Read my lips: No more conservatism

By Tony DiPasquale

During the 2000 Republican Primaries, candidate George Bush was running on the platform of "compassionate conservatism." I must admit, at first I was rather intrigued by such a term, as it had always seemed to me that conservatism was the only true compassionate form of government. Now, four years later, it has become clear that compassionate conservatism is in actuality a euphemism for big government, republican style.

During the Presidential Campaign I was skeptical of how conservative "Dubya" actually was, keeping in mind how his father had governed only eight years earlier. Still, many political pundits insisted that he was much more conservative than his father, and that he would no doubt put this country back on a conservative track. I cannot help but feel that I was hoodwinked.

In Bush's defense, there are very few complaints many of us on the right can have with him on an international level, aside from an occasional softening towards the U.N. and other international pressures. All in all though, he has stood up for American sovereignty and has not cowered to many of the demands made by other heads of state and the U.N. In fact, his recent statement of "not asking permission to defend America" was refreshing to hear in a day of political correctness.

Domestically however, Bush has led the party astray. Sure he kept one of his campaign promises by managing to cut taxes, but this supposed behemoth of a tax cut is dwarfed by the new Medicare entitlement.

Conservatism is supposed to be a belief in a smaller, limited government and family values. Well upon a closer look, we see that President Bush has mentioned the possibility of a Constitutional Amendment allowing marriage to only exist between a man and a woman, but other than lip service there seems to be little motivation to actually see this get done. Now, whether or not we should even have an amendment of the likes of this one is a debate for another time. The fact that we are even discussing such an amendment is indicative of the moral fabric that makes up our society today. However, it does seem that without the constraints of a constitutional amendment it is only a matter of time before one state decides to allow homosexual marriage.

By foregoing the principles of limited government, we have seen government expand at a rate that would even make the likes of FDR and LBJ blush. First, we had a massive increase in spending for education, a department that was once slated for elimination by the republicans. Today, we keep pumping more and more money into the system in hopes that it will somehow miraculously transform itself from its current deplorable condition. How does that saying go about doing something over and over again and expecting a different result?

Then there is the prescription drug fiasco. How does expanding government by $520 billion, and I am certain that figure will be revised upwards again, decrease the size and scope of government? This is nothing more than an unabashed attempt at "stealing" an issue from the democrats in hopes of attracting more of the senior citizen vote. One day all of this spending will have to come home to roost, and unfortunately that means future generations will be saddled with paying the enormous debts we are creating now. Yep sounds conservative to me; compassionate too.

As if this was not already enough to make the skin crawl on every conservative, G.W. has proposed giving illegal aliens, who by definition are lawbreakers, special rights. This completely baffles the conscience. Why on earth would one reward illegal behavior and expect less of it? If we are truly going to be serious about the current terrorist threat, why not use resources to secure the border and ENFORCE laws against illegal immigration? Some will contest that there are so many illegal immigrants here presently that we cannot possibly deport them all. Fine, but it is irresponsible to enact legislation, which will only encourage more illegals to come.

Now, the latest move by the President is to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts by $18 million, yet another program that was once slated for elimination. Not only is this agency unnecessary, the market should determine what types of art it wants to support, but it is completely absurd to increase its funding. Instead, perhaps President Bush could start advocating a cut in government pork, and a nice start would be here.

Last summer I wrote about a looming republican crisis. Apparently, G.W. and the Republican Party have not learned that many conservatives will choose to sit home this election, as they have in the past, if they feel disenfranchised with their leadership. In talking to many of my friends on the right, both conservative and libertarian, they have made it abundantly clear that they cannot in good conscience vote for Bush. Many have stated that they will either abstain from voting altogether or vote third party. Personally, rather than having them stay home, I would prefer a strong turnout for a third party candidate who stands for limited government. A stronger than normal showing for one of these candidates may cost the Republicans the White House, but it can send a clear message that may in the end be worth the loss.

Just as his father betrayed us when he promised "no new taxes," G.W. has betrayed us into believing that he would govern conservatively. While those running for the Democrat Party nod do not appear very promising, a lack of turnout by the conservative base could easily have a major impact on this election. For Bush's sake I hope he can find his conservative "roots" soon or this race may turn out to be much closer than many are currently predicting.

© Tony DiPasquale