The definition of "extremism" should surely include an unwilling to recognize the degree of disapproval (say, number of people x disapproval animus) policy actions elicit on both sides of the argument. I can't help but feel that over the last three years, the left has invested so much on the Bush=Hitler or Bush=Right-Wing Zealot that they have been unwilling or unable to appreciate the compromises he has had to make (to the annoyance and.or disappointment of many of his supporters). If the analysts are not doing their job, then Bush and Rove must show who is being an extremist. The analysis would show that aside from a few honest Dems (Miller, eg), most of the big-name pols have done nothing but criticize and demand more.

I believe the frustration of pragmatist conservatives is not rooted on purity of pricinple (NEA=evil) or an aversion to budget deficits that modern finance can not support. I believe it is rooted in a sincere belief that the national Democratic party does not play fair.

I would welcome the cynics to compare conservative reactions to conservative-friendly Clinton contributions (even if partial) such as NAFTA, Welfare Reform, NATO action in Kosovo).

MG;

I think it's more the implied disdain for the base that an action such as this implies. It will not net Bush as single vote from the Left/Democratic Party yet serves to infuriate much of the Right/Republican side.

It's much like the steel tariffs, which were much more of a ideological issue than free trade. It seems ... spiteful because there wasn't any upside for either the conservatives or Bush himself, politically. This NEA funding increase is the same. Regardless of any short time benefits, it will in the long term simply provide additional sinecures for Lefties to abrade society. Mr. Judd asks us to accept that we're not going to get rid of the social safety net - can he accept that in modern society this sort of government program cannot long serve conservative principles?

It's not so much that Bush should do every little thing conservatives want, but that he should at least avoid spitting in their eyes. Spoons expresses this well.

AOG -

Pointless does not equal spiteful. And if yuo go down the list of the issues that must be bothering you, not all have been pointless; and others could have been more "pointed" had the politician in the President done a better job. (Increase funding for NEA being way down on the pointed list, for me, though.)

But the point is, Bush is supposed to be President of the whole country, not just us conservatives. Some of his decisions were aimed at better representing (if wrongly?) the broader country. Succeeding in doing that would ensure his and his party's ability to continue to represent conserv ative interests better (by far) than the opposition. His opposition has made a mockery of his accommodations. That ranks, with me, much higher on the SPITEFUL scale and our anger should be directed accordingly.

AOG:

These programs never serve conservative principles. But we lost, because conservative principles aren't all that popular. You take what you can get.

The essence of democracy is compromise. If we refuse to compromise, we can always vote for a fringe candidate. Pat Buchanan ran, Lyndon LaRouche runs, other right wing extremists run from time to time.

Bush, either one, is a Rockefeller Republican, a patrician, pro-business, liberal hawk. A compassionate conservative if you will. We were not fooled, as he ran as exactly who he is. If you don't like him, you can vote for the democrat, who will probably lose, or you can vote for an extremist who will surely lose. Either vote, however, makes a Bush defeat more likely, and I can not understand how my conservative agenda is helped by his loss. Waiting for another Barry Goldwater is hopeless, as the Goldwaters of the world are only nominated when defeat seems inevitable.

Unfortunately, ideologues of either side are unelectable. I am sure that leftists were disappointed by the conservatism of B.J.Clinton. Reagan raised taxes. The mass of votes needed to win the White House precludes any victor who strays too far from the center.

MG;

You are correct, pointless is not spiteful, but funding the NEA is not pointless, it's actively pernicious. Harm in exchange for no benefit is the very definition of spite. I suppose we differ in that I do not think that neither Bush nor any other conservative (and possibly not any Republican) will get a single additional vote. My view is therefore that this in no way allows Bush (or his party) to better represent conservatives in the future.

It's like a policeman on the beat, who isn't too corrupt and does a reasonable job of cracking down on the low lifes, but every week or so walks by the house and kicks the dog. I'm not going to rehire the drunk, skirt chasing loser who had the job previously, but can't he just not kick the dog?

AOG -

I wished the specifics of the discussion did not involve the NEA, but I would like you to consider:

The substantive case for the strategy, which surprisingly, Geroge Will does a good job of defending below: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20040201.shtml

A more basic, if speculative. I believe that George W. Bush's (arguably before 9-11, definitely after) actions have shown that (a) he does consider himself President of all Americans, whether they vote(d) for him or not; and (b) that he does have a moral compass that will frequently lead him to make decisions that he feels are more "the decent" thing to do. It is clear that he has a lower threshold (than we Adam Smmith/Newt Ginrich conservatives have) for allowing the "innocent" to experience the "pain" that we believe would lead to "gain". But can you doubt for a second that his "compassion thermostat" is stuck on "heat always on"? No way.