The grand failure of the Bush Administration is perhaps the best argument against the conservative ideology. Many have said that Bush is not a true conservative, and if we only had a true conservative in there, by God, things would turn around sharp-like. David Brooks, in a recent Meet the Press, said:
And sometimes in my dark moments, I think he's [Bush] "The Manchurian Candidate" designed to discredit all the ideas I believe in.
Oh, David, I feel your pain. You've built yourself on this movement, and you want nothing more than to believe in the correctness of conservatism. Well, what are the ideals, and why don't they work. Further more, what is the liberal response to them?
The answers on the flip...
The ideals of Conservatism:
Fiscal Responsibility
Perhaps the most bandied about ideal of conservatism, this is incidentally the least important to the Bush administration.
The flaws - Actually, this is a principle that any rational person can ascribe to. In fact, it is not an issue of conservative/liberal. Rather this is just common sense good governance. The meme that liberals are irresponsible spenders who want to throw your tax money away is simply another smear that has been peddled by the GOP for so long that too much of the public has accepted it as truth. I issue a challenge to compare the economic policies of Democratic and Republican administrations going back to World War II and tell me where the GOP exhibited this fiscal sanity they've been talking about for so long.
The Code - Many of the conservative 'ideals' are simply right wing code for other ideals that they know they couldn't sell to the public at large. Many times, when you hear Republicans talking about fiscal responsibility, they are making a sneak attack against so-called 'entitlement' programs. Notice they don't seem to have a problem wasting valuable defense dollars on obsolete weapons systems while our military families are forced to go on food stamps.
Liberal response - We like fiscal responsibility. Except when we say it, we mean it.
Free Market
This ideal is also central to the conservative movement. 'The freer the market, the freer the people', as they say.
The flaws - While it is true, economically speaking, that unneccessary constraints on the freedom of economic transactions can have unwanted consequences, it is also true that unfettered markets allow entities (individuals and/or corporations) who have gained a critical mass of capital and influence to practice unscrupolous business methods. The conservatives love to talk about 'incentives'. Well, in a situation where entities can get away with unethical business practices, there is a strong incentive for other entities to follow suit for competitive reasons.
The Code - There are many true Free Market libertarians out there, but this is often conservative-speak for the worship of power. In other words, power constrained is an affront to them.
The Liberal Response - It is not true that a rising tide always lifts all ships. History is rife with examples where a nation that allows too much power to the economically advantaged (both the very rich and large businesses) invites exploitation. We see it as a moral and pragmatic issue. Take Wal-Mart. If it wasn't for the underpaid, benefit lacking line employees, the executives and stockholders would be nowhere. Therefore, the compensation should be more equitable. Simple as that. Actually, it's a very complex issue, which is why Democratic Presidents place competent people in the position to determine economic policy. Not idealogues.
Robust National Defense
Barbarians at the gate, as it were.
The Flaws - There are threats out there, for certain. There are also threats in here. There are also threats in the water we drink, the food we eat, and the cigarettes we smoke. If the only tool you use is a gun, everything starts to look like a target. It is vital to take each individual threat and base a clear eyed response to that threat. Military resourses must be tailored to this. Military resourses for the sake of military resources leads to big dollar systems (Missle Defense, Joint Strike Fighter, etc.) that sound really cool, cost a lot of money, and don't improve our ability to find and disrupt an al-Qaeda cell operating out of the Philipines one bit. It also leads to an unhealthy obsession with fear and danger that threatens to undermine civil liberties.
The Code - This is related to the Free Market code. The conservative doesn't ask whether we should exert power. The existence of power is enough to justify its exertion. 'National Defense' means American military power.
Liberal Response - This thinking has led to this whole 'war on terror' falsehood. You can't fight a war against a tactic. We need to think creatively to figure out the real threats, where they come from, and act with other nations to attack al-Qaeda, while at the same time addressing the root causes that allow these vile groups to convince people they are right. It's a bit more than dropping bombs on some brown people that speak Arabic.
Personal Responsibility
It's not the role of the government to bail people out of their bad choices... unless they are a major corporation (hello big Airlines).
The Flaws - The right has long tried to sell the liberal effort to understand the root causes of societal problems such as poverty and crime as abdigating people of responsibility. Again, this is a myth that has been peddled by the right wing for far too long. People always have to take responsibility for their actions. It is simply a virtue of life. But the idea that New Deal policy incites people to be irresponsible is just flawed thinking by people I would assume don't know many people on any sort of public assistance. Well, I do, so allow me to enlighten a bit. 99.999999999999% percent of people on Welfare don't want to be there. It is a degrading experience. But there is a distinct lack of opportunity provided to those on public assistance to provide for themselves otherwise.
This is a failure of the 'free market'. There are some who abuse the system, but for the vast majority, public assistance is the only thing from keeping the United States from having a vast population of starving poor, a la Africa.
The Code - Racism and Classism. It is simply the descendant of those who claimed that slaves wouldn't be able to function in 'normal' society. And then made sure that the descendants of those slaves wouldn't have the chance. And then claimed that the large swaths of people still paying the price for those old evil policies are responsible for their plight.
Liberal Response Nobody is saying that those who make bad choices shouldn't have to face the consequences. In fact, we would love to see some consequence facing for the bad choices made since 9/11. But we are saying that the situation is rarely, if ever, that simple, and as a matter of principle, we should endeavor to provide our citizens with every opportunity possible, and we should not allow any of them to slide into the realm of extreme poverty.
There are certainly more ideas that can be explored along this line of thinking, but I will stop here. The point of all this is that I frequently notice myself and others not doing enough to argue against the conservative ideals that got us into the situation we are in. George W. Bush is exactly what conservative ideals produce. Maybe he is not inline with those ideals on their face, but he is exactly the manifestation of what those ideals produce in the real world. It sounds good to spout the ideals I have covered here, but when they are actually put into practice, the results are disastrous.