Centerfield

Hmm... I have never heard of a big government Conservative.

I obviously disagree, but I am not going to run through the reasons why, again. And while it may be true Rick, that socially liberal Republican elected officials exist less than they once did, it is not true that the party faithful is more conservative now that it was under Reagan. Republicans between the ages 18-30 coming up through the ranks are strong Bush supporters and social and economic moderates with the exception of tax cuts. This isn't an assumption... I have been working with these people for over ten years.

I think the Bush administration made an assessment that after 2000 they had to pay closer attention to the religous right, and they have, but I don't neccesarily think that means the Party is more conservative. You ask the average wing nut what they think of George W. Bush and many of them will say three words: "big government liberal." True, the party is more organized under Rove and it plays third way politics almost as good as Clinton did, but I think this has little to do with it's the ideological makeup and more to do with discipline, message control, and the use of technology in grassroot efforts.

I suppose there are some things to be said about party discipline, but I find it troubling if Republicans are marching in lockstep on things they don't believe just to support their leader and their team.

Rick,

I find it disturbing as well, but except it as a part of our partisan political system. Where union members not supposed to not vote or support Clinton because he was for free trade? No, of course not. And with some of those things that Republicans are going along with such as deficit spending, I think many are under the impression that a second term will bring change more to their liking. I used to think that, but I admittedly am not as sure of it as I once was.

I think you are asking a bigger question that is worth asking... Do political parties in general hinder our ability to make good policy in the name of politics? I think the answer is obviously yes, but no more so for the Republicans than the Democrats. Will Kerry cow tow less to the extreme left than Bush has to the right? I am not convinced of that at all, especially with the power that the Howard Dean movement has given to the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."

Give me a viable independent candidate for President and I will be on that boat in a jiffy, but explain to me how that is going to happen in the near future. In the meantime, I still feel that the best thing for centrists to do try to move the party's closer to the center, and the best opportunity for that, in my book, is the Republican Party.

This seems to me like an instance where you need to rely on watching what they do, not what they say.

I don't doubt that there are a LOT of republicans who are fiscal hawks and socially moderate or even liberal. But my viewing of how Bush has governed tells me that these people aren't wielding a hell of a lot of power in the GOP these days. I can't give Bush credit for being moderate because he passed an expensive drug plan, IMO this was not so much moderate as it was simply expedient.

Of course, as far as Kerry is concerned, it's harder to know how he'd do if he had the chance to govern as an executive. Based on what he has said, it sounds to me like he'd love to establish more social programs that would be pretty costly, giveaways that seem to be not especially wise either in the context of available resources or incentives created. However, it seems to me that it's VERY unlikely he'd be able to actually get these programs passed.

If you ask me, Bush is pretty conservative both in professed policy and in actual performance, and Kerry is pretty liberal in many of his professed domestic policy ideas.

So on ideological postion, I score it roughly a draw.However, when I imagine the actual outcomes if either one wins the election, the calculus is different. If Bush is re-elected, I worry that his most unpleasant conservative impulses will be encouraged. But with Kerry, I feel fairly confident that his most unpleasant liberal impulses are VERY likely to be tempered or even blunted.

I think BK is correct because if Kerry wins, he is unlikely to have a Democratic congress. Divided government generally blunts the ability of either party to impose a more extremist agenda.

Mathew raises a very interesting point. The basic rationale for parties under most modern political theory was that parties were necessary to facilitate mass democratic politics. Without parties, it would be difficult for the mass public to communicate their policy preferences. I'm not sure this is true anymore with the rise of the internet, etc.

Parties obviously limit a candidate or official's ability to consider the full spectrum of policies, but I don't think this is necessarily bad--for one thing, parties function as a shortcut for voters. You may not be well versed in Kerry or Bush's policies, but you know generally that a Democrat and a Republican will differ in certain fundamental ways. I think this is still important. Even if you had an independent in office, he or she would still have to develop governing coalitions whether you call them parties or not. In theory, ad hoc issue-based coalitions sound good, but I think it would make it more difficult, not less, to pass a coherent program.

Mathew,

A couple of months ago, The Economist had a very insightful article about GWB as a "big government conservative".

It looked at different areas, such as new government programs and increased government secrecy, and explained how Bush's has been revitalizing conservative politics by jettisoning unpopular ideas (such as axing the Dept of Education) and adapting conservative values to the problems of actually governing.

BK,

I agree with you about the candidates but Bush is only slightly less hemmed in than Kerry. Let's use the liberal nightmare; Bush picking Jerry Falwell as his nominee for the supreme court. Given the even divide in this country and in the congress, I think it is about as likely as Kerry trying to nominate Michael Moore; it ain't gonna happen.

Certainly, Bush without fear of re-election may try to move to the right and is marginally more likely to be successful, but the checks and balances in the system aren't going to allow him to move to far.

Also, I think it's a little election year hype that Bush is an ultra-conservative (just as it is that Kerry is an ultra-liberal). I disagree but I can understand the argument people make that Bush is incompetent, but I think calling Bush the most conservative president in the last 100 years (I believe someone made that claim in another comment thread) is a pretty big stretch. He's to the right of where I would like him on some social issues and I find his pandering with the gay marriage issue abhorrent, but quite frankly I'd be a little happier if he moved to the right on fiscal issues.

Rick, I hear you about Bill Weld. But is he any more progressive than Arnold Schwartznegger, Colin Powell, or Rudy Guilliani?

Bill Weld was the most gay-friendly governor in the country, and it was his appointees who are responsible for the constitutional changes in Massachusetts.

Is Bush going to move to the right because he doesn't need to worry about another election, or is he going to move to the center because he no longer has to worry about solidifying the conservative base. My thoughts are that to go after a legacy in his second term, Bush will move toward the center.