« Chat With White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove | Main | Alito Day 2: The Questioning »

Chat With Beltway Boy Fred Barnes

We've just been joined by Fred Barnes who is offering us (in addition to a free copy of his new book Rebel In Chief) his perspective on the leadership of President Bush.

Some highlights:

  • President Bush is a different kind of President, a different kind of Conservative, and a different kind of Republican.
  • Bush is a populist who hates Washington.
  • Presidents either govern or lead.  Bush 41, Clinton, Carter, and Ford governed.  Reagan led.
  • Bush Conservatism is the future for Conservatives.  Conservatism is less defined by size of government than by an ability to recognize reality such as it is.

Barnes see no feasible return to small government, based on empirical evidence of Conservative revolutions under Reagan and Gingrich (which failed to materially shrink the federal government).  Barnes feels this is due to the people demanding grand and broad function to the government, and that the attempts to constrain the supply of government (as was the case in these two Conservative revolutions) did not address this underlying demand.  He did note that Bush's ownership society (however insufficiently promoted thus far) may hold some promise toward reducing this demand for government.

Interesting point.

Handcrafted by Flip on January 9, 2006 |

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/396377/4002482

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Chat With Beltway Boy Fred Barnes:

Comments

"Barnes feels this is due to the people demanding grand and broad function to the government, and that the attempts to constrain the supply of government (as was the case in these two Conservative revolutions) did not address this underlying demand." It has to start someplace though, and it probably has to be a generational shift, much like the generation that grew up in the Depression and liked what FDR did for the country begat two generations that grew more and more dependent on government at all levels. But I have hope for the generation that is just now coming up out of college. They seem to have more of an interest in the conservative ideals than even mine that came of age in the Reagan era. Part of that is through what you are doing today...an option that wasn't available when I was your age. (Gee, that makes me feel old.) No longer is news packaged in 30-minute segments and dictated to us by the likes of Dan, Peter, or Tom. Now it's a million reporters with views from all over the spectrum where you can pick and choose the reporter, the venue, and the time of day to get your news. And it's not so much "government" that's the problem. If a state like my home state of Maryland elects a General Assembly that chooses to enact a huge cradle-to-grave state government, that's their business. And if we don't like it, the next election finds them out on their keister. What truly raises the ire of a conservative like me is a runaway federal government, and I believe that view is beginning to take hold. Bush's "Ownership Society" is a small step in that direction, but it's being addressed better by fiscal conservatives like Rep. Mike Pence and Sen. Tom Coburn. Barnes is right to some extent, but the push should be for that "grand and broad government" to eminate from Annapolis, Columbus, and 48 other state capitals.

Posted by: Michael Swartz | Jan 9, 2006 10:45:09 PM

"Now it's a million reporters with views from all over the spectrum where you can pick and choose the reporter, the venue, and the time of day to get your news." Does anyone really agree with the sentiment of this statement - regardless of whether it's true or not? Is it wise to cherry-pick your news-source? We can debate the slant of the MSM, but there can certainly be no question that any given blog is most definitely biased in favor of that bloggist's political persuasion. As a whole, the blogosphere provides a fairly accurate representation of the truth - but we're talking about the entire spectrum.

Posted by: Nor | Jan 10, 2006 2:04:53 PM

I understand that...there's 20 or more blogs I read on a regular basis (not all are political, some are blogs of my friends and family.) The political ones mostly lean conservative, but I throw about 1/3 from the left in just to see the other side. And sometimes those provide me my best blog material. But I was referring to a generational shift as I responded to Fred Barne's comments. It's undeniably true that the ratings and readership of the MSM have fallen off in the last 20 years, particularly in the last 5 as more people get their news from the Internet and bloggers. To me, it's a function of being able to log on to the internet regardless of time of day and that the "Milennial Generation" (those born after 1975 or so) are the first generation to grow up computer and Internet literate.

Posted by: Michael Swartz | Jan 11, 2006 10:30:11 PM

Post a comment