I wasn’t aware of any current conversative backlash against Bush because I figured those were the bastards that voted him back in office after he’d already worked for 4 years going against most conservative principles. I hardly agree with Sullivan either, who labels Bush a “socialist”. I like Bush’s own, self-imposed label “decider”. Bush is a “deciderist”. He’s neither a contemplativist nor diplomaticist. He’s a mywayorthehighwayist.
And we’ve known this for how long now?
But then I read this quote, “Whether Bush manages to extricate the United States from Iraq or not, his avalanche of tax cuts has already justified the main reason that Republican pooh-bahs selected him to become their candidate for president,” and am reminded that no matter the candidate – what matters most is that he/she doesn’t tax the rich or the businesses they own. And I hate taxes (especially this year) just as much as the next schlupp, but not enough to make me vote for someone with a proven record of retardation (notice I didn’t write “Republican”?).
Finally, the article makes me question my own assumptions about Bush’s actions being unaligned with conversative principles: “Hart indulges in wistful notions of what might have been, but Bush is not the betrayer of Reagan and the conservative movement. He is its purest expression. To its credit, National Review’s older generation is recognizing what happens when utopia is in power.” (A recognition that might lead one to reflect as to why “Heaven” is such a dubious notion – but that’s a post for a different day). Nevertheless, the Left’s progressive dream has been demonized. The Right’s control of the U.S. gov’t is crumbling from within. What’s next? Sweet, unadulterated anarchy, nocturnal emission of the underwashed masses? (No offense, anarchists.) Stay tuned, America. Oh, and in the interim, please enjoy Idol.