Evolution - Under George Bush,

Evolution - Under George Bush, the Republican Party is changing.

Conservatives don't like it, of course. You don't have to look at too many hard-right blogs to see the type of anti-Bush rhetoric that'd make the Democratic Underground blanche.

Liberals don't like it either, of course; Bush is triangulating them out of their turf.

Both sides are right - and wrong. Sullivan pegged it yesterday:

Put together Niall Ferguson's typically brilliant op-ed in the NYT yesterday with Tom Friedman's open mind toward Bush's new Wilsonianism and I think you see one interesting interpretation of the sheer radicalism of this administration. By committing the U.S. simultaneously to a bigger welfare state (now coopted by the G.O.P.) and a policy of aggressive democratization abroad, president Bush is re-casting Cold War liberalism for the next century and calling it Republicanism.

So Bush could be the New Kennedy...

We have no idea at his point in history how this will or will not work out. I'm less sanguine than Ferguson about America's long-term, fiscal health.

...or the new LBJ. Time will tell, and of course you know what I'm hoping for and betting on.

Sullivan continues:

But the deepest insight of Niall's piece is the thought that circumstances in part forced Bush's hand. After the bursting of the Rubin Bubble, and worldwide deflation, a tougher fiscal stance might have led to a catastrophic global depression. And after 9/11, a passive approach to Islamist terrorism might well have sent a signal that we were a soft target and emboldened the new fascists even more. And continuing the failed policies of the past in the Middle East would have meant another, worse 9/11 sooner rather than later. But even if you see the Bush Project as driven primarily by events, that doesn't make it any the less impressive. The sheer scale of the undertaking is undeniable.

This begs a question.

We know how liberals (as opposed to Democrats, many of whom fall back on their Truman/Kennedy roots, and are quite sensible on foreign policy) would have reacted to 9/11 - by launching feel-good initiatives at the UN that would have Clintonized the event, casting it as a national tragedy, a law enforcement incident, a point for endless international negotiation.

How about the hard right? Where would the Buchananites have taken this (are there still Buchananites out there), with both terror and the economy?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

In my opinion, there are a slew of ways the GOP has needed to change. We'll get to that tomorrow.

Posted by Mitch at December 9, 2003 06:48 AM