What's At Stake

By: Phil Alito

Posted: 11/2/04

The effects of this election will be felt for decades. Indeed, issues like the War on Terror, tax cuts, and Supreme Court appointees really pose fundamental questions about the future of America: what is America's role in the world? How will we fight terrorism? What role do we want the government to have in our everyday lives? Are we willing to allow the judiciary to make policy? As much as this election is a referendum on the policies of George Bush, it is an election in which voters will determine the answers to these questions. The election of John Kerry would be more than a setback for conservative policy, it would be a devastating blow to conservative thinking. A Kerry presidency would effectively cement a philosophically liberal way of approaching these questions for the next generation. The stakes have never been higher for conservatives in America.

American conservatism is rooted in limited government, a strong military, and the conservation of an entrepreneurial, individualistic, and religious spirit that qualifies as uniquely American. If John Kerry is elected, conservatives can expect all three of these core aspects of conservatism to suffer, and to suffer badly.

Every one of Kerry's domestic policies would result in an increase in the size of the federal government. His health care plan, which aims to cover Americans in the same way members of Congress are covered, would cost $7,000 per person. Contrast this with the President's plan, which allows an individual to control his or her health care through a tax-free Health Savings Account. Kerry's education plan, too, would expand government. He has called for ensuring more quality teachers, more school services in his "Schools Open 'Till Six" plan, and for upping funding for the No Child Left Behind Act. So where will this money come from? The logical answer is through taxes. Although Kerry has promised not to raise middle class taxes (Bill Clinton made the same claim in 1992), Kerry will be forced to do just that in order to fund new government programs, effectively combat terrorism, and cut into the deficit. These policies empower bureaucracies rather than individuals and pump money into a leviathan.

Even more disturbing to conservatives should be Kerry's ideas of American power. Despite hawkish rhetoric that implies he will fight the War on Terror as aggressively as President Bush, it is clear that John Kerry remains, as he was in 1971 testifying before the Senate, the anti-war candidate. If elected, we can expect Kerry to reduce fighting terrorism to a matter of law enforcement as it was under Clinton. There are a variety of reasons why Kerry favors this method, but the danger of this method is obvious. Placing the primary anti-terrorism apparatus in the homeland rather than overseas allows terrorists to organize, plan attacks, and pursue weapons of mass destruction uninhibited. It was this approach, carried out by three presidents that allowed the terrorist threat that hit us on September 11 to grow. A retreat in the War on Terror is more than just a change of course, as Kerry would argue, but represents an elemental difference in thinking about the military's role in asserting American policy: while George Bush believes the military is a useful tool for ensuring America's national security, John Kerry believes the military is a reminder humankind's, even America's barbarism.

But perhaps an even greater threat to the definition of American Conservatism than a growing federal government or a retreat in the War on Terror is the fate of those uniquely American characteristics. And it is here and the President excels. Conservatives can find faults George Bush's programs: he's raised tariffs, he's created a new cabinet level department, and he's been a big spender, but he has held steadfast to the most essential parts of conservative doctrine. He's stimulated commerce by cutting taxes for small businesses, and he's defended the role of faith in American society by challenging Roe v. Wade, limiting government funding of stem cell research, and supporting a Constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman. The list could go on and on. This represents the starkest difference between Bush and Kerry: while Bush is an eager defender of these American traits, Kerry, despite his rhetoric, is unwilling to defend these integral characteristics of American society.

Make no mistake, policy is very important in this election. It is essential that we keep the government out of our daily lives and that we continue to fight terrorism around the world. It is essential that judges who interpret law rather than public opinion be appointed. But it is the less tangible aspects of conservatism, the core beliefs that are manifested in specific policy that gives the ideology legs as a philosophy. That's what this election is about for conservatives: preserving a philosophy that shapes our lives in the most fundamental ways.