What is a "Real Conservative"? - [i]The American Conservative[/i] magazine

In the fall of 2002, the editors of this magazine moved up its launch date to make the conservative case against invading Iraq. Such a war, we warned, on a country that did not attack us, did not threaten us, did not want war with us, and had no role in 9/11, would be "a tragedy and a disaster." Invade and we inherit our own West Bank of 23 million Iraqis, unite Islam against us, and incite imams from Morocco to Malaysia to preach jihad against America. So we wrote, again and again.In a 6,000-word article entitled "Whose War", we warned President Bush that he was "being lured into a trap baited for him by neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations..."Everything we predicted has come to pass. Iraq is the worst strategic blunder in our lifetime. And for it, George W. Bush, his War Cabinet, and the neoconservatives who plotted and planned this war for a decade bear full responsibility. Should Bush lose on Nov. 2, it will be because he heeded their siren song "that the world was pining for American Empire"- that "Big Government Conservatism" is a political philosophy, not an opportunistic sellout of principle; that free-trade globalism is the path to prosperity, not the serial killer of U.S. manufacturing; that amnesty for illegal aliens is compassionate conservatism, not an abdication of constitutional duty.

There is little in John Kerry's persona or platform that appeals to conservatives. The flip-flopper charge "the centerpiece of the Republican campaign against Kerry" seems overdone, as Kerry's contrasting votes are the sort of baggage any senator of long service is likely to pick up. (Bob Dole could tell you all about it.) But Kerry is plainly a conventional liberal and no candidate for a future edition of Profiles in Courage. In my view, he will always deserve censure for his vote in favor of the Iraq War in 2002.But this election is not about John Kerry. If he were to win, his dearth of charisma would likely ensure him a single term. He would face challenges from within his own party and a thwarting of his most expensive initiatives by a Republican Congress. Much of his presidency would be absorbed by trying to clean up the mess left to him in Iraq. He would be constrained by the swollen deficits and a ripe target for the next Republican nominee.It is, instead, an election about the presidency of George W. Bush. To the surprise of virtually everyone, Bush has turned into an important president, and in many ways the most radical America has had since the 19th century. Because he is the leader of America's conservative party, he has become the Left's perfect foil: its dream candidate. The libertarian writer Lew Rockwell has mischievously noted parallels between Bush and Russia's last tsar, Nicholas II: both gained office as a result of family connections, both initiated an unnecessary war that shattered their countries budgets. Lenin needed the calamitous reign of Nicholas II to create an opening for the Bolsheviks.

The Nader for President rally was a raucous affair and Mission High School was filled to capacity, with a substantial crowd packing the lobby and overflowing into the street. It was the logical place for such an event, the middle of San Francisco's Mission District, a hub of far-left activism where you?re as likely to see an advertisement for a forum by the International Socialist Organization as a billboard for Absolut vodka.As I entered the auditorium, Nader's runing mate, Peter Camejo, was already warming up the crowd. Camejo, a former Trotskyist turned Green, gives a good speech: the stentorian voice, the slashing polemics punctuated by applause. There I was, surrounded on every side by rambunctious Reds, wondering: what the heck am I doing here?As if in answer to my question, Nader finally strode onto the stage. He looked impossibly serene in the midst of that storm of applause, and his voice "steady and sure" reinforced an aura of integrity that seemed to emanate from his very person.We?re getting poorer, he said. In spite of government propaganda about how things are getting better, our standard of living, compared to the way our parents lived, is declining. The Left, content to settle for less, has given up fighting for real progress, while the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans on such issues as "the concentration of power."

As you have no doubt heard by now, there was a brief exchange on evolution at last night's Republican debate. Senator John McCain was asked bluntly whether he “believed in” evolution. After a moment of hesitation he answered, simply, “Yes.” Moderator Chris Matthews then asked the ten candidates whether any of them did not believie in evolution. Representative Tom Tancredo, Senator Sam Brownback and Governor Mike Huckabee raised their hands.