Bush Administration Can Be Fully

¶ … Bush Administration can be fully encompassed as belonging to the conservative ideology, we need to refer to some of the basic characteristics of conservatism, as it appears according to theoreticians.

As such, the conservatism ideology became identified with "maintenance of strong military arsenals and the readiness to use them in war." From an economical perspective, conservatism pledges for a minimal implication of the state in national economic process or towards income equality. The individual seems to be at the centre of almost all conservative policies.

In many ways, we can agree that Bush's Administration was a Conservative one. The military privatization policies, for example, were aimed at increasing the strength of the military arsenal through private investments, while at the same time increasing the power of certain lobby groups and major supporters of the Administration.

It seems thoroughly strange to note, however, that many of the Bush policies could rather be classified as liberal or, at least, as not belonging to the conservative ideology. For once, the large federal spending, especially during the first term, is a classic measure that liberal governments use to stimulate growth and production. As a measure of governmental spending, it is by all cases an implication of the state in the economic processes, something which, as we have seen, is certainly not conservative. In turn, large governmental spending levels increase budgetary deficit, as was the case during Bush's first term.

On the other hand, some social policies, including here the Medicare Modernization Act and the Social Security Reform, but also the No Child Left Behind program, certainly do not have the individualistic characteristics we would expect from a neoconservative government. The No Child...policy, for example, is a significant spending in the educational domain, while the Medicare Modernization Act is aimed at bringing "more affordable health care, prescription drug coverage to all people with Medicare, expanded health plan options, improved health care access for rural Americans, and preventive care services, such as flu shots and mammograms." As such, governmental spending was increased in order to provide a more complete medical assistance.

The Patriot Act, on the other hand, came in part as a natural reaction to the terrorist threat and to the tragic events on September 11. The Patriot Act regulated governmental surveillance and was, for one thing, a clear expansion of governmental powers, allowing it to "spy on ordinary citizens in new ways," invoking the special historical conditions that the country is passing through.

It is obvious for once that the checks and balances principle or the separation of powers. The checks and balances methodology was devised to significantly limit the powers of each authority in part. On the other hand, the Patriot Act significantly increases the capacity of the executive branches, as the judicial branch cannot question the measures adopted by the government in times of war.

The most worrying aspect in this case is the fact that the Patriot Act seems to be endangering some of the fundamental liberties of the American individual. The motivation seems simple: the country is at war and, in any such conditions, it is allowed to resort to all means to achieve victory. On the other hand, the fact that certain governmental practices (many of which have probably been going on in the past, but had never been exposed) are now out in the open and even regulated.

The case of the American citizen Yaser Hamdi is quintessential for the application of policies in times of war. Yaser Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan, deemed to be a member of al Qaeda and was categorized as an "enemy combatant." He had been held imprisoned without being charged for almost two years, with no access to attorneys or trials.