Three factions in the Republican Party

I have long held that there are three factions in the Republican party, the social conservatives, the pro-business wing, and the hawks. Today, a few callers to the Hugh Hewitt show were complaining that Bush was spineless because he hadn't done much to advance a conservative social agenda. I called in and made the point that parties are collations, and that the president has opted to spend his efforts on the war on terror (foreign policy) and the recovery via the tax cut. As such, his domestic achievements had suffered. Aside from No Child Left Behind there have been no major policy initiatives.

Now I read in Power Line that the President is commanding a huge lead over Kerry on foreign policy and a substantial lead on the economy. Its as though where the President has made an effort, he has built a popular record. He has placed foreign policy as the top priority and has a huge lead. He has put the economy in second place, doing only enough to cut taxes substantially and release the productive power of the American people. As such, the deficit is left for later. Something of a compromise. People who are committed to some specific or to a broad conservative social agenda seem to be disappointed that the President hasn't been more active. I say the war on terror has crowded out initiatives the President would have taken otherwise.

Hugh responded that he has a forthcoming book on the subject and that he argues that we should measure success in terms of getting 75% for the reasons I have mentioned, rather that focusing on the lost 25% and lamenting failure.

I am interested in what Hugh will have to say on paper. If he means to say that 75% of the conservative agenda has been accomplished I demure and suggest that its more like half. If he means to include the idea that the liberal agenda has been halted at the Federal level during this administration, I will concur.

Let's take a domestic issue, one that the caller raised, gun rights. The President has done nothing to advance the cause of responsible gun ownership by repealing some of the silly Clinton era laws. He has however allowed some to lapse, and certainly not considered any new limitations. Is the glass half full - no move to the left on guns? Or is the glass half empty - no move to the right on guns?

For a guy like me, who considers foreign policy to be the most important issue for a president, who puts economic issues second, and who further more would probably have problems with Bush's social agenda, I feel like I am getting 90-95% of what I want. Aside from the deficit, I'm totally a happy camper.

For a fellow who puts social issues first, economics second, and like me in reverse is not happy with Bush's foreign policy agenda (lets call him a Buchananite in FP), he's getting very little indeed.

I can swallow the deficit and celebrate the tax cut because I'm getting what I want in foreign policy and can ignore Bush's stand on church-state issues, his gay amendment, and some other troubling policies because its mostly talk. For the other guy in my example, who just sees talk in the domestic arena, who doesn't like the President's FP, he cannot swallow the deficit, but rather ends up writing off the tax cut as the only good thing Bush has done.

All I can say to such a fellow, however, is that Bush was your man before 9-11, but he's mine now. Whether you can have him back in a second term is up for grabs.

Note: As anyone who has ever called a talk show might recognize, my phone comments were brief, and my description of them here are elaborated, a benefit of this forum.