The word “conservative” has been used by many people in the media and in politics, and it clearly means different things to different people.  George W. Bush has been called, by friends and foes alike, the “most conservative” president since Herbert Hoover.  John McCain has been in substantial agreement with Mr. Bush on policy matters 90% of the time, and he is usually characterized as very conservative, but who differs from the party line occasionally and sometimes in surprising ways.  Sarah Palin is said to be very conservative, and by all indications was chosen for VP because she would energize the conservatives in the Republican Party.  I have had a hard time figuring out what a conservative is, especially since the word has been appropriated to mean things that I strongly doubt that the late conservative icon Barry Goldwater would recognize. 

It had always been my impression, based on what my conservative friends used to tell me, that above all, conservatives believed in limited government.  This meant that the federal government had certain exclusive powers (national defense, foreign relations, regulation of the money supply, and not much else), and that otherwise the federal government should defer to the states, and ideally, even the states should defer what it could to the local governments.  Conservatives opposed federal civil rights legislation in the 1960’s, not because the goals were wrong, but because (they believed) those laws amounted to an improper intrusion of the federal government into what should have been state and local matters.  The most important constitutional amendment was not the Second (the right to bear arms) but the Tenth (restricting the scope of federal authority).  Naturally, conservatives believed in balanced budgets, with light taxes and government spending restricted to what was minimally necessary to run the government.  Just as naturally, conservatives were adamant about the importance of individual freedom, which primarily meant freedom from government intrusions as much as possible.  To the extent that the goals of individual freedom and social justice might clash, conservatives always argued that individual freedom was the more critical principle to protect.  The Bill of Rights was basically a list of limitations of the power of the federal government.  Regarding foreign relations, conservatism at least implied a wariness about military involvement in foreign countries, except when the U.S. was either directly attacked, or an attack was imminent.

President Bush has shown that the word “conservative” has been appropriated to mean some very different things from what it meant in 1964.  He did cut taxes, but dramatically increased government spending, which effectively means increasing taxes.  If we do not pay now for the increased spending, we borrow heavily so that our children can pay back the lenders in the future.  Just what is it that we supposedly are conserving?  Mr. Bush might complain about so-called pork barrel spending, much of it congressional earmarks near and dear to so-called conservative legislators, but he never vetoed a spending bill during his entire first term in office.  On numerous occasions, Mr. Bush has overruled the state governments on matters that true conservatives should agree is way outside the proper range of federal authority. 

Most alarming to yours truly, Mr. Bush has seen fit to ignore laws he does not like – statutes, treaties, and the Constitution itself – basically repudiating his oath of office, where he solemnly pledged to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.  In signing laws passed by Congress, other presidents have occasionally made “signing statements” in which they express an opinion about the bill they are signing.  Those signing statements are an expression of editorial comment by the president, and have no force of law.  However, George W. Bush has uniquely tried to claim that his signing statements give him the right to ignore provisions of a law that he does not like.  His politicization of the (under his administration, misnamed) Justice Department was carried out on a level that would even make Richard Nixon wince.  Mr. Bush has sanctioned torture of suspected bad guys, whether carried out directly by U.S. personnel, or if that might be too embarrassing, by “friendly” countries which lack any moral qualms on matters such as torture.  And just what conservative principle does it serve when, in reaction to attacks by mostly Saudi terrorists given safe haven by the rulers of Afghanistan… we invade Iraq? 

One might ask, why bring up all this stuff about Bush, who will be out of office in a few months?  Sure, Bush is a disgrace to the presidency AND to conservative principles, but what does it all have to do with the upcoming election?  The point is this:  John McCain has supported George W. Bush’s misdeeds 90% of the time.  Senator McCain did insist on a prohibition of torture being included in a defense appropriations bill.  When Mr. Bush made a signing statement, reserving the right to ignore the torture prohibition, what did the highly principled Senator McCain do?  He wimped out.  On an issue of supposedly great importance to McCain, he basically accepted Mr. Bush’s trampling on the Constitution, and he did so with his tail between his legs.  McCain claims that he will be tougher than Mr. Bush has been regarding congressional earmarks, but so would almost any other man, woman or child in the U.S.  On most of the other aspects of Mr. Bush violating the law and conservative principles, McCain has agreed with Bush. 

Four of the nine sitting Supreme Court justices are right-wingers who are pretty much guaranteed to give Mr. Bush a blank check to abuse his authority in any manner that he wishes to do so.  Of the remaining five, all of them are old, and almost certainly at least two of them will die or retire within the next four years.  McCain has pledged to appoint judges who are similar to the right-wingers already on the Court.  While it is possible that McCain would not abuse the power of the presidency to the same degree that Bush has, he obviously intends to gather that power for himself, whether or not he chooses to exercise it. 

If I had the opportunity to ask Senator McCain a few questions on national television, I would not bother with softball bullshit questions like “Define ‘rich’” or “How do you deal with evil?”  I would cite some of Mr. Bush’s controversial actions noted above, and ask McCain just how those actions are consistent with conservative principles.  Sarah Palin has basically been unknown outside of Alaska until a few days ago, but as she is said to have outstanding conservative credentials, I would ask her the same thing.  If my information is correct, Ms. Palin has also advocated criminalizing all abortions nationwide.  Some of our most right-wing lawmakers have indicated that as much as they personally believe that abortion is wrong and should be against the law, they also believe that the issue should be left to each state.    Not all right-wingers have forgotten their conservative principles.  The election this coming November will be extremely important.  The press cannot let our politicians off the hook by allowing them to answer questions simply by quoting their campaign speeches.  This applies, of course, to the candidates in both parties.  The candidates must be forced to explain their political philosophies, and how do they approach the inevitable trade-offs, such as individual freedom versus national security.