Text 16126, 108 rader
Skriven 2005-11-08 19:49:18 av Alan Hess
Ärende: Parent-in-Chief
=======================
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.republicans08nov08,1,1127
092.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines
Parent-in-chief


By David White

November 8, 2005

WASHINGTON // The heart of the Republican Party has always been in conflict. On
one side are those who support greater liberty; on the other, those who support
more morality. William F. Buckley brought those factions together for the
conservative intelligentsia, creating a movement that catapulted Ronald Reagan
to the White House and produced today's Republican majority.

George W. Bush chose sides in this conflict, tearing the conservative heart in
two. His vision for morality-centered governance has transformed the GOP into a
party that no longer believes in limited government and individual liberty but
instead advocates expanding the size, scope and authority of the federal
government at a rate that even Democrats find shocking. There is no longer a
small-government party in the nation's capital; there are just different
visions of what big government means. If this doesn't change, the entire GOP
might sink with the Bush presidency.

Mr. Bush's vision for governance shouldn't surprise anyone. In September, his
chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., told a group of Republicans that Mr. Bush
sees America as a "10-year-old child" in need of parental protection.

Examples of the "parent-in-chief" abound. According to a study by the American
Enterprise Institute, inflation-adjusted discretionary spending increased by
35.1 percent in Mr. Bush's first term, outpacing even the once-unfathomable
benchmark of 33.4 percent set by Lyndon Johnson. He has increased funding for
the Education Department by 67.6 percent and usurped state power in education.
He has pushed through the largest expansion of Medicare in history, signed
tariffs on steel and increased the budget of every Cabinet agency. Even LBJ,
Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton could never claim such a feat.

Mr. Bush's vision for big-government moralism has meant dedicating millions of
new dollars to high-school drug testing and abstinence programs, funneling
enormous amounts to religious organizations, limiting stem-cell research and
supporting a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

And just last month, the Justice Department began recruiting FBI agents for
their newly launched anti-pornography squad - described as a "top priority" of
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales. In Mr. Bush's world, there's no such
thing as federalism, and there's no limit to what the government can do.

But even though Americans are sick and tired of Republicans in their bedrooms,
they're still leery of Democrats in their wallets. The door is thus open for a
new brand of conservatism, and it's likely to leave the morality wing by the
wayside - and welcome back those who support limited government. Proof can be
found by comparing today's elections in Virginia and New York City.

In red state Virginia, Republican Jerry W. Kilgore is in the fight of his life.
Taking a page from Mr. Bush's playbook, Mr. Kilgore has promised the moon,
pretended it's free and desperately tried to woo "values" voters. But moral
issues such as gay marriage and abortion didn't play well this year, so
instead, Mr. Kilgore ran a campaign focused almost exclusively on the death
penalty.

But Mr. Kilgore pulled his death penalty ads two weeks ago, even though 72
percent of Virginians support the death penalty. Apparently, accusing your
challenger of an unwillingness to execute Adolf Hitler strikes voters as
offensive. Thus, the "values" campaign was terminated.

New York City, of course, is hardly a conservative stronghold. Yet for the
fourth straight election, New Yorkers are poised to elect a (nominally)
Republican mayor. And in the most recent Quinnipiac poll, incumbent Michael R.
Bloomberg was up by the remarkable margin of 31 points. He seems destined to
surpass the landslide margin reached by Rudolph W. Giuliani in 1997, when Mr.
Giuliani won with 57 percent of the vote.

Even The New York Times' editorial page - typically allergic to Republicans
-"enthusiastically" endorsed Mr. Bloomberg.

Mr. Bloomberg has never embraced Mr. Bush, and Mr. Kilgore, after running as a
Bush clone for most of the campaign, recently has run away from the president
and his brand of conservatism. He recently skipped a Bush speech in Virginia.

Many contend that Mr. Bloomberg and New York aren't models for the Republican
Party. But even in California, where the polls have only recently gone sour for
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, his ballot initiatives met a receptive audience
even though three of the four took on the public employee unions and the fourth
threatened the Democratic lock on California's congressional delegation.

And in Massachusetts, where rumors of Gov. Mitt Romney's departure are setting
the stage for 2006, the next governor may be Christy Mihos - a self-made
millionaire who supports abortion rights and gay marriage. His election would
result in Massachusetts' fifth straight Republican governor.

Such achievements illustrate the continuing weakness of the Democratic Party.
Even on their home turf, Democrats have a tough time when matched against
Republicans who favor choices instead of sermons, and government efficiency
instead of pork.

If Republicans continue to follow the "parent-in-chief" model of Mr. Bush,
their power will wither away. But if they appeal to small-government
conservatives and moderates, the GOP can survive.

Hey Rudy, are you listening?

David White is assistant editor of The American Enterprise, a publication of
the American Enterprise Institute. His e-mail address is dwhite@AEI.org.

Copyright + 2005, The Baltimore Sun | Get Sun home delivery

--- Msged/2 6.0.1
 * Origin: tncbbs.no-ip.com - Try the CROSSFIRE echo - all welcome (1:261/1000)