The Entire Cato Institute Is Shrill!

Through the magic of time travel, we bring you Dana Milbank's Wednesday column 45 minutes early. The entire Cato Institute gets enraged and piles on in shrill unholy Bush-hating madness.

They even endorse Bill Clinton:

"At Conservative Forum on Bush, Everybody's a Critic" By Dana Milbank Wednesday, March 8, 2006; A02:

If the ancient political wisdom is correct that a charge unanswered is a charge agreed to, the Bush White House pleaded guilty yesterday at the Cato Institute to some extraordinary allegations.

"We did ask a few members of the Bush economic team to come," explained David Boaz, the think tank's executive vice president, as he moderated a discussion between two prominent conservatives about President Bush. "We didn't get that."

Now why would the administration pass up such an invitation?

Well, it could have been because of the first speaker, former Reagan aide Bruce Bartlett. Author of the new book "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," Bartlett called the administration "unconscionable," "irresponsible," "vindictive" and "inept."

It might also have had something to do with speaker No. 2, conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan. Author of the forthcoming "The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It; How to Get It Back," Sullivan called Bush "reckless" and "a socialist," and accused him of betraying "almost every principle conservatism has ever stood for."

Nor was moderator Boaz a voice of moderation. He blamed Bush for "a 48 percent increase in spending in just six years," a "federalization of public schools" and "the biggest entitlement since LBJ."

True, the small-government libertarians represented by Cato have always been the odd men out of the Bush coalition. But the standing-room-only forum yesterday, where just a single questioner offered even a tepid defense of the president, underscored some deep disillusionment among conservatives over Bush's big-spending answer to Medicare and Hurricane Katrina, his vast claims of executive power, and his handling of postwar Iraq.

Bartlett, who lost his job at the free-market National Center for Policy Analysis because of his book, said that if conservatives were honest, more would join his complaint. "They're reticent to address the issues that I've raised for fear that they might have to agree with them," he told the group. "And a lot of Washington think tanks and groups of that sort, they know that this White House is very vindictive."

Waiting for the talk to start, some in the audience expressed their ambivalence.

"It's gonna hit the [bestseller] lists, I'm sure," said Cato's legal expert, Roger Pilon.

"Typical Bruce," replied John Taylor of the Virginia Institute for Public Policy.

Admitted Pilon: "He's got a lot of material to work with."

Bartlett certainly thought so. He began by predicting a big tax increase "to finance the inevitable growth of government that is in the pipeline that President Bush is largely responsible for." He also said many fellow conservatives don't know about the "quite dreadful" traits of the administration, such as the absence of "anybody who does any serious analysis" on policy issues.

Boaz assured the audience that he told the White House that "if there's a rebuttal to what Bruce has said, please come and provide it."

Instead, Sullivan was on hand to second the critique. "This is a big-government agenda," he said. "It is fueled by a new ideology, the ideology of Christian fundamentalism." The bearded pundit offered his own indictment of Bush: "complete contempt" for democratic processes, torture of detainees, ignoring habeas corpus and a "vast expansion of the federal government. The notion, he said, that the "Thatcher-Reagan legacy that many of us grew up to love and support would end this way is an astonishing paradox and a great tragedy."

The question period gave the two a chance to come up with new insults.

"If Bush were running today against Bill Clinton, I'd vote for Clinton," Bartlett served.

"You have to understand the people in this administration have no principles," Sullivan volleyed. "Any principles that get in the way of the electoral map have to be dispensed with."

Boaz renewed his plea. "Any Bush economists hiding in the audience?"

There was, in fact, one Bush Treasury official on the attendance roster, but he did not surface. The only man who came close to defending Bush, environmental conservative Fred Singer, said he was "willing to overlook" the faults because of the president's Supreme Court nominations. Even Richard Walker, representing the think tank that fired Bartlett, declined to argue. "I agree with most of it," he said later.

Unchallenged, the Bartlett-Sullivan tag team continued. "The entire intellectual game has been given away by the Republican president," said Sullivan. "He's a socialist in so many respects, a Christian socialist."

Bartlett argued that Richard Nixon "is the model for everything Bush is doing."

Sullivan said Karl Rove's political strategy is "pathetic."

Bartlett said that "the administration lies about budget numbers."

"He is not a responsible human being; he is a phenomenally reckless human being," Sullivan proclaimed. "There is a level of recklessness involved that is beyond any ideology."

"Gosh," Boaz interjected. "I wish we had a senior White House aide up here."

Impeach George W. Bush. Impeach Richard Cheney. Do it now.

Comments

[Bernard Yomtov]

""If Bush were running today against Bill Clinton, I'd vote for Clinton," Bartlett served."

But how did he vote in 2004, when his vote was real, not rhetorical?

[David W.]

"The only man who came close to defending Bush, environmental conservative Fred Singer, said he was "willing to overlook" the faults because of the president's Supreme Court nominations."

I guess we know what Fred Singer is hoping for someday with regard to any treaty on CO2 emissions, if Fred's persistent enabling of global warming denialism fails to prevent action.

[Eli Rabett]

The smoking gun on Fred Singer:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/03/its-really-thin-bench-over-there-at.html

[MTC]

Dr. DeLong -

Please stop the repeating mantra. The wrong sorts of people may be listening!

You constantly remind us of Daniel Davies rule. Why then have you not dared dream of its ultimate expression? Karl Rove (an evil, but clever insectivore, he) may sense the gathering zeitgeist, put two and two together, and see the truth--the only way to perpetuate Republican Party dominance is for Bush, Cheney & Company to Impeach Themselves--
--a legal proceding they will so f--- up in executing they will keep themselves in office...inadvertently...which will allow Scott McClellan to then remind the press of the President's longstanding commitment to serve out his entire term.

Help us Dr. DeLong, you're our only hope. Repeat after me: Keep George W. Bush. Keep Dick Cheney. Do it now.

[Brian Boru]

As a New Orleanian, I really wouldn't mind if he'd spend huge bucks on Katrina relief if only, you know, he'd actually spend it.

[Matt Austern]

Wouldn't it have been nice if they'd said things like that when it mattered?

[tom f]

The Reagan Legacy?

Death squads, torture, terrorism, aggression, wrapped in story book moralizing.

Corporate welfare, fiscal recklessness, illegal subversion of Congress, private interest foxes guarding regulatory hen houses, pie in the sky economic theories. Privilege presented as bootstrap individualism.

Sedetative populism.

Often caught making bizarre and/or ignorant statements.

What a complete departure GWBush has been.

[Howard]

Andrew frickin' Sullivan has no business discussing anyone else's lack of principles and recklessness. none.

bruce bartlett, whether you agree with him or not, has been a consistent voice of legitimate conservatism.

andrew sullivan lost his mind on 9/11. while he has shown some signs of recovering it - he did, after all, endorse kerry - he nonetheless lost any right ever, for the rest of his life, to criticize anyone (even george bush) for a lack of principles....

[RKKA]

"What a complete departure GWBush has been."

Exactly, which is why the key point chastened Conservatives must deal with is the reckless, destructive legacy of Ronald Reagan. They will deserve to be taken seriously by the reality-Based Community when they give up the Reagan-worship, and not one nanosecond before.

[aiontay]

I guess the Ancient and Hermetic Order of the Shrill isn't as exclusive a group as it used to be.

[John Emerson]

Have any of these people thought for a minute on their own part in this? Will any of them, ever?

From my point of view, they tried unsuccessfully to do one kind of harm, and ended up doing a different kind of harm that even they did't want.

I wasn't there and didn't even read the whole argue, but those shits should be hanging their heads begging for forgiveness, not strutting around talking about restoring conservativism.

It's still open-ended, too. The Middle East situation could turn much worse than it is already. The long-term consequences of Bush's fiscal policies are unknown and could be quite dire. Bush's move toward a unitary state and his attacks on civil liberties and the rule of law are still unfinished.

In 2004 Kerry was the left candidate, the liberal candidate, the moderate candidate, and the conservative candidate. Bush is a uniter, all right.

I've never really thought of conservatives as thoughtful, decent people, so I'm not holding my breath. The first step toward redemption is contrition, and I don't expect to see that.

[John Emerson]

"argue" => "article".

[bruce Moomaw]

Let's all keep in mind, however, that the single biggest objection of the Cato crowd to Bush -- as indicated by the selection of comments Delong quotes -- is that he's not enough of a social Darwinist for them. (Let's also keep in mind that in 1972 Bartlett voted for John Schmitz, the American Independent Party's substitute for George Wallace, who had substantial John Birch Society ties. If anyone can make Bush look good by comparison, it's probably Bartlett.)

[J. Brown]

The Reagan Legacy?

Death squads, torture, terrorism, aggression, wrapped in story book moralizing.

Corporate welfare, fiscal recklessness, illegal subversion of Congress, private interest foxes guarding regulatory hen houses, pie in the sky economic theories. Privilege presented as bootstrap individualism.

Sedetative populism.

Often caught making bizarre and/or ignorant statements.

Right. And don't for pandering to racism. Another tradition ignobly carried on by GWB.

[Buce]

"voting for Schmitz" is enough to bring one up short. But the choices in '72 were Nixon and McGovern. There's a link to some good Schmitz stuff infra. Evidently to call him a Bircher is a slander on Birchers.

http://www.goodbyemag.com/jan01/schmitz.html

[ken melvin]

Sam Alito will be a rotten, stinking albatross around republicans necks for generations. One that any democrat running for senate can use as a weapon.

[a different chris]

>"Thatcher-Reagan legacy that many of us grew up to love and support would end this way is an astonishing paradox and a great tragedy."

It is astonishing? That "legacy" was about pure greed. complete selfishness, by people who didn't even have the character to admit that. To themselves, let alone us.

Not a pretty combination.

But one that is completely characteristic of the ideal mark for a conman. And conmen is what they got, in droves. (I see Tom DeLay dispatched some "real conservatives" pretty handily yesterday.)

So I'm not the least bit astonished. Only a fool trusts people that tell them everything they want to hear. Don't these guys have the sense God gave a goose?

Now they feel used and abused. Well, welcome to the real world - Las Vegas really is a fantasy place, because there are actually some rules. You get way more screwed outside its city limits.

[sglover]

"Sam Alito will be a rotten, stinking albatross around republicans necks for generations. One that any democrat running for senate can use as a weapon."

Three out of four Senate Democrats voted to renew the "Patriot" Act. As far as I'm concerned, "any Democrat running for Senate" will have plenty of albatrosses to contend with -- courtesy of his own party.

This "Patriot" Act rollover was the last straw for me. Yeah, sure, the GOP has been running a contemptible game for a quarter century, now. But the Dems have shown that they're more than willing to shed their supposed bedrock principles for the most paltry and ephemeral "advantage". Neither party stands for anything more than clinging to position. I'll be voting third party from now on.

[tom f]

"Conservatism" hopes to acheive a society guided by private interests in which the state plays its minimal role as enforcer of criminal law, property law, and national security. Private interests are, by right of citizenship, allowed to contribute money to legislators and lobby for laws.

In really-existing conservatism, private interests combine to bend public policy to their interests:

Regulations are co-opted to legitimize the socialization of externalized costs of business and to forestall effective regulation.

Tax burdens are pealed away from privilege.

Foreign policy is constructed to expand and legitimize the power of social elites, divert attention from class warfare, and provide an acceptable means of managing social needs (military keynesianism, public R&D and investment).

Somehow, "Conservatism" envisaged a capitalist society of great disparities of wealth and power; yet democratic as to provide various interests to challenge such power; wealth and power was found to have a right to use its natural means to influence public policy; yet the result of all this was to be "limited government", "free markets", a neutral arbiter deciding only issues of criminal and property law while providing for the national defense sensu stricto.

Should "Conservatism" expect some of the features of really-existing conservatism?

[Bernard Yomtov]

"those shits should be hanging their heads begging for forgiveness, not strutting around talking about restoring conservativism."

Amen.

I thought conservatives were big on individual responsibility and accountability. Guess that only applies to poor people.

[RKKA]

"I thought conservatives were big on individual responsibility and accountability. Guess that only applies to poor people."

Not quite. It only applies to powerless people. Which is why the gaining and retaining of power is the *only thing* they care about and which they make the central objective of their governance.

And if we don't understand that, we have no hope of removing them from power.

Know your enemy.

[marky]

This is a bit OT, but I was just thinking about advertising. In my opinion, more than anything else, the modern US way of life depends on advertising. Would people consume so much if they weren't constantly reminded what to buy, and which brand, or that they can save money by spending---the more they spend, the more they save?
Advertising is the church sermon, and "free market consumerist capitalism" the faith. Our lives are so governed by this insidious brain rot, it's no wonder people can't make good choices at elections.
What's my point? The modern GOP is the flip side of the American economy: it is a brand, driven entirely by advertising, devoid of substance, full of lofty rhetoric, signifying nothing. It is no wonder that the same people who believe that the earth has infinite resources, or that the free market can solve anything, also believe that propaganda driven elections produce the best of all outcomes, all the time, without fail.

"Reality-based community" is a brand for a small niche market.
Good luck, suckers.

[John Schmitz]

John Schmitz was the father of the Bush I aide most involved in Iran-Contra, John P. Schmitz, who refused to testify before the Walsh commission, and also of the Mary Kay Tourneau of sex-scandal fame. The elder Schmitz had his own sex scandal.

I realize that we're the good guys and shouldn't be thinking this way, but nice guys finish second.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_28.htm

http://crime.about.com/od/history/p/Letourneau.htm

[bailey]

marky, wonderful!

[luci]

..."that the "Thatcher-Reagan legacy that many of us grew up to love and support would end this way is an astonishing paradox and a great tragedy.""....

Yes, government spending climbing from ~18% of GDP to ~22% of GDP is a "great tragedy".

While invading and killing ~100,000 Iraqi civilians? Eh, not so much.

See you in Hell, Sullivan.

Ask yourself, is there a hypothetical invasion of ANY Muslim country that these paranoid, macho-posturing, conservative fucks WOULDN'T have supported? And mocked those opposing such, similarly?

See that for what it is. These are impotent, cowardly little men. Excuse my language, but fuck them.

[liberal]

J. Brown wrote, "And don't for pandering to racism."

Recall Reagan's opening campaign stop was in Philadelphia, Miss.

[paradoctor]

"... that the Thatcher-Reagan legacy that many of us grew up to love and support would end this way is an astonishing paradox and a great tragedy..."

I see in this the relativity of paradox. What seems paradoxical to one person can be simple common sense to another. Paradox is when a person says, "I don't get it." Paradox is resolved when someone else says, "But I do."

To Sullivan, the fate of the Reagan legacy is an incomprehensible tragedy; for me, it is a _comprehensible_ tragedy.

[Buce]

Re Reagan legacy--I agree with the NYT reviewer is that a flaw in the generally excellent Bartlett book is that he is too forgiving of the Reagan malfeasance of which he was a part.

[J. Brown]

Liberal:

"And don't for pandering to racism"

was a typo. It was supposed to be:

"And don't FORGET pandering to racism."

I am aware of Reagan's campaign stop. It is enough to make me loathe him forever.

[Oskar Shapley]

What's wrong with being a Christian socialist?

In Germany all the choice you get is between the Christian socialists (CDU/CSU), the atheist socialists (SPD), the leftists (Die Links Partei), the gay liberals (FDP) and the tree huggers (Die Gruene).

That would be the Hell for Sullivan...

[charles moore]

Bush--a Christian socialist? That would be major news to both Christians (the real kind) and socialists. If Bush were, he would be administering policies that redistributed income DOWN the income ladder, to the less well off and poor, rather than UP to the wealthiest among us.

Charles

[liberal]

J. Brown wrote, "I am aware of Reagan's campaign stop. It is enough to make me loathe him forever."

Yeah, I wasn't inferring that you were a Reaganite. Just repeated for everyone here the incident that should have lead to Reagan being reviled instead of embraced by e.g. the press.