George W. Bush defines himself as a "compassionate conservative;" he ran as such in 2000, making the description his campaign's centerpiece. Some deluded folks still characterize him in this fashion, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
I contend that Bush is neither compassionate, nor conservative. Believing his self-description requires a twisting of these words' definitions, to such a degree that a more accurate elaboration of "compassionate conservatism" is "a term encompassing any- and everything that I (Bush) deem appropriate." It's Orwellian balderdash.
Take his so-called compassion. Where's his empathy for Americans displaced from certain occupations by illegal aliens? Where's the compassion for citizens working for depressed wages, again, due to illegal aliens flooding the labor market? When will his sympathy rear its head for victims of criminal aliens--the murdered, the raped, the robbed? What about their families, who must somehow pick up the pieces of their shattered lives and carry on? And what of private property violations at or near the borders? When will his heart break for those who cannot obtain prompt or adequate medical care, because ubiquitous illegal aliens have swamped local emergency rooms or forced the bankruptcy and subsequent closing of area hospitals? (I use the immigration issue in making my point because it clearly illustrates his indifference and contempt for the American people--particularly those in the middle or lower classes). If Mr. Bush retains any compassion in his soul, it is selectively applied to criminal foreign nationals, not his fellow citizens to whom he has sworn an oath.
As for the other component of his facade, conservatism is--by definition--inclusive of a desire to preserve or conserve a society. It is the maintenance of tradition. Can we call a man a "preserver" who happily abets the invasion of his country by criminals, terrorists, and others who neither share our language and culture, nor our values and love of this land, its people, or heritage? Conservatism promotes decentralized government and decreased government spending of taxpayer monies; Bush stands for neither of these basic tenets of conservative philosophy. True conservatives do not seek to undermine the rule of law or the Constitution of the United States--in non-enforcement of immigration policies and support for a regional government or North American "union." To the extent that conservatism has an objectively identifiable meaning, Bush neither understands nor adheres to it, unless one counts paying it lip service.
So why does Bush present himself as a conservative, when he clearly has no familiarity with the concept, in practice? The answer is that the powers-that-be understand the American people's right-of-center outlook. We're talking about a con job: two duelling parties, both of whom love and worship socialism. But what to do, when the American people aren't "ready" for full-blown, in-your-face socialism or Communism? Why, by playing the shell game. Present one candidate as a leftist ideologue, and the other as a strict conservative. The citizenry automatically (and predictably) gravitates toward the "conservative" contender, never realizing that he is a socialist in disguise. This sleight-of-hand works beautifully, because no matter which party wins the contest, socialism survives the day and becomes instituted.
America is not completely in the toilet, yet, though she dances on the rim. That these rival factions still feel the need to play the game and obfuscate is proof of this, in my opinion. If Americans embraced socialism to the same degree as the Republican and Democrat parties, there would be no need to hide Oz behind a curtain of color and thunder and lightning.
No comments:
Post a Comment