- The Washington Times - Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Last week, I published a new book, “Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy.” Many of my friends are unhappy with me for writing it, and I have been embraced by a number of people on the left whom I would ordinarily consider my political enemies.

Both are mistaken about why I wrote the book and what I hope to accomplish with it. Some former friends on the right have attacked me as an opportunist who sold out his party and his president to get a best-seller.

They would not think so if they knew I started this project knowing I would probably lose my job with a think tank closely allied with the White House, which I did. My advance on the book was less than the salary I made. So if I am an opportunist, I’m a pretty poor one.

My new friends on the left are, of course, delighted to find someone on the right articulating a critique of George W. Bush. But if they read the book, they will find that my criticism has nothing in common with theirs. Just because I find fault with a president from my party doesn’t mean I’ve switched sides. On the contrary, I wrote the book to help my side win.

My basic argument is that Mr. Bush has enacted policies contrary to conservative principles on too many occasions. Some of those that disturb me the most are these:

• No Child Left Behind Act. Republicans used to campaign on the idea of abolishing the Education Department. Mr. Bush greatly increased its budget, despite a paucity of evidence that educational outcomes are correlated with educational spending. No wonder Sen. Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat and Congress’ leading liberal, loved it.

The “reforms” Mr. Bush got in return were far too modest to justify his support for this legislation and it hasn’t even helped him politically. All we ever hear from the education lobby are demands for even more spending.

• Campaign finance reform. I don’t know a single conservative who doesn’t think this legislation is a fundamental violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s ruling to the contrary notwithstanding. Personally, I consider Mr. Bush violated his oath to defend the Constitution by signing this monstrosity, especially since he said he would veto such a bill during the 2000 campaign.

• Medicare drug benefit. This was really the final straw for me. The Medicare system was already $50 trillion in debt in 2003. We should have been looking for ways to cut its spending, not increase it. The unfunded liability of just the drug benefit added another $18 trillion to that debt, an increase of 40 percent. Sooner or later, this legislation will cause a massive tax increase, in my opinion and that of many budget experts.

The book details many other areas where I feel Mr. Bush’s policies are totally contrary to Ronald Reagan’s. Readers can judge for themselves whether my indictment holds water.

The reaction thus far suggests many conservatives share my concerns and believe Mr. Bush has deeply damaged the conservative movement and Republican Party.

The last time a Republican president — Richard Nixon — sold out his party’s core beliefs, it led to huge losses for his party in 1974 and 1976. I think Republicans are deluding themselves if they believe gerrymandering the House of Representatives and millions of lobbyist dollars will protect them from big losses this November. It’s worth remembering that Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 not because more Republicans voted but because fewer Democrats did so. They, like many Republicans today, were dispirited by a president of their party who took their loyalty for granted.

I think Republicans are also wrong to assume Democrats will always behave as stupidly as they have lately. One of these days, they are going to get their act together and stop nominating lousy candidates who run awful campaigns. When Republicans lose those who are voting against the Democrats, not for them, they will be in serious political trouble.

I wrote my book so Republicans and conservatives can start a debate about the future of the party and the movement. If we wait until 2008, it will be much too late. It is important for potential Republican presidential nominees to start thinking about and articulating a vision for the future now.

And Republican voters need to ask themselves whether they are satisfied with the direction George W. Bush has led them or they would really prefer to get back to the policies and philosophy of Ronald Reagan.

Bruce Bartlett is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide