Editor’s Note: The growing recognition among many American conservatives that George W. Bush’s neocon administration stands for something other than traditional conservatism is creating a rift within the Republican Party.

Whether that rift opens up into the kind of chasm that can force real changes in the U.S. political dynamic remains to be seen. But with the goal of following this emerging debate, we are publishing this guest essay by Stephen Crockett, known as the moderate-conservative co-host of Democratic Talk Radio:

The conflict pits the Bush Republicans against traditional conservatives. While both groups give lip service to the term limited government and use the same “conservative” label, they are very different creatures.

The Bush Republicans advocate a “neo-con” approach to state power that critics fear is a potential creeping fascist ideology disguised as conservatism. Secret prisons, torture and unlimited detention in prisons without trial are all examples of policies supported by the Bush Republican that outrage both traditional conservatives and civil libertarians.

Traditional conservatives rely on the rule of law instead of personal rule by a strong leader or leadership group. The Bush Republicans seem to believe that anything the Bush Administration wants to do should be permitted because they claim that they should be trusted not to abuse the power of their offices.

Traditional conservatives believe that the system of checks and balances should be strong enough to survive good or bad White House or Congressional leaders. The Bush Republicans seem to view the checks and balances system devised by our Founding Fathers as obstacles to imposing their views on our government and nation.

The falsely named Patriot Act should have been opposed by traditional conservatives. However, many traditional conservatives have been reluctant to break with the Bush Republicans over this measure.

Traditional conservatives since the Reagan era had come to see the Republican Party as the vehicle to put conservatism in control of the federal government. They allied themselves with the “neo-cons”, the so-called Christian Right and greedy Corporate interests in the quest for power via the Republican Party.

Under Reagan, the traditional conservatives were the dominate faction in the coalition. Under Bush, they have become increasingly silenced and voiceless in policy decisions. Only the conservative label remains in vogue.

Fear of being branded as dreaded moderates or worst liberals have helped keep traditional conservatives from fighting the Bush Republicans on policy decision after policy decision. The huge budget deficits and exploding national debt is as frightening to traditional conservatives in the Republican Party as it is to liberals, moderates and conservatives in the Democratic Party.

Conservative Democrats like Congressman Lincoln Davis (D- Tennessee) have been effective in gaining support from both traditional conservative Republicans and Democrats of all ideological stripes. Congressman Harold Ford (D- Tennessee) seems to be doing the same in his campaign for the US Senate seat being vacated by Bill Frist.

Fiscal conservatism has become a very important element in Democratic election successes. Restricting the invasions of privacy and erosions of freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights is another element of the appeal of many Democratic candidates to traditional conservative voters.

It is clear that traditional conservative need to start ignoring the Democratic or Republican labels when voting. Issues matter. Policy positions and actions matter more than empty words.

Traditional conservatives should be looking at the actions and beliefs of the Bush Republicans, “neo-cons”, so-called Christian Rightists and greedy Corporatists and deciding if these are the kind of people that should be using the “conservative” label!

Written by Stephen Crockett ( the moderate conservative co-host of Democratic Talk Radio http://www.DemocraticTalkRadio.com ).