With control over the presidency, Senate and House of Representatives, one would think it would be a good time to be a conservative. However, recent events have demonstrated that nothing could be further from the truth. The modern American conservative movement, beginning in earnest with the watershed election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, has risen to power through a combination of grassroots effort and an indefatigable perseverance.
The culmination of this patient, well-orchestrated rise to power was found in the loyalty and determination with which religious and white working-class conservatives fought for George W. Bush. The election and re-election of the Bush/Cheney ticket was the result not only of one man's attributes, but also a movement that swept this administration to power and kept it there.
In the wake of taking a beating in the polls over the Gulf Coast hurricanes at home and the continued American loss of life in Iraq, one might think Bush would fall back on the stalwarts in his time of need. Instead, in a supreme act of arrogance and an unwise strategic move, Bush is setting himself up to go down in history as the Benedict Arnold of American conservatism.
According to the Denver Post, Republican leaders are planning to put immigration on the top of their agenda, starting this week. In doing so, Republicans are seeking to address demands from the business community to support a guest-worker program and from their base of so-called "angry white males," who have relied on the GOP to oppose immigration since the 1994 contract with America.
However, when faced with the choice between free-market fundamentalism and social conservatism, Bush is making the choice he will make every time. He is betting on the political saliency of his free-market economic policies over the social conservatism that binds his remnant popular support together.
A far more incisive issue is the Supreme Court and its effect on American society. For a generation, religious conservatives of many denominations have openly stated that the only issue in public life that they care about is the abolition of legal abortion. Yet, Bush has appointed two individuals with copious experience as private-sector lawyers for business interests and failed to put forth nominations with definite positions on abortion, affirmative action or gay rights.
Once again, Bush erred on the side of his economic ideology over the social ideology of his constituents. And in this, he has betrayed them.
Repeatedly, Bush has counted on the patience of his base in his pursuit of an ambitious foreign policy and economic agenda. Rather than legislating affirmative action out of existence, he chose instead to take a risk on social security. Bush fails to comprehend that the reason behind his elections and subsequent popularity has never been based upon his sympathy for Lafferian tax cuts; it has been based upon something much larger.
The American attraction to conservatism has been based upon the notion that secularization and multiculturalism threaten the traditional social fabric, not out of an ideological attachment to the altar of supply-side Reaganomics.
With his Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Harriet Miers, Bush has demonstrated a gross negligence toward the faith his stalwarts have always had in him. Bush, in short, is betraying the only people who still support him.
While Bush's favorite political philosopher taught us that man cannot live on bread alone, some conservatives who are effectively capitalizing on Bush's misjudgment are putting this maxim into ideological practice. Tom Tancredo, the congressman from Colorado who famously stated that he felt the response to an al-Qaeda nuclear attack should be bombing Mecca, has successfully jumped on the immigration issue.
According to the Denver Post, he plans to make a last stand against a guest-worker program, Bush-related or not. Meanwhile, Kansas Senator Sam Brownback is similarly positioning himself for a potential stand against the Miers nomination to the Supreme Court due to her lack of a stated position on abortion.
Both Brownback and Tancredo are openly pursuing presidential bids for 2008. Both men, while they may be accused of demagoguery on these issues, are demonstrating superior political acumen to Bush.
In observing this, Democrats should realize their message of investment in public institutions and adherence to egalitarian principles provide a coherent ideological alternative to the mess likely to soon erupt among Republicans.
The character and identity of the party has been put into question by the Bush nominations, and nothing short of a civil war can solve the disputes that are about to arise. For Democrats, the best course of action is to sit back and enjoy the show.
Joaquin Rios is a political science sophomore. He can be reached at joaquin.rios@asu.edu.
