Kind of a follow up on Neo-cons examining themselves

I can read Paul Krugman again. Thankfully, the New York Times learned that charging for Krugman and others was not a good idea.

So Krugman writes Same Old Party and I realize the piece fits into what I read on Commentary and wrote about under Neo-conservatives examining themselves. Krugman finds George W. Bush firmly within the history of the conservative movement:

Well, I don’t know what true conservatism is, but while doing research for my forthcoming book I spent a lot of time studying the history of the American political movement that calls itself conservatism — and Mr. Bush hasn’t strayed from the path at all. On the contrary, he’s the very model of a modern movement conservative.

The use of conservatism by Reagan never made any sense to me. Their rhetoric was a radical overhaul of the country. Reading Krugman's article I see that my gut instinct in 1984 was accurate and my belief that Bush is as much a charlatan as Reagan is not misplaced. (Actually, Bush may not be as much a fraud as Reagan but even more of a true believer - Bush has actually tried to implement what Reagan only promised to garner votes).

Conservatism foisted itself on us as being more down-to-earth, commonsensical, and practical than 1970's liberalism. But that sentence requires context. If one looks forward from 1974, the presidency was never again held by an outright liberal like LBJ. Congress was dominated by big government types. Limousine liberal was the pejorative of the day. Midwest auto workers started breaking with the Democrats on everything but unions. Increased competition from overseas began to hurt the economy and then came the oil embargoes. The mainstream had become pretty boring and seemed irrelevant in 1980. However, that was not just true in the United States but in West Germany and the United Kingdom. Political parties that held sway over the post-World War Two era had run out of steam. In those circumstances, Conservatism presented itself in a way to appeal to the broad masses.

Unfortunately, that was about all it had for the broad masses. Interest rates went down but incomes of the people working for a living went down. The Conservatives preached a lot about the good of entrepreneurship but had no interest except in those already with money. Krugman is right - Bush is firmly within this crowd.