Excellent New Republic Article: "And the efforts to put a positive spin on big-government conservatism are embarrassingly sparse. If you itemize the ways Bush has enlarged Washington's power, few of them have any plausible connection to moral values. (David Kuo, former White House deputy director of faith-based initiatives, complained that the administration 'never really wanted the 'poor people stuff.'') Fewer still can be considered demonstrably effective. (Barnes musters only three examples of Bush supporting 'programs that work': the Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program, the National Weather Service, and the National Science Foundation, which combined represent a miniscule portion of the expansion of spending under his administration.)
The failure of intellectuals on the right to adequately define big-government conservatism reflects their failure to grasp the ways that DeLay and Abramoff became central to the conservative movement in Washington. To define big-government conservatism as a form of pragmatism or as the promotion of virtue is to miss its fundamentally corrupt nature. In truth, the most accurate definition--that is, the definition that explains the broadest scope of Bush's big-government initiatives--is far less edifying: Big government conservatism consists of initiatives that benefit economic elites without using free-market mechanisms."
Wow! Thanks, OKPartisan. This was an excellent article. It seems that Bu$hco's economics are as sincere as their faith. In both cases, they speak about one thing (free markets & christianity) and do another.