If you missed Fred Barnes's guest Ed in the WSJ last week, you're in luck. It is up on the Weekly Standard site: Big-Government Conservatism
This is a trenchant address of the concerns of Andrew Sullivan and others about W's prodigality.
Being a big government conservative doesn't bring Bush close to being a moderate, much less a liberal. On most issues, his position is standard conservative: a pro-lifer who expects to sign a ban on partial birth abortion, he's against stem-cell research and gun control, and has drawn the line at gay marriage. His judicial nominees are so uniformly conservative that liberals are furious.
On taxes, Bush is a supply-sider. He's gotten large tax cuts that would have slashed even deeper if a few moderate Republicans hadn't balked. His interventionist foreign policy has near unanimous support among conservatives. His backing of tough internal measures against potential terrorists has riled civil libertarians but pleased most conservatives.
Yet conservative critics insist Bush is no Ronald Reagan--and they're right. Reagan was the leader of the conservative movement before he entered the White House. In his initial years as president, he cut taxes as boldly as Bush and curbed domestic spending. But Reagan was a small government conservative who declared in his inauguration address that government was the problem, not the solution. There, Bush begs to differ.
Bravo to Fred Barnes! It is about time we recognized that people can have "real" political views and ideas that are not on an extreme. It seems of late the the majority opinion is against anything approaching moderate, i.e. you are not a "real" conservative or liberal if you don't beleive opinion X. Now, while we are on the subject, why must we classify every idea as conservative or liberal? World intervention used to be a liberal ideal, but now that it is coupled to national security it is a conservative one. Ditto to education, long a hallmark liberal ground that has been "conservatized" by the institution of national standards for learning. None of this is bad at all, and no one who is involved should be hounded as a sellout no matter which side they come from. If the goal is real change, then realism will trump idealism every time. Doesn't make for a good rant on the talk show circuit, but it makes excellent public policy.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at August 19, 2003 10:02 AMCatholicism has a concept of "dogma de fide" (forgive me, Fr. Thaddeus, if I misspell it) -- that means "of faith" and you have to believe that to call yourself a Catholic. I don't, so I left the church -- education is a dangerous thing.
On the same premise, It is disappointing to see Senators Voinovitch, Specter and Collins limit the tax cut last year. I would hope tax cuts would be dogma de fide for Republicans.