George and Dick - Who Knew?

David Brooks and Thomas Friedman came to the same view within the past couple days in their columns on the New York Times editorial page, although neither was so bold as to state the ultimate conclusion in black and white:

George W. Bush is a screaming liberal.

So, therefore, is Dick Cheney, I say. And I use "liberal" in the same vitriolic way that Republicans do when discussing "tax and spend" Democratic candidates. David and Tom describe a pretty highly appealing version of conservatism. A conservatism that is learned in the ways of individuals and societies. That is pragmatic about how far societal goals pragmatically ought to be set outside of range of what has already has developed. Conservatives observe that which is proven over the course of a given history. Steeped in the failure of revolutions, but the abiding success of evolution(ary change - apologies to those on the religious right), thinking conservatives choose their objectives and their means carefully. They may have lofty objectives, and they may desire big change. But they choose to get there incrementally, as they recognize that is the way most likely to succeed, statistically at least.

Liberals, on the other hand, first have grand ideas. They observe injustices in the world, and they then go about evaluating what could be done to address those injustices. Romantic about revolution(ary change - apologies to those who would not want to associate their thinking with Chavez' or Castro's), liberals seek "to think outside the box" in designing solutions that others are not considering. Solutions that may have unforeseen costs and unpredictable consequences, given their new or non-traditional nature. Liberal ideas occasionally succeed in a very big way, and the afterglow drives another generation of big thinkers.

Using essentially this framework, both David and Tom describe how George and Dick have let down a good segment of traditional Republican support. Rather than assembling a considered set of goals and means, based on critical examination of societies and cultures, George and Dick have opted to let their administration be dominated by a war which was poorly planned in the extreme and which has always had nothing but idealistic goals, untempered by obvious realities. I could see 60's hippy personalities being quite proud of the Bushies' grand aspirations and desire to spread democracy (if not US petrochemical profits) all around the world, all at a revolutionary stroke.

Perhaps those drug-infested days at Yale in the 1960s remain powerful influences in Bush's mind after all?