AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@hamburger,

hamburger wrote:

perhaps we should all go back in time to the 15 th and 16 th century .
many little fiefdoms with "rulers" that force their subjects to build castles for them .
each group lives by itself as much as possible - occasionally invades and makes war with a neighbour state - no one would have to worry about how the people even a few hundred miles away live .
there would have to be little discussion about what is "the common good" - the local ruler would decide for them what is "good for him" .
who would want to worry about the hungry peasants .
is that what an ideal "republican and conservative state" would look like ?

just kidding - no reply required !

hbg

I hope you don't mind a bit of discussion. The whole great experiment of the United States was to establish a whole new concept based on a principle of personal freedom and recognition of and protection of unalienable (natural) God given rights in a way that was impossible under monarchy or feudalism. Every man was entitled to the fruit of his own labor and to his own property that was legally acquired. Such rights were secured by a Constitution that is authorized by the consent of the people and the people they elect to represent them, not drafted and pronounced official by some despotic authority. No free citizen could be forced into service of another without the consent of both.

Recognizing that the common defense requires a coordinated effort by all, that responsibility was assigned to the Federal government as were some other functions necessarily for effective protection and orderly conduct of trade and commerce between the various states and other nation; also regulations that keep the peace. The Costitution allows the elected representatives to levy and collect uniform taxes necessary for such limited and narrowly defined responsibilities of the Federal government.

Everything else was assigned to the various States within the scope and limitations of their various government authorities.

Using MACean logic, for the government to be able to confiscate property from Citizen A to be used for the specific benefit of Citizen B violates both the intent and authority of the U.S. Constitution. I think most MACs have no problem with charity or seeing to the needs of the less fortunate and/or truly helpless and in fact are generally willing to invest much of themselves and/or their property to help out. They just don't see the Federal government as the practical or legal entity to administer that.

0 Replies

Among those truly thoughtful, smart, and intellectually honest liberals that I appreciate and admire a lot is Camille Paglia. She is Atheist, Democrat, and an Obama supporter, and she and I disagree on much, but she is one of the few on the Left who is able to articulate a competent rationale for her point of view and who is not threatened by or hostile to opposing opinions.

I caught up with her most recent column in Salon.com and don't find a lot in it to quarrel with:

Quote:

Heads should roll
President Obama's clumsy, smirky staff is sinking him -- and resurrecting a deflated GOP! Plus: Lay off Rush! And a Brazilian diva, up close and electric
By Camille Paglia
March 11, 2009 |

Free Barack!

Yes, free the president from his flacks, fixers and goons -- his posse of smirky smart alecks and provincial rubes, who were shrewd enough to beat the slow, pompous Clintons in the mano-a-mano primaries but who seem like dazed lost lambs in the brave new world of federal legislation and global statesmanship.

Heads should be rolling at the White House for the embarrassing series of flubs that have overshadowed President Obama's first seven weeks in office and given the scattered, demoralized Republicans a huge boost toward regrouping and resurrection. (Michelle, please use those fabulous toned arms to butt some heads!)

First it was that chaotic pig rut of a stimulus package, which let House Democrats throw a thousand crazy kitchen sinks into what should have been a focused blueprint for economic recovery. Then it was the stunt of unnerving Wall Street by sending out a shrill duo of slick geeks (Timothy Geithner and Peter Orszag) as the administration's weirdly adolescent spokesmen on economics. Who could ever have confidence in that sorry pair?

And then there was the fiasco of the ham-handed White House reception for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, which was evidently lacking the most basic elements of ceremony and protocol. Don't they read the "Iliad" anymore in the Ivy League? Check that out for the all-important ritual of gift giving, which has cemented alliances around the world for 5,000 years.

President Obama -- in whom I still have great hope and confidence -- has been ill-served by his advisors and staff. Yes, they have all been blindsided and overwhelmed by the crushing demands of the presidency. But I continue to believe in citizen presidents, who must learn by doing, even in a perilous age of terrorism. Though every novice administration makes blunders and bloopers, its modus operandi should not be a conspiratorial reflex cynicism.

Case in point: The orchestrated attack on radio host Rush Limbaugh, which has made the White House look like an oafish bunch of drunken frat boys. I returned from carnival in Brazil (more on that shortly) to find the Limbaugh affair in full flower. Has the administration gone mad? This entire fracas was set off by the president himself, who lowered his office by targeting a private citizen by name. Limbaugh had every right to counterattack, which he did with gusto. Why have so many Democrats abandoned the hallowed principle of free speech? Limbaugh, like our own liberal culture hero Lenny Bruce, is a professional commentator who can be as rude and crude as he wants.

Yes, I cringe when Rush plays his "Barack the Magic Negro" satire or when he gratuitously racializes the debate over Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb, who is a constant subject of withering scrutiny for quite different reasons on sports shows here in Philadelphia. On the other hand, I totally agree with Rush about "feminazis," whose amoral tactics and myopic worldview I as a dissident feminist had to battle for decades. As a student of radio and a longtime listener of Rush's show, I have gotten a wealth of pleasure and insight from him over the years. To attack Rush Limbaugh is to attack his audience -- and to intensify the loyalty of his fan base.

If Rush's presence looms too large for the political landscape, it's because of the total vacuity of the Republican leadership, which seems to be in a dithering funk. Rush isn't responsible for the feebleness of Republican voices or the thinness of Republican ideas. Only ignoramuses believe that Rush speaks for the Republican Party. On the contrary, Rush as a proponent of heartland conservatism has waged open warfare with the Washington party establishment for years.

And I'm sick of people impugning Rush's wealth and lifestyle, which is no different from that of another virtuoso broadcaster who hit it big -- Oprah Winfrey. Rush Limbaugh is an embodiment of the American dream: He slowly rose from obscurity to fame on the basis of his own talent and grit. Every penny Rush has earned was the result of his rapport with a vast audience who felt shut out and silenced by the liberal monopoly of major media. As a Democrat and Obama supporter, I certainly do not agree with everything Rush says or does. I was deeply upset, for example, by the sneering tone both Rush and Sean Hannity took on Inauguration Day, when partisan politics should have been set aside for a unifying celebration of American government and history. Nevertheless, I respect Rush for his independence of thought and his always provocative news analysis. He doesn't run with the elite -- he goes his own way.

President Obama should yank the reins and get his staff's noses out of slash-and-burn petty politics. His own dignity and prestige are on the line. If he wants a second term, he needs to project a calmer perspective about the eternal reality of vociferous opposition, which is built into our democratic system. Right now, the White House is starting to look like Raphael's scathing portrait of a pampered, passive Pope Leo X and his materialistic cardinals -- one of the first examples of an artist sending a secret, sardonic message to posterity. Do those shifty, beady-eyed guys needing a shave remind you of anyone? Yes, it's bare-knuckles Chicago pugilism, transplanted to Washington. The charitably well-meaning but hopelessly extravagant Leo X, by the way, managed to mishandle the birth of the Protestant Reformation, which permanently split Christianity.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/03/11/mercury/index.html

1 Reply

I'm torn on this.

On one hand, I think it's below Obama's office to even address Rush.

On the other, I think the point being made largely by the DNC and the WH staff is that republican leadership is being hijacked by Rush. The reason, I think this is worth addressing is that Rush has engineered himself as the antithesis of Obama, and it's up to Republicans to choose to embrace Rush or come into the fold. It's ridiculous that the GOP is afraid of a man like Rush.

It feels like the GOP is at a vital point in it's identity right now: The point where they must choose what type of ideology leads their party. I think letting Rush posture as the leader of one brand of that ideology is the perfect metaphor to help people choose. It's time for the GOP to become more moderate. Pouring fuel on the culture wars (guns, god, and gays) is just not going to cut it anymore.

Part of Obama's agenda is to get past that. Letting rush get lots of attention and define the GOP is the kind of thing that will render that kind of extremism irrelevant in future days. People will reject it.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

That's not the only issue; Limbaugh has been around to attract the far right conservatives much longer than any politician of note, and has a lot more influence.

Politics as anything else in our country deserves the "freedom of speech," and it runs both ways whether they are elected officials or not.

As often is the case, an offense is about the best defense one can have. Limbaugh provides that forum in our country for the democrats.

On the same token, Sarah Palin and joe the plumber still makes news in most of the major media even though they are only "citizens" on the national level.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

For the most part, Ruch, Hannity, Inghram, et al are expressing a MACean conservatism that the GOP base craves, and which somewhere along the way our elected GOP Representatives and Senators lost the will to express. The Left has long loved to say that the 'talking heads' dictate modern conservatism in the USA, but that simply isn't true. They provide a voice for what we already believe; the convictions that we already hold. If they did not, they would have a fraction of the audience they have if they would have any audience at all.

Again, if Rush had any power, Bill Clinton would not have been elected - twice - John McCain would not have been the GOP nominee, and Barack Obama would not be President now.

Beginning in the 70's and continuing to modern time, most newspapers, network television, cable news, etc. have been dominated by children of the 60's, anti-establishment, anti-traditional American values, anti-conservative values people who perpetuate and mentor their own liberal views within their organizations. Ditto most major universities these days. Conservative views are largely crowded out, discouraged, maligned, punished, and thereby often silenced. Even the partially taxpayer supported NPR went that route.

Talk radio, and to a much lesser extent Fox News, is pretty much the only national forum modern Conservatism has left. It isn't Rush we seek to protect when we rail against calls to shut him up or discredit him. Ir is the ability to protect one of the few remaining avenues to have conservative thought expressed on a national scale.

Paglia is right though. The more the Obama administration attempts to silence or marginalize or ridicule Rush Limbaugh, he is attacking those of us who share at least some points of view with Rush. Not smart for a President who campaigned on a pledge of bipartisanship and openness to all points of view.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

For the most part, Ruch, Hannity, Inghram, et al are motly expressing a MACean conservatism that the GOP base craves, and which somewhere along the way our elected GOP Representatives and Senators lost the will to express.

What they "crave?"

Come on Fox. This is seriously lame. If they "crave" this kind of leadership, they can back it up with a vote and sleep in the bed they make. Meanwhile, Rush et al can pump out criticism after criticism without putting anything on the line. All the ice cream he wants for desert, and he doesn't even have to finish his vegitables.

I may not favor GOP leadership, but they are there because they are what the people "crave." They deserve more respect than some idiot shouting on the radio. Hell, I'm sure you hate Al Franken, but he was ultimately willing to face the people of his state and try to make a difference. You may have buyer's remorse because these Republicans don't meet your infoulable definition of a MAC, but it's no excuse. You'll continue to choose victory over principal, and if you sincerely don't approve of your Republican leaders it's you that keeps them at their desk. Meanwhile, You can rally around some nothing master like Rush.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

How is it lame? To want to hear one's point of view expressed is lame? To want to have one's personal convictions affirmed is lame? To want our leaders to keep their campaign promises and stand up for what they said they supported is lame? Perhaps you haven't noticed that the GOP was voted out of power in 2006 and lost further ground in 2008? The GOP base perhaps isn't as willing to vote for and accept politicians who talk out of both sides of their mouth as some others apparently are.

You, however, have no authority of any kind to presume to tell me what I will support, who I will vote for, or who I vote to keep at whatever desk.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Actions speak louder than words.

0 Replies

It is interesting to continue to observe the extreme hypocrisy in the media and the hyper-partisans. The main thrust of the criticism launched against Rush is that he said flat out that if Obama engages in a far Left, liberal extremist, socialist agenda, that Rush wants him to fail in that. Of course the Obama administration and their surrogates distort that and make it simply that "Rush says he wants Obama to fail" and conveniently leave off the qualifier. The drive by media has been more than willing to perpetuate that distortion as well.

But then there is this that surfaced in the last week:

Quote:

Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail.
By Bill Sammon
FOXNews.com
Wednesday, March 11, 2009

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."

Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.

"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.

The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: "They don't want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails."

Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!"

The press followed Carville's orders, never reporting his or Greenberg's desire for Bush to fail. The omission was understandable at first, as reporters were consumed with chronicling the new war on terror. But months and even years later, the mainstream media chose to never resurrect those controversial sentiments, voiced by the Democratic Party's top strategists, that Bush should fail.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

How is it lame? To want to hear one's point of view expressed is lame? To want to have one's personal convictions affirmed is lame? To want our leaders to keep their campaign promises and stand up for what they said they supported is lame? Perhaps you haven't noticed that the GOP was voted out of power in 2006 and lost further ground in 2008? The GOP base perhaps isn't as willing to vote for and accept politicians who talk out of both sides of their mouth as some others apparently are.

This stems back to the flaw in your original post Fox. The GOP isn't losing ground because it's not conservative enough, it's because it's TOO conservative. To entertain a notion of compromise or moderation is unfathomable. You are so critical of the people YOU VOTE FOR. You'd rather vote for someone based on their chance of winning than their principals.

Foxfyre wrote:

You, however, have no authority of any kind to presume to tell me what I will support, who I will vote for, or who I vote to keep at whatever desk.

It takes no authority, only your own admission, to prove me right.

What does Fox claim to be? A conservative.
Does Fox think Bush is a Conservative? No.
Did Fox vote for him? Yes.
Does Fox think McCain is a Conservative? No.
Did Fox vote for him? Yes.
Why didn't McCain win? He wasn't conservative enough/He abandoned his conservative principals blah blah.

By this logic Fox, if McCain had been more conservative he would have won. But he didn't have to earn your vote now did he? He just had to NOT be Obama. You provide a constant false dilemma. You could have found a candidate you believe in, but you didn't.

Face it Fox. You want to be a conservative, but you're a poser. You're just another Republican. You would have voted for any of the republican candidates. I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise.

If you want to hide behind some notion that no true conservative ran for office, then I think that's very telling about your beliefs. All unicorns.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

How is it lame? To want to hear one's point of view expressed is lame? To want to have one's personal convictions affirmed is lame? To want our leaders to keep their campaign promises and stand up for what they said they supported is lame? Perhaps you haven't noticed that the GOP was voted out of power in 2006 and lost further ground in 2008? The GOP base perhaps isn't as willing to vote for and accept politicians who talk out of both sides of their mouth as some others apparently are.

This stems back to the flaw in your original post Fox. The GOP isn't losing ground because it's not conservative enough, it's because it's TOO conservative. To entertain a notion of compromise or moderation is unfathomable. You are so critical of the people YOU VOTE FOR. .

I don't believe there is a flaw in my original post, nor do I believe you can provide a single credible source to dispute my opinion about that. If you can, go for it. How do you reconcile your conviction when you you in one breath accuse me of being unable to compromise or exercise moderation and in the next breath accuse me of being critical of the people I vote for?

Quote:

"You'd rather vote for someone based on their chance of winning than their principals"

This is both ad hominem and insulting. It is no different than me saying that you would vote for a Democrat if he was the second coming of Hitler which would be equally as absurd. If I was interested in voting for the one with the best chance of winning, I would have voted for Obama. I did NOT vote for McCain in the primary however.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:

You, however, have no authority of any kind to presume to tell me what I will support, who I will vote for, or who I vote to keep at whatever desk.

It takes no authority, only your own admission, to prove me right.

What does Fox claim to be? A conservative.

Not a 'conservative' as some wish conservative to be exclusively defined here. I do claim to be a Modern American Conservative i.e. classical liberal.

Quote:

Does Fox think Bush is a Conservative? No.
Did Fox vote for him? Yes.

He has been very conservative on some issues and he has been very liberal on others. Is he a MACean conservative. No. He disappointed me terribly there. But he got some things right too.

I voted for him the first time because I believed he was a MACean conservative. He disappointed me.

I voted for him the second time knowing he was not a MACean conservative, but knowing that he was a whole lot more conservative than John Kerry. So that was a compromise of sorts despite your snotty attempt to paint me as uncompromising. If the choice is between something I'm not entirely happy with and somebody I wouldn't want to be my President under ANY circumstances, I accept the best that I can get.

Quote:

Does Fox think McCain is a Conservative? No.
Did Fox vote for him? Yes.

No I did not believe McCain was a conservative. No I did not vote for him in the primary election. Yes I did vote for him in the general election beecause as liberal as he was, he was nowhere nearly as liberal as Barack Obama. I would very much have appreciated a better choice, but I didn't have one.

Quote:

Why didn't McCain win? He wasn't conservative enough/He abandoned his conservative principals blah blah.

He didn't abandon his conservative principles. He didn't hold a lot of conservative principles. He didn't win because he ran a terrible campaign, he failed to inspire or generate confidence, and he failed to articulate a clear agenda against an attractive, charismatic, articulate opponent who talked a very good game whether or not he believed a word of it.

Quote:

By this logic Fox, if McCain had been more conservative he would have won. But he didn't have to earn your vote now did he? He just had to NOT be Obama. You provide a constant false dilemma. You could have found a candidate you believe in, but you didn't.

I'll refer you to my previous comments and try to pretend that you are not being intentionally contentious and insulting here. If you think "I could have found a candidate I could believe in but didn't'. Did you have no courses in highschool or college on how presidential candidates become candidates at all?

Quote:

Face it Fox. You want to be a conservative, but you're a poser. You're just another Republican. You would have voted for any of the republican candidates. I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise.

If you want to hide behind some notion that no true conservative ran for office, then I think that's very telling about your beliefs. All unicorns.

.[/quote]

Face it TKO. You just ran out of any credible rationale and reverted to the childish ad hominem school yard, self-righteous debate style that seems to plague so many of your fellows. You can do better.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Feel insulted all you like Fox, it's your MO. I'm not the one blushing. It's your bed, you can sleep in it.

Conservatism by any name be it classic or modern is failing. In your continued pathetic attempt to distance it from the Republican party, you seem to believe that you can save MACean dignity by throwing the GOP under the bus.

Meanwhile, a thirteen year old boy stands up at the CPAC and says that the GOP is the shell and conservatism is the heart, then receives a large applause. Go ahead and pretend you're not a part of the GOP problem and chip away at that shell. Once it's gone, you'll just have an intellectually naked ideology which can't blame the GOP for it's failings anymore.

In simple, if your coveted belief was so good, you'd have plenty of leaders with those ideals. You don't. All Unicorns.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

IF the Conservative ideology can find no actual representatives in Washington, and they all just vote Republican by default, then it is fair to say that it is not a respected or prominent ideology in our nation, wouldn't you agree?

Hell, even the Socialists have an elected official at the national level - Bernie Sanders. The Conservative party has none.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

This is the point I've been trying to explain to Fox for sometime. How is it a respected or prominent ideology at all?

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

No, I would not say that it is not a respected or prominent ideology. In fact, if you remove politics from the equation and offer Americans a choice between various principles--principle that are stated in a non confrontational and non leading manner--I believe most Americans still come down on the MACean side of most issues. I still believe Americans are more conservative than they are not when you deal with it on the most basic levels of what we consider important or not.

Too many, however, fall into the trap of denial, or latch on to great sounding rhetoric, or stubbornly hold on to partisanship without fully understanding what it is all about.

Many conservatives, even MACean conservatives, do vote Republican by default perhaps partly in hope that the GOP will make us proud as they did for awhile in the 1990s, but mostly because there is no better alternative offered to us. The Libertarians, the Greens, and a few other political groups have been at it for decades now, and have made few inroads into political power or leadership. It just isn't that easy to bust the status quo.

To TKO, when you get out of your troll mode, please join in the discussion.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

How can you remove politics from a discussion of political ideologies?

You are basically saying there is no application in practice of your ideology. That isn't a very useful ideology.

I have a completely different belief about the nature of Americans; I believe they are generally a liberal people. The history of America and the change we've seen sorta confirm this; over time it has grown to be a more and more liberal society.

Why is it, if your 'MAC' principles are so sound, that they don't have any actual representation in Washington? Why can't you guys get a Conservative elected? Where is the rhetoric on your side to convince people?

I submit that your ideology has very little support in actual politics.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

That's the reason I keep saying Foxie's definition of MAC has no application in real life. It's some "ideal" definition that has very little meaning in and out of Washington DC.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

How can you remove politics from a discussion of political ideologies?

You are basically saying there is no application in practice of your ideology. That isn't a very useful ideology.

I have a completely different belief about the nature of Americans; I believe they are generally a liberal people. The history of America and the change we've seen sorta confirm this; over time it has grown to be a more and more liberal society.

Why is it, if your 'MAC' principles are so sound, that they don't have any actual representation in Washington? Why can't you guys get a Conservative elected? I submit that your ideology has very little support in actual politics.

Cycloptichorn

Our MACean principles have a LOT of representation in Washington DC. We just don't have enough to win at the moment. I voted against a popular GOP congresswoman in the last primary and voted for a true MACean candidate. He won, but unfortunately could not get past the powerful Democratic machine and candidate with great name recognition in the general election. Like I said, it is really tough to go up against the status quo.

But on the other question, everything doesn't have to be a verbal, ideological, or political war. It is to the politicians in Washington because they have and want to keep power at any cost.

But you and I could have a reasoned discussion removed from any political or ideological considerations. You leave all the snarky contentious ugly accusations and references out of it. You don't use "well they did it" or "how hypocritical is that' as arguments. (Rhetorical you is used here.)

For instance:

School vouchers. Would that be a beneficial or harmful policy for the inner city school? You would not be allowed to present anybody else's opinion about it but, as in a formal debate, would present pros and cons based on known statistical data, theory, reason, logic, and similar substance.

I have yet to see that debated when the majority didn't agree that school vouchers could have some merit. Did everybody agree? No, and the opposition also came up with good stuff too.

But insert Democrat/Republican/conservative/liberal terminology into the mix, and it rarely gets debated at all but dissolves into schoolyard taunts, accusations of partisanship, smears of hypocrisy, etc. etc. etc.

Personally, I think that is why we have so much ugliness in our sociopolitical culture these days, and so little is actually debated with any kind of intellectual honesty.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Our MACean principles have a LOT of representation in Washington DC. We just don't have enough to win at the moment.

How about actual elected representatives?

As for the rest, it can be fun to have light-hearted debates about different points, sure. But at the end of the day actual policies are getting passed by real people. That's why we focus on the politics of the thing; because that is real and matters, whereas our conversations are hypothetical and don't really matter much in the long run.

Why are there not actual elected 'MACs'?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

This site is pretty good in ranking members based on their voting record. Assuming that I agree on their definition of 'conservative' or 'liberal' as applied to various issues, I think mid 80's to low 90's would qualify as MACean--much under that would stray into RINO or CINO territory; high 90's would make me suspicious that the person was too rigid in point of view to be MACean and would be more likely to be a far right extremist.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/cons.htm#results

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know