The Bush administration has been criticized by liberals for being, as New York Times columnist James Traub says, " the most extreme-the furthest from the center-of any governing majority in the nation's history." This characterization that President Bush is a conservative extremist is lost on paleoconservatives who question whether the President is conservative at all. Both sides have their ammunition. For those who insist he is an extreme conservative, they point to the largest tax cuts in U.S. history, the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, and his plan to privatize social security. And the other side insists that increasing spending in education, passing a 400 billion dollar Medicare entitlement, and presiding over the largest government expansion since LBJ makes President Bush anything but conservative. The truth of the matter is, George W. Bush is not conservative in the way we stereotype them as "small" government, hawkish, and traditional. Honestly, we shouldn't be surprised by this; he never made any secret of it. Even in his 2000 campaign he referred to himself as a "different kind of Republican." Truth be told, he is a different kind of conservative.
There is no denying President Bush's belief that "when you're in trouble government has a responsibility to help" is a remarkable contrast to Ronald Regan's "government is the problem" philosophy. While Bush has advocated for a not so conservative means (government) to solve problems, he uses an activist federal government for conservative ends. For example, most conservatives feel a democracy-building foreign policy distracts us from preserving our national interest. But Bush's pro-democracy stance is meant to secure our national interest by eliminating tyranny. Bush's Federal Marriage Amendment may offend conservatives who see state involvement in marriage as an intrusion, but its ultimate goal of preserving traditional marriage is well in line with conservative thought. The same argument can be made about No Child Left Behind, which expands the federal role in education (anti-conservative) but increases teacher accountability (conservative).
Bush's combination of an active government and conservative solutions is not unconventional or radical. In spite of their differing statements on government, both President's Reagan and Bush had activist leadership styles that stand in contrast to William F. Buckley's "standing athwart history, yelling stop" view of conservatism. This allowed both men to be bolder in their leadership, and tackle obstacles most politicians wouldn't touch. George W. Bush, unlike Regan however, doesn't link government's size to inefficiency. This view is rooted in both the personality of President Bush, and a realistic approach to how conservatives can influence government.
Bush's ties to his Christian faith motivate him to use government as a means to help and preserve traditional values. And his history as a CEO makes him results orientated, less concerned about the "conservative approach" to governing. While the President tries to re-define this as "compassionate conservatism" it really isn't all that different than the type of conservatism government has witnessed since the 1980's.
Conservatives have always spoken about "small government," but even during the "Reagan Revolution" and the Republican congressional take over, reforms to government seldom made government smaller, rather they made it more efficient. Yes, Regan spoke of government being the problem, and was able to cut 35 billion dollars in domestic spending early on in office. Afterwards however, he proved unsuccessful. While most "true" conservatives would prefer welfare to be eliminated all together, 1996 Welfare reform made the government entitlement more efficient in its implementation. This sort of "I've made my peace that Americans have gotten used to big government" conservatism is at the heart of "neo-conservatism." A more efficient government, neo-conservatives argue, recognizes an individual can handle himself better than government can handle him, and must be charged to preserve the common good through the values and traditions of our heritage. An efficient government is much easier to achieve than a "limited government," and in that sense, is arguably more realistic.
President Bush identifies with neo-conservatism in practice, but not in name, preferring "compassionate conservatism." The reasoning behind this is two-fold. One, as stated, Bush is a results-orientated leader, meaning he is not going to always be dogmatic and ideological. Therefore he will propose "neo-conservative" policies such as a pro-democracy foreign policy and traditionally conservative policies like privatizing social security. Two, like it or not, conservative, especially to those on the left, has a certain degree of meanness associated with it. And neo-conservative, whether it's true or not, is seen as a very extreme form of conservatism. "Compassionate conservative" is an excellent marketing tool that gets right at the kind of conservatism the President advocates. Bush wants to preserve American traditions by enhancing them in our institutions and around the world, a much more "compassionate" view point.
Overall, George W. Bush's conservatism has proved to be very effective both domestically and internationally. One could even argue that President Bush's first term was more consequential and effective (with historically high approval ratings) than most two-term presidencies. However, where Reagan was strategically bold, backing off on measures such as social security reform, President Bush's boldness has been overreaching and perhaps has hindered his ability to legislate a compromise. History, I believe, will vindicate many of his policies that are deemed "overreaching" by his contemporaries. For now however, conservatives have to judge their support for the president and do so by asking the question, "is he one of us?" The question can be answered simply. If conservatives want to pride themselves on being more realistic than liberals, they need to recognize history that points to conservatives that stand for government efficiency, which sometimes means government cuts, not just government cuts. Reagan was able to become the icon of the conservative movement governing in such a way, and overall Bush does the same. The answer, then, is yes.
Will Haun is a freshman in the School of Public Affairs, and a conservative columnist for the Eagle.
