"Change will not come by disdaining or dismantling the federal role of education." "The rate of homeownership amongst minorities is below 50 percent. And that's not right, and this country needs to do something about it." "I proposed doubling the budget for the National Endowment for Democracy to $80 million."

George W. Bush talks like a liberal. He governs like one too. In The Bush Betrayal (buy it here), James Bovard painstakingly documents George W. Bush's addiction to big government. In doing so, Bovard introduced a welcome perspective--a right-leaning one--into the cottage industry of books criticizing the president.

Bovard devotes chapters to Bush's prescription drug plan, the Farm Bill, and nationalizing airport security, but does his best work in scrutinizing the No Child Left Behind Act and Americorps. Bovard exposes NCLB as a plan plagiarized from the Democrats, throwing billions of dollars at education and dictating to communities how to teach their children. Similarly, Americorps, inherited from President Bush's predecessor, stands as a Democratic program that earned Republican enthusiasm from the Oval Office. Foolishly linking Americorps volunteerism to the war on terrorism, President Bush expanded funding for the program that pays young people to "volunteer." Bovard tells how one Americorps volunteer organized a "Pink Prom" for gay youth, while another lobbied the government of Idaho to rename a highway in honor of Sacajawea.

Bovard delivers compelling information, but too often presents it in an over-the-top style. Lines designed to discredit the Bush administration--"Bush's dictatorial power" or "Ashcroft's mildly deranged statements"--succeed only in discrediting the author. Bush's tax cuts, prudent judicial nominees, and successful defense of the homeland since 9/11 hardly get mentioned. Nowhere does Bovard let his passion get the better of his judgment moreso than in his discussion of the draft, which Bovard seems to think stands a good chance of returning. "Americans may soon suffer a major dose of military slavery in order to pay for Bush's world liberation crusade," he writes. To paraphrase Hamlet's mother, methinks Bovard doth protest too much. Bush isn't a dictator, Ashcroft's utterances haven't been crazy, and the draft isn't coming back anytime soon. Why exaggerate when reality is bad enough?

"There may be more Americans reciting the Pledge of Allegiance now than before Bush became president--but fewer Americans concerned about government trampling their rights," Bovard concludes. "There may be more Americans with U.S. flag decals on their autos--but fewer Americans who support the right of people to publicly oppose government policies. There are more Americans who revere the president--but fewer Americans who recall the Founding Fathers' warnings about the corrupting nature of political power."

So the draft has gone from "serving your country in a time of need" to "military slavery"? I guess I can understand this shift if the government is not adequately rallying the country behind it's goals. Especially if it's not clearly explaining what those goals are. But I can't shake the feeling that, even if we were engaged the most noblest of causes, that we would still hear the draft characterized this way. I don't see how this attitude will change, at least in my lifetime. If not one's country, is there anything worth dying for anymore?

I must say, though, Coke in a glass bottle is "to die for". It is the only way to drink it. I don't know why but it tastes SO good this way.

It's one of the few things I can say nice about Europe at the moment.

Homer,

Are you sure it's the glass bottle? I think in many other countries they make it with sugar instead of corn syrup. I think that's what makes it so great. The political point is: It is our silly agricultural and protectionist policies that have degraded the taste of Coke.

As usual, DocMcG is right. Ingredients: Wasser, Zucker. But I still say that plastic makes things taste terrible.

Back to the draft. I guess some countries (e.g., Switzerland) use it as a way of inculturating certain citizenly virtues in all young men, rather than to get cheap cannon fodder in tyrannical crusades. Good for them. I can see that. They also have a valient history of not using their military for stupid crap.

Our country has the exact opposite history.

BTW, I don't think that Bush would ever restart the draft. But I do think he could over extend our military so much as to give a later president reason to. In the same way, Bush will never raise taxes, but he might spend so much money that he gives a future president an excuse to.

This spending blitz is the weakest part of this administration. (I know my spending blitzes - I live in Crappy New Jersey™.) Heaven help me but I can only think of Randy Newman - Mr. President, have pity on the working man!

This is exactly why Pat Buchanan (or someone like him) should have been elected President. We need a guy who is a conservative is the truest sense, not someone who is using the right just to get votes.

"THE BUSH BETRAYAL"

The title implies that George W. Bush had some pre-set obligation to follow the policies the author approves of.

Why?

Good point, Ben. Although Bush changed course on a few points--McCain-Feingold and nation-building--during the 2000 campaign he said that education would be his number one priority and that he would get a prescription-drug plan passed. I lament that he did these things, but I don't feel betrayed. To feel betrayed is to have deluded oneself in 2000 into believing Bush wasn't going to spend lots of taxpayer money on prescription-drugs for seniors and on the Department of Education. The folks feeling betrayed, betrayed themselves. They did this by ignoring what George W. Bush said and projecting their own beliefs upon him. Eight years of Bill Clinton will do this to a conservative.

Paleoconservatism is rapidly becoming the minority view within the Republican party. *Shrug*

Conservatism, which you call paleo, has been the minority standpoint in the GOP for about 11-12 years and probably longer, where have you been?

I hope you will forgive me for the error then. Im seventeen years old.

In the Presidential debates George Bush did say that he was against nation-building and wanted a humble foreign policy. James Bovard is being genteel in calling this a betrayal. The more apt word to describe Bush is liar.

FDR's original policy was to stay out of World War II, yet after Pearl Harbor, the United States declared war on Japan!

Clearly, FDR was a liar.

FDR's original plan was never to stay out of WWII. Col. Robert McCormick of the Chicago Tribune exposed FDR by publishing the secret Rainbow Five document detailing the war plans against Nazi Germany.

So you're correct. FDR was liar.

Eric,

I agree about FDR and am not a Bush fan but b/c I like to quibble, I would say that calling Bush a liar b/c of his changed views on nation-building is an unfair characterization. As far as we can see Bush really was clueless about foreign affairs and was genuinely disinterested in an aggressive foreign policy. Just look at his complete lack of effort in that area before 9/11. What happened is that 9/11 made him take international affairs seriously and since Cheney had astutely positioned neocons all around him they fed him their long-developed imperial schemes and he bought into it . . . and apparently he read Sharansky.

So in this case, I think it is more accurate to say that Bush---not being a particularly deep thinker and with little in the way of conservative political instincts or principles--- simply changed his mind post 9/11 on nation-building. Thus the sense of betrayal by those who have principled stances against such interventions.

Intelligent people (or unintelligent people, depending on your estimation of Bush) can change their minds without thus becoming liars, in fact changing one's mind can be a sign of intelligence.

The evidence about FDR's plans for World War II are quite controversial. If his plan was always to join the war, than GOOD.

Brian,

If Bush has genuinely experienced a philosophical metamorphisis then he needs to articulate why he thought nation-building was wrong in 2000 but essential after 9/11. Conervative skepticism against nation-building did not have anything to do with America's security but with the fact that it's not the responsibility of the U.S. military and it's utopain to think we can trasmit whatever values we choose onto subjugated peoples. If efforts at nation-building were wrongheaded in Kosovo under Clinton then they are just as wrongheaded under Bush -- 9/11 plays no role. For instance if someone believes in free-markets we don't expect that person to embrace socialism in the event of an economic recession. If Bush does believe in nation-building then he should stop calling himself a conservative, cease attending conservative conventions, and admit conservatism is wrong for America. It's insincere to hide behind the mask of conservatism while promoting policies antithetical to it.

Ben,

FDR's plans were always to join the war. However he did lie to the American people by promising to keep them out of it.

"If Bush does believe in nation-building then he should stop calling himself a conservative, cease attending conservative conventions, and admit conservatism is wrong for America. It's insincere to hide behind the mask of conservatism while promoting policies antithetical to it."

-Eric Wilds

Your particular brand of conservatism has been out of date since World War II and will remain so until it eventually dies of completely. Bush is a conservative, political conservatism has moved on beyond your own brand of it. This is known as evolution. Your brand is not the only brand of conservatism, it is just the older, weaker,less moral, less pratical brand, that happens to be rapidly disappearing.

And yes, what YOU would have be called conservatism is wrong for America. Thankfully anybody not clouded by pure ideology realizes there are different sects within one political "brand."

Here are a few examples:

Scoop Jackson Democrats
San Francisco Democrats
Reagan Democrats
Socialists
Communists
Anarcho-Syndicalists
Kennedy Liberals
Monarchists
Anarchists

All of these are liberals, and many of them have deep running differences.

From the right a few examples coming to mind are

Paleoconservatives
Neoconservatives
Religious Conservatives
Libertarians (closeley related with paleoconservatives)
Fascists
Nazis

Again all are on the right, and yet there are deep running differences in their views.

Your particular conservatism is not the only conservatism that exists. Right now the Republican party is representative of the Neoconservative viewpoint. Should you be looking for a new political party to register with, the Libertarian party is as always offering a strong alternative for the paleoconservative voter.

http://www.lp.org/ That link should help you I believe.

Ben,

Rush Limbaugh used to ridicule Clinton's foreign policy as an "International Meals on Wheels." So if the Republican Party now believes that the U.S. military exists as a humanitarian enteprise and as cheap labor for nation-building efforts then this idea didn't germinate until the war in Iraq began -- or more precisely when it became apparent Iraq had no WMD. So rather than admit a mistake the Republican Party began echoing interventionist rhetoric to give the mission the gloss of legitimacy. Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh etc never said during the Clinton Administration that the United States should invade Iraq because we need to bequeath "democracy," and "liberty" to these people. It all became the foreign policy as a reaction against uncovering no WMD in Iraq.

Bush's domestic policies have also been antithetical conservatism and even traditionally Republican beliefs -- support for the Department of Education, Americorps, amnesty for illegals and so on. In fact in 1996 the GOP platform called for the elimination of the Department of Education and in the 2004 platform it called for spending more on it as a key to good citizenship. There is a party that believes in big government, illegal immigration, and foreign policy interventionism -- the Democrats. I agree that conservatism is dead -- not dying -- but what we now call conservatism (Neoconservatism) is virtually indistinguishable from liberalism.

BTW, I would classify monarchists as Conservatives and Neoconservatives as liberals.

Monarchists are the ultimate realization of big government. Classifying them as conservative is foolishness.

Why should I have to answer for the stupid bullshit of Republican talking heads? Limbaugh, Coulter, and Hannity are total pundits incapable of seeing past party lines, and they will believe whatever the GOP tells them to believe. Policy-wise, Clinton did some great things, some not so great. His Kosovo action was an example of his administration in one of it's better lights.

Your view of conservative foreign policy of non-intervention and of minding one's own business is of course dying. Because its an immoral, impracticle, foolish way of running a foreign policy. A superpower can not afford NOT to have an interventionist foreign policy.

Your brand of conservatism is certainly dying, and for good reason. Its a a system of government that has been outdated since World Ware II and has stubbornly refused to evolve. The sheer level of impractibility shown by it makes it almost entirely impossible to implement.

ben,

Monarchists were the original conservatives and they were not defenders of what we now call "big government." Read Erik Leddihn's work Liberty or Equality for more details.

I agree that an America-first foreign policy is pratically dead and that both political parties support foreign intervention. I don't see the superiority of a foreign policy that urges America to meddle in the affairs of other nations, which only builds resentment around the world and encourages and provokes terrorism. The United States is on its way to becoming the most despised nation in the world and I don't regard this fact as an idication of the wisdom of a bellicose foreign policy.

What about satanic conservatism?