Karl Rove Is No Conservative Architect
Karl Rove – “The Architect,” as President George W. Bush referred to him – designed Bush’s two presidential campaigns and also functioned as a important participant in Bush’s White House.
Currently, by having support coming from the New York Times, Rove is actually representing himself as being a conservative leader. Sunday, the Times revealed that American Crossroads, the super PAC Rove began, was commencing a brand new plan referred to as “The Conservative Victory Project.”
This project will “recruit seasoned candidates and protect Senate incumbents from challenges by far-right conservatives and tea party enthusiasts.”
Karl Rove is not a Conservative.
In the event you provide him with credit for believing in the policies as well as nominations he assisted Bush in making and defending, subsequently Rove had been incorrect regarding the constitutionally suited function of the federal government, incorrect regarding foreign policy, completely wrong regarding immigration and incorrect regarding a important nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2000, George W. Bush ran for president not as a conservative, but as a “compassionate conservative.” This had been purportedly since unadulterated Conservatives aren’t compassionate.
However to accept the expression “compassionate conservative” seriously, you have to believe that an individual in political office warrants credit for displaying compassion when he or she utilizes the coercive power of the state for taking income from one particular person and provide it to another.
Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes created a far more authentic, if oxymoronic, account of the Bush-Rove solution to federal government. From a 2003 commentary in The Wall Street Journal, Barnes stated Bush was in fact “a big government conservative.”
Big government conservatives, Barnes described, “simply believe in using what would normally be seen as liberal means – activist government – for conservative ends. And they’re willing to spend more and increase the size of government in the process.”
I conclude that Big Government isn’t Conservative at all.
In reality, Conservatives consider the appropriate role of all federal elected officials would be to protect the limitations regarding government which are detailed in our Constitution which safeguard the God-given rights of people against an overreaching state.
However, with Rove at his side, Bush not only failed in certain obvious instances to limit the expansion of programs established by prior liberal administrations which had overstepped the constitutional limitations on federal authority, he broadened their reach and also elevated their cost.
For instance, Bush worked alongside Rep. John Boehner and Sen. Ted Kennedy to enact the “No Child Left Behind Act.” This substantially elevated federal engagement in public education as well as the expense to federal taxpayers.
During 2001, Bush’s initial year in office, the Department of Education squandered $43.18 billion in 2008 dollars. By 2008, it expended $65.96 billion – a growth in excess of 50 percent.
Exactly what did Bush-Rove receive with regard to their “compassionate” investment of taxpayer’s money? During 2002, public school eighth-graders achieved a median score of 263 out of 500 on the Department of Education’s standard reading examination. In 2009, they achieved an average of 262. Under Bush-Rove, the reading skills of public-school students fell marginally, as federal education spending increased enormously.
Bush-Rove likewise passed a brand new federal entitlement, incorporating prescription medications to LBJ’s Medicare program. The entire Medicare program has now inserted $39 trillion in long-term unfunded liabilities on top of the shoulders of our children and our grandchildren.
Conservatives feel the goal of US foreign policy would be to preserve the liberty, security and prosperity of the American people – not to engage in Utopian plots targeted at transforming foreign cultures or governing bodies.
Yet again, Bush-Rove adopted an alternative perspective.
“So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world,” Bush stated in his second inaugural address.
Here, Henry Hyde rebutted Bush with wonderful eloquence – debunking what he called “the Golden Theory.”
“Viewed in its more compete historical context, implanting democracy in large areas would require that we possess an unbounded power and undertake an open-ended commitment of time and resources, which we cannot and will not do,” stated Hyde.
“History teaches that revolutions are very dangerous things, more often destructive than benign and uncontrollable by their very nature,” he said.
“Upending established order based on theory is far more likely to produce chaos than shining uplands.”
While events occur within the Middle East, historical past is actually demonstrating Hyde’s Conservative approach correct and Bush-Rove Utopianism incorrect.
Bush attempted to create an amnesty for illegal aliens.
“It’s a compassionate way to treat people who come to our country,” he said. “There are some jobs in America that Americans won’t do and others are willing to do.”
Also, he attempted to provide his White House counsel, Harriet Miers, one of nine votes on the Supreme Court. She wasn’t a legal scholar, however in 1988, at the age of 43, she had donated to Al Gore’s presidential campaign.
Had conservatives not prevented Bush-Rove from confirming Miers, she would have been sitting on the court this past year with fellow Bush nominee John Roberts when the court decided the Obamacare case.
Karl Rove is the “architect” of the GOP establishment, the status-quo, the big government political elite. He’s a part of the Gold Ol’ Boys network that seeks to entitle themselves with big perks and power on the backs of the taxpayer.
Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines: