Kate O’Beirne has an interesting follow-up to her previous complaint about the lack of “Bush Republicans” in the New York Convention line-up. But what is a “Bush Republican”? I think it has to be a combination of the social policy of the religious right (the FMA, bans on embryo research, government support for religious charities, etc), the fiscal policy of the Keynesian left (massive new domestic spending combined with “deficits don’t matter”), and the foreign policy of liberal moralism (democratization as a policy in the Middle East). So it’s not surprising, is it, that there aren’t many principled “Bush Republicans.” Again, the GOP crib sheet on Edwards is interesting in this respect. He gets zinged, for example, for opposing the new Medicare entitlement. So how many Republicans positively believe in creating a new and fantastically expensive entitlement for the wealthiest segment in American society? I don’t mean defensively explain it as unavoidable. I mean positively endorse it as an element in their conservative philosophy. The sad truth is that if Bush Republicanism exists, it’s one of the most ramshackle distillations of political expediency ever tarted up as an “ism”. The only compelling conservative message that Bush can use to appeal to the country as a whole is that he stands between us and a new wave of terror. So his campaign will have to be based in fear. I’m not sure that, in America, that works very well. But we’ll see.
