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
No he wasn’t. His father was.
What about this? Or this? On the other hand, W. did remove international funding for Planned Parenthood, so I suppose we can give him credit for trying to have it both ways.
The first website looks like some conspiracy website, especially with the Bald Eagle cradling the alien at the top of the page.
Did you actually read the text on your first website? It says things like Bush wanted to “kill some kids” and looked for “pro choice judges” and other such completely ridiculous nonsense.
The second article talks about Bush “giving billions” to PP. There are lots of problems with that as well, but we can go with the most simple one: presidents don’t control $.
Let me assure you, George W. Bush had a staunch pro-life record in office, which is recognized by *reputable* pro-life organizations.
You are simply wrong when you contend otherwise, and I don’t know why you don’t bother with mainstream sources focused on Life issues.
Yes, I read it but perhaps you did not. It’s possible that it’s not an accurate site (a couple of statements seem overly tendentious) but if so you are similarly inaccurate in reporting what’s on the site.
Let’s look at what I’m talking about:
*Bush opposed South Dakota’s 2006 total abortion ban; because as he told ABC News he supports killing some kids That is inflammatory and ridiculous. The reason the SD law was passed when it was on any count was because Bush had just appointed two conservative judges to SCOTUS, and the ban was meant to push forward a test case to get the question back in front of the Supreme Court since it obviously violated Roe v. Wade. It was rejected in a referendum by the vast majority of voters in South Dakota. This was not something over which W. had any control either. None. Nada. He wanted to kill some kids??? Talk about hyperbole. That’s just gross.
*Bush’s first presidential campaign promise was ‘no litmus test;’ he would nominate pro-choice judges That is a standard Republican promise for every judge… ever. Republicans believe judges aren’t there to promote ideological concerns. They are there to judge the law. Democrats do litmus tests.
* in 2000 in the first presidential debate, Bush declared that he would not try to overturn Roe v. Wade This is a standard position as the president has absolutely no power what-so-ever to do this. None. Nada.
* in the third 2000 debate Bush repeated his campaign promise: he would continue to appoint pro-aborts See rebuttal #1. Here the implication is that Bush is looking for pro-abortion judges, and that he has appointed lots and lots and lots of pro-abortion judges. In reality, he had no litmus test. And his two Supreme Court judges would have ruled against Roe because it was ideological argle-bargle that creates a “right” per a group of activists in robes. Bush did not appoint activists.
That whole line of attack is disingenuous and horrible. And that’s one bullet point after another.
Then there’s this:
* Bush never attempted to ban embryonic stem cell research but actually funded the grisly research George Bush ended all federal funding for stem cell research that involved harming a human embryo or fetus via Executive Order 13435.
This website is riddled with inaccuracies, blatant distortions, and evil hyperbole. (Yes, I do mean that last one.) It breaks the ninth of the ten commandments, which is to never bear false witness against one’s neighbor. Such witness is intended to harm or destroy another person or his reputation. That’s a terrible sin.
The website is awful and wrong.
Finally, just to further set the record straight on this particular “personhood” matter, George W. Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act after being re-elected.
Per the question that was in my original post–what has Bush ever done for conservatives other than be Not Gore or Not Kerry–conservatives should cheer. This was viewed as a giant step towards gaining full personhood status–a seismic shift in thinking about the humanity of any fetus–that was very, very, very important to the Pro-Life movement even though there are miles yet to travel.
John Kerry made it part of his campaign to promise to veto this act if president.
So, here, if George W. Bush had not been elected, this giant step forward for the Pro-Life Movement would simply not exist.
Furthermore, if you’re taking that horrible website’s line/logic that George W. Bush couldn’t defund PP and thus funneled $ to PP, you need to review some civics. That’s like saying now that the Obamacare overhaul is dead–and the one year only ban of funds to PP is finished–President Trump is funneling $ to PP. And President Trump actually said PP does a lot of great work and should thus get taxpayer dollars. Yet I do not take the position that Donald Trump is funneling $ to PP when he has no bill defunding PP to sign. He doesn’t have the power of the purse.
W. has never had any power over PP funds domestically. He stopped all funds over which he had control, and he would have signed–and did sign–any legislation that he could that advanced the Pro-Life cause.
George W. Bush was “extremely” pro-life.
I’m just going to throw this in because it’s a strong endorsement of Bush’s pro-life credentials worth mentioning — his order to desist from making new stem-cell lines for research was probably the most well-considered, reasoned, and articulated pro-life stance of any president since the advancement of the technology. And, he delivered it in a nationally televised address!
Yeah, I think Bush is solid on the life question. Mrs. Bush on the other hand…
Absolutely. I don’t even understand why there’s any debate about this. And then making a case he was bad on life? It’s not grounded in any empirical evidence what-so-ever.
Also, First Ladies can promote their initiatives. Who doesn’t like kids reading books? But they aren’t in positions of real power. They have rights to their own opinions just like anyone else?
As you know, what matters most is what the president does (and says), and that was very positive.
Yes, Laura Bush had no authority in the matter. Being squishy on the life issue is one of my rare criticisms of her, but, seeing as it’s one of the first things, it’s a big one. It’s too bad she’s (or was?) morally confused in this way.
I do for her as I do for all people who are “squishy,” having once been squishy myself!!!!
I will hope that she reflects deeper on the issue… perhaps finds some challenges to her thinking about how to square abortion morally when having dinner conversations with her less ambivalent husband. ;)
After all, people have to find the “right” answers on their own.
I feel this way even though I’ll admit, on this topic, I’ve gotten to a place that isn’t very flexible at all.
You might be right. Let me check again.
George Bush! So much character he convinced Never Trump that he was actually a conservative. By the way, part of the reason Trump won is because people like the author of this post convinced rubes he was a Conservative and it took 8 years of betrayals for the rubes to understand he wasn’t. This lead to a backlash against Conservatism INC. and viola, you get Trump.