Conseravtism made e-z

I've posted on this topic before, but thought I'd give some credit to Peter Beinart for his latest piece on Republican attempts to redefine the failure of the Republican majority-- you see, it's all because Bush pulled a fast one on the nation. All this time the sneak wasn't even a conservative! At least the new definition of a conservative policy is an easy one: anything that keeps Republicans in office.

If conservatives were so angry with Reagan at the time, why do they worship him now? It's simple: Because his policies seemed to work.

And that's precisely why they are so scornful of Bush today. Think about it. Bush's second term has actually proved more conservative than his first. Since January 2005, he has nominated John Roberts and Samuel Alito, fought to privatize Social Security, and signed the two leanest budgets of his presidency--budgets in which domestic discretionary spending actually drops (when adjusted for inflation). And yet conservatives--who turned out for him in historic numbers just two years ago--now can't stand the guy.

Conservatives aren't turning on Bush because his policies aren't conservative. They are turning on him because his policies, from Iraq to Hurricane Katrina, have dramatically failed--and failed policies, by definition, cannot be conservative. Poor George W. Bush.