There have been a number of articles recently that portray President Bush as someone who strayed from the path of true conservatism. Republicans, these articles say, need to return to their roots.
Well, I don’t know what true conservatism is, but while doing research for my forthcoming book I spent a lot of time studying the history of the American political movement that calls itself conservatism — and Mr. Bush hasn’t strayed from the path at all. On the contrary, he’s the very model of a modern movement conservative.
For example, people claim to be shocked that Mr. Bush cut taxes while waging an expensive war. But Ronald Reagan also cut taxes while embarking on a huge military buildup.
People claim to be shocked by Mr. Bush’s general fiscal irresponsibility. But conservative intellectuals, by their own account, abandoned fiscal responsibility 30 years ago. Here’s how Irving Kristol, then the editor of The Public Interest, explained his embrace of supply-side economics in the 1970s: He had a “rather cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit and other monetary or fiscal problems” because “the task, as I saw it, was to create a new majority, which evidently would mean a conservative majority, which came to mean, in turn, a Republican majority — so political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government.”
People claim to be shocked by the way the Bush administration outsourced key government functions to private contractors yet refused to exert effective oversight over these contractors, a process exemplified by the failed reconstruction of Iraq and the Blackwater affair.
People claim to be shocked by Mr. Bush’s general fiscal irresponsibility. But conservative intellectuals, by their own account, abandoned fiscal responsibility 30 years ago. Here’s how Irving Kristol, then the editor of The Public Interest, explained his embrace of supply-side economics in the 1970s: He had a “rather cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit and other monetary or fiscal problems” because “the task, as I saw it, was to create a new majority, which evidently would mean a conservative majority, which came to mean, in turn, a Republican majority — so political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government.”
edward said:Up until the current Bush administration all I ever heard from republicans was "fiscal responsibility". It was their mantra. Deficit spending was absolutely abhorred by republicans.
Paul Krugman is an American economist, author, and professor at the City University of New York. He is known for his work in international economics and trade theory, and has won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.
"True Conservatism" refers to a political ideology that emphasizes limited government, individual freedom, and traditional values. It is often associated with the Republican Party in the United States.
In this context, "Same Old Party" refers to the Republican Party and its history of promoting conservative policies. Krugman argues that the party has not changed significantly in its beliefs and values over the years.
The main argument in this piece is that the Republican Party's claim to be the party of "true conservatism" is not supported by their actions and policies. Krugman argues that the party has shifted towards more extreme and divisive views, rather than upholding traditional conservative values.
Krugman uses examples such as the Republican Party's support for tax cuts for the wealthy and their denial of climate change as evidence of their departure from traditional conservative principles. He also points out the party's use of divisive rhetoric and tactics, such as voter suppression, as further evidence of their shift away from true conservatism.