Hope Springs Anew Amidst Decay

The inherent problem with accepting the lesser of two evils is that, something tolerated out of necessity is often construed as being advocated outright. To wit, the self-described conservatives support of Mr. Bush leads the masses to believe, not that Bush is more conservative than the alternative—a doubtful prospect in and of itself—but that Bush is in fact the champion of conservative ideals. Conservatives will have to reinvent themselves once again fairly soon, as the sinking ship that is the Bush presidency is showing no signs of righting itself—pun intended.

The other problem with tolerating a lesser evil is that so long as toleration is deemed acceptable, the evil will continue to increase, meandering further and further away from the supposed good. So long as the base is safely on board, the GOP will run the candidate most likely to capture votes from the mushy middle. The incentive to run to the right is removed; an unprincipled moderate would never support Buchanan; he would probably support McCain.

There is a corollary to this thought. Those who do not derive their sanction from principle, but instead support the most charismatic candidate are more prone to jump ship. The swing vote, by definition, swings back, and while the principled conservative will stand by his man who stands by his promises, in good weather and in bad, there is no reason for someone to show a similar loyalty when the loyalty was a matter of results in the first place.

It is a bit unwise to use the blogosphere to gage public opinion. Frustrated with the commoners who frivolously argue over which brand of evil and mediocrity to support, those who spend their time engaged in conversation over genuine differences of opinion tend to be vociferous, if sometimes tactful, radical members of both the far right and left. There are some blogs devoted to Bush apologetics, but they are few and far between. It is very difficult to engage readers in thinking when the one who is trying to engage is not thinking himself.

This being said, there appears to be a tremor in the force of the political spectrum. Having been hoodwinked and coming to this realization, rash promises are being made by conservatives that, this time, the deception has gone too far. With an election looming in November, it will be interesting to see whether these rash promises are, in fact, kept. My gut instinct tells me that though some will stay home, the absence of third party candidates in most House and Senate elections will see voters yet again casting their votes to the lesser of two evils, if somewhat begrudgingly this time around.

Despite Bush's optimism, the sheer amount of election speculation is a sure sign of how bad things are going for him. Hillary's name has been whispered, often; many, including myself have already predicted her ascendancy to the thrown, and it is not yet six years into Bush's reign. With an abysmally low approval rating, it is clear that most citizens are ready for Bush's presidency to see a merciful end, and even the most infernal optimist cannot spell but bad news for the remainder of the course for President Bush. I do not recall such virulence accompanying the end of Clinton's term, at least until after the sex scandal, which happened a bit later, comparatively, during the Clinton presidency. At least the circus that accompanied the charges of marital infidelity and perjury kept the American public insensibly entertained, and while the right erupted in indignation, by then the end of the Clinton legacy was in sight, or so it seemed.

We have not suffered any genuine scandals during the Bush presidency, and unless the Democrats capture the House and/or Senate, the allegations of dishonesty will be left for the history books. With control of one or both houses of the bicameral legislature, the last two years under the second Bush will be a circus of substantial proportions, making the Ken Starr proceedings look like a dull episode of Oprah—redundancy, I know. One has little doubt that the Democrats will try to impeach Bush, even if it is less certain what the charges will be. It will be interesting to see whether the GOP party hacks—Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.—stand by their man or try to distance themselves in an attempt at damage control. Believe it or not, there was a time when Rush had principles, as a perusal of either one of his books will demonstrate. He's not a very good writer, but that's beside the point. His defense of conservative thought is important, and one cannot but hope that the man who did so much for both conservatism and talk radio in this country can yet again emerge as a less than pejorative force.

Time reveals all. One thing is clear. A toleration of the lesser of two evils has had no good affect upon the country, at least from a conservative perspective. We are no closer to shrinking the size and invasiveness of the federal government than when Clinton left office, and it is all but impossible to argue that Bush has not contributed to the problem he was ostensibly elected to abrogate. Worse still, the election of the neo-conservative Bush has not paved the way for a genuinely conservative candidate, as only a fool would expect it to. It is curious to advocate taking three steps back that we might march forward four, and though illogical, it could perhaps be accepted were it to show evidence of working. It has not, and we find ourselves in the peculiar position of being worse off than we started, and being implored to not abandon the man who is moving us backwards for fear the someone else would move us backwards. It is infeasible to become passionately engaged over the degree one marches, when the direction is altogether wrong, and conservatives are, one hopes, mandating that our leaders turn themselves around and march forward.

It is always difficult for a man to admit he is wrong, especially when his deceitful minions have been whispering to him of the righteousness of his cause for six years. Though a return to genuine conservatism would earn Bush a small measure of gratitude among authentic partisans of the right, this seems a small prize to win in exchange for the chastisement he will merit for a massive capitulation on the principles of neo-conservatism. The one praise Bush has consistently earned is that he is principled, and while one wishes these were more in line with those of Reagan, Eisenhower and Goldwater, and though the fruit of this consistency has been consistently rotten, the howls from the remnant of true believers will be almost unbearable. The neo-cons have hijacked the conservative movement, and they will not easily surrender the castle. Further, this postulation depends on a fallacy. Anyone who has studied Bush knows he has never subscribed to conservatism, and while one can reserve a modest hope for a reversion to previous thought, it is more despairing to wish for an Augustine-like conversion.

Patience has long been a staple of those on the right, if only in theory. To quote Jefferson, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” Knowing this, victories for supporters of limited government come infrequently. Since its inception, the republic has been sowing the seeds of its demise; it now reaps its fruits, and while we can yet attempt to save her from the justice she so deserves, ultimately her fate is sealed. While fighting as we can, where we may, we more eagerly await the chance to, in the words of Paine, “begin the world over again.”