Conservatives Misunderstand What Went Wrong Under Bush

[xchrom]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/conservatives-misunderstand-what-went-wrong-under-bush/280659/



The Tea Party is composed largely of Republicans who supported George W. Bush when he was the GOP standard-bearer, voting for him twice and criticizing him far less frequently than they defended him, only to rebel against his record at the end of his second term. At that point, partisan loyalty and shared hatred of liberals finally gave way to the realization that the GOP's time in power was a disaster for conservatives.

Humans seldom look inward when assigning blame for bygone disasters, and the story conservatives have settled on seems to be that establishment Republicans have long been selling them out by failing to fight hard enough. As a Fox News commentator put it, echoing talking points used by many hardliners, "I’m sure we will hear establishment apologists calling the events of recent days a compromise. But seeing how the president refused to compromise, it’s more likely the Grand Old Party was the only one bending. Establishment Republicans always talk about doing the right thing for the nation, no matter the price. But when push comes to shove, they always throw in the towel."

What ought to be evident, when Tea Partiers reflect on what they disliked about the Bush years, is that neither insufficient fight nor excessive compromise was the problem. The Iraq War, the most disastrous, budget-busting initiative of the aughts, occurred when the GOP establishment fought for war and didn't give up. The K Street Project involved neither capitulation nor compromising with Democrats. And conservatives were pleased when the establishment "threw in the towel" on immigration reform and the Harriet Miers nomination.

Many in the Tea Party seem to have conflated compromising one's principles, a bad thing, with negotiating to reach agreements that make both sides better off. The latter kind of compromise is the only way American government can function when power is divided. There is no logical reason that it should be regarded by conservatives as a dirty word—the Bush years weren't bad for conservatives because of negotiated deals that gave both sides some of what they wanted.

[Zorra]

1. As far as I can tell, conservatives misunderstand everything, so not getting that everything was

wrong under Bush was just another case of conservatives doing what they always do.

And this is why conservatives should never govern. Truth be told, it would be best for all of us, even conservatives themselves, if they didn't vote.

[Laelth]

2. +1.

I refer you to my sig. line.

-Laelth

[pangaia]

4. They are children with children's ideas of their own self importance.

And spoiled, poorly raised children at that.
"Mine. Mine. MY BALL! I want MY BALL!" Stamp, screech, turn red in face, punch, punch.
They have never grown up to become adults.
The same with their so called 'religion.' It is the religion of children.
They need a time out, for like 150 years.

[marmar]

3. k/r

[starroute]

5. There's also a fundamental disconnect on the word "compromise"

In a real compromise, everybody gets a little of what they want, though perhaps not as much as they had hoped for. But the operative word is "want." Compromises are about positive advantages and who gets what from their wish list.

But what do you do when the goal of one side is to destroy what already exists? If the Republicans want to cut spending on a vital function by 10%, is it as compromise to limit the cuts to 5%? If they want to voucherize Medicare, is it a compromise to only means-test it?

In addition, if the Republicans keep coming back year after year with demands for sweeping budget cuts, it means every compromise is actually going to be a retreat.

There's a problem here that isn't easy to come to grips with, because we're so used to thinking of "compromise" in terms of the give-and-take of normal political negotiations, where everybody gets a little something. But somehow we have to establish the point that a situation where one side constantly gets and the other constantly gives is not a compromise.