Slate's Bizbox
readme: Policy made plain.

The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy of Silence

By Michael Kinsley
Posted Tuesday, July 4, 2000, at 2:30 AM ET

Click here for a new way to read Slate.

If Al Gore had said some of the things George W. Bush has been saying, the Wall Street Journal editorial page would be having fits, and the Heritage Foundation broadside-o-matic machines would be churning with outrage. In a single mid-June speech on disabilities, Bush promised to "triple the current funding" for disability research; to create a "technology transfer fund" that would subsidize small-business efforts to adapt for the handicapped; to "spend $20 million" buying computers so that disabled workers can telecommute; to "swiftly implement the recently passed 'Ticket-to-Work' law," which apparently allows people to keep their disability benefits after taking a job; to "seek $10 million each year" to build wheelchair ramps in "churches, synagogues, and mosques," and on and on.

More than the money itself, it's the laundry-list rhetoric—here's every problem you can think of (and a few you never thought of), and here's my plan to throw money at it—that ought to offend conservative ideologues but doesn't seem to. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress race the Democrats to enact a Medicare drug benefit, which, even in the more stinting Republican version, would be the biggest new social welfare program in a generation.

In another recent speech outlining his alleged philosophy of government, Bush performed a series of Democratic-presidential-candidate impersonations. He started off sounding like early Clinton of the "reinventing government" period: "In Pennsylvania, Governor Ridge has reformed government contracting. ... Indianapolis has put 80 municipal services [somewhere or other]." Soon he was doing a pretty good Michael "Swedish-Land-Use-Planning" Dukakis: professing indignation that the Commerce Department claims to be in compliance with something called the Government Performance and Results Act "if performance is at just two-thirds of the target level." He ultimately regressed to Jimmy Carter, calling (as Carter did) for "sunset" laws requiring agencies to be reauthorized every few years. Did Carter also call for creation of a "Sunset Review Board"? Perhaps that is a Bush innovation.

The premise of this kind of government reform is that government should be doing more, not less. In his speech text, Bush calls for more government half a dozen times. His only reference to the possibility of less government is accusing the Clinton administration of failing to "ask fundamental questions" about what government does, including "whether it should be doing it at all." But he gives no evidence of asking the question himself. Bush says his own "vision" is "guided by three principles: government should be citizen-centered, results-oriented, and, wherever possible, market-based." The first two are near-meaningless bromides. The third—market forces—has meaning, but it's procedural. It may help in deciding how the government should get involved, but not whether. If Bush has a theory to distinguish his thinking on this "fundamental issue" from Al Gore's—or even George McGovern's—he is keeping it to himself.

So why is it left to me to point this out? Where are the voices of conservatism, quoting the anti-government wisdom of Ronald Reagan? Obviously Gore would be even worse from their point of view. But the virtual total silence on the right about Bush's sins against the true faith is an impressive triumph of political discipline over intellectual honesty. Call it a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy of Silence. What they don't say is better evidence that such a conspiracy exists than what they do say.

In a way, I sympathize. Eight years ago I wrote in a column, "I'm for Clinton—just don't tell me anything about him." Democrats were tired of losing and not inclined to be fussy. You can't blame Republicans for feeling that way now. In 1992, liberals ignored their man's reputation for personal and political character flaws because he looked like a winner. More than that: Those flaws had something to do with making him look like a winner. This year conservatives are ignoring their man's reputation for being dim and his ideological apostasy because he looks like a winner. And, once again, it's more than that: The apostasy (if not the dimness) is part of what makes him look like a winner.

Viewed from the outside, this is all quite wonderful. For eight years, the conservative explanation of Bill Clinton has been: "He's a dangerous left-winger who stole all our ideas." Slightly self-contradictory, but true enough in that moving his party and himself rightward helped Clinton to win. It's also true that for more like 28 years than merely eight, the Democrats—lacking confidence in the popularity of their own values—have tended on many issues to take the dispiriting line, "We're just like the other guys, only less so."

Now, though, it is the Republican nominee who is patently stealing ideas from the other side. And the GOP is the party that seems to be afraid the voters won't buy its own principles, So, it is offering a watered-down version of the other side's principles instead.

Maybe this is just the yin and yang of democracy. The parties take turns establishing and then compromising their principles. Once-radical ideas are enacted into law by the party that courageously fights for them, but they are absorbed into the mainstream by the party that cravenly borrows them. For liberals who've been coming to terms with conservative ideas for three decades, conservatives' silent acceptance of George W. Bush's many betrayals is Bill Clinton's final gift.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Michael Kinsley is a columnist for Time and the founding editor of Slate.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Response from The Fray:


In response to Kinsley's article about conservatives being against spending government funds to disabled Americans: we conservatives are not against that. What we are against is left-wing programs that define nothing and just spend money. Truly disabled people need help, and I have yet to meet a conservative who denies that. Left-wing programs typically spend far more money than is needed and keeps people dependent on Government programs when they don't have to be. Someone with MS or the like needs help and should get privileges, so let's divert some money from the welfare program and give it to people who really need. If one cannot be grateful for what they have and are not willing to work for their own self-benefit, then they can take the consequences of their own actions. Give to the real needy; not the lazy.

--Christine I

(To reply, click here.)


As a die-hard conservative, my ears also perked up when George W. Bush started throwing around proposals to spend money right and left, for this and that. But a closer look shows that he is just trying to make the sound bites for the evening news. The amounts he is talking about are insignificant ($80 million? The government spills more than that every hour.) Gore's proposals invariably run into the tens of billions; Bush's are a magnitude less and are only designed to get copy on the major networks. When people hear Bush suggesting spending money for handicapped people, they don't pay attention to the amount, only the purpose. That is why people perceive him as a compassionate conservative. I personally think this is a brilliant strategy. The money he advocates is nothing but he is appealing to the masses that will always ask for government to spend more and more to solve any problem that anyone can mention. I would rather spend millions than billions any day.

--Rick Spung

(To reply, click here.)


One political party feeds off the promises of the other, and both candidates have compromised their principles to the point that the only difference between them is in the details. The frightening thing about all of this is that it just reinforces the trend to elect candidates because we think he's personable, has a friendly smile, is a regular guy, has a pretty wife, and can collect tons of money. Isn't it clear by now that it doesn't take any of those qualities to make a really good leader. In fact, some of them might be detrimental to good leadership. It takes someone with experience, smarts and the ability to make decisions, inspire the people and at least appear to hold to his principles. So far, neither guy quite fits the bill, but one much more so than the other.

--Ralf

(To reply, click here.)


In his usual clever, articulate fashion, Kinsley indirectly delineates the rationale for a Jesse Ventura type candidacy for the presidency.

--Donald H. Barnhill

(To reply, click here.)

(7/6)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Assessing Sarah Palin
Topic A | Political experts weigh in on McCain's running mate.
Meyerson: Pure Identity PoliticsCapehart: A Hail Mary Pass
PLUS » Froomkin: The Anti-Bush