Conservatives used to express skepticism about the federal government's ability to deliver the mail, run a railroad, or educate children. Now conservatives--or at least people attaching themselves to the popular label "conservative"--cheer a president who, as his state of the union address proves, wants the federal government deeply involved in private industry at home and nation building abroad. And the people who criticize President Bush, whose overarching philosophy can be summed up in the word "interventionism," are not real conservatives? Beam me up, Scotty!

"Instead of shrinking the federal government, Bush wants to grow it," Bob Novak writes. In his state of the union address, President Bush "proposed that the government preside over a wide array of non-petroleum energy options. That has all the characteristics of an 'industrial policy,' with the federal government picking winners and losers. While violating the Republican Party's free market philosophy, this is a course with a lengthy pedigree of failure all over the world."

Bush's big-government designs extend beyond America's borders. The president claimed in Tuesday night's speech that "our nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal...the end of tyranny in our world." Bush rejected the notion that this amounted to "misguided idealism," maintaining that "the future security of America depends on it." Pat Buchanan counters, "this is noble-sounding nonsense. Our security rests on U.S. power and will, and not on whether Zimbabwe, Sudan, Syria, Cuba or even China is ruled by tyrants. Our forefathers lived secure in a world of tyrannies by staying out of wars that were none of America's business. As for 'the end of tyranny in our world,' Mr. President, sorry, that doesn't come in 'our world.' That comes in the next."

The president's state of the union rhetoric is the rhetoric of a liberal.

"I urge members of Congress to serve the interests of America by showing the compassion of America." "Our government has a responsibility to provide health care for the poor and the elderly, and we are meeting that responsibility." "I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative--a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research--at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas." "I propose to double the federal commitment to the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next 10 years." "I ask Congress to reform and reauthorize the Ryan White Act, and provide new funding to states, so we end the waiting lists for AIDS medicines in America." "Through the Helping America's Youth Initiative, we are encouraging caring adults to get involved in the life of a child--and this good work is being led by our First Lady, Laura Bush."

The president's actions are the actions of a liberal.

Nationalizing airport security, creating a massive prescription-drug benefit, calling for a mission to Mars, increasing funds for the National Endowment for the Arts, signing the anti-free speech McCain-Feingold bill into law, supporting affirmative action before the Supreme Court and reauthorization of the assault-weapons ban before Congress, foisting an amnesty plan for illegal aliens on the American public, nation-building in Iraq and beyond, enourmous farm, energy, and transportation bills, federal financing of stem-cell research, and the No Child Left Behind Act's federal intrusion into local classrooms puts him squarely at odds with the (shrinking) Goldwater/Reagan-wing of his party.

Ronald Reagan called government the problem, not the solution. George W. Bush believes government the solution, not the problem.

George W. Bush has out Woodrow Wilsoned Woodrow Wilson on foreign-policy adventurism and out Lyndon Johnsoned Lyndon Johnson on domestic-policy interventionism. The president's 2006 state of the union address further confirms this. Conservatives who go along to get along will soon wake up and discover that they're conservatives no more, if they haven't already. But don't expect them to drop the "conservative" name anytime soon. That comes when they've so thoroughly discredited it by attaching "conservative," in the public's mind, with big-government schemes that the term no longer holds any political value. Then all real conservatives will be left with is bigger government and a discredited label.

Bush will be the first president since Garfield never to have used his veto power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._presidential_vetoes

Dan, great post. "The president's actions are the actions of a liberal." Great sentence there.

Also, the first paragraph answered a bit about my question as conservatism as an ideology. That so many of today's alleged conservatives behave as ideologues influenced my belief that conservatism is an ideology. No wonder, since so many of today's alleged conservatives are really just ideologues subscribing to an ideology called liberalism.

Hi Dan,

I am a big fan of your blog! I loved it when you spoke at Ohio State University two years ago too.

Two recommendations: 1) I have to read your site through my rss reader because that beanie hat in the background is painfully distracting, and 2) the links on the right side of your site don't show up in the Firefox browser- They are red, and thus, invisable!

Regardless, keep up the fight against the liberal intelligentsia.

Good post.

I enjoyed Buchanan's retort to Bush to not, basically ala Voegelin, "immanentize the eschaton." Such a messianism is a characteristic modern heresy of the Left, both the Marxist left and the "social gospel" utilitarian/liberal left. That it has found its way to the right can be attributed to what exactly? The mainstreaming of "neoconservatism" and neoliberalism" out of the marxist left? Or possibly the radical modern forms of right-wing political ideologies usually called fascist? I don't know. But certainly the roots of such a democratist and idealist creed are not on the historical American right.

Finally, you're concern over the redefining of the term "conservative" is also of significance. Ideas/principles should probably dictate the formation of a political stance or viewpoint. But clever folk, sophists if you will, have long understood that control of rhetoric is critical to gaining mass support for one's policies. As Short might point out this is Humpty-Dumpty's game and our political elite is well-practiced in executing it. Including Bush.

Do you suppose its true that the Rs in the House are getting ready to reaise the Debt Ceiling to EIGHT TRILLION dollars? Why don't we stop them?

Guido

What we really should be stopping is Bush's "temporary guest worker" illegal immigrant immunity program.

Bush is clearly working for his business buddies on this one and not only are these bums sending our jobs overseas, but now, depending on where on the economic latter you are, jobs that were done previously by American workers, are now being done by illegals who will (read: have to) work cheaper.

All this so some business owner can make $100 instead of $85.

Cheap profits for giving up our sovereignty and selling our country down the river.

Dear Dan,

Is the air in Prague better than that in the U.S.?

All I have to say is, yes - right on. You've still got it - the essence of conservative.

And this is coming from a green progressive whose main objection to Bush is that he ought to throw off the pseudo-conservative mantle and do it right (at least on the domestic front with health care).

Hallo - Gary? Are you reading this?

Ali G.

And careful, ASDF - I know you are virulently anti-immigration (at least when it comes from the south), but if Bush would just stop humping the fence and set up a regulated program for the 'illegals' it could be a win-win. The illegals could do the jobs no one else wants to do and get paid a decent wage for it.

There's no way you're going to stop (or even significantly dampen) the flow of illegals from south of the border - it just ain't happening. Do you really believe that it could?

Good, so why not find a pragmatic solution?

Look at the employment figures just released, btw: no one is losing jobs to Mexican illegals.

Yes Ali-G, you're right. And I will go further to say that I am violently opposed to illegal immigration and don't believe in amnesty or any other 'guest worker' programs proposed by people who are willing to give our country away as long as there is some $$ in it for them.

In fact, I personally think we have plenty of people in this country already and that we should start to highly regulate and trim even legal immigration. There are plenty of people to take any job that's available and we don't need more to put a burden on an already strained system.

For those few who do qualify and who want to enter this country legally, as long as there is a good reason for them to be here (i.e., they can contribute something other than picking lettuce), I have no problem with them.

But, pluueese DO NOT say that the majority are the people doing the jobs nobody else wants to do because, if they are illegal criminals, in many cases the jobs that nobody else wants to do are the ONLY jobs they can do because....they are illegal! And the jobs that naturalized Americans DO want to do but can't because they can't compete with businesses who hire illegals who will work much cheaper are taking away from our economy.

Our goverment looks the other way when allowing business owners to hire these criminals cheaper, not pay them benefits and who they can kick around and take advantage of because, as they are illegal, our laws don't apply to them.

We also have a new class of illegal: the ones who scoff our laws, draw our social benefits (which they don't pay for because they don't pay taxes) and, in many cases commit crimes.

The beauty of if for them is that they have the best of all worlds. They enter the country and when they get caught, they can run back over the border and come back another time. Because.......THEY ARE UNDOCUMENTED!!!

You want chaos, you'll get chaos. This is a huge and extremely important issue and a problem if not addressed.

Anyone who took the time to look at Bush's record as governor had to know he was not very conservative. But elections generally find us stuck with voting for the lesser of evils. Kerry or Bush? No contest for me.

This blog doesn't make any sense. If Bush is a liberal then why don't liberals support him? What am I missing?

Eric, because he is a Republican. Liberals and leftists that are true to themselves do support him.

Let's see: Gore, Kerry or Bush? Hmmmmm.

Unfortunately, this was a no-brainer. If the dems were not so adament about nominating a weak looney lefty as their candidate of choice, twice, things might have been different and a lot of moderate 'R's could have shifted the balance.

But, we had to hold our noses and vote the party line to give a second term to the hard headed big government Texan.

Now, it is what it is.

Let's hope that by 2008, when his tenure is up, that we're not still knee deep in Iraq or some other middle eastern hell hole and that we don't have another 20 million illegals here who have jumped the border at the delight of the man who has taken two oaths to uphold the laws of the United States.

What really disturbs me about the immigration issue are those who say immigrants "do jobs others won't do" and then complain about growing income disparities. Liberals seem constitutionally incapable of understanding large scale market forces. Most workers are like me, I suspect, in that they would do at least a little of any job they didn't find immoral, if the wage was right. Of course if you allow a greater supply of workers who do unskilled work, wages for those jobs are going to fall.

Whether Bush has this same flawed understanding because he is blinded by liberal ideology or because he is beholden to his business friends or because he is a "practical man" who can't see beyond the common "wisdom" of his class and time (a "wisdom" that has been mightily influenced by the liberal media and academy over the years) is a question we will never answer with certainty until we are all in heaven. I lean to the last alternative though, which might explain why I don't get as mad at Bush as others do.

Doc,

That is a fine spriritual take on the matter and one that I wish I could adopt. But as long as we're here, we need to do as much as possible to protect ourselves and our own and workers in this country are in trouble.

It doesn't matter what kind or how lowly the work: there are plenty of naturalized Americans to do it! But, when employers can drive up to a group of spanish speaking gents who they know they can pay at a fraction of the cost that it would take to get an American to do the same work, as long as our government allows it and refuses to enforce our laws, they are going to take the cheaper path every time. Un-Amercian but simple business economics.

And as long as our government condones laziness at our lowest economic levels and subsidizes that laziness with social programs payed for by real taxpayers, there will always be those who can argue that 'the illegals are doing the jobs that Americans won't do'.

Add into this equation that not only are the welfare roles for citizens growing but now, undocumented illegal immigrants are allowed to take advantage of the system as well.

So, the jobs that the middle and lower middle class had are shipped out of the country, lower class jobs are being done by illegals, social programs are proliferating to take care of the people we have plus the people who decide to holiday in our country illegally and nobody does or can pay the taxes to support them.

Just another angle to a very dangerous situation.

I thought Bush's plan was a good start to solving two very tough issues.One, sealing the border. Didn't he say tougher border patrol? And two, what to do with the 10-14 million already here. Didn't he propose getting both the illegals and their employers to register and then some kind of a plan toward citizenship after three years? Not great but a start.

I really have one large question. I already dislike the State of the Union Address and despite liking this President especially for his policy on killing Evil Muslims in other countries... his fiscal policies annoy me greatly.

Point being... is it better to invest American tax dollars into private industries churning out ineffective technology, or put it into a mostly charitable foreign policy involing mostly good will and boosting the prosperity of foreign peoples in distant countries for no genuine trade?

Do you think Bush is so in love with big government spending because he really leans liberal in this area...or because, like most Republicans I know, thinks that you win over a Democrat by buying them off?

I believe Bush and his circle believe in the buy off theory... only it doesn't work. The rear-end kicking Bush got today at Mrs. King's funeral is evidence enough.

By the way, what was with Hillary standing next to Bill when Bill delievered his speech? Was it a statement on their co-Presidency? Just a thought.

Buy off. Plain and simple. He's not a tough 'R' or 'C', just a stubborn sum' bitch and thinks that he'll gather political capital for what little time he has left and for his party by showing the lib/dems that he's almost one of them and that their supporters will be his supporters.

He doesn't get the fact (or doesn't much care) that he has them on the ropes and that they are a party in decline. So, he doesn't need to be pandering and kissing up.

I'll say one thing: love him or hate him (and I do!), Bill Clinton is a master. One of the best at what he does.

When Clinton is the only dem on the dais with class, there's something wrong. The rest of them were disgusting.