Pacifist Bush

Rich Lowry pens a WaPo Outlook piece on Bush's pacifism - in the cuture wars which restates some things that most of us already know about Bush's style of so-called "conservatism," but with an interesting conclusion: that Bush's reticence on these issues hurts even worse than it seems because what he's doing by refusing to inspire any vigorous legislative or even public-opinion work on these issues, is devolving it all to the judiciary:

This is a loss for those of us who are conservatives. It means that, on important issues, a crucial player isn't fully engaged. Bush also has the power to make certain arguments out of bounds. Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum barely got Bush's seal of approval when he tried to make a -- muddled, admittedly, but reasonable -- case for the constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws. Consequently, few Republican politicians will attempt such a thing in the future. And Connerly's cause is hurt when a conservative White House treats him as if he has a social disease. More fundamentally, the effect of Bush's accommodationist tendencies on these issues is to leave them to the courts. If Michigan voters can't be bothered with the turmoil of voting on affirmative action, that means the issue is left to the whim of Sandra Day O'Connor. If it's too touchy to talk about sodomy laws (the White House studiously said nothing about the Texas case), only the Supreme Court gets to speak to it. The administration no doubt fervently hopes that the Massachusetts court pulls up shy of fully endorsing gay marriage, so it can avoid the expedient of endorsing a marriage amendment that would create a roiling national debate on what marriage means.

Comments

[Charles M. de Nunzio]

Insufficient appreciation of / incomplete grasp of truths of the supernatural and natural orders ==> lack of perspective on what's really important ==> lack of surety of convictions ==> lack of courage to act decisively to defend civilization ==> the triumph of evil.

Bush cares not about these things because he is convinced that he'll lose more support if he did than if he didn't. I saw this coming when the media were banging the drum of his candidacy in 1999 to the exclusion of more principled competition....

[Joseph D'Hippolito]

You know, I get tired of "conservative" Christians whining about elected officials not "fighting" for their agenda. Take abortion, for example. "Social conservatives" (most recently, Absp. Chaput) love to rip the judiciary and legislative bodies. Yet they conveniently forget that legislative and judicial change takes a long time. Remember, more than a century elapsed between the Dred Scott Decision and the Civil Rights Act. Given that timetable, we have 75-80 years before Roe v. Wade is overturned (if it ever is). How many unborn children will die because "pro-life" activists focus their primary attention on political or judicial solutions?

How often do conservative Christians promote adoption? How many want to promote sex education based on Christian values and personal moral responsibility? How many want to build centers in which pregnant, unwed women can give birth safely, and get a GED and job skills? Thomas Monaghan and Opus Dei have money; where are they?

BTW, Charles, your comment that Bush lacks the courage to act decisively to defend civilization is moronic. What do you think governs his approach to Islamic terrorism? And what makes you think Islamic terrorism is less of a threat to the West than abortion?

[Paul Scheibmeir]

Joseph,

...by the way joe, that violin don't play anymore.

All,

I would highly recommned the July/August issue of Culture Wars. There is a facinating article by Dr. Jones that sheds light on the issue of "conservatism". Unless you are Rob Dreher, you will no doubt find the article very interesting.

[Joseph D'Hippolito]

Paul, just what the blazes are you talking about when you say "that violin won't play anymore"?