A high-level muckety-muck writes, in partial answer to my column today worrying that the president’s speech will alienate conservatives while not converting liberals to his cause:

Most conservatives praised the President’s speech last night, though there are some who worry that we are embarking on a “new Great Society.” In my estimation this concern is ill-founded. Here’s why.
No one wants to spend billions of dollars if it can be avoided. Yet we face a situation in which the Gulf Coast region was hit by the worst natural disaster in American history. There is no alternative but to spend billions of dollars to help the region’s innocent people rebuild their infrastructure, remove debris, send health professional and medical supplies to those in need, provide shelter to hundreds of thousands of evacuee families, help displaced persons apply for temporary jobs and unemployment benefits, and so much more.
The federal government has a moral obligation and a legal commitment (under the 1988 Stafford Act) to help a region recover from a disaster of this magnitude. Reconstruction costs for public infrastructure are built in; the question is what additional policies to advance. The President faced a choice: he could pursue policies that have been repeatedly tried and repeatedly failed — or he could pursue a new, more conservative approach. The President, as you might expect, has cast his lot with the latter.
Last night’s speech is an unprecedented effort to use conservative means to alleviate persistent poverty. The key to the President’s approach is to use the federal government to catalyze and energize private institutions and individual choice. The point is obvious enough: the core of Great Society programs was not tax relief for small businesses; individual private accounts; federal reimbursements for displaced students to attend private and religious schools; home ownership; and encouraging a larger role for charitable groups like Habitat for Humanity. The approaches, and the underlying philosophy, are quite different.
To reiterate: the federal government is required by statute to respond to a disaster of this magnitude and to bear most of the costs of reconstruction; that is not an option. The question, then, is how the response fully manifests itself. The President’s approach is to promote the common good by using government in wise, appropriate, and conservative ways. He understands it is entrepreneurship that helps break the cycle of poverty; that personal accounts give people good options when it comes to job training and education; and that home ownership is one of the great strengths of any community and it must be a central part of our vision for the revival of the Gulf Coast Region.
President Bush is using “energy in the executive” to bring about reform and results. He is advocating ideas that have been championed by conservatives for more than a generation. And because taxpayers expect this work to be done honestly and wisely, we will have a team of inspector generals from federal agencies reviewing all expenditures. I would add, too, that last week the President implemented two proposals conservatives have long championed: suspending the Davis-Bacon Act and the Jones Act, which will accelerate recovery efforts by cutting through bureaucratic red tape.
As the President said last night, we will do what it takes; we will stay as long as it takes; and we will help citizens rebuild their communities and their lives. And we will do so in a way that advances compassion and time-honored conservative principles.