Buckley: if Bush were prime minister, he would ‘retire or resign’

July 24, 2006

There’s been a little too much talk lately from high-profile conservatives who want to distance themselves from Bush, claiming he’s not a real conservative. [tag]William F. Buckley[/tag] seems to be the latest to join the trend, though he’s emphasizing more foreign policy than domestic. (thanks to slip kid for the heads-up)

Buckley finds himself parting ways with [tag]President[/tag] [tag]Bush[/tag], whom he praises as a decisive leader but admonishes for having strayed from true conservative principles in his foreign policy.

In particular, Buckley views the three-and-a-half-year [tag]Iraq[/tag] [tag]War[/tag] as a failure. “If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we’ve experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign,” Buckley says.

And when Buckley refers to “what we’ve experienced,” he’s not just talking about increased federal spending or the White House’s Medicare scheme — the usual conservative complaints, which Buckley did mention in his CBS interview — he’s referring more specifically to the war in Iraq, which Buckley believes has hampered the administration’s ability to deal effectively with, well, practically everything.

As for the future, [tag]Buckley[/tag] added, “There will be no legacy for Mr. Bush. I don’t believe his successor would re-enunciate the words he used in his second inaugural address because they were too ambitious. So therefore I think his legacy is indecipherable”

I’m not sure I’d use the word “ambitious” to describe the goals of Bush’s second inaugural — “hollow cynicism” seems more apt — but “indecipherable” seems to capture the incoherence of the president’s policy quite nicely.

I’ve lost count of how many conservative leaders have given up on Bush’s presidency, but having Buckley bash Bush on CBS has to sting the White House gang a bit.

July 24, 2006 at 11:01 am

“…Buckley bash Bush on CBS has to sting the White House gang a bit.” – CB

Hah! These are Frat Boys Bushites. They are going to just assign Buckley along with Will et al as pencil-necked egg-head elitists who don’t understand the ‘real world’ and ignore everything else that comes out of their pens and mouths. And Boy George II probably doesn’t even know who Buckley is.

my own reckoning is that roughly 5% of the american public is “conservative” in the classic buckley sense. i had hopes that these 5% would wake up in 2004 and vote Bush out, but no, that wasn’t to be. nonetheless, they’ve bailed on him now.

sadly, the rest of the so-called conservatives are, as john dean has detailed at great length, totalitarians (although dean calls them authoritarians), and could care less that bush ins’t a “real” conservative. they think buckley isn’t a “real” conservative!

Conservatives do not want to be brought down by the colapse of BushCo., hence they must argue that the failure is BushCo’s alone and not conservatism. We, on the left, must do all that we can to show how BushCo. is a natural outgrowth of the conservative philosophy and psychology.

Let’s not forget that conservative used the fall of the Soviet Union to discredit liberalism. I shouldn’t be too hard to use the colapse of BushCo. to discredit conservatism. And unlike the case made by conservatives against liberals with regard to the USSR, I think we can make an honest case.

Criticism from conservatives “may” influence the position of the republican party but should be confused with abandoning the party and voting for a democrat. Some centrist voters may shift their votes, but not conservative leaders or pudits.

But rege is right in my book: it’s conservative thinking that is at fault — from those in the administration who created such a mess to those who blindly backed the president or denied his failures and excesses, including Congress, the press and the republican public.

“Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan.”

Bush is not merely a failure. Conservatism is a failure. You can’t be the world’s only super-power and practice small-government ideology. Large expenditures to protect and serve a nation, taxing power to fund those expenditures, and government policies that coerce your citizens are anathemas to conservatism.

Although Canada has “socialized medicine,” conservatives should consider emigrating to Canada, where the smaller role on the world stage would better suit them.

“Conservatism is a failure.” – slip kid no more

To be fair, Conservatism is a false alliance of various strains who only share a fear and hatred of the left. Conservatism fails as a governing policy because of its internal contradictions, from the Libertarians who just want to be left alone as much as possible, to the Theocratic Reactionaries who want to regulate the Libertarians bedroom behavior.

But Boy George II is a failure. He came into office promising a modest foreign policy and a limited government policy. Even before 9/11, he began to start spying on Americans and planning his adventures overseas. He has accumulated huge debts (to communist China) which I suspect he believes won’t come due because of the Rapture. He is, in short:

The.Worst.President.Ever

actually, in a parliamentarian system, I think by now he would have faced a no confidence vote, and we’d have new elections.

Ideologues will always find a way to write off those who think.

Back at USF in the ’60s I had an International Relations course from a very bright former member of our Foreign Service. Our textbook was the umpteenth edition of Politics Among Nations by the Hans Morgenthau. The theme of that book, and the course, was basically Realpolitik — defined by Merriam-Webster as “politics based on practical and material factors rather than on theoretical or ethical objectives” and by American Heritage as “A usually expansionist national policy having as its sole principle advancement of the national interest.”

I came across a critique of our involvement in Vietnam by George Kennan, author of the Containment Policy and a hero of my poli sci teacher. Kennan had come around to the idea that perhaps there was more to consider than national interest and that traditional inter-national conflict may not be the appropriate model for the Vietnam conflict. Proud of having discovered this chink in my professor’s armor, I read selected quotes in class. The professor didn’t argue; he simply responded “Kennan’s gone ga-ga. All thinkers go ga-ga sooner or later. Churchill went ga-ga, too.”

I’m sure the neocon GOP and the rest of the Bush Crime Family take the same tack with Wm. Fuh-Buckley and George Will.

In Boy George II’s narcissistic self-absorption he will, as Ed suggests, simply conclude that Buckley has ‘gone ga-ga’. In doing so, he will cut himself and his Bushites free of another guideline of conservatism and further float on a swamp of mediocrity to eventually be mired in quagmires of war and debt and governmental incompetence. None of which would be a concern to me if he were still navigating the Texas Rangers. Unfortunately for America and the World, Boy George II is the titular Head of State and Head of Government of the United States of America, and we are stuck in the ship he is misguiding.

This is the best the Republican’ts could provide in 2000, and so ‘great a choice’ in their minds they criminally defrauded the Florida vote to get him installed as president? The mind boggles.

The reason that all these conservatives are pounding away at Bush is because Bush is the logical conclusion to the premise that is Conservatism. Their grand scheme has failed miserably, and they’re quite desperate for a scapegoat upon which they can heap the thorns of blame. They’ve gazed into the looking-glass, and the reflection of the white knight has been replaced with the image of the demon against which they have railed and whined these many, long years. For conservativism in general, and for the Neoconservative in specificity, the events of their deeds have come full circle; they must now bear the brunt of being both the predator—and the prey….

Comments are closed.