Richard Viguerie wrote a column, Bush's Base Betrayal, in Sunday's Washington Post that calls on conservatives to withhold support from the Republican National Committee. The direct-mail guru and conservative activist Viguerie argues that President Bush has betrayed his base. Well, President Bush certainly reversed promises and positions of candidate Bush on McCain-Feingold and nation-building. But Bush openly campaigned in 2000 for an expensive prescription-drug plan, identified education as his number one priority, and made no secret of his open-borders sympathies. Might it be more accurate to say that Bush's conservative base betrayed itself? Viguerie flirts with this perspective several times in his piece, but ultimately puts the blame at Bush's feet.

The argument over whether Bush betrayed conservatives or conservatives betrayed conservatism by fawning over Bush suggests more agreement than disagreement. Both positions, after all, take it for granted that Bush has proved himself no conservative. More interesting than Viguerie's history of the last six years is his roadmap for the the coming years. "If conservatives accept the idea that we must support Republicans no matter what they do, we give up our bargaining position and any chance at getting things done," he writes. "We're like a union that agrees never to strike, no matter how badly its members are treated." Put another way, "Because I'm not John Kerry" should never again be enough of a reason for a conservative to support a politician.

Viguerie's article has irked the White House and its court scribblers. The White House sent out a release of six, golden-oldie Viguerie quotes criticizing Ronald Reagan. John Podhoretz picked up on this theme at National Review's Corner. "This whole thing is absurd," reacts Podhoretz. "I remember Richard Viguerie telling me, at a party in 1984, that Ronald Reagan was not a conservative and that Reagan better watch out or people were going to vote for Howard Phillips (a third-party candidate on the Right) and hand the election over to the Democrats—and Reagan would deserve it too."

What kind of drinks were they serving at that party? Howard Phillips, at times a critic of Reagan, didn't run for president in 1984. He first ran eight years later, when George H. W. Bush sought reelection. Might Podhoretz be confusing Bush for Reagan? Might he be confusing this Bush for Reagan too?

And isn't that the problem? Republicans defending any Republican president as though that president were Ronald Reagan. As Viguerie pointed out to one of the White House's attack dogs, "I knew Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan."

Podhoretz is one of the worst at NR. It didn't take him more than a few minutes to accuse John Derbyshire of being an anti-semitic nazi nativist after Derb kicked off a meaningful discussion of immigration (perhaps one of the only meaningful things on NR of the past year or so).

How radically different is he from Reagan, really?

Expanded the military dramatically: Check

Slashed taxes: Check

Ran huge defecits: Check

Dramatically improved the economy: Check

Subject of extreme criticsm from gay movement: Check

Had an almost religious reverence for the United States' role in the world as a Great Liberator, and believed it was in a good and evil struggle against an ideology that was clearly within the realm of pure evil: Check

Deemed stupid by the intellectual elite, both Conservative and Liberal: Check

Inspired a visceral hatred among the political left: Check

Subject to massive drop of support in his second term: Check

Appointed judges of questionable conservatism (Bush's thankfully, were not confirmed due to conservative backlash): Check

Prescription drug benefits aside, Bush's alleged radical departure from the Reagan legacy leaves me unconvinced.

Oh yes, and had a tendency to become engaged in militery interventions abroad: Check

It is like Dubya's father said: "I'm conservative, but I'm not a nut about it." None of this is a surprise.

Work the primary system and then vote third party (Constitution is preferable).

Dan, I am a conservative but I will take Republican spending over Democratic spending all day long. I also have tired of the whole mess in Washington and wish we could usher in a new trend for both parties to see who can spend less...Hey, it could happen. I think people are fed up!

Ben T: Most of the items that you "check" for Reagan and Bush similarities could be applied to every recent Republican president. Deficits? Check. Deemed stupid by the intellectual elite? Check. Extreme criticism by gays? Check. Inspired viceral hatred on Left? Check. Ran up huge deficits? Check. Appointed judges of questionable conservatism? Check. So, are we to think because of this that Reagan, Bush the Elder, and Bush the Son are all the same? Why not add to your list that Reagan and Bush are both Republicans?

A few of the items where you see similarities I see differences.

Reagan dropped top tax rates from 70 percent to 28 percent. Bush dropped them from 40 percent to 35 percent. Reagan "slashed" taxes. Bush performed a modest incision.

Reagan intervened militarily in the affairs of foreign nations less than just about every president since Herbert Hoover. He made a mistake in Lebanon, which he corrected by withdrawing the troops. He overthrew a Marxist regime in Grenada. And he bombed Libya a few times. There's a reason Margaret Thatcher said that he won the Cold War without firing a shot. It's also significant that a year after the U.S. overthrew the Marxists in Grenada, Reagan returned there to a rally where a majority of the population cheered him. Could you imagine a similar scene with Bush in Iraq or Afghanistan? Bush is a nation-builder and Reagan clearly was not.

Reagan never had a "massive drop" in support in his second term comparable to Bush's. Like all second-termers he experienced a slump. He left office as one of the most popular presidents in history. It's true that Bush still has some time to recover, but he's at 30 percent now and unlike Reagan or Clinton, one fleeting scandal is not causing his unpopularity. It's his overall job performance.

Bush hasn't "dramatically improved the economy." The economy grew during Clinton's presidency, and it's growing under Bush's. Reagan inherited a terrible economy. He unleashed a booming economy. Bush inherited a good economy and has basically stayed the course.

Government, unfortunately, has grown under every president in my lifetime. Domestic spending grew under Ronald Reagan less than it did under any president in my lifetime. Under Bush it has grown more than it did under any president in my lifetime.

Your general point doesn't hold up because the specific points upon which it rests don't hold up.

I don't particuarly like Bush anymore, so don't get me wrong, I am not trying to act like he hasn't seriously messed up.

My only point is that Conservatives who behave as if they have seen a radical departure from the Reagan legacy under Bush are stretching it a bit, I think. Maybe the results haven't been quite as glorious, but the basic underlying formula hasn't changed very much. Okay, fair enough, Reagan cut taxes more than Bush, okay, Reagan's support never got quite so low. These really aren't Core Elements of the ideology in question. I don't think Bush is the Great President that some out there still seem to believe that he is. But I don't think that its quite fair to say that he is a wolf in sheep's skin, either. Not especially more than any other politician, anyways.

Ben: If you want to talk about whether there is a "difference in core ideology," look at what the two men pushed for, vs. what happened despite their preferences. Can't you see a huge difference in what Bush pushes for? Bush outright pushes for liberal programs and increases in existing ones: e.g. education, spending, prescription drugs, amnesty, nation building. Except for a minor tax cut, judging by what Bush fights for, he is not remotely conservative.

I loved Ronald Reagan and George Bush is no Reagan. But we should put this in a larger context, Bush has faced new and more intractable problems and had the trends going against him when he came to power. Reagan faced problems he had rehearsed for all his life and the trends were going in his favor.

Carter was a disaster, but he realized a few of his mistakes by the end. He had appointed a Fed chairman in who was beginning to crush inflation. The tremendous inflationary and wage depressing influx of baby boomers and women into the workforce was just ending. After Carter was shown to be wrong about the Soviets by their actions in Afghanistan, he started a military buildup and projected higher military spending in the first years of the 80s than even Reagan was able to produce. The Democratic party still had a viable wing left from the JFK days that understood the need for tax cuts and a strong stance against the Soviets.

Although the Clinton years had been good economically, the trends were worse. The economy was, by the accounts I believe, in recession by late 2000. The tech bubble had burst. The 9/11 attacks did more damage to market confidence and the money supply than any prudent politician should publicly acknowledge. The Democratic Party had practically purged itself of any politician who was both principled and responsible at the same time. The challenge presented by the terrorists and their state sponsors and potential allies in Afghanistan and Iraq had not been adequately addressed or anticipated by the Clinton administration or by any previous administration. There was no history with this phenomenon comparable with the history of dealing with the Soviets.

None of this excuses the Miers nomination (but remember O'Connor and Souter) or the McCain-Feingold signing (but remember the California governor who signed the most liberal abortion law in the country) or Homeland Security taking over FEMA (but remember Bush was forced into that deal by the Congress) or his terrible immigration policies (but Reagan gave us the 1986 amnesty).

Still, great Presidents overcome great obstacles. Bush has not done that. More importantly he has not rallied the country to conservative ideals the way Reagan did. But then, he never promised, even implicitly, that he would. On the things I supported him for in 2000 that it was in a President's power to help accomplish, like non-activist judges, tax cuts, standing up to terrorism and the emerging internationalist bureaucracy by, for example, stopping the Kyoto protocol, he has done decently. But note, all those things were trends that needed to be stopped or slowed. Our basic problem is that we are losing at some fundamental level and no single politician can turn that around.

Point taken, DocMcG, but nothing you say undermines my point: most things Bush pushes, what he fights for, what he choses to spend capital on, are liberal things, not conservative things.

Moreover, we are losing at some fundamental level-- yes. And doesn't it really hurt our ability to win any battles that the people claiming to fight for us--having taken up the banner 'conservative'--are really fighting against us, and (what's worse) half our ranks fell for it and fell in line behind these false leaders? That people--even many high profile "conservative" public intellectuals--think GWB is a conservative is not exactly good for conservatism's ability to gain any ground.

Skeptic: "Except for a minor tax cut, judging by what Bush fights for, he is not remotely conservative."

Granted, the Bush presidency has been a travesty for conservatives, but Bush judicial appointments must be added to the exceptions. And whether the tax cuts are minor or not probably depends on who you ask. A 6% reduction in the top marginal rate is a moderate cut.

Dan's reply to Ben-T above is excellent and right on. To zero in on W's and Reagan's philosophy of the role of government - which manifests itself in the growth rate of domestic spending - these two president's couldn't be further apart, as I demonstrated here:
http://eric.langborgh.com/?p=238

As I've told Dan in other correspondence, I didn't vote for W either time around, and the reason I didn't is because I thought he would be no better, and perhaps worse than his dad. Never in my wildest dreams did I think he would so far surpass my worst expectations. At the very least I took him on his word in the '00 campaign that he was against nation building.

Bush's one plus to his credit has been his judicial nominees (excepting Miers). They have been excellent, and by all appearances will prove better than most of Reagan's.

I for one really don't care if the GOP is swept out of power in the midterms. When I look at government spending history, our best years are when government is divided. A massive defeat should help the cause of conservatives in nominating a true believer for the next Presidential election, and then if we can hold on to the White House, even if government is divided, spending should be reined in and we will continue to get solid constitutionalists on the bench.

Whether the Bush tax cuts were major or minor is certainly subjective. Relative to Reagan's cuts, which is the basis of comparison for this post, they were minor. Relative to history, they seem minor too. Bush inherited a top rate of 39.6 and dropped it to 38.6 and then to 35. In the 90-plus years of the federal income tax, just four year-to-year rate cuts have been smaller than Bush's largest year-to-year cut, while twelve year-to-year cuts have been greater.

Given that Bush's two predecessors raised taxes, this issue doesn't seem one that Bush is particularly weak on--as Ben T, Ralph, and DocMcG argue. Taxes under Bush went in the right direction--down--but the cuts certainly can't be called, Democratic scare rhetoric aside, Reaganesque in size. Anyone interested in the history of the top marginal tax rates, go here:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=213

Ralph and Eric are right to emphasize that Bush is strong on SC appointments. I should have mentioned that-- it is VERY significant. But it is also VERY ironic. Bush is good on judicial appointments to the extent that the judges he appoints would consider unconstitutional practically everything else he does and fights for.

In other words: thank God for these two appointments. But in the argument about whether GWB is a conservative, this evidence cuts both ways.

Skeptic,

To be fair to Bush re: judicial nominees, I was talking much broader than his Supreme Court Appointments. Indeed, though I think both will end up proving very solid, it is too early to tell for sure. I was speaking about his appointments to the Federal bench at all levels. Bush has done a nice job in this area in general. And you are right, that is important. (Although, I look forward to the day when appointments of the courts don't seem so important, because the courts go back to their limited interpretive role and cease to legislate social policy. If this happens in the next decade, we will indeed owe a great debt to Bush the Younger for his steadfast convictions in this one area.)

Unfortunately, it is just about the only thing I can applaud him for.

--Eric