Well, Barron's, that bastion of the liberal elite, is calling for his impeachment.
Count me in.
Prolifers with brains actually shuttered over the Iraq War business because it forced the prolife cause into an alliance with those sponsoring an AT LEAST morally questionable war, thereby threatening an accute moral conflict and/or lots of slippery moral footwork.
More practically, they feared that such a war, unless resolved quickly and favorably, would threaten to render the prolife cause a distinctly secondary matter tossed about on the fortunes of fierce war politics and the inevitable priority even a questionable war takes over domestic political issues, even a supposedly "non-negotiable" issue like abortion. Well, there is no doubt that the prolife cause has taken a political backseat to "war priorities" with no even whimpering complaints from the same self-serving people who told us that abortion takes priority over war when it came to voting for presidential and legislative candidates. If matters get worse, then we may end up with pro-war/pro-choice presidential candidate from the party that was supposed to be our pro-life political medium or political defeat of the pro-war cause and, as a consequence, its hapless prolife allies.
Now, I don't care if the Bushies or Neocons or whatever they are "pissed away" the conservative cause (God knows what that is these days) through the Iraq War. I do care if they end up rendering the prolife cause an artifact of history, like the Prohibition Party. And this war threatens to do just that.
As Catholics, we should all be about the business of trying to apply Catholic social teaching to the economic and political issues of today. And since that's not a priority of the Republican Party, why not have a Christian Democratic Party based on natural law principles that is unambiguously pro-life, anti-capital punishment, committed to a strong non-nuclear defense and rigorous implementation of the just war theory, insistence on the right of workers to organize, and strong support of Israel. It could unite pro-life Democrats, paleo and neo-cons, Orthodox and Conservative Jews and some secularists. The Republican Party would become a party for country club types; the Democratic Party would become just as marginal.
Tom Haessler
Tom Haessler
How the war has hurt the pro-life cause is a mystery to me. There is simply one way in which to politically advance the cause, and that is through the advancement of originalist Justices who will eventually return the issue to the states. That is one score President Bush has actually been pretty good on (though he did almost screw it up with Miers).
We can walk and chew gum at the same time, you know.
Mark:
You've got it all wrong - its King George and his Ducky. (I spent too much time watching Veggie Tales over Christmas)
Tom,
I would vote for such a party! I would also add univeral healthcare and environmental stewardship to your list. But I'm not sure I would back the "strong support for Israel", being more inclined to back the Vatican's position of respecting both the security of Israel and the legimate rights of the Palestinian people. Of course, this is all wishful thinking!
I think the point about the war and abortion is that one is forced into the position of backing policies that violate one aspect of the gospel of life, in the vain hope that another aspect will get better some time down the road. Not very reassuring at all.
Unless of course you don't believe that backing the war violates the gospel of life, but that's an argument we've had too many times to get into at this point.
Chicken littles! I happen to have supported the resumption of hostilities in Iraq, but setting that aside, the judgment that Iraq has destroyed the conservative movement seems to depend heavily on the assumption that this year's popularity polls reflect some deep-seated shift in the moral constitution of the nation. Given the fact that political dispositions usually change only over the course of generations -- not to mention the usual capriciousness and outright stupidity reflected in most polls -- I remain skeptical about the downfall of conservatism.
Of course, Mark and others are correct to observe that Christianity cannot be conflated with a political party. Anyone who wants to form another party is welcome to do so; just remember that yours too will no doubt be distorted as, and if, it grows.
After reading Mr. Sullum's silly column, I was unsurprised to read that he has written a book entitled "Saying yes: In Defense of Drug Use".
I think Prof. Bainbridge is being a bit slow with his "ifs" and "it may well bes." The hope of authentic conservatism, a guttering flame even at the best of times under Reagan, pretty well vanished with the end of his second term.
One other thing I'd mention is that social policies which are sensible to Gospel principles don't necessitate a giant "nanny government." For a host of good reasons (magisterial fidelity is only one of them) subsidiarity ought to figure prominently in our plans for providing health care and assisting the poor.
I don't know why anyone is surprised that George has pissed away the conservative movement. He is not a conservative. He has:
1) Massively increased the size and scope of the federal government;
2) Argued with a straight face that the gov't has the right to imprison its own citizens indefinitely without due process;
3) Argued that the government has the right to spy on its own citizens;
4) Shown total disregard for the national debt (w/out even the Reaganesque excuse of having to deal with a hostile Congress);
5) Done nothing to protect marriage, even after a dozen states showed clear popular support for marriage-protection initiatives in 2004; and
6) Engaged in highly costly and risky interventions in the Arab world, with low chance of significant payoff.
We can argue about whether any of these points are actually good policy; what is not arguable is that these are not conservative policy. George is not a conservative.
It depends on how you define conservative Joel. If you define the world in two and have only liberals and conservatives, I don't think you could reasonably call Bush a liberal. If you define conservative as a wing of the Republican party, it is really a matter of how expansive you wish to define conservative to determine if Bush is one. In doing so, would you consider Bush more in line with the 90% of "conservative" Republican Senators or would you put him in the Chaffee and McCain crowd?
Joel seems to be defining conservative that way it always used to be defined. Only with the election of George W. Bush and the attainment of real influence by the neoconservatives in his administration have large numbers of the conservative public been bending over backwards to redefine conservatism.
Traditionally conservatism has embraced a "smaller is better" point of view. "Compassionate" conservatism and "National Greatness" conservatism are just neocon recastings of big government in domestic and foreign policy.
It doesn't seem Joel has actually defined it, but has simply stated that the actions of President Bush indicate he is not really a conservative. I would only agree in the sense that Bush is not quite a traditional conservative, though he's also not quite a neocon, but perhaps he slips closer to that mold.
Cosnervatism can't ever be rightly defined (though I've tried) because there are so many elements and styles of conservative. Clearly Bush is right-of-center. To try and define him any more succinctly would take some time and more thorough analysis than the blogosphere affords.
I don't think Bush has much of a real political philosophy rather than a notion of an old boy's club that has rewarded him, so he rewards them back.
While not stupid, he lacks imagiantion and high analytical skills, so instead of thinking steps ahead of the enemy and crafting a comprehensive strategy, he's rather blunt and direct. Now blunt and direct is sometimes exactly what's needed, but sometimes more is needed.
Bush's answer to a problem is always, "Give me more power so I can do it," rather than "There's a better way to do this with the power I already have." He's rather lazy that way. He doesn't like to explain or defend his actions,a nd seems irritated when people want him to.
I don't believe for a second that this is the best the Republican Party can do. The only thing that will allow the GOP to survive is that the Democrats have even worse leadership.
Paul,
Yes, you are correct that Joel did not define conservatism; I was a little too free in using that word.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say Bush is "not quite a neocon." He has allowed himself to be influenced by them significantly. His speeches are full of Wilsonian interventionist ideology, one of the neocon hallmarks, and most certainly never a mark of conservatism.
Suibhne,
The only national commentator of any stature not expressing that sentiment is George Will. Limbaugh and Hannity are both in that mold. I honestly believe that "neoconservatism" is populist conservatism at this point. I guess I just have difficulty calling populist conservatism an unreal conservatism.
Well, neoconservatism means more than merely Wilsonian foreign interventionism, for starters. I admit his foreign policy speeches are laced with fairly grand visions of reshaping the world ina democratic bent. But there are also domestic matters to consider, and here is where it gets tricky, because neoconservative domestic policy has been defined in so many ways.
As I understand it, neocons are much more comfortable with using state interventionist programs like welfare, so again Bush leans in the neocon direction. But in reading various famous neconservative authors (both Kristols, Bloom, Berkowitz, etc.) Bush is even more of an interventioist than these individuals.
Bush's brand of conservatism is more like an Evangelical neoconservatism. This is actually one area where I tend to agree with Tony A. It's a variant of, and here's an oxymoron, traditional neoconservatism, but not quite the same thing.
To really explain this further I would have to spend a lot more time thinking about it, and I it would take a lot more space to explore the issue.
Finally, and I'm guilty of this, I think we're straining too hard to come up with just the right label for Bush and for most people for that matter. The point is he is definitely not a traditional conservative, but to say he's totally not a conservative might be an exaggeration, and to say that Bush and the war have derailed the conservative movement is even more of an exaggeration.
Tom H. said:
[...]why not have a Christian Democratic Party[...]
Good point. I've considered helping to start one whenever/wherever I wind up repatriating.
It'd even be guaranteed nationwide publicity when the ACLU sued on SOCAS grounds (for having the adjective "Christian" in the name of a political party) and the DNC sued for trademark infringement.
Rush Limbaugh isn't embracing smaller is better? Are you kidding me? And at this point, I think people just like typing the names Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity as if it proves any sort of point. What the heck is your obsession with these people? It's a little disturbing, and you vastly overrate their importance (well, maybe Hannity, for Rush is quite important, though he's definitely a different kind of commentator than Hannity).
M.Z.,
I'm a bit confused by what you mean by "that sentiment." Do you mean "smaller is better" or "compassionate/national greatness conservatism"?
Thanks.
Paul,
I'm sorry, but where is this massive disagreement you are seeing? Is Bush a conservative in the mode of Chronicles? Heck no. Is he a conservative in the mode of National Review? I would say generally yes. The biggest complainers I hear about Bush not being a real conservative are libertarians.
Personally, I'm conservative in the mode of Chronicles, but I recognize that I'm in the minority in the broad conservative movement.
As far as Limbaugh and Hannity go, they are amongst the top 5 radio commentators in America. What standard of prominant do you want?
Secret Agent Man wrote:
"subsidiarity ought to figure prominently in our plans for providing health care and assisting the poor."
You'll get no argument from me here. But then make sure to come up with responses to deal with the shocking number of people lacking healthcare and the rising poverty rate (each year under Bush) from a subsidiarity perspective. I don't see much in the way of policy proposals here. Appealing to subsidiarity should not be an excuse to do nothing.
Let me step back a minute and ask a basic question: why does it matter if Bush is considered a true conservative or not? I'm it it matters to his party and his movement, but why is it an issue for catholics? It's as irrelevant as asking if Hillary is a true liberal or not (and those debates go on too). The church is not aligned to what contemporary Americans call "conservative" or "liberal". To me, it's how do they embrace policies that are consistent with church teaching? As far as Bush is concerned, he gets an F.
I'm sorry, but where is this massive disagreement you are seeing?
MZ - I'm not sure what your question means. The thread is over whether or not Bush is a conservative, so there's the disagreement. This has been a hotbed of argument for some time.
I understand that Rush and Hannity are popular, but so what? It seems that people just reflexively incant their names as though the mere mentioning of them proves some sort of point. Hannity is popular, but hardly influential as far as most conservatives are concerned. Rush is another story, but Rush is far less of a cheerleader regarding Bush (and if you think he is, you just simply aren't listening to his show).
To me, it's how do they embrace policies that are consistent with church teaching? As far as Bush is concerned, he gets an F.
Yes, we already know that according to the Catechism of Tony A. pretty much everyone gets an F. To others engaged in independent thought, it is not so clear.
Suibhne,
The sentiment I was referring to was a imperial/interventionalist philosophy. Generally neocon is used as a pejorative (which you weren't using it as), and I don't think it is fair to treat the current populist strain of conservatism like its just an influential minority.
Paul,
Forget my catechism, just stack up his achievements in terms of the CCC.
I would note at the outset that a catholic judges a politician in terms of policies that promote the common good, not personal behavior. Thus, while Clinton's adultery was clearly a sin, it was irrelevant to his performance. This is where we differ from a strain of protestantism which judges people clearly on personal virtue and vice. I have to admit, that when it comes to Bush, I struggle here. I instinctly dislike him. The swagger. The smirk. The sense of entitlement. The frat boy put-downs. The petulence. But I need to step back and ignore all this stuff, and focus on policies.
And what have been Bush's achievements?
*An unjust war.
*An embrace of torture.
*A love for the death penalty.
*No concern for environmental stewardship.
*Rising poverty rates.
* Rising numbers without health insurance.
* Fiscal policy that places a massive debt burden on the next generation.
* Tax cuts for the wealthy (especially the estate tax), combined with cuts to EITC, food stamps, and medicaid.
* A culture of corruption that allows lobbyists to write legislation to benefit them (the energy bill, the medicare bill, and the bankruptcy bill being the most egregious)
* No decline in abortion rates.
* Disdain for international organizations and the international community.
* Ignoring a genocide in Darfur.
I'm sure I've missed a bunch of stuff.
What about the good stuff?
* Bringing down the Taliban (but marred by letting Bin Laden escape).
* No Child Left Behind (but underfunded).
* Commitment to reduce AIDS and poverty in Africa (but underfunded).
Anything else? I think this warrants an F.
M.Z.,
Thank you for clarifying. I, too, am a "Chronicles conservative," and agree that we are in the minority.
I agree, too, that "neoconservatism" is populist conservatism at this point. However, I do not share your reticence at calling it an "unreal conservatism."
Certainly, many people today calling themselves conservative espouse an imperial/interventionist philosophy, but it doesn't make them conservative. By co-opting the conservative moniker, the neocons have been very successful in winning over to their views a large number of people who would never have agreed with them were it not for the "conservative" after the "neo."
I am not suggesting that everyone who supports an interventionist foreign policy does so thoughtlessly because promoters of it happen to describe themselves as conservative. Nevertheless, I do think that many conservatives today are ignorant of conservative history in this regard and do not realize that it historically has been a liberal position.
It's interesting to me that most conservatives still eschew social engineering in the domestic sphere yet support it unabashedly in the foreign.
Thus, while Clinton's adultery was clearly a sin, it was irrelevant to his performance.
"He who can be trusted in little things can also be trusted in great ones; he who is dishonest in slight matters will also be dishonest in greater ones." - Luke 16
Actually, it's hard to square the notion that neoconservatism and poulism go hand in hand. In fact, the Straussians tend to be decidedly anti-populist and snobbish. Usually the paleocons fall more into the populist camp nowadays. But I do think that there is a disturbing trend, however you want to base it, in this direction.
Also, foreign interventionism is not really a non-conservative position. As Chronicles conservatives I am sure you all appreciate the writings and philosophy of Edmund Burke. Now, Burke may have been critical of some of the specific policies that his country took in regards to its colonies, but he certainly was not advocate of disbanding the Empire.
I'm sure I've missed a bunch of stuff.
You've also seriously distorted a bunch of stuff, and laid blame at the feet of a President on issues where he hardly can be blamed solely or even principally. You have however, really shown your true colors as a blind partisan individual who has very little sense of perspective, and who merely repeats like a trained parrot nicely crafted talking points, but yet pretend to be an independent-minded individual, which is actually more aggrevating to deal with. Openly confessed liberals I can deal with, people who hide behind a mask of non-partisanship and yet open their mouths and reveal a serious lack of independent thought are much more infuriating.
Paul,
I may be putting words into his mouth, but I don't think M.Z. is equating neoconservatism with populism per se, but rather suggesting that the majority of conservatives today identify with an interventionist foregin policy. In other words, it's a popular postion among today's conservatives.
Yes, I am familiar with Burke, though I have not read nearly as much of his writings as I would like. While he may not have been for dismantling the British Empire, he was not in favor of a Jacobin-like revolutionary foreign policy to spread democracy as are many of today's neocons (cf. Ledeen's "creative destruction.")
Tony,
Not that I expect it will change your grading, but you did miss a few things and skew your assessment of a few things.
You missed:
* Signing the partial-birth abortion ban
* Signing a law that protects the right to life of the (not insignificant number of) infants who survive an attempted abortion
* Stopped funding for abortion and abortion advocacy overseas
* Stopped planning for UNFPA, which funds coerced abortion in China
* Put on the agenda a discussion of subsidiarity-based options for addressing retirement (Social Security) and health care (personal accounts) in light of the dynamic (and probably unjust) conditions of our economy in which people are frequently changing jobs and temporarily unemployed, although both policy initiatives are debatable
* Signed a dramatic increase in funding for senior citizen health care with the addition of drug benefits in Medicare
* Dramatically increased funding of education over the Clinton Administration
* Temporarily applied tariffs to preserve union steel industry jobs against globalist gouging, a policy Clinton refused to endorse despite begging from his Democratic base and which sent much of Bush's conservative base howling
* Pushed in the United States and at the United Nations for a ban on human cloning
* Lobbied (at least during the election 
) for the defense of marriage
* Spoke eloquently, if ultimately unsuccessfully, in defense of Terri Schiavo's life and for the principle that medical care must "err on the side of life"
* Nominated two candidates for the Supreme Court who are at least not overtly hostile to the right to life of all human beings
* If we're talking correlation (see below) has overseen vast increases in home ownership, including among minority populations (see Rerum novarum for why this is important)
* Presided over periods of rapid economic growth by some measures
You skewed:
* The "embrace" of torture. If anything, I'm probably more of an anti-torture zealot than you are. But to say the administration "embraces" torture is going well beyond the evidence.
* The "ignoring" Darfur. You and I both, as well as many others here, would like to see more done. But he has done more than Clinton did with Rwanda, and if you are going to say "ignore," you should probably argue the point with Barack Obama in his recent co-written column with Sam Brownback, which says something different and more fair.
* I agree the Iraq War was unjust, but given the errors of our intelligence gathering and the ambiguities of the time, and given that Bush's main rival in the president campaign voted with him, you are hardly being charitable in the way you assess this
* In both your comments about underfunding, AIDS and education, we are talking about serious increases in funding over the previous administration, a fact you are obscuring
* "No concern" for the environment is an exaggeration
* And as for rising rates of poverty and uninsured, you are arguing based on correlation and assumed policy effects, ignoring the serious blows our economy has taken which Bush had nothing to do with, notably the crushing blow of 9/11 and the tech sector bubble which burst just before he took office
If the election were held today, I would not vote for him, on what I consider to be an unjust war policy, his administration's ambiguous gamesmanship on torture, his domestic spying and his giddy support for the death penalty, plus his back-burnering of the right to life when it comes to judges (we can do better than "not overtly hostile to life") and marriage, which he dropped immediately upon election. I am no longer convinced there are proportionate reasons to be complicit with some of his policies. But you make the case better if you at least try to represent it fairly. He gets at least a D+.
Here are the rates of poverty, according to the census bureau, for the last several terms. I hope the columns line up ok.
TERM AVG % ALL AVG % FAMILIES
Reagan I 14.7 13.3
Reagan II 13.5 12.0
Bush 41 13.8 12.4
Clinton I 1 4.3 12.8
Clinton II 12.3 10.7
Bush 43 12.3 10.5
Census link [pdf file]
Median household income, while below the peaks of 1998-2000, was still higher than at any other time prior to 1997. The number in poverty is lower than any time in the period 1992-1997. The overall 2003 poverty rate of 12.5%, though higher than the years 1997-2002, is still lower than in any year since 1981.
The under 18 poverty rate is lower than at any time in the period 1980-1998. The poverty rate for the elderly is near record lows, lower than at any time before 1999. The poverty rate for adults is lower than any time in the period 1991-1997.
The poverty rate went up in only 6 states, Nevada, Texas, Michigan, Illinois, North Carolina and Virginia. This hardly represents a nationwide trend.
Women are closer to parity with men’s wages under the Bush administration than ever before. The female to male earnings ratio is down for 2003, but the ratios for all three years of the Bush Administration are much higher than at any other time in history, with 2002 being the record year. The 2003 ratio of 75.5% is still much higher than the previous high, before Bush, in 1998 of 74.2%.
The black poverty rate in 2003 was 24.4%. But it was higher in every year before 1999.
I forgot to mention one:
* Bush limited (although not as much as I'd like) the government's forcing me to fund medical research that involves the killing of embyronic human beings
Homeownership is higher under Bush.
Homeownership by blacks has never been higher.
Homeownership by Hispanics has never been higher.
Link:
Homeownership
I do not understand the continued reliance of liberal Catholics,like Tony A, on the Federal government for social welfare. This reliance is misplaced. It leads to, among other things, Catholic hospitals being forced to provide abortions etc. In the past the Catholic Church established its own institutions; schools, universities, hospitals, monastarys which provided these services. This tradition needs to be revived and faithful Catholics need to contribute to the Church directly to provide them.
Also what is the problem with locking up Jose Padillo indefinitely. If he is an enemy combatant in the war on terror, he should be locked up indefinitely as any POW. We just cannot torture him.
I just had a post comment wiped out, so I'll try to restate my reply to subhine. I'd basically agree with your categorization of neocon foreign policy motivations, but would hasten to add that conservatives, such as myself, who supported the war did so with different aims in mind, though we are certainly happy to expand the reach of self-determination or democracy. Ultimately then, foreign interventionism is not itself unconservative, but there are non-conservative motiviations behind some forms of interventionism.
Um, I thought the question in the original article was whether George had governed as a conservative. Everyone here seems to be discussing whether he has governed as a Catholic - which is an interesting question, but off-topic here.
Joel,
If I were Tom at Disputations, I ... probably wouldn't answer your objection at all. But if I did I might answer it with a Venn diagram showing two intersecting sets, one conservative and one Catholic. I think what's being discussed here, intentionally or not, is how Bush's governance matches up with the intersection of those two sets. Whether that's on topic or interesting I leave to you.
Tony-
Government health care sucks. I am in the Navy. I will not go to medical unless life or limb is in serious danger, because the quality is so low.
"Universal health care" would be nice-- except that it wouldn't work.
Why am I actually scared of medical, one of my supposed bennies? Wart removal: a guy who had been in the military for less than four months poured liquid nitrogen on my hand to burn off a wart. He'd been to a two-week class as a medical aid. The only trained doctor in the building wasn't even in the same wing.
My hand was the size of a grapefruit, seriously, for two weeks. There is still a wart on my right hand.
After he applied the nitrogen, the kid looked at me and said something to the effect that I was the fourth person he'd done this for, and the first one who hadn't fainted. (Nothing to numb it, but they did give me IBprofin. Twenty horse pills.)
Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity. - Marshall McLuhan
I think the democrats and republicans do a great job of keeping each other in line.
...Bernie
http://fgn.typepad.com/
Tony, again-
Define torture. I went through worse in boot camp than the examples of "acceptable" torture, and I'm in the bloody Navy. The Marines in my shop laughed out loud at the idea that setting in a 50* room while soaking wet was "torture". Or that feeling like you would drown was "torture". No elected official in the US is suggesting that we, say, attach car batteries to someone's privates, or feed them into plastic shredders.
Which leads to point 2:
If you're upset about us "ignoring" genocide in one place, why are up upset about us stopping Iraq? Or do the Kurds not count?
To the WMD question-- how do you define WMD? And are you upset about the weapon supplies that were SUPPOSED to be in Iraq, with inspectors' seals still on them, being found elsewhere? Do you even care that many people think the trucks we watched drive into Syria during the pause before the war had WMDs? Do you care that the entire world thought Saddam had WMDs, or that most of the folks who were pushing for diplomatic solution #14 were being paid off with oil-for-food dollars?
I'm guessing you don't even care.
Paul,
Sorry, but blah blah blah. Max and others argue their points (quite well), you just attack me. Again, blah blah.
Max,
You raise lots of interesting issues. I'll try to address them.
Partial birth abortion and other minor abortion initiatives: OK, accepted.
Subsidiarity-based options for social security and healthcare? I dispute this one. Personal health accounts forsake the principle of social insurance, a principle based on solidarity and efficiency (and can easily incorporate subsidiarity). Heath accounts move from social insurance (all share the risks) to actuarial insurance (personal risk). Yes, this saves a lot of money for young, healthy people but at the expense of those not as young and healthy. Far from subsidiarity, this is am embrace of radical individualism. Social security is similar as a form of social insurance. Personal accounts would not achieve this aim, which is why the plan failed. And from an economic perspective, it would not have dealt with the unfunded liabilities, plus it would have added to the debt. Anyway, most of the problem with implicit liabilities come from medicare, not social security (despite the bamboozlement, the latter can be fixed pretty easily). I can tell you that most of the economics profession is united on this one.
Medicare bill: a boon to the drug companies and a huge expansion in government debt. It specifically prohibited state and local governments from negotiating lower prices from the durg companies (now THAT is a kick in the teeth for subsidiarity).
Steel tariffs. Sorry, a huge mistake. Why should we protect a small few while everybody else (consumers and steel importers) suffer? I'm a firm believer in free trade, again, based on economic arguments. And they call me a socialist!!! Clinton's embrace of free trade in defiance of his base was an act of political courage, and is one of his legacies.
Human cloning: OK, but I don't see any big pro-cloning constituency out there. And on the United Nations, how about the Bush position rejecting an agreement (then six years in the making) to deter and detect cheating on a treaty banning biological weapons and opposed more stringent worldwide restrictions on small arms. Also: nuclear proliferation and Kyoto.
Economic growth: This is tricky. The employment-population ratio is at an all ttime low, and while profits have rebounded, median wages have stagnated. If you look at what is driving the growth, it is coming from the housing bubble: excess liquidity driving huge housing price increases, driving equity withdrawal and consumption. Can this really be a basis for sustainable growth? Hardly. Also, the consumption boom is being finaced by borrowing from China at a time when personal savings rates have hit zero. Again, can't blame Bush for all if this, but his massive deficits and tax cuts didn't help.
Terri Schiavo: I have argued elsewhere that withdrawing food and water from a person in a persistent vegetative state is not euthanasia, and can be morally licit. The accepted catholic position was that such measures can be considered "extraordinary". But this is a debate for another time. But Bush's "err on the side of life" is laughable. How many people did he execute in Texas? How many people died from torture in US custody?
Darfur: the administration was moving on Darfur, with Colin Powell even using the "g" word. Then they backtracked, because Khartoum offered some unspecified assistance in the "war on terror". I think Rwanda was the biggest black mark of the Clinton presidency, and history will judge it as such.
Iraq war: we both agree it was unjust. But if Bush and Cheney had not persistetly lied and exagerrated evidence about WMDs and links to Al Qaeda, I think its injustice would have been more evident at an earlier stage.
Sailorette,
I'd love to know where you get the nonense that universal helath care does not work. Let me spell it out for you: countries with universal health care achieve better outcomes far more cheaply and efficiently than the US. I state that as a fact, as an economist who has actually looked at this stuff. Save me the anecdotes.
And as for torture, please see Gaudium Et Spes (27). And if you don't think waterboaridng is a big deal, you would haev something in common with Pol Pot.
I'm sorry, but almost all of that is overstated. To cite one example, the "persistently lied" in your last statement is, again, just to go way beyond what the evidence shows.
And you are dead wrong about Terri Schiavo. See the other thread.
John J Simmons,
You are not characterizing the poverty statistics correctly.
From 2004 census:
The official poverty rate in 2004 was 12.7 percent, up from 12.5 percent 2003. In 2004, 37.0 million people were in poverty, up 1.1 million from 2003. From the most recent trough in 2000 both the number and rate have risen for four consecutive years, from 31.6 million and 11.3 percent in 2000, to 37.0 million and 12.7 percent in 2004 respectively.
That tells an interesting story, I would think.
Tony, it's because you're a clueless git who self-righteously portrays himself as a deep independent thinker. I can debate with people who are rational and worthy of it. You are not.
Tony-
You have many things in common with Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, etc. For starters, you're human. Is that relivant? Not really. Thanks for showing your skills at civil debate.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/
ma...udiumetspes.htm
Mutilation is NOT one of the types of torture that anyone is supporting. The only reason it's being called torture in discussion is because "interrogation" isn't sufficiently vilified. Rather like "pro-choice" vs "pro-infanticide."
As for the "nonsense" about universal health care-- show me how it works. If it's so great, why does anyone with a choice come to the US for health care? You're making rather large assertions and then insisting that other provide backup. "Let me spell it out for you": back up your own assertions. Cheaper? To whom? Higher quality? Then why do so many folks come to the US? More effective? Than why such huge waits?
"Lied": Do you have actual proof that they had knowledge that WMDs would not be found? (We don't really have *proof* that there were none, given that the military is a little busy trying to keep people alive, rather than searching every inch of the desert.)
I find it rather amusing that directly before you post a reference to the above linked document, you claim that starving someone to death can be perfectly acceptable.
Do you have any actual documentation that basic sustenance is " extraordinary”?
Also, I have the answer to your "how many died from torture": none, as opposed to those under Saddam.
Tony-
My family would qualify as "poverty" if they'd only had one child. I am one of three. We had two cars, a TV, dish TV, two computers (at least) and internet. Once I was old enough to drive, we had three cars. The poverty level is BS in at least some cases.
Sorry, not trying to take up all your bandwidth....
I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering. [“Address of John Paul II to the Participants in the International Congress on ‘Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas’”]
Health care. Let me first address misconceptions. First, it is not true that everybody who can comes to the US for health care. This is a throwaway line from right-wing bombasts with no basis in reality. Second, the waiting list issue is vastly exagerrated and relevant in more in some countries (UK) and not others (France). The fact that universal health care is cheaper and yields better outcomes is also a fact. I would refer to to Malcolm Gladwell's article in the New Yorker (Aug 29, 2005): I quote:
"One of the great mysteries of political life in the United States is why Americans are so devoted to their health-care system. Six times in the past century--during the First World War, during the Depression, during the Truman and Johnson Administrations, in the Senate in the nineteen-seventies, and during the Clinton years--efforts have been made to introduce some kind of universal health insurance, and each time the efforts have been rejected. Instead, the United States has opted for a makeshift system of increasing complexity and dysfunction. Americans spend $5,267 per capita on health care every year, almost two and half times the industrialized world's median of $2,193; the extra spending comes to hundreds of billions of dollars a year. What does that extra spending buy us? Americans have fewer doctors per capita than most Western countries. We go to the doctor less than people in other Western countries. We get admitted to the hospital less frequently than people in other Western countries. We are less satisfied with our health care than our counterparts in other countries. American life expectancy is lower than the Western average. Childhood-immunization rates in the United States are lower than average. Infant-mortality rates are in the nineteenth percentile of industrialized nations. Doctors here perform more high-end medical procedures, such as coronary angioplasties, than in other countries, but most of the wealthier Western countries have more CT scanners than the United States does, and Switzerland, Japan, Austria, and Finland all have more MRI machines per capita. Nor is our system more efficient. The United States spends more than a thousand dollars per capita per year--or close to four hundred billion dollars--on health-care-related paperwork and administration, whereas Canada, for example, spends only about three hundred dollars per capita. And, of course, every other country in the industrialized world insures all its citizens; despite those extra hundreds of billions of dollars we spend each year, we leave forty-five million people without any insurance. A country that displays an almost ruthless commitment to efficiency and performance in every aspect of its economy--a country that switched to Japanese cars the moment they were more reliable, and to Chinese T-shirts the moment they were five cents cheaper--has loyally stuck with a health-care system that leaves its citizenry pulling out their teeth with pliers."
Read the whole thing. His economics is sound.
Sailorette,
You quote the 2004 address of John Paul II to the Participants in the International Congress on ‘Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas’”] You do not mention that the understanding prior to this (for 400 years) was that removing food and water under certain conditions could be regarded as licit, as such measures were extraordinary. A persistent vegetative state qualified. What changed in 2004? To be convinced, I need to see the argument. You know, catholics tend to stick with the past, unless shown a compelling reason to change!
WMDs: well, the experts were saying there were none. THe administration chose to ignore crucial evidence, and cherry-pick from the most unreliable sources ("Curveball"). Also, they said quote explicitly that Saddam was in bed with Al Qaeda, and even tried to show that he had met with the 9/11 conspirators.
No, this was not an honest mistake. This was blatent dishonesty.
And how can you possibly say nobody has died from torture/ homicide in US custody? I have seen estimates from as low as 30 to as high as in the hundreds. Nobody knows the real truth.
Allow me to clear up your misconception, or misquote: I didn't say that "everyone" did something. I said *those who could afford it*.
The New Yorker. Good grief. That's your idea of a good source? The same mag that complained about not doing anything for the Kurds, then bashes the Iraqi war? And who lapses into gross caricature? (...Pulling out their teeth with pliers...)
I won't waste what little free time I've left at the moment.
Did you even bother to read the quote? "Certain conditions" doesn't and never has meant "when we have no problem feeding them, and they'd live perfectly fine if we kept feeding them."
Tonya: "But then make sure to come up with responses to deal with the shocking number of people lacking healthcare and the rising poverty rate (each year under Bush) from a subsidiarity perspective. I don't see much in the way of policy proposals here. Appealing to subsidiarity should not be an excuse to do nothing.
I agree with this, too. I don't have any specific policy proposals, although I have some general ones. Maybe I'll blog them some time.
It might be too late to drag this thread back to its original topic, but....
Discussions on who is what kind of conservative such as this one shows fairly conclusively how futile such discussions are. Political philosophy is like Protestantism. As Mark has pointed out, it's useless to talk about "Protestant beliefs"; rather, we should talk about the beliefs of individual Protestants. Like Protestantism, there are as many varieties of conservatism as there are conservatives.
The other thing this discussion has shown is the essential uselessness of a term like "neoconservative". Its functioning definition seems to be "those conservatives whose views I don't like". It's applicable in only the broadest sense, sort of like trying to classify Protestants as "Fundamentalists" or "Evangelicals"; the information imparted by the term is of limited utility and adds little to the discussion.
Actually, neocon has become to politics what fundamentalist is to religion: more of a pejorative than anything else.
Tony A:
You missed the point (I don't know how). Poverty rates under Bush 43 are lower than under Clinton, Bush 41 or Reagan. Honestly, for saying that Bush 43 cherrypicks his data, you do a fine job yourself.
Its functioning definition seems to be "those conservatives whose views I don't like".
You nailed it perfectly. The frustrating thing is that neocons are an important element of the right, and a disturbing one at that. But their numbers are not as large as some believe, nor is their influence as pervasive as it is often made out to be.
John,
You are confusing levels and rates of change. Poverty rates fell under Clinton, and rose every year of Bush's presidency.
Poverty rates under Bush 43 are lower than under Clinton, Bush 41 or Reagan. Honestly, for saying that Bush 43 cherrypicks his data, you do a fine job yourself.
According to the Census Bureau, the poverty rate for individuals has risen from 11.7% in 2001 (GWB's first year in office) to 12.7% in 2004.
Under Clinton, the individual rate fell pretty steadily from 15.1% in 1993 to 11.3% in 2000.
Under Bush 41, the individual rate rose steadily from 12.8% in 1989 to 14.8% in 1992.
Under Reagan, the individual rate started at 14.0% in 1981, rose to 15.2% in 1983, then fell steadily to 13.0% in 1988.
So while GWB's poverty figures compare favorably to those under his father and under Reagan, the poverty rate is rising, and, if current trends continue, will soon exceed those under Bush 41 or Reagan. They already exceed those in the last years of the Clinton administration.
(http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/
hstpov2.html)
Commenting by HaloScan
