Upcoming Fox News Special: “Bruce Bartlett: How the Secularization of America Made Him Hate His Country.”
While over reading Wolcott, I was shocked to learn of the continued existence of at least one intellectually honest conservative.
In his upcoming book, Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy, supply-side economist and Reagan domestic policy advisor, Bruce Bartlett, commits the ultimate sin against neoconservative dogma:
I think it is telling that Bush’s Democratic predecessor, Bill Clinton, was far better on the budget than he has been. Clinton vetoed bills because they spent too much. Bush never does. Clinton not only reduced the deficit, but he actually cut spending. Bush has increased both. Clinton abolished an entitlement program. Bush created an extremely expensive new one. One can still argue about whether Clinton was a better president or a better man than Bush, but on the budget there is no ambiguity. Clinton was much better.
I hope that Bartlett’s publisher has the sense to affix a sticker warning book store clerks against shelving it adjacent to Fred Barnes’ new hardbound version of fellatio. If not, the resulting reaction might cause the universe to implode.
Filed under: Politics, Literature, U.S., Economy
3 Responses to “Upcoming Fox News Special: “Bruce Bartlett: How the Secularization of America Made Him Hate His Country.””
He’s not the only one. I read several of the Libertarian blogs since they some times have a way of finding a path through the clutter. Many of them are equally outraged and chagrinned to admit that Bill Clinton was trying to do the right thing.
What Dubya’s actually done is proven Barry Goldwater correct when the senator told an aide in the late 60’s - some day the New Left and the Old Right will sit down and understand they had a great deal more in common than they ever could have imagined.
Anyway - added you to my newsreader. No, I can’t remember how I found you since I was chewing on this rare South American bug and DOOOD was I trippin’!
Comment by pops on January 30, 2006 at 7:37 pm.
All true, of course.
I do find it interesting that many libertarians and old school conservatives are among the neocons’ worst critics. On the other hand, even the moniker “libertarian” has become a matter of personal taste. I know several people who consider themselves “libertarians” despite hawkish foreign policy and adamant pro-life views. It’s often a sort of cop out for those who’d like to believe they are pro individual liberty but really mean “I want the government out of our lives except when its meddling is consistent with my politics and sense of morality.”
For my part, I no longer have any idea what label to ascribe to my politics. I appreciate some core libertarian values, but not all. I once thought myself a moderate; by contemporary standards I’m a flaming liberal on many issues. Goldwater was certainly correct.
Comment by Chris on January 30, 2006 at 8:53 pm.
ON this, I myself would probably take the ‘typo’ route to describe my political agenda: Librarian!… Oh wait, maybe it’s more like I’m just lazy…. or something
Comment by refuge on February 3, 2006 at 4:15 pm.