The Movement in a Man

During this Federal Prosecutor flap, e-mails emerged noting that the White House intended to replace the eight FPs with "loyal Bushies". The question arose as to what exactly a "Bushie" was supposed to be. Was the email implying that the replacements needed to be more conservative, more centrist, more compassionate, or what?

It sometimes seems that labels like "conservative", "liberal", "progressive" or "neocon" are losing their meaning. Often they are used merely as a blunt instrument by the opposition. The Europeans use "neocon" to mean "killer of small children at dawn". The term "liberal" was so vilified by the 1988 George HW Bush campaign that even liberals stopped using it. They now call themselves "progressives".

Some have suggested that it may be more meaningful to attach the name of the leader to political movements. As such, Bushies don't have to pretend that "W" is a real conservative (which he isn't) and Clintonites don't have to explain whether free trade and the "end of welfare as we know it" are liberal policy.

I'm not sure what I think about all this, but I can say one thing. I am, always have been, and always will be a Reaganite. I was raised on his politics, voted for him every time he ran, and considered him my commander-in-chief both as a Marine and as a civilian. And in a rather uncharacteristic display of civil action, I went to Washington to view his casket as it lay in state in the Capital building. There isn't another politician who would inspire me to do such a thing.

If the man makes the movement, I am a Reaganite... through and through.