tenkani wrote:
Anyway, from what I've heard, Bush has actually been spending a huge amount on domestic programs. Just not wisely. And, naturally, at the same time pursuing massive tax cuts and his idiotic war. This combination is what has many conservatives in open revolt right now. [div style="font-style: italic;"] [/div] [div style="font-style: italic;"]George Bush never has been and never will be a fiscal conservative.[/div] [div style="font-style: italic;"]His is a faith-based administration on many levels.[/div]
I should know better than to even get into this (time is a factor). But it's hard not to.
Few people on the Right are true fiscal conservatives in the libertarian sense, much as they like to think they are. Ayn Rand used to mock the hell out of those conservatives who did not commit to a complete end to government intervention in the economy.
But social conservatism affects fiscal policy, namely in the way you have said, by determining those things upon which money is spent. That's how you get things like "socialism for the rich", where conservatives take the public money that is available and give it all to their cronies and pals through gigantic corporate contracts and oil wars.
This type of conservative is very, very old, and predates the fine, principled economist type that you're referring to. In one sense, "conservative" in 1550 meant agreement with the idea that aristocratic bastards who gained their absolute power by brute force could not only tax your arse into abject poverty, but also sleep with your new bride before you could. Ergo, conservative in that sense has nothing to do with whether or not public monies are collected and spent, but rather who has the right to spend them.
And that brings us back to Mr. Bush II, who seems to feel that it's a great idea to spend lots of other people's money on risking and endangering lives, as well as deeply useful things like going to the moon again, but is vehemently opposed to spending any money to save and enrich lives, fund public education at the university level, or create some form of national health insurance.
Richard Nixon was a prisoner of his time; if he could have gotten away with the same destruction of social programmes that was slowly and steadily introduced in the US through Reagan, confirmed by Clinton, and sealed by Bush II, he most likely would have. But when you look back on the policies that he was forced to work with in comparison to today, it's just mind-boggling how far the US has gone from having any kind of socio-economic conscience whatsoever. Nixon dramatically increased social spending on housing, the arts, and urban development, as well as increased regulation of business in a way that has not been done since that time. He expanded affirmative action.... the list goes on.
Like I said, if you brought his record before the DLC as a platform, you would be called a socialist.
Life is strange.
