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
Yes, but at least Dubya maintained the dignity of the office…
I am closely connected to the military, but I am not making a case here that Bush made no mistakes. I am making a case that if your criteria is ultimate outcome then the Iraq Bush left on the table was stable, and he listened to his commanders to push for the Surge when it was politically harder for him to do so. Perhaps he should have done that earlier. Okay! But he did it. He gets credit.
–I am not saying he doesn’t deserve some credit. But finally doing the job you should have done from the beginning is not very worth much credit in my book. Maybe he should have spent some time looking at what his father did in the first Gulf War. Defining victory objectives and sticking with them. Instead he only got around to the war at the end of his term, because he had nothing else he could do on the domestic edge.
–Finally doing what was right after ignoring the problem for 5 years is not very commendable.
I think Bush/Iraq is an interesting course of events. Yes, the Iraq he turned over to Obama was stable compared to where it was in 2006, but Bush’s arrival to that point was brought about by a huge off-cycle election loss in 2006. That loss was blamed on the turmoil in Iraq and when Congressional leaders lost their committee chairmanships, they demanded change: think McCain in this. Bush was brought to that stability nearly kicking and screaming.
Oh, wait, I see what you are doing here.
This was related to the primary. If we’re back to the Never Trump issue.
I don’t think we are really arguing here. It’s hard to “hear” everything you’re asking in certain questions, so perhaps I’ve inserted what I think are logical implications from where I’m sitting? On many points, we are in the same place.
Oh come on. You expect me to believe that, after an entire magazine filled with the level of vitriol that was in there, that it was only about the primary? Look, if we can’t even agree on the facts surrounding this question, we can’t really go on conversing about it. There is no way you are going to show through evidence that that was only about a primary and not a broader statement about Trump’s effect on what they call “Conservatism.”
You have to remember that two prominent Nevers who had a hand in that NR issue, Jonah and J-Pod, were worried about going to the convention because they thought many of the delegates were neo-Nazis who would try to hurt them. They seriously brought that concern up on an episode of GLoP. This went well beyond just a primary preference.
Yes. National Review writers believe that Trump is not a conservative and presents himself in such a way that will undermine conservatism when he is attached to that movement.
Furthermore, many NR writers felt that Trump said many things during the primary that disqualified him from carrying the Republican banner.
When Trump was the nominee, many NR writers still said that Trump was counter to their principles. (I believe they said this because they felt that was true.)
However, Trump got elected, and NR writers–even some who were very, very clear that they did not think Trump would be great in the long run like David French who considered running as a 3rd party candidate–have since supported actions that Trump has taken that they deem as positive… dare I say… conservative???
This does not mean that NR is all of a sudden rah-rah Trump. They aren’t. (They weren’t all rah-rah Bush either.)
While some of their writings/feelings have been hyperbolic, I do not see NR as being part of the incredibly ridiculous rhetoric that has crashed over Trump from the “Resistance.”
In fact, I’m pretty sure NR writers have mocked such.
I’m not sure what it is you want me to say?
National Review is still very skeptical of Trump.
They will praise his good actions. They will skewer his bad actions.
I know where they are sitting in the ideological tent, and I think they’re pretty up front about it.
I’m fine with their analysis.
As to the Glop episode? I didn’t hear it, so I can’t comment.
Well I guess to bottle the end here, the point is that the discussion of who is more “Conservative,” Bush or Trump, is a good window in to the minds of those who would say Bush is and Trump isn’t. This is not to say that Trump is, but rather a way to say Bush isn’t. If one is willing to say that Bush is more of a “Conservative” than Trump, then one has to ignore probably 80 percent of Bush’s policies while in office. To do so is to discredit any claims that Trump unequivocally is not a “Conservative.” Now, I don’t think you are doing that. You said yourself, we need to give Trump more than six months. But many in this tread, on this site, and throughout the “Conservative” world will, without hesitation, tell you that Trump is no “Conservative” while applauding W. (I wanted to make sure you saw that.)
Before this thread winds down, I will paraphrase a comment I used to make back when Consultant-Americans like Karl Rove were trotting out the question of which candidate was “conservative enough:”
I don’t really care who is more conservative or who is conservative enough. I don’t care if the person is conservative, libertarian, socialist, or Rastifarian. I want the person who will decentralize government and eliminate corporate welfare (which will be the key to fixing the immigration problem and a host of other problems).
Absolutely…and gotted demonized by the left–press anyway. He just was too dignified to fight back.
Yeah, I was commenting with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek. Hard to convey in pixelated words.
Well I kinda thought that was the case. I shoulda “gotted” it.
First, you’re a smart guy, so let’s look at this a little closer.
“More than” or “less than” are pretty straightforward. If I said my nephew is bigger than my niece, it would not matter that my nephew is still a small boy, especially compared to my husband. Per the measures I have available to me, my nephew is bigger than my niece.
Second, I listed a few things that Bush did that are conservative. Maybe Trump will rack up more conservative accomplishments. Who knows?
At the moment, per the measurements I have, Bush looks more conservative to me.
Healthcare – Bush had HSAs, Trump has nothing.
SCOTUS – Bush had 2 conservative appointments, Trump has 1.
Taxes – Bush had massive cuts, Trump has none.
Foreign Policy – There are quite a few things that Bush did that I would call conservative, but in what way is Trump “more conservative” or even different in this arena?
Socially – Bush (more pro-life than his father) banned federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, reinstated the Mexico City Policy, signed the Born Alive Infant Protect Act, made it possible to define the child in the womb as “a child” if hurt/lost due to violence, pushed for and signed the Partial Birth Abortion Act, and was vocal about the sanctity of life. Trump has reinstated the Mexico City Policy and has said he is pro-life.
It is, perhaps, less relevant per how we are measuring these things, but Bush certainly acted more socially conservative with an evangelical ethos that he projected as important. He raised a nice family. Trump also has a nice family.
I mean… I kinda already wrote the article, but I just don’t see where Trump’s “more” is “more.” Maybe the optimum word is yet? Fine. But maybe my niece will one day outweigh her brother?
I’m not saying you’re saying that Bush has no conservative qualities at all. You’ve clearly given him credit for some. He is certainly more conservative than any Democrat who ran against him. I think he was more conservative than his biggest primary challenger, John McCain.
I do not think Donald Trump was the “most conservative” guy running for president in 2016.
Will he end up right of Ted Cruz? He’ll have to do some things that show me this.
We don’t have those things quite yet.
We’ll see.
I disliked the “conservative enough” thing because I hate purity tests. I am using the “more conservative” model here mainly to remind people that W was not actually Al Gore. I think people have forgotten a lot of conservative things he did.
If a president did as you bid here–decentralization–he would be acting as a conservative, so I would give him credit for those conservative actions.
If he is a socialist and passes free college for all–just pulling something out my hat–then I’d say… Yeah. That goes in the “socialist” column. Not good. ;)
I get it. In order to be “conservative” you don’t have to, well, do anything conservative, you only need to a) not do anything at all legislatively, or b) jabber as though you want to shoot every immigrant.
Meanwhile, talk a good game on Iran but certify that they are “compliant”, and constantly tweet garbage.
I do think that’s a perspective a lot of people have. ;)
And I also think in our current age people forget that W. did, in fact, do real things.
But to be fair to Trump, I think his executive orders, SCOTUS appointment, and cabinet appointments could–and should–be construed as “conservative.” I’m not sure if they are particularly unique to him in that I’m not really sure I buy the idea that he’s the only guy from the Republican Party who would have, say, withdrawn from the Paris Accords. But I’m willing to wait and see where he goes. After all, no one else is president.
In the end, I do agree with people who say it’s mostly the record that matters.
I will take a guy that does nothing conservative legislatively then a progressive in conservative clothing like George Bush.
One had to say nice things in order to do business. The other had no such restrictions yet calls Clinton a brother.
I wouldn’t be friends with Bush.
National Review is filled with frauds. The only people worth anything there are VDH and Andy McCarthy.
As of right now, Trump by a mile.
Again, NT has not stopped and we are not dumb enough to think that it will ever stop while Trump is in office.
Again, we are not going to buy into the crap that somehow NT is over.
@outlaws6688, I think both you and the writers at National Review have a right to different opinions. It’s a free country!
But I don’t think anyone has to invite people to their wedding to “just do business” in a state. If so, we don’t live in a free country at all. And I have no idea how the Koch brothers have a penny to their names.
Donald Trump also never needed to call Nancy Pelosi “wonderful” to build a hotel in Jersey. Geez.
Btw, I don’t care about any of that much. I’m sure he liked the Clintons. So what?
I hope President Trump leaves office with a conservative record. We will have to wait and see.
And I’ll probably always like President Bush. (Picture a woman with a cup of coffee shrugging now on her couch.)
Also, @outlaws6688, I thought of something that might help you understand why I don’t hold the same low opinions that you have for W….
You said your starting point for “conservative” is immigration, right?
My starting point is the sanctity of life.
George W. Bush was a staunchly pro-life president. I aligned with his views on that matter completely, and he did whatever he could do from the executive branch to protect the unborn.
Coincidentally the two biggest Trump apologists on staff.
But, of course, the idea that he’s the sole deciding factor in whether or not someone is worth listening to is a strawman.
George W. Bush was one of the best friends Planned Parenthood ever had.
That’s simply untrue. You could make that case with H. W., but it really doesn’t work with W. He was very consistently pro-life.
He was pro-life in some respects (more than Obama, for example) but he was also a friend of Planned Parenthood funding.