I really don't read Mr. Beinart's work very often, I see his name occassionally on the daily list of editorials as I'm making my cyber-rounds on realclearpolitics. But this idea of Mr. Beinert's that Bush is more conservative that Reagan is, well, asinine. From a fiscal standpoint, there are two basic measuring sticks for conservatism: 1) spending policy, and the first metric of spending policy is simply the overall rate of spending growth on non-defense items; 2) tax policy.
On non-defense government spending, Bush is, by all definitions, a big spender, aka a liberal; the most liberal President of my generation, based on spending policies. If social liberalism is defined by the advancement of a central government getting bigger, and claiming more power through socialized spending, then President Bush is the most liberal President since, well, I was going to say Jimmy Carter, but by this definition, he's more liberal than Carter. Hmmm, if I had the time, I'd have to look this one up. He makes Clinton look like Mr. Skinflint when it comes to spending on non-defense items.
On tax policies, Bush has been somewhat more conservative, although a closer look at the actual impact his tax policies have had on the wealthy indicated that Bush's tax policies have resulted in a greater tax burden on the wealthy, not a lessor burden.
If this is the opinion of Mr. Beinart, that Pres. Bush is more conservative than Reagan, but that the conservatism just didn't work; it's clear that Mr. Beinart is making an ideological attempt to distort, and deliberately lie, about the Mr. Bush's policies. A rather pathetic attempt, if I may add.