Douglas, to continue our most civilised debate (perhaps the presidential contenders could learn from our example?), I have four points to make: on Geroge Bush, issue differences, overall context of political control and the dangers of party infighting.
1). I would be interested to hear your view of George Bush in
conservative terms (and for the record, I loathe his big spending,
which McCain has pledged to rein in). If, as you suggest, McCain 'wants
to merely manage the way things are going a little better – not
radically change them' then you are either saying that the Bush
administration has been part of this McClinton consensus and that
conservatism in America has not had a champion since Reagan (which
would presumably be news to Karl Rove and the conservatives Bush
galvanised to win in 2000 and 2004) or that McCain is in fact a real
conservative after all as he is continuing Bush policies.
2). The differences between McCain and Clinton can be summed us as
follows. McCain, tax cuts in the context of lower government spending
(surely the conservative dream?). Clinton, tax hikes and more
government spending. McCain,
no interference with business. Clinton, increase minimum wage and
'reduce pay inequality'. McCain, pro-life. Clinton, pro-abortion.
McCain, negotiated healthcare reform. Clinton, socialised medicine
(this point alone should scare you in terms of the increase in state
power). McCain, pro-free trade. Clinton, anti-free trade. McCain, tough
international security policy. Clinton, uncertain international
security policy. I would humbly suggest that as a British conservative,
the last point should outweigh all other considerations. We will be
directly affected by any international security policy shift in the USA
and you and I both know that Europe will be first in the firing line in
any weakening of resolve to combat rogue states and expansionist
Radical Islam. So yes, there will be more similarities to a Clinton
victory under a McCain presidency than say a Romney or Huckabee one,
but you can also clearly see the differences. And those should be
enough to have conservatives leaping on board the Straight Talk
Express.
3). Even if you ignore point (2) and still believe that McClinton
exists, there is still the overall context to be considered. The
presidency sets the mood music. McCain would undoubtedly have to
appoint hardline conservatives to key cabinet positions, and the
expectation is of a similar choice as VP to balance the ticket. Given
McCain's age, he might only stand for one term. In which case that VP
would have a head-start in the next election. There are also expected
to be 2-3 Supreme Court retirements in the next few years where
conservatives would be appointed to the bench, giving them a decisive
majority. None of this would happen under Clinton. In contrast, she
will have to throw red meat to the liberal wing of her party (which has
gone more with Obama).
4). The point I was making about John Major was not that he and McCain
are similar but that the internecine warfare in the party - and which
continued for several years afterwards - made us unelectable for a
generation. It also forced us to talk to ourselves for years rather
than to the electorate. Sure, some conservatives were turned off by the
policies we were pursuing. But a great deal more turned away because
they hated the incompetence and bloodlust displayed by the party. Now
if American conservatism wants to go down that road, then so be it. But
while it conducts bloody purges and ideological squabbles outside
government, the Democrats will be making hay while the sun shines. And
given that Congress will be far to the left of Clinton, that means that
liberalism will be in the ascendancy. And not of the Clinton kind
either.
OK, that turned into a longer thesis than anticipated!
Recent Comments