JONATHAN CHAIT JUNE 14, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size

Ryan Lizza notes that last night's Republican debate reflected, in large part, the triumph of a faction of right-wing dissidents from the Bush administration:
On nearly every major issue, Bush haunted the stage. A hallmark of Bush’s post-September 11th leadership was a public-relations offensive to show the world that America did not discriminate against Muslims. Just six days after the terrorist attacks, Bush visited the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C., on Massachusetts Avenue, and talked about interfaith coöperation. “These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith,” Bush said. “And it’s important for my fellow Americans to understand that.” Bush quoted the Koran, and used language he would repeat for years: “That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.” No Republican Presidential candidate uses anything close to Bush’s old formulation when talking about Islam these days...
When it came to foreign policy, there was another notable moment of backlash against the Bush years. A voter named John Brown asked, “Osama bin Laden is dead. We’ve been in Afghanistan for ten years. Isn’t it time to bring our combat troops home from Afghanistan?” Not long ago, most Republicans answered such a question by immediately declaring that troops could not come home until victory on the battlefield was achieved. Nobody used that formulation last night...
Afghanistan was not the only issue on which candidates sounded a lot less like George W. Bush and more like Ron Paul. When it comes to government spending and bailouts, the issue that burns the hottest among conservatives these days, the candidates came alive with stinging rebukes of policies that all began in the Bush years. Romney called the bailouts a failure and accurately pointed out “the Bush administration and the Obama administration wrote checks to the auto industry” before he attacked that policy.
“We should not have had a TARP,” former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum added. “We should not have had the auto bailout. Governor Romney’s right. They could have gone through a structured bankruptcy without the federal government.” He did not point out that every dime of TARP money Obama used was appropriated by a Republican congress and signed into law by George W. Bush.
Michele Bachmann, who impressed many commentators last night, made the clearest statement about how the current anti-Bush surge of populism among Republicans actually began in the last days of that Administration. “I was behind closed doors with Secretary Paulson when he came and made the extraordinary, never-before-made request to Congress: Give us a seven-hundred-billion-dollar blank check with no strings attached,” she said. “And I fought behind closed doors against my own party on TARP. It was a wrong vote then. It’s continued to be a wrong vote since then. Sometimes that’s what you have to do. You have to take principle over your party.” What she did not need to say is that the views of her once-maligned faction have now taken over the party of George W. Bush.
Of course, this doesn't hold true on every issue. As Ross Douthat notes, there was nothing whatsoever for anyone "who would like America’s opposition party to advance an domestic policy agenda that consists of more than just capital gains tax cuts and corporate tax cuts, rinse and repeat." I suppose the conservative analysis is that trying to court non-extremist Muslims failed, TARP failed, the auto bailout failed, but the policy of regressive tax cuts plus industry-friendly regulation was a huge macroeconomic success that needs to be tried with even more vigor.
9 comments
I guess this is the Tea-Party wing run amok. It was a great strength of Bush-II that he was willing to abandon all the Supply-Side rhetoric and recognize that the economy was melting down, and follow Ben Bernanke's educated recipe for preventing Great Depression II. Paulson's "carte blanche" on the 700 billion was ridiculous, and the deal they made so he could only spend half of it before leaving office was essential, but it STILL prevented the full melt-down. That all these so-called "politicians" are now running away from TARP tells me they have not the slightest idea how to keep the American economy alive, and the policies they would pursue would guarantee a descent into the double-dip. The Republican Party desperately needs some true conservatives, and these knee-jerk radical Tea-Party ideologues don't fill the bill.
- AllanL5
June 14, 2011 at 1:26pm
You are STILL writing in caps. What does THAT feel like? I haven't the slightest IDEA. Punctuational Tourette's looks very ODD.
- liberalref
June 14, 2011 at 1:59pm
It's instructive to look at the comments in Rich Lowry's debate post at National Review. It seems to be pretty split between "Romney has the best chance to beat Obama, vote for him" and "Romney does not pass the conservative litmus test."
- Jonas
June 14, 2011 at 2:22pm
But voting for Romney because he has the best chance of beating Obama, which he does, would require ideologues to compromise their "litmus test" of dogmatic adherence to destructive principles. Now the only question is, how many are mature enough to do that? And how far will Romney go in declaring allegience to those principles? And how disgusted will moderates become while watching this process?
- AllanL5
June 14, 2011 at 2:35pm
Have you ever watched that guy Lowry on The McLaughlin Group? God, what a weasel.
- DAVIDDREIER@EARTHLINK.NET-old
June 14, 2011 at 2:36pm
Republican litmus could do to Romney what it did to McCain. McCain started out appearing like the adult in the room and then descended to groveling like a toad.
- Nusholtz
June 14, 2011 at 3:11pm
Nusholtz: I fear (or actually I hope) that the same toady groveling awaits Romney. Perhaps he can pull it off with a little more dignity than did McCain, first by not picking a running mate out of the blue. There's nothing wrong with a relative unknown, except when the running mate is unknown even to the candidate. Second by not having some half-wit plumber following him around as his opening act.
- dubyadoubte
June 14, 2011 at 4:08pm
Romney's problem here is that while he has been practicing up with the groveling, Pawlenty may still have a head start on him. As they go through cycles of out-groveling each other, Bachmann and Cain (and maybe even Santorum) look ever more principled and steadfast, which is what the conservative lunatic primary voter is actually looking for this cycle. libref, you're still focusing on harassing other posters rather than actually contributing to the conversation; why would anyone do THAT?
- janus
June 14, 2011 at 4:44pm
As I suspected, they totally wore kid-gloves and didn't think twice about not slinging mud, legitimate or otherwise, at any other candidates. It's amazing how cordial they can be towards each other. It's a tough call as to who is going to win out because, as Janus points out, the electorate is split between running straight right and nominating someone that has a chance against Obama. I think a moderate might win the nod, and if the lunatics can get over the apathy for the Obama-lite candidate the repubs have as good a chance as any to win the general.
- GSpinks
June 14, 2011 at 5:14pm