Sorry for the garbled syntax. Was on flu meds last night and obviously it had some affect.
No problem, can see how that goes.
Most of the people left who still strongly support Bush overall are mostly in the neo-con camp. Many conservative/Republican posters have distanced or even disavowed Bush, despite their previous support for him.
While I agree that some of those that still support him may be best described as neo-cons, I'd caution you to believe that all or even perhaps "most" are. It is entirely possible for someone to agree with some of the things concerning the War on Terror and the War in Iraq enough to defend Bush and not side with Democrats, but for differing reasons than Bush. Additionally, Neoconservatism isn't just focused around Iraq and there are numerous people who still support Bush on Iraq but disapprove with some of his more fiscal and governmental breaks from conservatism.
I ask for two reasons. I see conservative/Republicans now strongly opposing Obama's spending policies. Yet, the Bush administration also oversaw large spending increases.
This is true. However, lets look at some of the big spending increases.
Perscription Drug. This is was decently criticized by Conservatives then, and even more so now.
DHS/TSA. This is a quasi-issue here. Defense of the nation is something the consitution distinctly lists as a job of the Federal government. Growing government however is a generally non-conservative ideal. People were split on this and I can see legitimate reasons for agreeing with Bush on it then and even now while still being a "conservative" not a "neo-con".
WOT. Again, as above, Defense of the nation is one of those things CLEARLY listed in the consitution. Again, can go either way.
So you start with that and move onto what Obama's money is going to...
Things like bailing out the financial, auto, and other markets (note, many conservatives were against TARP I by Bush as well). Pumping up social programs. Numerous pet projects all across the nation. Instituting the first steps of nationlized health care.
Now, some of these happened under Bush as well but you must then couple it with the following. The Amount.
As bad as Bush's spending was, Obama's is bigger. As well, take out the money on the war which has at least debatable conservative reasons for it, and it blows Bush's out of the water.
So I'm cynically wondering if some of the critics of Obama don't really oppose large government spending in principle, but only when a Democrat does it.
Some do. But then again, some democrats opposed the big government spending of Bush only because a Republican was doing it.
Another percentage disagree's with Obama's cause its not going to what they feel is one of the purposes of government, where as another percentage of democrats were likely upset with Bush because the spending was going to War rather than helping people.
I'm also cynically wondering if Republicans are starting to talk about small government not because they believe in it, but because they know they need to win back fiscal conservatives, libertarians, and other folks who left the party either during the Bush years or during McCain's campaign.
Probably a little of A, a little of B. In the end, it doesn't matter. If they do bring these people back in and then try to put forth candidates that don't represent their views than all they've done is waste a LOT of time and money. I think right now its part legit, part pandering, but if it continues I think the legit will win out.
Personally, I enthusastically supported Bush in 2000. At the time, I was more socially conservative in my political views and believed Bush was for small government and a "humble" foregin policy that opposed nation building. In 2004, I'd lost a lot of that enthusasim for Bush, but voted for him on the lesser of two evils principle. By 2006, I was convinced the Republicans had abandoned and needed to go back to the principles of small, limited government. By 2008 I disavowed the Republican party completely seeing all of the major candidates - McCain, Guiliani, Romney, and Huckabee as candidates that were far away from my views. I call myself a small l libertarian and supported Paul in the primaries (despite some strong disagreements with his more extremist views) and voted for Barr in the election.
For the most part agree. HOWEVER, I think you're falling into a trap many libertarians do which seems to be being SO disenchanted with the republicans that they view ANY kind of social conservatism as some great big evil. As I've been saying on this forum, libertarians alone are not going to win anything on the national level anytime soon, and the Republicans aren't going to have great success on a national stage until they get a BALANCED platform and that includes some social conservatism.
I'd love to see the Republicans become a party that actually embraces small government, but I'm very skeptical that a lot of what we're hearing is political BS and not a true restructuring of the Republican agenda. In my cynicism, I can't help but suspect that cries of runaway spending, protests of increased government control/involvement in the economy, and budget deficits are just convinient tools to beat the "other guy" over the head with and are not genuine concerns for many Republican leaders and their supporters.
And sadly, this may be the case. But, sometimes one must have some faith. While I consider myself closer in view to a libertarian I recognize that quite frankly the only hope for a conservative message in this country at the moment is the Republican party. Libertarianism is experiencing a big surge right now...and its still not even
really making a dent on a national stage.
The best chance is to take over the Republican party and start steering it to a better place then it was these past 8 years. That may mean compromising within our movement a bit with each other. It may mean that we have to join together and put in some hope and faith while we try to root people out from the inside. But to me, its the best option right now.
I know some people who moved away from Bush were genuine in their change. I'm one of them. But a lot of them seem to have made the move in the last year, just in time for the next election cycle when Bush was seen as toxic to Republican chances.
Part of it is that, especially in politicians. All politicians will generally do whatever is politically helpful at the time.
I think its less about those in power right now and more about the general feeling of the voting base, because a lot of this is going to be voting NEW people into power. Its not likely going to happen quickly, but over the next 3 to 4 election cycles IF this turns out to be a true shift in the voting population of conservatives it'll have a chance.
