How Compassionate Was George W. Bush's Conservatism?

In this chapter, we will be observing the extent to which our 43rd President upheld his 2000 campaign promise to be a compassionate conservative. When observing George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism,” I will be constraining most of my focus on the compassionate aspect. In order to evaluate Bush’s performance in this campaign platform, a definition is needed. Compassionate conservatism: political theory that assumes solving social problems and supporting the needy can be done in a fiscally responsible way through privatization and other conservative practices. In its most fundamental form, a compassionate conservative may feel that he can solve a liberal issue with conservative philosophy. The scholarly community and some of Bush's closest team members are at the consensus that this was nothing more than a guise layered over a marketing slogan appealing to moderate voters. Bush's follow through has taken heat from both the right and left side of the political spectrum: many right-wing critics accused bush of betraying the conservative base with his expansion of the presidency and implementation of one of the greatest enlargements of the government in U.S. History; the left has been rendered fearful by the removal of America’s social safety net and deterioration of benefits for the less fortunate.

I would like to note one caveat here early on. As time has progressed and information and data has been released, we have come to the common understanding that to some extent, Bush was merely a puppet of his administration. With that being said, it is important to weigh all claims here with a grain of salt. One can take the approach that he was ultimately responsible for his subordinate's actions, and therefore, must take full responsibility; or that because a select few of his administration's higher-ups arguably had their own agenda, his responsibility must be diverted. I am taking the stand that as the figurehead of our nation, as our Chief Executive Officer, as our Chief Administrator, and as the person ultimately liable for signing off on these decisions, he should be held accountable—whether that sheds him in a positive or negative light.

The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001: The Patriot Act

This chapter will not delve into any conspiracy as to the cause, knowledge, or foresight by Bush or his administration of 9/11. I will remain silent on opinion, and let any facts referenced in this text and other such texts speak for themselves.

Shortly after the September 11th attacks on the U.S., the Bush administration introduced one of the most invasive, expansive, and radical bills in U.S. history. The 132-page bill was introduced into the House on October 23, 2001 and signed into law on October 26, 2001, just 44 days after the event that is alleged to have spurred the necessity of the bill.1

The Patriot Act has “legalized” policies that are comparable to the Alien and Sedition Acts, Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, and FDR’s Executive Order 9066 (Japanese detention camps). Although the Patriot Act was not detrimental for the poor, it was targeted, overbearing, and discriminatory, against select minorities, i.e., foreigners, and infringed upon the rights of society as a whole. The Act is seemingly known by all, even its proponents, to be the battle of personal liberties versus national security. And it is here that a line is drawn that divides the pros and cons and advocates and critics. As with any political matter there will be partisan bickering, even if their concerns are frivolous; however, there are certain aspects within the Patriot Act that are now beyond opinionated criticism, as they have been ruled illegal or unconstitutional.

National Security Letters

After several earlier cases setting precedents, The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) brought suit against the FBI, for their use of National Security Letters (NSL)2, whose powers were greatly expanded under the Patriot Act. These “letters” are similar to the common subpoena, with the exception of two major differences. First, they require no probable cause or judicial approval. Second, they contain a gag order, which prevents the recipient of the letter from disclosing that the letter was ever issued or received.3 The latter aspect was ruled unconstitutional as it violated the right to free speech, in the above-mentioned lawsuit, Doe vs. Ashcroft.4 After subtle changes to the law by Congress, the appeal to the case was dismissed as moot.5

The case in question originated when an Internet Service Provider, Doe, was issued a NSL, which requested the relinquishment of their customer’s Internet searches and habits.6 With the gag order, the company was unable to relay this privacy invasion to the customers that were being investigated or anyone else. Essentially, what these letters were doing was giving the Executive Branch the power to hide abuses of power, without the check from the other branches of government.7 This lawsuit largely brings attention to a single isolated company. However, when observing the actual statistics, the use of NSL becomes nothing short of alarming. Prior to passage of the Patriot Act, back to 1978 when 2 U.S.C. § 3414—“Special Procedures,” for obtaining data—was passed in its severely restricted original form, the Federal Government issued 8,500 NSLs. The number of NSLs issued between 2003 and 2005 was 143,704.8 In 2003, the percentage of letters issued in the investigation of a U.S. citizen was 39%. This number jumped to 51% in 2004 and then 53% in 2005.9

Furthermore, after an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General, it was determined that between the years of 2003 and 2005, there were “significant violations of law and regulations by the FBI in its use of its national security letter authority.”10 Included in this report was the investigation into the FBI’s responsibility to report the number of NSLs to Congress. It was found that the FBI failed to properly report the number of National Security Letters they issued. The review looked at 77 case files containing 293 National Security Letters issued between 2003 and 2005. It was determined that there were seventeen percent more NSLs in the sample of case files than in FBI reporting databases.11 Moreover, the delays the FBI had in data relay caused approximately 4,600 NSLs to not be reported to Congress. The OIG concluded that the FBI’s database under-represents the number of NSL issued, and that Congress has not been properly informed about the scale of the usage of the NSLs.12 This again demonstrates the lack of checks and balances the Executive Branch respected.

Another disturbing practice that the FBI used fell under a category of demands called exigent letters, which were authorial by agents who did even not meet the minimum requirements to authorize national security letters. Exigent letters were apparently only used under extenuating circumstances to gather information from telephone companies and offered assurance that subpoenas or national security letters would soon follow.13 The Washington Post, however, reports that 700 such letters were used, and many times there were no urgent circumstances, nor follow-ups with NSLs or subpoenas.14