Republicanism vs Conservatism

[Lurker]

Or Bushies vs Reaganites.  This article really defines what has happened to the Republican party over the last 8 years.  I think it hits on ideas that I have put forth as well as some Joe tried to explain.

Top GOP-ers: It?s Bush and Rove?s fault
By CRAIG SHIRLEY & TONY FABRIZIO     
 
Last Monday, former Bush White House aide Peter Wehner made a startling statement in an op-ed in The Washington Post. He said that while ?the GOP is in bad shape, conservatism is not.?

Nothing could be further from the truth. Conservatism has been badly damaged by Wehner?s former bosses, President Bush and Karl Rove, and others who never understood our movement, who only saw it as a tool to serve the political needs of this administration, never as a framework for governance.

From steel tariffs to prescription drug benefits, to the massive expansion of the police powers of the national government, to bloated transportation and energy bills, to federal mandates to the states on education, to nation-building, Reaganism was not only thrown under a bus by this administration, it also repeatedly ran back and forth over it.

The work of millions of conservatives going back to the 1940s has been sullied and misshapen into something unrecognizable, and Wehner writes as if he was simply an innocent bystander, rather than an active participant in its demise.

For conservatives, coming back against Barack Obama if he is elected will not nearly be as easy as coming back against Bill Clinton in 1993 and Jimmy Carter in 1977.

Over the past several years, conservatives who dared to criticize this White House soon found themselves out in the cold, shut out of working for the party and even taken off the White House Christmas card list. To some people in the GOP, these things meant a lot.

Moderates in the GOP have always taken conservatives' criticism personally. However, as Michael said to Sonny, ?This isn?t personal. This is business.?

This future debate inside the GOP simply boils down to ?Bushism? vs. ?Reaganism.? Some have said, ?Get over Reagan,? but in fact, that would be like saying get over Thomas Jefferson, for since his and Alexander Hamilton?s time, we have had a national debate over the role of government in our daily lives. Now that argument will be more difficult because Bush, Rove, Tom DeLay, Denny Hastert and others made the GOP into the second Big Government party in America, blurring the distinction between the two.

Marcus Aurelius? admonition was, ?The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.? Conservatives would be crazy not to admit they have a problem.

The first President Bush, all conservatives agree, was not a worthy successor to Ronald Reagan, and his one term has received, at best, mixed reviews from historians. At the time, with the crumbling of the Soviet empire, conservatives were frustrated and furious that Bush was slow to seize the day, as when the ?Captive Nations? of the Baltics broke away, declaring their independence. Yet the United States was the 39th country ? after Greenland ? to recognize Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, although they?d received support in the GOP platform since 1948.
Bush 41?s biggest mistake was breaking his word on taxes and planting the seeds for the recession that led to the primary challenge by Pat Buchanan, the independent candidacy of H. Ross Perot and the election of Bill Clinton as the 42nd president.

?W?s? old man, though, didn?t do lasting damage to conservatism. He had so little invested in the ideology, and the ideologues in him. It was easy for the right to galvanize against him and part ways. Despite his loss in 1992, the GOP actually picked up seats in the House.

This President Bush, though, has played with fire. Since the brilliant conservative theoretician Frank Meyer devised ?fusionism? in the 1950s ? which brought together the social right, the foreign policy right and the economic right under a philosophy opposed to oppressive government that later evolved into a political movement ? a conservative one based on ?Freedom.? This culminated in the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, and all sides understood their end of the bargain.

No side could tempt itself with the siren song of national government power as a means of placating their people or suckling for money. They had to slug out their problems at the state level and forge ahead in the time honored ?do it yourself? tradition of America.

The Republicans of late, however, decided to trade in the ?less government, more freedom? model that had worked so well for Reagan and conservatives. They deliberately and quite consciously made the social right and the economic right dependent upon Washington.

From the beginning, they tempted the social right with a seat at the table in forming policy, ?faith-based initiatives,? federal interference in the Terry Schiavo case in Florida and a ludicrous amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage. After eight years of being told by Rove and this White House that all the social ills of America could be federalized, it will take a long time to put this toothpaste back in the tube.

In 1978, state Sen. John Briggs offered Proposition 6 in California. The ?Briggs Amendment? would have prohibited gays from teaching in public schools. Though the Christian right supported it, Reagan campaigned against it, seeing it as a violation of personal freedoms. Voters there sent it down in flames and Briggs blamed Reagan?s opposition for its defeat.

The economic right is in as bad a shape. Bush and Co. never understood what tax cuts meant to Reagan and conservatives. In essence, Reagan's position was, ?OK, I?m going to cut your taxes, but I am also going to cut spending. Don?t look to Washington to fix your problems or for a bailout. Look to yourself.? Reagan and the conservatives believed giving individuals more of their money meant more opportunity to pursue dreams of entrepreneurship, more self-reliance and more self-worth, certainly ennobling to the human spirit.

Rove, Bush and the modern Republicans have treated Americans like crack addicts, giving them tax cuts but also federal boodle, so tax cuts look more like an appeal to downright greed.

When Bush signed the McCain-Feingold Act, limiting the personal freedoms of Americans' involvement in politics, Rove was asked in confidence about the constitutionality of the legislation. According to his questioner, Rove was singularly unconcerned and said he was only concerned about the favorable editorials Bush would get for signing the bill and that he, Rove, could live with the decilne in personal contributions to the 2004 Bush campaign.

Starting with No Child Left Behind and wending its way through eight years of Rove-inspired initiatives, Reagan?s organizing philosophy of ?freedom? has been replaced by Bush?s ?security.?

Bush has also put conservatives in an impossible position by trying to explain deregulation versus the out-and-out corruption of the financial industry and bailout of their friends on Wall Street and nationalize the mortgage and banking industries. For the record, Reaganites oppose the bailout and federal involvement in anything other than throwing crooked brokers and bankers into jail block C.

Wehner said this election is not a referendum on conservatism, but he is only partially right. Millions of Americans have come to erroneously see Bush as a conservative when nothing could be further from the truth. This election will more accurately be a referendum on Bush?s ?Big Government Republicanism,? and not Reagan conservatism, not our conservatism.

Trouble is, few will know it, and we conservatives have our work cut out for us.

[Skandery]

Disappointing.  I was expecting a good read, this came off as whiny and short-sighted.  This author is going to cast the deep flaws of recent policy and ideology on 2 boogeymen:  Karl Rove and Dubya.  I would hope most people see through that, especially since Rove and Dubya are PRODUCTS of Reagan Conservatism.   

[westkoast]

Disappointing.  I was expecting a good read, this came off as whiny and short-sighted.  This author is going to cast the deep flaws of recent policy and ideology on 2 boogeymen:  Karl Rove and Dubya.  I would hope most people see through that, especially since Rove and Dubya are PRODUCTS of Reagan Conservatism.   

I think that it's easy to just point to those two and blame them.  Everyone knows they screwed up.  They are well known figures.   Though it is more then just those two.  It's the entire republican party that started to cater to the people who put them into power.  The republicans pretty much didn't care what it took to get back into power.  The Republicans didn't care in 2004 did they?  Some of these 'Reganites' that I talked to still backed George Bush in 2004 against Kerry.  You know as if they didn't see the first year he was in the White House that he wasn't going to be that kind of Republican.  You know as if his dad was that type of Republican.  They just wanted their 'team' to win.  Now that the team clearly failed they want to start to distance themselves.  Sorry, doesn't work like that.  Where was this guy in 02? 03? 04? 05? 06? 07?  Where was the article at then? 

Lurker, I kinda touched on this in the other thread.  Like I was saying to us in the younger generation this is the Republican party.  It's not some branch of the Republican party.  This is what it has become and I honestly couldn't tell you when it was different.  I was too young when the core values of true Republicans were really on full display.   They wanted so badly to have the support of knuckle heads to get into office they sold themselves out.    It's not just George Bush and Karl Rove.  It's John McCain, it's Sarah Palin as well.  It is the other higher ups in the RNC who are just as much to blame as just those two brought up in the article.

[jemagee]

I would hope most people see through that

I admire your optimism

[Lurker]

Disappointing.  I was expecting a good read, this came off as whiny and short-sighted.  This author is going to cast the deep flaws of recent policy and ideology on 2 boogeymen:  Karl Rove and Dubya.  I would hope most people see through that, especially since Rove and Dubya are PRODUCTS of Reagan Conservatism.   

Then you missed the entire point...Bush/Rove CORRUPTED Reagan conservatism.  And they weren't alone...read this again.

Thomas Jefferson, for since his and Alexander Hamilton?s time, we have had a national debate over the role of government in our daily lives. Now that argument will be more difficult because Bush, Rove, Tom DeLay, Denny Hastert and others made the GOP into the second Big Government party in America, blurring the distinction between the two.

Bush/Rove etc have made our choice between big government spending for war and moral issue vs government spending for social equality.  Neither is true conservatism.  Conservatives call for LESS government spending.  Conservatives are for fiscal responsibility.  For freedom of choices...including moral choices.  Read this passage again...

In 1978, state Sen. John Briggs offered Proposition 6 in California. The ?Briggs Amendment? would have prohibited gays from teaching in public schools. Though the Christian right supported it, Reagan campaigned against it, seeing it as a violation of personal freedoms. Voters there sent it down in flames and Briggs blamed Reagan?s opposition for its defeat.

Reagan stood for SMALLER government.  Government has done nothing but expand under the Bush adminstration.  Reagan called for Nationalism, not nation building.  Reagan stood for pride in a strong America...not America as the world bully and arbiter of all that is right and just.  As this part points out...

From steel tariffs to prescription drug benefits, to the massive expansion of the police powers of the national government, to bloated transportation and energy bills, to federal mandates to the states on education, to nation-building, Reaganism was not only thrown under a bus by this administration, it also repeatedly ran back and forth over it.

As far as tax cuts this very succintly explains the difference between Reagan and Bush's philosophies. 

In essence, Reagan's position was, ?OK, I?m going to cut your taxes, but I am also going to cut spending. Don?t look to Washington to fix your problems or for a bailout. Look to yourself.? Reagan and the conservatives believed giving individuals more of their money meant more opportunity to pursue dreams of entrepreneurship, more self-reliance and more self-worth, certainly ennobling to the human spirit.

And then there is the whole issue of government intervention in the markets...aka the bailout.

Bush has also put conservatives in an impossible position by trying to explain deregulation versus the out-and-out corruption of the financial industry and bailout of their friends on Wall Street and nationalize the mortgage and banking industries. For the record, Reaganites oppose the bailout and federal involvement in anything other than throwing crooked brokers and bankers into jail block C.

Methinks that you don't truly understand the difference between a Conservative and a Bush Republican, Skander.

[Lurker]

Lurker, I kinda touched on this in the other thread.  Like I was saying to us in the younger generation this is the Republican party.  It's not some branch of the Republican party.  This is what it has become and I honestly couldn't tell you when it was different.  I was too young when the core values of true Republicans were really on full display.   They wanted so badly to have the support of knuckle heads to get into office they sold themselves out.    It's not just George Bush and Karl Rove.  It's John McCain, it's Sarah Palin as well.  It is the other higher ups in the RNC who are just as much to blame as just those two brought up in the article.

I don't disagree with you here, koast.  I understand that to people who have grown up in the past 12 years that this is thier picture of conservatives.  That you see Republicans and conservatives as one in the same.  But this is what I have been trying to point out also that true conservatives are more than just Republicans.  That is why if you look at the Dems that won seats in 2006 you will find that they are on the conservative side of the party and won against some of the more extreme "new Republicans".

[westkoast]

Lurker, I kinda touched on this in the other thread.  Like I was saying to us in the younger generation this is the Republican party.  It's not some branch of the Republican party.  This is what it has become and I honestly couldn't tell you when it was different.  I was too young when the core values of true Republicans were really on full display.   They wanted so badly to have the support of knuckle heads to get into office they sold themselves out.    It's not just George Bush and Karl Rove.  It's John McCain, it's Sarah Palin as well.  It is the other higher ups in the RNC who are just as much to blame as just those two brought up in the article.

I don't disagree with you here, koast.  I understand that to people who have grown up in the past 12 years that this is thier picture of conservatives.  That you see Republicans and conservatives as one in the same.  But this is what I have been trying to point out also that true conservatives are more than just Republicans.  That is why if you look at the Dems that won seats in 2006 you will find that they are on the conservative side of the party and won against some of the more extreme "new Republicans".

Oh I know the difference.  Like I said in the other thread I was young when Republicans were actual conservatives.... fiscally responsible, about the government NOT taking away rights, and trying to cut the fat of the government.  There are HISTORY books documenting this (I joke I joke, I kid I kid)

You are not the type of person I am talking about and neither are others who share your views.  Your stance has not changed since we started to really discuss politics on this board.  That is not the case with a lot of Republicans.  You seem to be in the minority.  Let me remind everyone that I live in Orange County, the Republican strong hold of the Westcoast.   A lot of so-called conservatives backed "new republican" politics just so their side would win.  To me those people have been stripped from being able to identify themselves with people like yourself because it blurs the line.  This piece sort of came off that way to me and Skander it looks like.  I've seen a lot of people trying to jump off the titantic and somehow think we forgot they paid tickets to be on the ship in the first place if you catch my drift. 

  When Sarah Palin electrifies people who call themselves Republicans and the politicians in that party pretend to be conservatives it makes the group look really bad.  Until the Republicans find a TRUE MAVERICK who doesn't try to cater to the Sarah Palin crowd the party and conservatives will continue to look bad.  Or until people who are Republicans actually stand up to the direction the party is going instead of crying about Dems.  I don't see either happening because these same people are backing John McCain who is NOT a conservative just so a Dem (and in many cases a BLACK man) doesn't win and the "home team" wins.

[Skandery]

Lurker, fiscal responsibility in the hands of Republicans IS A MYTH.  It is one of the many myths handed down year to year, person to person ad nauseam.  Few ever actually do the research to back up what is taken as "conventional wisdom".  Yes Sir, Democrats are TAX-n-SPEND liberals.  Republicans are fiscally responsible conservatives.  Is that the script?  The truism repeated to us so often and hammered in our heads so we believe it to be As true as the sun coming up in the morning and the leaf falling to the ground in the fall.  What happens when you dig a little deeper?

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/USDebt.png

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

And what about raising taxes, that thing that we must NEVER, EVER, NEVER, EVER, EVEN BREATHE ABOUT TALKING ABOUT?

===============================================================
Long-term risks to financial health of federal government
 
Risks Due to Increasing Entitlement SpendingMain article: United States federal budget
Several government agencies provide budget and debt data and analysis. These include the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the U.S. Treasury Department. These agencies have reported that the federal government is facing a series of critical long-term financing challenges. This is because expenditures related to entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are growing considerably faster than the economy overall, as the population grows older. These agencies have indicated that under current law, sometime between 2030 and 2040, mandatory spending (primarily Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the national debt) will exceed tax revenue. In other words, all discretionary spending (e.g., defense, homeland security, law enforcement, education, etc.) will require borrowing and related deficit spending. These agencies have used such language as "unsustainable" and "trainwreck" to describe such a future.[56]

While there is significant debate about solutions,[57] the significant long-term risk posed by the increase in entitlement spending is widely recognized[58], with health care costs (Medicare and Medicaid) the primary risk category.[59][60] If significant reforms are not undertaken, benefits under entitlement programs will exceed government income by over $40 trillion over the next 75 years.[61]According to the GAO, this will cause debt ratios relative to GDP to double by 2040 and double again by 2060, reaching 600 percent by 2080.[62]

In 2006, Professor Laurence Kotlikoff argued the "United States must eventually choose between bankruptcy", raising taxes, or cutting payouts. He assumes there will be ever-growing payment obligations from Medicare and Medicaid.[63] Others who have attempted to bring this issue to the fore of America's attention range from Ross Perot in his 1992 Presidential bid, to investment guru Robert Kiyosaki, and David Walker, former head of the Government Accountability Office.[64][65]

Thomas Friedman has argued that increasing dependence on foreign sources of funding will render the U.S. less able to act independently

Sources:

^ FRB: Speech-Bernanke, The Coming Demographic Transition: Will We Treat Future Generations Fairly?-October 4, 2006
^ U.S. Heading For Financial Trouble?, Comptroller Says Medicare Program Endangers Financial Stability - CBS News
^ GAO Citizen's Guide
^ Is the United States Bankrupt?
^ Yahoo! Personal Finance: Calculators,Money Advice,Guides,& More
^ America The Bankrupt, GAO Head Takes Fiscal Show On The Road To Warn Of Trouble Ahead - CBS News
^ Friedman - Loss of Sovereignity

The National Debt Clock FAQ, numbers used were researched in the Treasury Departments website:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

Graph looks the same as the one that Steve McGourty uses in his study up above.
With regards to "conventional wisdom".  I do wonder when people will collectively and conciously figure out that the Earth actually REVOLVES around the sun, --metaphorically speaking.

[rickortreat]

I have a somewhat different view of this, Reagan's Conservatism wasn't the same as Goldwater's by any means.  Reagan was able to communicate his vision of the world and America to the people and was able to cobble together a winning platform that conservatives could follow.  He was smart enough to understand that the religious right, when brought together with fiscal conservatives could produce a sufficient majority to win the election.

Yes, Reagan was for small government, but to him that meant less regulation and less oversight.  He cut taxes, but he did not cut spending commensurately, and the debt grew under President Ronnie.  Reagan's policies were directly responsible for the Savings and Loan Scandal, which saddled the US taxpayer with a huge amount of debt from failed business deals mostly executed by Republican S&L owners like Charles Keating.

If you look at America's balance sheet, you'll realize that Reagan was a bad President for the US, even though he is loved by many who still think he was a great leader.  He did nothing to address the decline in American business and even put a few nails in the coffin, by supporting free trade with Japan and other parts of Asia.

But while Reagan had some bad ideas and came up with some dumb slogans like "greed is good" he really did care about America and it's people.  Bush I and Bush II both benefited from Reagan's new GOP, but they didn't nourish it or make it stronger.  In fact, the Religious right tried to co-opt the party and the responsible aspect of the Conservative party got chased out.  Bush isn't a conservative, he's a facist.  If you look at the roll back of Constitutional freedoms, the increase in Presidential power vs. Congress, or the trade and budget deficits, you will find that America hasn't gotten better but much, much worse.  The biggest thing most Americans are concerned with is their own wealth and financial stablility, but rather than helping business Bush has hurt business by encouraging trade with foreign countries that target American manufacturing.

Further, his support of business policies encouraged Congress to do away with the old bankruptsy protection laws, while doing nothing to prevent banks from offering credit cards to anyone regardless of their ability to pay.  And now that enough Americans are out of work so that the economy is faltering, and the trade deficit has grown so large that we can't earn our way out of it. Bush is taking more from us to bail out the failed investment banks that acted so irresponsibly in the first place.

Conservatism is dead because the Republicans killed it.  I am for smaller government, less taxation, and more freedom.  I'd love to vote Republican, but they don't believe in those things anymore, and neither do most of the Candidates they put up for election.  There was actually a Republican candidate I would have voted for over Obama, but Ron Paul was shunned by the party which shows you how far away from true conservatism they actually are!

Paul very much understands the problems before us, and understood how to change our path to set America back on the right road again.  But the Republican party didn't want to hear it, and they didn't want to acknowledge the grass-roots support his campaign was starting to develop. He really was a true Conservative, and the party didn't even recognize him as one of their own!

True conservatives don't have a party anymore.

[Lurker]

Lurker, fiscal responsibility in the hands of Republicans IS A MYTH.  It is one of the many myths handed down year to year, person to person ad nauseam.  Few ever actually do the research to back up what is taken as "conventional wisdom".  Yes Sir, Democrats are TAX-n-SPEND liberals.  Republicans are fiscally responsible conservatives.  Is that the script?  The truism repeated to us so often and hammered in our heads so we believe it to be As true as the sun coming up in the morning and the leaf falling to the ground in the fall.  What happens when you dig a little deeper?

Again I believe you are thinking that I equate Conservatism with Republicanism.  That is totally off base.  Reagan was able to push a lot of true conservatism because he had the backing of many Southern Democrats.  It is only in the past 20-30 years that Republicans have regained strength in the South.  This goes all the way back to the War of the States (Southern term...btw I was raised in the midwest) and the fact that Republicans were those nasty, Yankee, carpetbaggers who came down and "reconstructed" the South.  Democrats were the social and cultural CONSERVATIVES that wanted to maintain the south's identity albeit without slavery.  It was when one of their own (LBJ - you know he chosen as the VP just to carry the Southern vote, right?) pushed through the second largest social program in the history of this country that caused conservatives to start migrating to the Republican party.

Conservatives have lately been migrating towards the Democratic party but struggle with the social activism that the entrenched leaders of that party advocate.  They (conservatives) are fed up with the Republican leadership because as koast points out their actions don't back up their talk.  True conservatives don't mind paying taxes BUT also believe that there should be spending cuts.  They believe that the government should use their taxes wisely; something the current Republican leaders mouth but their actions don't back up.  Thomas Friedman...who you cite in your response...is very much an advocate for conservatives. 

Here is an excerpt from a local columnist that addresses these points.

No matter the results of the election on Nov. 4, and despite the tarnishing Republicans have given to conservatism, America remains a center-right country.

The Battleground Poll is a comprehensive, bipartisan public opinion poll sponsored by George Washington University and conducted by the Republican Terrance Group and Democratic Lake Research Partners.

In January 2000, the poll asked participants to describe their views of politics and government. Fifteen percent described themselves as very conservative, 39 percent as somewhat conservative, 13 percent as moderate, 24 percent as somewhat liberal and 6 percent as very liberal.

Here are the results of the same Battleground Poll question in October 2008: Twenty percent described themselves as very conservative, 39 percent as somewhat conservative, 3 percent as moderate, 26 percent as somewhat liberal and 10 percent as very liberal.

After eight years of the Bush administration and six years during which Republicans controlled at least one house of Congress, with a skyrocketing deficit and ethical scandals, a highly unpopular war in Iraq and a financial crisis, the number of people who describe themselves as very or somewhat conservative has actually grown from 53 percent to 59 percent. In fact since 2002, the very/mostly conservative segment has held remarkably steady around 60 percent.

That tells us that an Obama-Biden White House with a Pelosi-Reid supermajority in Congress is very much out of step with the American people. Democrats cannot possibly maintain that dominance ? unless Republicans keep doing what they've been doing for the last eight years.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/jonathan_gurwitz/A_Conservative_Reckoning.html

Think about in these terms...regardless of party affiliation Missouri is basically a very conservative region.  Most of what is termed as "flyover" country is the same.  Many East/West coasters look down on good old fashioned Midwestern/Southern ideals but these are the heart of conservatism.  Work hard.  Raise yourself up by putting your nose to the grindstone.  Don't spend beyond your means.  Respect your neighbors.  Lend a helping hand when needed.  It is a big reason that states that are still predominantly rural in nature/tempermant are considered Republican.  Because those are the principles preached by Reagan (who btw grew up in the Midwest) and was big reason many Americans identified with the Republican party.  The irony of this year's election is that this more closely describes Obama, not McCain.

Skander, I really believe we are coming very much from the same place.  I was chided for 4-6 weeks ago here when I called for a third party because our system is basically a two party system.  Conservatives right now feel party-less.  Neither party represents the true conservative principles that a majority of Americans identify with.  And the hope I see is that the younger generation (18-30) are seeing that party affiliation means nothing.  Straight party voting is becoming less and less the norm and voting for the best candidate regardless of party is growing. 

[Lurker]

Conservatism is dead because the Republicans killed it.  I am for smaller government, less taxation, and more freedom.  I'd love to vote Republican, but they don't believe in those things anymore, and neither do most of the Candidates they put up for election.  There was actually a Republican candidate I would have voted for over Obama, but Ron Paul was shunned by the party which shows you how far away from true conservatism they actually are!

Paul very much understands the problems before us, and understood how to change our path to set America back on the right road again.  But the Republican party didn't want to hear it, and they didn't want to acknowledge the grass-roots support his campaign was starting to develop. He really was a true Conservative, and the party didn't even recognize him as one of their own!

True conservatives don't have a party anymore.

Thanks for making my point Rick.  There may be hope for you yet.

[Lurker]

I have a somewhat different view of this, Reagan's Conservatism wasn't the same as Goldwater's by any means.  Reagan was able to communicate his vision of the world and America to the people and was able to cobble together a winning platform that conservatives could follow.  He was smart enough to understand that the religious right, when brought together with fiscal conservatives could produce a sufficient majority to win the election.

Actually Reagan's true positions were closer to Goldwater's than you give him credit for.  Review his record as governor of California.  He talent was the ability to bring diverse groups to gether for the betterment of the whole...thus the Great Communicator tag.  But he didn't only bring fiscal and social conservatives together; he also brought the foreign policy conservatives (strong America (defense) that stands it ground...not pushes an agenda).

Yes, Reagan was for small government, but to him that meant less regulation and less oversight.  He cut taxes, but he did not cut spending commensurately, and the debt grew under President Ronnie.  Reagan's policies were directly responsible for the Savings and Loan Scandal, which saddled the US taxpayer with a huge amount of debt from failed business deals mostly executed by Republican S&L owners like Charles Keating.

If you look at America's balance sheet, you'll realize that Reagan was a bad President for the US, even though he is loved by many who still think he was a great leader.  He did nothing to address the decline in American business and even put a few nails in the coffin, by supporting free trade with Japan and other parts of Asia.

And I suppose you believe that it was Clinton's policies that led to a surplus and strong economic growth.  Rick, that shows the cracks in your overall economic knowledge.  Lower trade restrictions allowed Americans to acquire foreign goods at lower prices.  It allowed American farmers to export more goods (food).  It allowed for the growth of the economy.  Reagan did more to usher in the global economy than any president before or since.

But while Reagan had some bad ideas and came up with some dumb slogans like "greed is good" he really did care about America and it's people.  Bush I and Bush II both benefited from Reagan's new GOP, but they didn't nourish it or make it stronger.  In fact, the Religious right tried to co-opt the party and the responsible aspect of the Conservative party got chased out.  Bush isn't a conservative, he's a facist.  If you look at the roll back of Constitutional freedoms, the increase in Presidential power vs. Congress, or the trade and budget deficits, you will find that America hasn't gotten better but much, much worse.  The biggest thing most Americans are concerned with is their own wealth and financial stablility, but rather than helping business Bush has hurt business by encouraging trade with foreign countries that target American manufacturing.

Now you are putting the failures and corruption of Bush and cronies on Reagan?  Except for the first sentence this paragraph encapsulates what I have been saying...that the current Republican leadership isn't conservative in ideology.

So were you trying to support my premise that Conservatism is different than Republicanism?  Or offer a competing view?