Makes it really hard being a Republican that still follows the Compassionate Conservative Principles. I'm probably voting for Nikki Haley in the upcoming primary, who is closest to this but still has some libertarian and Trumpism baggage. And I just don't realistically see the Republicans going in that direction, the Trump DeSantis wings are too powerful.
I'd love to just flip and be a Democrat, but no one has been able to point to a single prominent Democrat Politician that agrees with me on this issue, because well, these views points are conservative. I'm probably going to be without a good political home for the next decade, as a plurality of Americans seem to be.
I am old enough to have been painfully politically aware of the Bush administration. Some thoughts:
1. The "compassionate conservatism" was a minor part of the era, but I think that the Bush administration did occasionally make good decisions inspired by these principles.
2. The dominant events of the Bush era were 9/11, and our two big foreign wars. After 9/11, Bush carefully avoided calling up populist hate against Muslims. But the war in Iraq was knowingly sold to the public based on lies, and we chose to rush in while many potential allies were still debating. The war in Iraq cost a vast amount of US wealth, and it hurt US interests. The reconstruction after the war was run by totally unqualified 22-year-old College Republican hacks, and failed catastrophically. Worst aid program of the century (so far).
3. There is a whole subplot involving Dick Cheney, the apparent mastermind behind much of our foreign policy. John Perry Barlow, of the Grateful Dead(!), wrote a fascinating essay on what Cheney was likely thinking: https://web.archive.org/web/20030401224114/http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200302/msg00186.html You remember how Liz Cheney just lit her political career on fire and crashed into Trump's future? The Cheneys will actually make significant personal sacrifices to save the United States. But you might be alarmed by some of what they're saving it _for_.
4. Under normal circumstances, historians would probably judge George W Bush in the bottom 5 or 10 US Presidents. Lying your way into a trillion dollar war that hurts US strategic interests is a good way to do that. Also, the Great Recession started on his watch. However, in light of everything that has happened since, historians will have far more interesting topics to study.
5. Bush sometimes just went and did genuinely good things just because he thought it was a good idea. He did some impressive environmental conservation, for example.
Realistically, in a democratic society, it's useful to have a wide variety of different groups with different ideas about how to run the country. And it's OK for them to occasionally win over a coalition of voters and try out those ideas. Some of those ideas will be bad. Some will be great!
I do, however, miss having true New England Republicans. They were socially liberalish, but the core of their political philosophy was roughly, "Yes, we can have some nice things. But remember, nice things usually cost money. Can we actually afford this particular nice thing? Also, boring competence saves money so we will be able to afford a few more nice things in the future." Even if you were on the other side of a particular issue, they were delightful political opponents.
I should maybe clarify that I do feel like the book improved my understanding of what the Bush administration was trying (and failing) to do on a foreign policy front. But yeah, the domestic policy side of things was not super-surprising to me but I'm glad you found it informative.
I found your description quite intriguing, as it closely resembles the principles of Christian Democracy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_democracy). This made me wonder why the term "Christian Democracy" is rarely used in the U.S. Is it because the concept of "compassionate conservative" is more palatable there?
You mentioned subsidiarity, which I also associate strongly with Christian Democracy and parties in the EPP. Additionally, you brought up solidarity, but I was curious if the aspect of (Environmental) Stewardship was discussed? This is particularly interesting to me because most Christian Democrats believe in the obligation to protect God's creation, yet I don't recall the Bush administration being particularly active on environmental issues. (And what I do remember was active in the wrong direction: Withdrawing from Kyoto protocol for example)
One of my bedrock beliefs in life is that the most dangerous people are those who are well-intentioned but misinformed. George W. Bush fits that bill. He was a gentleman's C student at Yale who used his family connections to become president. He meant well, but .. he was not smart. He allowed Richard Cheney et al to start two disastrous wars that many people recognized as foolish. That unfortunately is his legacy. He had a patrician's sympathy for those not born with a silver spoon in their mouth. But don't mistake that for a willingness to change the system so that the people who actually do work share in the profits and benefit from social policies that increase the odds that they will live decent lives. I worked for 34 years and have spent the last 15 years living off investments. By far, I have made much more money benefiting from the labor of others than I did performing my own labor. It's food for thought on how our society is structured. I can't change it, so I allow myself to benefit from it. But it's still wrong.
Makes it really hard being a Republican that still follows the Compassionate Conservative Principles. I'm probably voting for Nikki Haley in the upcoming primary, who is closest to this but still has some libertarian and Trumpism baggage. And I just don't realistically see the Republicans going in that direction, the Trump DeSantis wings are too powerful.
I'd love to just flip and be a Democrat, but no one has been able to point to a single prominent Democrat Politician that agrees with me on this issue, because well, these views points are conservative. I'm probably going to be without a good political home for the next decade, as a plurality of Americans seem to be.
I am old enough to have been painfully politically aware of the Bush administration. Some thoughts:
1. The "compassionate conservatism" was a minor part of the era, but I think that the Bush administration did occasionally make good decisions inspired by these principles.
2. The dominant events of the Bush era were 9/11, and our two big foreign wars. After 9/11, Bush carefully avoided calling up populist hate against Muslims. But the war in Iraq was knowingly sold to the public based on lies, and we chose to rush in while many potential allies were still debating. The war in Iraq cost a vast amount of US wealth, and it hurt US interests. The reconstruction after the war was run by totally unqualified 22-year-old College Republican hacks, and failed catastrophically. Worst aid program of the century (so far).
3. There is a whole subplot involving Dick Cheney, the apparent mastermind behind much of our foreign policy. John Perry Barlow, of the Grateful Dead(!), wrote a fascinating essay on what Cheney was likely thinking: https://web.archive.org/web/20030401224114/http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200302/msg00186.html You remember how Liz Cheney just lit her political career on fire and crashed into Trump's future? The Cheneys will actually make significant personal sacrifices to save the United States. But you might be alarmed by some of what they're saving it _for_.
4. Under normal circumstances, historians would probably judge George W Bush in the bottom 5 or 10 US Presidents. Lying your way into a trillion dollar war that hurts US strategic interests is a good way to do that. Also, the Great Recession started on his watch. However, in light of everything that has happened since, historians will have far more interesting topics to study.
5. Bush sometimes just went and did genuinely good things just because he thought it was a good idea. He did some impressive environmental conservation, for example.
Realistically, in a democratic society, it's useful to have a wide variety of different groups with different ideas about how to run the country. And it's OK for them to occasionally win over a coalition of voters and try out those ideas. Some of those ideas will be bad. Some will be great!
I do, however, miss having true New England Republicans. They were socially liberalish, but the core of their political philosophy was roughly, "Yes, we can have some nice things. But remember, nice things usually cost money. Can we actually afford this particular nice thing? Also, boring competence saves money so we will be able to afford a few more nice things in the future." Even if you were on the other side of a particular issue, they were delightful political opponents.
I should maybe clarify that I do feel like the book improved my understanding of what the Bush administration was trying (and failing) to do on a foreign policy front. But yeah, the domestic policy side of things was not super-surprising to me but I'm glad you found it informative.
I found your description quite intriguing, as it closely resembles the principles of Christian Democracy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_democracy). This made me wonder why the term "Christian Democracy" is rarely used in the U.S. Is it because the concept of "compassionate conservative" is more palatable there?
You mentioned subsidiarity, which I also associate strongly with Christian Democracy and parties in the EPP. Additionally, you brought up solidarity, but I was curious if the aspect of (Environmental) Stewardship was discussed? This is particularly interesting to me because most Christian Democrats believe in the obligation to protect God's creation, yet I don't recall the Bush administration being particularly active on environmental issues. (And what I do remember was active in the wrong direction: Withdrawing from Kyoto protocol for example)
One of my bedrock beliefs in life is that the most dangerous people are those who are well-intentioned but misinformed. George W. Bush fits that bill. He was a gentleman's C student at Yale who used his family connections to become president. He meant well, but .. he was not smart. He allowed Richard Cheney et al to start two disastrous wars that many people recognized as foolish. That unfortunately is his legacy. He had a patrician's sympathy for those not born with a silver spoon in their mouth. But don't mistake that for a willingness to change the system so that the people who actually do work share in the profits and benefit from social policies that increase the odds that they will live decent lives. I worked for 34 years and have spent the last 15 years living off investments. By far, I have made much more money benefiting from the labor of others than I did performing my own labor. It's food for thought on how our society is structured. I can't change it, so I allow myself to benefit from it. But it's still wrong.
There's nothing like Donald Trump for making make George W. Bush look good...