Punishing Bush May Punish The Country
By Paul M. Weyrich
February 11, 2004

A group of economic conservatives were discussing the state of the world. They were a pretty unhappy lot. You see, the conventional wisdom (which is often wrong) back when George Bush ran for President in 2000 was that he would please economic conservatives. It was social conservatives who Bush would displease. At heart it was understood that Bush was a pretty orthodox Republican, which meant everything he did would serve the cause of the economy. He was expected to run for cover when it came to those dreadful values issues.

Well, guess what? While social issue conservatives are not jumping up and down with glee, they do not feel betrayed, except for those whose concern is primarily immigration. Otherwise they feel the President is pro life, is pro family and is now getting set to fight for the sanctity of marriage.

Economic conservatives, on the other hand, do feel betrayed. One senior member of the group, who I met during Richard Nixon's first term, and who has been deeply involved in Republican Presidential campaigns ever since, actually suggested that the country would be better off with a Democrat President and narrow control of the Congress by the Democrats.

Now that caught my attention! While it is true that Bill Clinton looks like an economic conservative compared with this President, there are mitigating circumstances to consider. First, Bill Clinton's economic conservatism was the product of Republicans winning control of the Congress after two years of the Clinton Presidency. Republicans kept narrow control for the next six years as well. In fact, the Republican spending spree didn't occur to any noticeable degree until the unexpected victories in the 2002 elections where Republican control was won back in the Senate and GOP control in the House was actually enlarged. Second, Clinton gutted defense where it mattered. Had it not been for what Clinton called "the peace dividend," the budget would have been much larger. Third, whether you like it or not, and I do not, we have fought a war in Iraq and are dealing with the consequences of that action, along with lesser commitments in Afghanistan, Bosnia and elsewhere.

What is upsetting the economic conservatives are so-called discretionary domestic expenditures that are about four times as high as they were under Bill Clinton. It matters not. When you have principled conservatives actually advocating the election of a John Kerry, providing he doesn't have a Lyndon Johnson kind of Congress that is serious. And those conservatives whose principal focus is government regulation are just as depressed as those concerned with spending. "We have all the problems of regulation associated with a liberal Democrat Administration, only the Bush Administration has given liberal Republicans cover," one long-time activist told me. He too thinks that the country would be better off with a Democrat in the White House because "maybe then Republicans would fight this stuff."

A survey of economic conservative leaders reveals that all of them believe that their supporters will stay at home this election and, to quote one of them, "...if they do, Bush will be toast because they will be the margin in state after state." That assumes that 2004 will be a duplicate of 2000. Elections seldom are just like the last one. In fact, in 48 years of watching Presidential elections, I can't think of two in a row that were alike.

It also assumes that some of those very voters who are so steamed about spending and/or regulations will not be motivated, one way or the other, by other considerations such as war, the defense of marriage or tax cuts.

Of course, they could be right. Bush made history when, after the Florida Supreme Court got out of hand, the U.S. Supreme Court intervened in the 2000 election, which effectively handed Bush the Presidency. Bush made history again in 2002 as he became the first Republican in exactly 100 years to gain seats in his first off-year election. The last Republican President to accomplish that was Teddy Roosevelt in 1902.

So perhaps Bush will make history in 2004 by having as close an election as we had in 2000. If that is the case, these economic conservative leaders feel so betrayed that they are going to give cover for those at the local level who want to punish Bush.

The problem is in punishing Bush they may end up punishing the country. It is unthinkable to me that we will have the same Supreme Court in January 2009 as we have now. Thus, whoever is President is likely to have perhaps three, maybe even more Justices to replace. I am told by these same cynics that Bush in a second term is going to betray all of us and will appoint liberals to the court. I just find that hard to believe. I think he honestly believes in the quality of the nominees he has been sending up to the Courts of Appeals.

Then there is missile defense. We are finally getting close to deployment. That would be stopped by any of the potential opposition candidates, despite the fact that Russia never blew up when we withdrew from the ABM treaty.

And there is Kyoto. The Democrats have promised to get it ratified. Those who hate the regulation of this Administration will really have something to loathe then. I'm told that the Republicans will fight ratification. Really? I was told the same thing about the Panama Canal treaty. The Panama Canal treaty was far more unpopular than is Kyoto and Jimmy Carter was a weak President. Still it got ratified. If a President is really determined to get something done, he can get it done. I think we could count on Kyoto being ratified. As to immigration, well, the cry of the opposition is that Bush has not gone far enough.

Maybe these economic conservative voters really will stay home, even though with enough pressure the spending and regulation issues are fixable. You see, I kept being told by economic conservative leaders that every President is worse in his second term than the first. I would remind folks that the first two years of Reagan's second term was in many ways far better than the last three years of his first term. Iran-Contra and a Democrat victory wiping out GOP control of the Senate made his last two years weak and unproductive. But those first two years of the second term when Don Regan was Chief of Staff and Pat Buchanan was running Communications were, as I recall, quite dynamic: Tax rates went down to 28%; aid went to Jonas Savimbi; "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Should I go on?

And what do the media that hate George Bush so much say him of him? That the President he most reminds them of is Ronald Reagan.

--------------

Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.

--------------------

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.