Conservative Battle Fatigue (UPDATES)

Several of my favorite bloggers, self-described conservatives of various stripes, properly respected stalwarts of reasonability and probity, have offered considered reasons to split with George Bush.

Mark Tapscott’s decades of dedication and contribution in the trenches of Republican politics and thought certainly earns him the right to speak out, and the editorial in the looked-forward to prospering Examiner newspaper chain of which he is recently appointed editorial page editor certainly does. Ed Morrissey, the “Captain” not only of his blog but of the legions who eagerly follow his well-thought and researched posts for intelligent insight, perhaps earning him the “conservative” column at the Washington Post, is more irate than I recall him before, or at least on a par with his criticisms of John Kerry. Law professor Steve Bainbridge, while recognizing the better difference between Bush and Dem alternatives, and himself and Liberals, promises to sit out 2006.

The splits come mostly over runaway federal spending and cart-before-the-horse legalization of clearly over-the-line illegal immigration before serious border and employer controls.

Most conservatives share these criticisms.

But, in my opinion, there’s more at work here than these or other issues, whether Bush has been as stalwart as we like or deem wise.

I think all three may be suffering some variant of PTSD, worn down by defending difficult positions at the forefront of the battle against irredentist Democrats in Congress and their fifth-column in the media.

It’s easier to verbally support defense of the ramparts of Western civilization from thousands of miles away than to endure the daily tensions and split-decisions of the actual battlefield. The battles over federal spending and illegal immigration, however, are closer to home, and impose an unavoidable consideration of the tense nuances and compromises. No one can or should accuse these or other reasonable and intelligent men of shying from that. Indeed, they’ve ably and bravely led. However, I feel fatigue has set in, along with some degree of localitis, mistaking their angst for others’, and while recognizing a larger strategic setting overfocusing on their portion.

I’ve really no doubt that they will see the bigger picture, and stakes, and come down on the right side. I wish them a speedy recovery, before more adversaries are allowed to breach the walls because of their petulance.

UPDATE # 1: “Captain” Ed Morrissey immediately emailed me, “Nope, not unfair, and I'll link you to one of my pieces from yesterday and today urging people *not* to split with the GOP, but to work to make it better.” His post, “No Sitting, Just No Dimes,” should be read and considered. An excerpt:

Instead of staying home, we need to get more involved. If your Representative or Senator votes for pork, bigger government, and ignores border security, look for a credible primary challenger to represent conservative values instead. Organize and speak out on behalf of candidates and politicians who do the right thing, even if they don't represent your district or state….
However, we still have to vote in November. If our preferred candidate does not win in the primaries, we still have to act responsibly and choose between the two major party candidates in the general election. Not only will abdication result in a loss of control over our own representation, the failure of GOP candidates has national implications that will wind up hamstringing the politicians that really have worked on our behalf…

UPDATE # 2:
Mark Tapscott also quickly responded, his email saying: “Well, Bruce, I've never been diagnosed as suffering from PTSD before, that's for sure!…[Busy, so] it's a little difficult to think profound thoughts and write arresting prose, especially with all these PTSD-induced flashbacks of Detroit 1984, San Francisco 1964, etc. ! :-)” but Mark posts a comment worthy of a full read:

Democracy Project's Bruce Kesler has an interesting post up in which argues with his usual direct, no-nonsense approach that folks like me on the Right who are, he argues, talking about sitting out the 2006 election are quite possibly suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD.

Referring to yours truly as well as Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters and Professor Stephen Bainbridge, Bruce opines that we suffer as a result of being "worn down by defending difficult positions at the forefront of the battle against irredentist Democrats in Congress and their fifth-column in the media."

That Bruce is posting on the issue is a good sign that I am succeeding in one of my goals, which is to encourage a dicussion on the Blogosphere about whether the GOP deserves the continued support and loyalty of those millions of us who since the 1960s have provided most of the party's human, intellectual and financial muscle.

Bruce is not alone in thinking my view that the GOP has forfeited conservative support, as Powerline's Paul Mirengoff also posted earlier this week a thoughtful and direct response to an editorial I wrote in The Washington Examiner that encapsulates the conservative dissatisfaction with Bush and the GOP.

Mark Tapscott has added much more to his post, and truly worth reading. Republicans in Congress certainly better. Go there.

UPDATE # 3: The Anchoress' post is superbly worth reading.

UPDATE # 4: Steve Bainbridge weighs in, succinctly, in his email: “I'm afraid I must disagree.” The professor further lectures in this post:

Nope. I don't really care one iota about "irredentist Democrats in Congress and their fifth-column in the media." I'm suffering from Bush fatigue brought on by the culmination of:
· Failure to finish the 9/11 job by bringing Osama to justice
· An unnecessary and unwise war of choice in Iraq, waged with inadequate resources and a degree of political interference unmatched since LBJ ran the Viet Nam War from the Oval Office, as forcefully demonstrated by the W$J's extended story on retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste
· Runaway spending
· Vast expansion of the federal government in areas like No Child Left Behind, Sarbanes-Oxley, and the Medicare drug benefit
· Failure to address entitlement reform
· Failure to address comprehensive immigration reform that includes a guest worker system and regularization of the current undocumented population
· Infingement of civil liberties in the various NSA domestic spying programs
· An unwillingness to confront the corruption plaguing the party by virtue of the K Street Gang; or, rather, the Gang's lack of virtue
· Inability to admit error
· Entrenched anti-intellectualism
It's enough to make one go into political hibernation until 2012, when 6 years of Democrat rule of Congress and 4 years of Hillary will have given the GOP time to return to its Reagan roots and renewed the American people's distaste for the tax-and-spenders of the Party of Death.

I must, as simply, disagree with the professor’s lesson plan:

· Failure to capture Osama bin Laden, while most of his gang rots in graves and jails, and his remaining minions admit defeat, is hardly what I would call a failure by Bush;
· Not by any means an “unnecessary and unwise” war, regardless of hindsight from a few whose forward vision is myopic, especially when increased evidence emerges daily of the dimensions of the threat otherwise, and especially when the strategic objectives are actually near accomplishment;
· “Runaway spending” is also my and others’ complaint, but no one can bear to give up their own benefit, just others’, and Congress reflects that; Reining in earmarks is very important, but even if all disappeared tomorrow, that’s a tiny dent; A veto from Bush would be nice, but there’s every indication it would be overridden;
· Vast expansion of the federal government has occurred, nonstop, since the founding; I have young children, and No Child Left Behind has stirred tremendous improvement in basics and more; Sarbannes-Oxley, I’ve argued and the SEC may soon agree, imposes too steep a burden on small companies, but as a former corporate exec and auditor, the effrontery of some corporate corruption needed severe measures; and Medicare Part D, as expensive as it is, but increasing private-market strength, is worthwhile in itself and necessary to prevent a worse nationalized healthcare;
· The first guts in a generation, or several, by Bush to confront Social Security’s deepening hole is hardly what I’d call a failure to address entitlement reform;
· Failure to liberalize immigration is recognized by most Americans, liberal and conservative, as requiring first border and employer controls; Bush’s initial position, for several years, has been lenient, which should have garnered more, not less, support from the professor;
· Neither knowledgeable lawyers, civil libertarians, legislators, nor the wisdom of the American people, see a severe enough infringement by the NSA to compare with either the law or the alternative potential consequences;
· When benefiting from the K-Street DeLay strategy, I didn’t hear a complaint from the professor, or from Democrats who benefit from a similar strategy; To lay the blame for less reforms or controls now on Republicans, and let the Democrats have a free walk, especially from someone who rails against most government regulations, seems odd;
· The perception of an inability to admit error is an inability to listen, when actually many errors – and errors are normal in any administration – have both been explicitly admitted or quickly corrected;
· If entrenched anti-intellectualism is a fatal fault by Bush, it has been well-earned by the intellectual inanity from academia, and the country is better off for it. Back to the professor’s second point, he might revisit the train wreaks steered into by the “best and brightest” intellectuals of the ‘60’s.

If Professor Bainbridge seeks hibernation, the bears will find his cave, and he’ll like that less.