconservative and disastrous things he did with our support or, at least, without our principled and assertive opposition.
Principled opposition to Trump’s tweets is not really a compensation.
In many respects, Bush has a more legitimate case to be embittered than Trump. Many of the National Greatness conservatives who pushed hardest for the most disastrous events in Bush’s presidency now treat him with condescension and dismissal.
Yet he seems untroubled by the petty insults and hypocritical politics of former allies and neoconservative pundits. What a fine man.
It’s impossible to read tone sometimes, but I’m taking this as a sincere statement, and I really have enjoyed our back and forth.
For my part, even though I wish he had made some different decisions, I don’t feel bad about having ever supported W. I really don’t. And I do think he is a very fine man.
No.
Bush’s fiscal policies are probably responsible for the financial crisis. He violated the cardinal rule of macroeconomic policy, which is that the fiscal authorities must never, ever, ever lean into the wind of current account imbalances. Bush basically had the same approach to fiscal policy the Greeks did at that time: deficits don’t matter, money is great for buying social peace, and we, the politicians, don’t have to worry about nasty things like structural economic reform.
And let’s not forget that Bush invented the idea of using immigration as a tool to demographically engineer permanent majorities, arguably the greatest threat to our democracy since Jim Crow.
It’s easier to remember the bulletpoints and policy highlights and lowlights of the Bush years. But it takes work, unpleasant work, to remember how vicious, relentless and pervasively foul the entire Democratic party and their media hacks were. Every commonsense statement by W was evidence of his flat caveman mind while every lie and deceit of Democrats was mental chess of Karpov caliber. I’ll stop now. What a foul disgrace they were.
This is true.
As time passes, it gets easier to let the ideological freak flags fly and lose the context.
Take Bush’s prescription drug benefit. It was a key promise in the GOP platform and was approved by near acclamation in Philadelphia. The polling for it was high among the voters and astronomical with seniors and near-seniors. Gore and Congressional candidates were hammering Republicans. You don’t need to remember. You can write the script right now in real time.
What should have been the GOP response? A full-throated defense of a free market in senior drugs?
Bush won Florida and the election by 537 votes. Had the GOP not rather cleverly concocted a “choice” senior benefit and attacked the Democrats there’s almost no doubt the White House and the House would have been lost. In the Senate we lost almost all the close races to Democratic hacks, though VA and MT probably would have been lost as well.
Result was a drug benefit that somewhat pencils out, is arguably the best designed cog in the federal welfare machine and considerable loyalty from seniors and near-seniors for the GOP.
Is any member of the GOP, including Rand, proposing to rescind Part D? (Give Rand credit, he has proposed some far sighted reforms.)
I realize I often don’t keep the context in mind when being overcritical (especially whenever “listing” faults). But the context that Bush and Trump operate in is important.
Unless tweets and personal branding are all that matter.
I think of it more as an “and” than a “but.”
The Democrats hated Bush more than they opposed him. I opposed him. In those days, every criticism I made of Bush when Democrats were listening was phrased as an attack on Democrats. (“Bush is no better than…”) And I also spent a lot of time attacking the Democrats for their Bush derangement.
I’m NeverBush.
Very good post @loislane. You made a strong argument in your support of GWB. Certainly his”…to those of you who knocked these buildings down…” megaphone talk on top of the smoldering rumble of the World Trade Towers was his finest moment. Tears come back to my eyes remembering that moment–probably the last time this country was unified in thought and spirit. I, for one, have not claimed Donald Trump to be more conservative than George Bush. Trump is a practical conservative, GWB a compassionate conservative. I am not sure how much difference there is in those two positions. GWB is a fine and honorable man. Trump is a fighter, a counter puncher, a man that will not take the lies of the media without a retort. He will stand up to those who are trying to destroy him. All of us who wish to maintain our individual liberty need him to prevail. We are in a struggle for survival. The Bush’s also need to join us. I’m not so sure they have…any of them.
Amen to that! It’s why I refuse to be harshly critical of either man. Trump is not trying to govern in the America of 1980 or 2000.
But, neither will I praise Dubya’s policies as conservative when they weren’t. And quite a few of them weren’t.
I agree, which is probably one reason I wrote this article. It bothers me that many people on Ricochet seem to be gunning for him as if they have a Democrats’ view of his legacy. I mean, criticize him! Fair play. Make him into a progressive? Seems a bit… wrong.
I think that’s fine, but you should seriously never, ever, ever criticize anyone for being NeverTrump because they “hurt” the overall cause. If your position is that either NeverBush or NeverTrump is a stand of principle… great. ;)
(As a side note, I reject the “NeverTrump” label in part because I think it is no longer meaningful with the vast majority of conservatives when it comes to political tents and coalitions.)
I don’t recall ever making that particular criticism – at least not in those words. Being NeverBush makes me a little more tolerant of the NeverTrumpers when it comes to things like that. I’m not so tolerant of the idea that Bush was better.
As I mentioned several times already, though perhaps not in your hearing, I used to take a lot of grief from certain Republicans who said I was helping out the Democrat cause with my opposition to Bush. I got fairly good at ignoring them.