Do Bush followers have a political ideology?

[ou812]

via Unclaimed Territory - by Glenn Greenwald. Excerpts:

"...It used to be the case that in order to be considered a "liberal" or someone "of the Left," one had to actually ascribe to liberal views on the important policy issues of the day – social spending, abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action, immigration, "judicial activism," hate speech laws, gay rights, utopian foreign policies, etc. etc. These days, to be a "liberal," such views are no longer necessary.

Now, in order to be considered a "liberal," only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a "liberal," regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more "liberal" one is. Whether one is a "liberal" -- or, for that matter, a "conservative" -- is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush.

.

.

.

People who self-identify as "conservatives" and have always been considered to be conservatives become liberal heathens the moment they dissent, even on the most non-ideological grounds, from a Bush decree. That’s because "conservatism" is now a term used to describe personal loyalty to the leader (just as "liberal" is used to describe disloyalty to that leader), and no longer refers to a set of beliefs about government.

That "conservatism" has come to mean "loyalty to George Bush" is particularly ironic given how truly un-conservative the Administration is. It is not only the obvious (though significant) explosion of deficit spending under this Administration – and that explosion has occurred far beyond military or 9/11-related spending and extends into almost all arenas of domestic programs as well. Far beyond that is the fact that the core, defining attributes of political conservatism could not be any more foreign to the world view of the Bush follower.

As much as any policy prescriptions, conservatism has always been based, more than anything else, on a fundamental distrust of the power of the federal government and a corresponding belief that that power ought to be as restrained as possible, particularly when it comes to its application by the Government to American citizens. It was that deeply rooted distrust that led to conservatives’ vigorous advocacy of states’ rights over centralized power in the federal government, accompanied by demands that the intrusion of the Federal Government in the lives of American citizens be minimized."

[barraquilla]

interesting theory. plus a link, ty

[bigpoppanils]

American Conservative magazine did not endorse George Bush in 2004. The editors actually made arguments for why conservatives should vote for Kerry or the third party candidates....and ultimately endorsed Michael Anthony Peroutka (constitution party).

Unfortunately, this election does not offer traditional conservatives an easy or natural choice and has left our editors as split as our readership. In an effort to deepen our readers’ and our own understanding of the options before us, we’ve asked several of our editors and contributors to make “the conservative case†for their favored candidate. Their pieces, plus Taki’s column closing out this issue, constitute TAC’s endorsement. —The Editors

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html

[Felix_Leiter]

It is not only the obvious (though significant) explosion of deficit spending under this Administration – and that explosion has occurred far beyond military or 9/11-related spending and extends into almost all arenas of domestic programs

let me see.. hmmm... we're still in war.. this author lacked all credibility with that statement..

the high deficit spending is in fact a direct result of 9/11 and the war on terror..which includes getting this economy back on track after the 9/11 attacks..

i really wonder with you Bush-haters..

its pretty obvious more conservatives voted for bush than kerry regardless of how you try to spin it..

[bigpoppanils]

let me see.. hmmm... we're still in war.. this author lacked all credibility with that statement..

the high deficit spending is in fact a direct result of 9/11 and the war on terror..which includes getting this economy back on track after the 9/11 attacks..

i really wonder with you Bush-haters..

its pretty obvious more conservatives voted for bush than kerry regardless of how you try to spin it..

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf

Bush has resided over the largest annual increase in domestic spending (excludes entitlements and defense). domestic spending does not include tax cuts either. just look at all those massive "highway" bills that Bush signed off on.