by James Hartley, associate professor of economics

	James Hartley, associate professor of economics, is proud to be a Republican, but he doesn't find many at MHC who share his conservative views.

Hi. My name is Jim and I am a … well, don't tell anyone, but I'm a conservative. And what's more, I'm happy, really happy, that George Bush is now president of the United States. And that's happy as in “literally weeping with joy during the inauguration happy.”

Now in some parts of the country, such happiness wouldn't be particularly newsworthy. But, Mount Holyoke isn't one of those places. No, Mount Holyoke is a rather different place. I don't know of a single one of my colleagues who voted for Bush. People keep telling me that there are other Republican faculty at Mount Holyoke, but to date nobody has been able to name one. (It could be a lack of willingness rather than ability; many people around here think that calling someone a Republican is a rather vicious slur.) But it's not just the faculty. I had a class last semester in which not one student (as in zero) voted for Bush.

Thus, my happiness doesn't seem to be very widespread around these parts. So, I hereby offer up this Sisyphean attempt to spread the joy. My colleagues talk about how Bush is too unqualified or too stupid or too Texan to be an effective president. I know that what they really mean by all these complaints is that Bush isn't liberal enough for their tastes, but nevertheless I must admit that every time I hear this, I smile. While it is heretical to say in these parts, the president is not God; I can think of no better way to end the idolatry of the presidency than to have the idol appear so mortal.

Now, few of my colleagues would identify themselves as idolaters, but in matters of worship, we can identify a person's deity by asking this: If there is a problem, to whom do they look for help? And there is no doubt where my colleagues' impulses run; for any national problem, their first instinct is to call for more government spending and regulation.

It is fairly clear that Bush is not going to play this game of government as savior, which explains why his opponents find him so immature. (Remember, the same accusations were levied against Ronald Reagan.) But, conservatives like me believe that the government already is too big, does too much, and is too intrusive. The beginning of the end starts with starving the Leviathan of its source of sustenance with sizable tax cuts. We should also see direct assaults on the omnipotent state with real welfare reform and sensible environmental law.

Moreover, we have seen the usurpation of the legislative function of government by a judiciary that wants to write the law itself. With Bush, we should see the beginnings of the return of the judiciary to its proper role, with the appointment of justices and judges like Scalia and Thomas.

In foreign policy, we are likely to see the end of feel-good Wilsonian internationalism and a return to Reaganesque policies that put America first. There is no better example of this change than the prospects of missile defense—a stunningly obvious idea that is opposed on the odd grounds that other countries might not like it if we can protect ourselves.

And, lest we forget (and how could we?), the Bush administration marks the end of that long sordid national joke of the Clinton years. His leave-taking was befitting of his whole presidency, and it is with great amusement that I note that his staunchest defenders are, now that he is gone, finally admitting that Clinton tarnished the office of the president and the country itself. Bush brings with him a gale of fresh air, blowing away the fetid cloud that hung around the Clinton administration.

And there is a final reason for joy: Elaine Chao! Finally, we will have a commencement speaker (we will invite her, right?) who doesn't make me wince.