George W. Bush and the Reckoning of American Conservatism

Authors

  • Leonard J. Moore

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.2008.29.0.291-309

Abstract

Immediately after the 2004 election, Republicans confidently believed in continued conservative political dominance. Shortly, a string of political and administrative disasters shattered the Bush presidency, and crises yet to come further devastated the political fortunes of American conservatism. Bush’s failures as president, while highly significant, only partially explained the conservative collapse. The deeper cause lay in the long-term weakness of conservative policies and political tactics. An examination of two key aspects of modern conservatism, conservative populism and opposition to government activism, shows that the collapse came primarily because of Bush’s loyalty to entrenched, mainstream conservative ideas and policies that were unrealistic and destined to fail.

References

Abramowitz, Alan, Brad Alexander, and Matthew Gunning. 2006. Don.t Blame Redistricting for Uncompetitive Elections. PS: Political Science and Politics 39:87-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1049096506060185

Ansolabahere, Stephen, and Gary King. 1990. Measuring the Consequences of Delegation Selection Rules in Presidential Nominations. Journal of Politics 52:609-621. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2131908

Barone, Michael, with Richard E. Cohen. 2005. The Almanac of American Politics 2006. Washington, D.C.: National Journal Group.

Black, Earl, and Merle Black. 2002. The Rise of Southern Republicans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Browning, Robert X., and Gary King. 1987. Seats, Votes, and Gerrymandering. Law and Policy 9:305-322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9930.1987.tb00413.x

Brunell, Thomas. 1999. Partisan Bias in U.S. Congressional Elections, 1952-1996: Why the Senate is Usually More Republican than the House of Representatives. American Politics Quarterly 27:316-337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X99027003003

Brunell, Thomas. 2006. Rethinking Redistricting: How Drawing Uncompetitive Districts Eliminates Gerrymanders, Enhances Representation, and Improves Attitudes toward Congress. PS: Political Science and Politics 39:77-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1049096506060173

Butler, David, and Bruce Cain. 1992. Congressional Redistricting: Comparative and Theoretical Perspectives. New York: MacMillan.

Cameron, Charles, David Epstein, and Sharyn O.Halloran. 1996. Do Majority-Minority Districts Maximize Substantive Black Representation in Congress? American Political Science Review 90:794-812. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2945843

Campagna, Janet. 1991. Bias and Responsiveness in the Seat-Vote Relationship. Legislative Studies Quarterly 16:81-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/439968

Campbell, James E. 1996. Cheap Seats: The Democratic Party's Advantage in U.S. House Elections. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

Canon, David T. 1999. Race, Redistricting, and Representation: The Unintended Consequences of Black Majority Districts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Garand, James C., and T. Wayne Parent. 1991. Representation, Swing, and Bias in U.S. Presidential Elections: 1872-1988. American Journal of Political Science 35:1011-1031. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111504

Geer, John G. 1986. Rules Governing Presidential Primaries. Journal of Politics 48:1006-1025. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2131010

Gelman, Andrew, and Gary King. 1994a. Enhancing Democracy Through Legislative Redistricting. American Political Science Review 88:541-559. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2944794

Gelman, Andrew, and Gary King. 1994b. A Unified Method of Evaluating Electoral Systems and Redistricting Plans. American Journal of Political Science 38:514-554. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111417

Grofman, Bernard, William Koetzle, and Thomas Brunell. 1997. An Integrated Perspective on the Three Potential Sources of Partisan Bias: Malapportionment, Turnout Differences, and the Geographic Distribution of Party Vote Shares. Electoral Studies 16:457-470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0261-3794(97)00037-1

Gryski Gerard S., Bruce Reed, and Euel Elliott. 1990. The Votes-Seats Relationship in State Legislative Elections. American Politics Quarterly 18:141-157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X8001800202

King, Gary, and Robert X. Browning. 1987. Democratic Representation and Partisan Bias in Congressional Elections. American Political Science Review 81:1251-1273. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1962588

Lublin, David. 1997. The Paradox of Representation: Racial Gerrymandering and Minority Interests in Congress. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Lublin, David. 2004. The Republican South: Democratization and Partisan Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

McKee, Seth C., Jeremy M. Teigen, and Matieu Turgeon. 2006. The Partisan Impact of Congressional Redistricting: The Case of Texas, 2001-2003. Social Science Quarterly 86:308-317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2006.2006.00382.x

Niemi, Richard G., and Simon Jackman. 1991. Bias and Responsiveness in State Legislative Districting. Legislative Studies Quarterly 16:183-202. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/439977

Office of the Texas Secretary of State. 2006. Historical Election Results. http://elections.sos.state.tx.us.

Petrocik, John, and Scott Desposato. 1998. The Partisan Consequences of Majority-Minority Redistricting in the South, 1992 and 1994. Journal of Politics 60:613-633. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2647641

Rae, Douglas W. 1967. The Political Consequences of Election Laws. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Texas Legislative Council. 2006. Texas Redistricting: Opinions, Orders, Maps. http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/pdf/opinion080406.pdf. Accessed May 21, 2007.

Thernstrom, Stephan, and Abigail Thernstrom. 1997. America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible. New York: Touchstone.

Tufte, Edward R. 1973. The Relationship between Seats and Votes in Two-Party Systems. American Political Science Review 67:540-554. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1958782

Wink, Kenneth A., and Ronald E. Weber. 2005. Do Democrats and Republicans Pay the Same Price for Seats in U.S. State Lower House Elections? An Analysis of. Cheap Seats. in Forty-four States. American Review of Politics 26:305-322.

Downloads

Published

2009-01-01

Issue

Vol. 29: Winter 2008-2009

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.

  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.

  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:

    1. Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;

    2. Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;

    3. Share Alike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

  1. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  2. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.

  3. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.

  1. The Author represents and warrants that:

    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;

    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;

    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;

    4. the Work has not previously been published;

    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and

    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.

  2. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.