FIC Blog

What effect has President Bush had on the pro-life and pro-family cause? That question, quietly debated in social conservative circles for several years now, will likely receive more attention with the publication of The Leadership of George W. Bush: Con & Pro in the March issue of First Things.

FT editor Joseph Bottum takes the “con” position:

After six years of President Bush — thought by nearly every observer to be the most socially conservative president of recent decades — where does social conservatism stand? No one can deny there have been some bright spots: the defeat of the Democrats’ Senate leader Tom Daschle in 2004, the nominations of Justices Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court in 2005, a few successful state referenda in 2006.

What isn’t so clear is what it all amounts to. The noise has been overwhelming since George W. Bush took office. Abortion, euthanasia, stem cells, public Christmas displays, same-sex marriage, pornography in the movies, faith-based initiatives, immigration, visible patriotism: We’ve been warned by the media, over and over again, that Republicans are reshaping America into a Puritan’s paradise. But, at the end of the day, the media mostly won and the Republicans mostly lost. Social conservatism is in little better shape now than it was when Bush was first elected. In many ways, it is in worse shape.

President Bush may have put the Supreme Court one vote shy of overturning Roe v. Wade–something his father and President Reagan did not do. But Bottum does not really dispute that. His critique runs deeper:

In all that he has tried to do-reform education, fix social security, restore religion to the public square, assert American greatness, appoint good judges-Bush has proved himself a conservative. Of course, along the way, he has also proved himself hapless. The problem isn’t his lack of conservatism. The problem is his lack of competence.

Apart from the still not certain pro-life views of the two new Supreme Court justices, where is there a major success to which one can point?

I would answer that Bush held the line on stem cells. But Bottum anticipated that answer:

Stem cells are perhaps the exception, for there President Bush did indeed hold the conservative line. It is worth remembering, however, the way in which he did so: letting federal funding for embryonic stem cell research become a public crisis when quicker action would have kept it off center stage. By allowing it to boil over, the administration allowed its opponents to shift the focus off abortion, where the pro-life movement seemed to be gradually winning, and onto embryonic stem cells, where the nation has yet to be convinced. There’s a reason the word abortion was never spoken from the podium of the 2004 Democratic convention, while the phrase stem cells was trumpeted dozens of times. Correct action, even when strongly undertaken, is not the same thing as persuasive leadership.

Early in Bush’s presidency there were those who said he had reversed the normal Republican pattern on abortion: he was all action and no talk. Arguably, that strategy allowed the pro-life cause to advance by not alarming moderate pro-choicers. But the risk is that you cede the rhetorical field to your opponents who may succeed in reframing the debate in terms favorable to them–something Bottum apparently thinks has happened.

Bottum goes on for a bit about Iraq and the 2006 election and then there is this:

Domestically, a large range of conservatives will seem discredited by an American defeat in Iraq, which is why their liberal and radical opponents so quickly, and fecklessly, embraced the claim that Iraq is lost. On crime, abortion, education, government spending—the whole litany of domestic concerns-the American conservative movement may well find itself starting over, back once again where it was in 1974. The result will be perhaps most disheartening for social conservatives, as decades of intellectual and political gains against abortion are frustrated.

Bottum’s prediction for the nation’s near-future has some relevance for Connecticut’s recent past. It would be too much to say that because the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 Connecticut legalized same-sex unions in 2005. But there is no denying that an anti-Iraq War backlash played a powerful role at Connecticut polls in both 2004 and 2006–leading eventually to the defeat of two veteran Republican congressmen and the election of Democrat supermajorities in both houses of our legislature. Yes, Republican Rell and pro-war Lieberman are obvious exceptions to the wave that hit nearly everyone else, but the question remains: How different might our legislature be today if we had not invaded Iraq–or, rather, if the war had gone better? And how much further along would the pro-life and pro-family causes be–both in Connecticut and nationally?

These are questions that Bottum would put squarely on the shoulders of President Bush:

Conservatives voted for George W. Bush in 2000 because they expected him to be the opposite of Bill Clinton-and so, unfortunately, he has proved. Where Clinton seemed a man of enormous political competence and no principle, Bush has been a man of principle and very little political competence.

Overall–and Connecticut excepted–I don’t agree with Bottum that social conservatism is worse off because Bush is president. Bush withstood enormous pressure to confirm Alito and Roberts–and to hold the line on stem cells. But–as even Michael Novak, who writes the “pro” response, says–many of Bottum’s criticisms have force. And that’s something Bottum would like conservatives to keep in mind as we head into 2008:

All the 2008 Republican presidential candidates should understand the task they face over the next two years. George Bush’s ideals have gotten him elected president twice, and his incompetence has finally delivered the Congress to his domestic opponents and empowered his nation’s enemies abroad. Iraq needs an American president who embraces Bush’s principles—and rejects his policies. The United States needs much the same thing.

Our liberal opponents, as always, are welcome to post in this thread. But I am especially curious to know what our fellow Connecticut conservatives think of Bottum’s essay.