During his first tumultuous term, President Bush disappointed many conservatives with "big-government conservatism."  Farm subsidies, steel tariffs, a new Department of Homeland Security, the Medicare prescription drug entitlement--a vast increase in spending, Bush vetoed nothing.  All this plus the War on Terror have thrown Democrats into the unusual position of decrying the Federal budget deficit, despite that as a percentage of GDP, it is well within historical norms (2.4%).  It is strange to see Democrats, typically the big spenders, worried about deficits.  Bush's new budget details 150 programs to be diminished or eliminated, but even with those cuts the Federal budget deficit would increase over the next five years.  No doubt congressional members of both parties will resist Bush's proposed cuts; spending usually translates into votes.

Deficit spending is a staple of both political parties.  For decades many applications of Keynesian economics have proven that deficit spending is an indispensable tool for the modern state. Allocated wisely, it does indeed stimulate the economy with the manageable risk of inflation.  Government spending reduces the misery of economic downturns and expedites recovery.  The current administration would prefer to employ "supply-side" economics, thus Bush peppers his deficit largesse with tax breaks and privatization, confounding critics on both ends of the political spectrum.

If deficit spending is an institution, the question is: which government programs are worth going into debt?  Your answer will indicate whether you are conservative or liberal.  The ideological poles are clear: war on terror, homeland security, tax breaks - versus - entitlements, social programs, universal healthcare.  Right or left--politicians frequently agree on pork and little else.

Ronald Reagan proved it possible to grow the economy while defeating formidable enemies abroad; the deficits declined over time.  Reagan directed an expensive military buildup the Soviet Union was unable to match, hastening their demise.  At the time, Reagan was accused of economic and geopolitical brinksmanship: a dangerous quixotic fixation against the Soviet Union.  Today the Bush administration is similarly accused of depleting our coffers on an ill-conceived crusade to spread democracy throughout the Middle East.  The critics are wrong--the war on Islamic fascism is the best investment our nation could make; we avoid this battle at our peril.

Bush's assertive foreign policy, leading a coalition of 28 nations, liberated over 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq from brutal oppression, compelled Libyan dictator Qaddafi to relinquish his nuclear program, and nudged the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Egypt into first words and steps toward democracy.  Some of these advances are small and symbolic, but take heart: people who have only known despotism now conceive freedom.  Vicious anti-Western rhetoric is constricted, has no sanction on the world stage, and Iraqi gun barrels are no longer aimed toward Israel.

Even thorny Israeli-Palestinian relations are softening as a cease-fire takes hold, ending four years of violence.  In Jerusalem, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sets the tone: "a time of hope, a time we can hope for a better day for the Palestinian and Israeli people both."

Provided with such facts, some Democrats, liberals, and sundry Bush-haters discount good news and insist that Iran, China, and North Korea pose a more serious threat than Iraq ever did--a disingenuous argument coming from pacifists.  President Bush has stated numerous times that each dangerous regime is unique, and requires a strategy commensurate with the problem.  Who would cynically proffer the US provoke every despotic, bellicose nation in the world?  A party and ideology out of power, out of ideas, out of steam.

What does the left have left? Quite a lot.  There are wonderful states, cities, and universities which continue to be their province; no political stripe is more broad, proud, and resilient than urban and academic, and trade union liberalism.  And they will always have their tailgate soapboxes: dyspeptic bumper stickers proclaiming their imperious utopian sympathy to anyone stuck behind them in traffic.  I wish they could cheer up.

Donald Meissner, Editor, Grateful Right