Where's the Conservatism

Where's the conservatism?

Dave Whitaker, the Twiggs Tribune

When George W. Bush was running for president, he kept labeling himself as a "compassionate conservative." When members of Congress defend him, they often remind the audience he is a "compassionate conservative." However, while there's been lots of compassion, there's been very little conservatism coming out of the administration thus far. That is if you stick to the modern definition.

Conservatism in the modern world is supposed to mean limited government or less government. However, the only actions that has happened thus far that reduces government in any way would be Bush's decision to stop overseas funding of family planning centers that do abortions and an effort to repeal OSHA rules on workplace injuries caused by repetitive motions put in place by the Clinton Administration.

But other than that, there's been lots of compassion and very little conservatism. The biggest example would be Bush's upcoming budget. There's increased spending in everything.

Increased spending for education, for more training of teachers, more spending for Medicare, full spending for the Land and Water Conservation fund, more spending for national parks, and increased spending for discretionary programs. And there's new spending also, like the $700 million dollars for a Federal Compassion Fund, and a prescription drug plan for seniors.

The only thing in the budget that was even remotely conservative is the tax cut. And that may not even be passed by the time the final budget comes out. Everything else is more government, more spending, and more spending. One could make the argument that Bush's budget with its increases in spending is not unlike budgets proposed by former President Clinton. A sour note I'm sure to many who are conservative Republicans and are glad that they finally have one of "their own" in office.

But is he really? Bush has not proposed the end of one government program. Sure he talks about "restraining spending" in certain areas, but in Washington, that just means slowing the rate of growth, not getting rid of any wasteful spending. If a Democrat like Bill Clinton had a budget full of new government spending, and expanded government spending, wouldn't some of those same Republicans crying bloody murder?

Let's quickly review a couple of other Bush initiatives. Bush has proposed giving federal funding to faith-based charities. While a compassionate move, that's hardly a conservative move because it just stretches out using taxpayer money. His school proposal continues federal control of the school system, and does not allow for real choice right now for parents whose children may be in failing schools. So, where is the conservatism? Where is the less government?

And when talking about Bush's cabinet, do I even need to remind you about how people like John Ashcroft have expressed a willingness to continue the War On Drugs, which has been used to violate the civil liberties of citizens? So, again, I ask, where's the conservatism? If conservatism is supposed to mean limited government, or less government, there's yet to be much of it coming from the Bush Administration. Maybe it depends upon the meaning of what "conservative" is to President Bush?



	home Where's the conservatism? Dave Whitaker, the Twiggs Tribune When George W. Bush was running for president, he kept labeling himself as a "compassionate conservative." When members of Congress defend him, they often remind the audience he is a "compassionate conservative." However, while there's been lots of compassion, there's been very little conservatism coming out of the administration thus far. That is if you stick to the modern definition. Conservatism in the modern world is supposed to mean limited government or less government. However, the only actions that has happened thus far that reduces government in any way would be Bush's decision to stop overseas funding of family planning centers that do abortions and an effort to repeal OSHA rules on workplace injuries caused by repetitive motions put in place by the Clinton Administration. But other than that, there's been lots of compassion and very little conservatism. The biggest example would be Bush's upcoming budget. There's increased spending in everything. Increased spending for education, for more training of teachers, more spending for Medicare, full spending for the Land and Water Conservation fund, more spending for national parks, and increased spending for discretionary programs. And there's new spending also, like the $700 million dollars for a Federal Compassion Fund, and a prescription drug plan for seniors. The only thing in the budget that was even remotely conservative is the tax cut. And that may not even be passed by the time the final budget comes out. Everything else is more government, more spending, and more spending. One could make the argument that Bush's budget with its increases in spending is not unlike budgets proposed by former President Clinton. A sour note I'm sure to many who are conservative Republicans and are glad that they finally have one of "their own" in office. But is he really? Bush has not proposed the end of one government program. Sure he talks about "restraining spending" in certain areas, but in Washington, that just means slowing the rate of growth, not getting rid of any wasteful spending. If a Democrat like Bill Clinton had a budget full of new government spending, and expanded government spending, wouldn't some of those same Republicans crying bloody murder? Let's quickly review a couple of other Bush initiatives. Bush has proposed giving federal funding to faith-based charities. While a compassionate move, that's hardly a conservative move because it just stretches out using taxpayer money. His school proposal continues federal control of the school system, and does not allow for real choice right now for parents whose children may be in failing schools. So, where is the conservatism? Where is the less government? And when talking about Bush's cabinet, do I even need to remind you about how people like John Ashcroft have expressed a willingness to continue the War On Drugs, which has been used to violate the civil liberties of citizens? So, again, I ask, where's the conservatism? If conservatism is supposed to mean limited government, or less government, there's yet to be much of it coming from the Bush Administration. Maybe it depends upon the meaning of what "conservative" is to President Bush?