The failure of conservatism. And condoms.

Well, Bush really knows how to stage a finale, doesn’t he? As if there hadn’t been enough mismanaged disasters during his disastrous two terms, we now face global economic collapse, America being the lead domino. And all on Bush’s watch. No wonder we haven’t seen much of him for awhile. I’d be ashamed to show my face too.

I may be wrong, but I’m not alone in thinking that the main failure of Bush’s philosophy of governance — the failure of conservatism — is that you can’t possess a deep hatred of government… and run the government well.

If government is necessary, bad government, at least for conservatives, is inevitable, and conservatives have been exceptionally good at showing just how bad it can be. Hence the truth revealed by the Bush years: Bad government–indeed, bloated, inefficient, corrupt, and unfair government–is the only kind of conservative government there is. Conservatives cannot govern well for the same reason that vegetarians cannot prepare a world-class boeuf bourguignon: If you believe that what you are called upon to do is wrong, you are not likely to do it very well.

When your philosophy states that government is the problem, and then you become the government, there’s a problem. And this is why conservatives don’t govern well. They’re okay as an opposition party — they make a lot of noise, and that can be a good balance for keeping things on track — but the current Republican Party is too hypersensitive and pathologically enraged to be trusted even with that function.

I want to address an old point that I’ve recently seen floating around. The argument is that Bush has failed, but conservatism hasn’t, because Bush isn’t conservative. It’s an easy argument to puncture. Bush’s conservatism is more of the social kind; he appoints conservative Supreme Court justices, he’s anti-choice, he sides with the wealthy and powerful, gives tax cuts to the rich, and so on.

But Bush isn’t a true conservative, others say. Conservatives try to shrink the size of government, and Bush has bloated it, what with Homeland Security and military spending. Conservatives rein in spending (except they don’t), and Bush has spent most unconservatively. Nationalising banks. And so on.

But this is not a point in their favour. Someone may start out following their ideology with the firmest of intentions. When problems arise, and they give in on principles, this should be counted as the failure of an unworkable ideology.

An analogy. Condoms have a failure rate, but it doesn’t always involve breakage. It also involves simply failing to use them. That counts in the failure rate. This is why people who say that abstinence has a 100% success rate are wrong. Abstinence has a failure rate. It fails when people choose it as their preferred method, and then don’t use it. Stephen Hanson describes this reasoning as ‘heads I win, tails don’t count’.

People who claim that Bush isn’t a conservative and that conservatism hasn’t failed are using the same trick. But what we’re seeing now should be counted as a failure of conservatism, even if they cut corners and abandon the philosophy when the chips are down.