Bush - wrecker of American Conservatism

From the department of straying-from- basic-principles:

Once again, major fissures in American conservatism have appeared. Leaders of the Christian right, appalled that a pro-choice, thrice-married candidate, Rudy Giuliani, is leading in the polls, have threatened to lead a mass defection from the GOP ranks and support a third-party presidential bid in 2008. Few expect them to make good on their threat. If they leave, they'll cost the Republicans the election; loyalty will almost certainly prevail. But the real issue isn't the loyalty of the hardcore religious right, who may never find another candidate so congenial as Bush to their fundamentalist beliefs and reactionary agenda. It's the inexplicable loyalty of that majority of American conservatives who are not driven solely by biblical fervor. The real question is: After seven years of George W. Bush, why would any genuine conservative still support his party?

...

Bush's unprovoked war on Iraq provided a satisfying catharsis for American conservatives, an opportunity to play Winston Churchill and fight the good fight against Evil. But the satisfaction of urging on a Manichaean struggle from one's armchair should only go so far before reality kicks in. Just as most conservatives during the Cold War realized that attacking the Soviet Union was not in America's interests, so one would think that today's conservatives would realize that Bush's "war on terror" is not only unwinnable, but both unnecessary and counterproductive. By now, it's obvious to all but myopic ideologues that attacking the Arab world to teach it a lesson was like kicking a vast wasp's nest while wearing a Speedo. We want to win the "war on terror," not strike heroic poses while being stung to death. No one disputes the virtue of moral clarity, but without intelligence, moral clarity is useless. Where is it written that conservatives have to be stupid?

In the age of Bush, even the conservatives' much-vaunted moral clarity does not always bear close inspection. A Pew poll taken in March found that only 18 percent of self-described conservative Republicans believed that torture was never justified. Who was it who said, "Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all ... Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good"? It must be one of those damn liberals.*

Of course, it isn't surprising that those who hold a given set of political beliefs, whether liberal or conservative, will support the party and leader that purports to represent those values. Party loyalty is based on a willingness to support even a flawed leader and party in the interests of a higher goal. But there can be times when that leader and party are so injurious to one's deepest moral values and beliefs that it becomes irrelevant what banner they march under. At such moments, those who think for themselves, who are guided by principle and not mere expediency, who are true conservatives -- or liberals -- and not just partisan hacks, will break with their leaders. They will rebel.

As Beamer has pointed out, it wasn't just Bush that did it but the entire Republican party. Bush, however, was the real icing on the cake to my mind. Even with a corrupt Republican controlled congress, a competent and judicious Republican president would have garnered the respect of both grassroots Republicans and independents. More than that, it would also have gained the grudging respect of Democrats, whose history is not exactly spotless either.

As Kamiya points out in the article (which I commend to your reading), the complete disregard for basic conservative principles amongst supposed conservatives has shown how hollow the movement really was.

American politics has a structural flaw - it is a system that rewards confrontationalism, nepotism and corruption. It afflicted the Democrats in the decades prior to 1994 and it afflicted the Republicans since 1994 and it will continue to afflict the Congress of the future no matter which party prevails. If Americans are heartily sick of the way politics runs (and I would assume that most are), then they need to come up with some constitutional amendments that will reward bipartisanship, judicious decision making and long-term planning.

These would include:

• Abolishing the Electoral College and determine who wins the presidential election by popular vote alone.
• Incorporate a Preferential voting system for the election of local, state and federal representatives, senators and executive candidates (President / Governor / Mayor)
• Ensuring that the conduct of elections is controlled by the body being elected. Thus the manner of voting around the country is uniform in nature.
• Letting bureaucrats determine electoral boundaries based upon statistical and mathematical rules, rather than having one party or another determine these electoral boundaries.
• Term limits on Senators and Representatives.
• Abolish mid-term elections and have elections every four years (thus giving Representatives a four year, rather than two-year, term)
• Determine membership of the Supreme Court by randomly selecting Federal Judges to sit a four year term there (who then return to lesser duties when their term is up).
• Giving statehood to Washington D.C., and either statehood or independence to Puerto Rico.
• Seriously consider Demarchy as a means of determining politicians instead of elections.