AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Asherman wrote:

If you're talking to me, then you haven't read much of my writing. I don't post nearly so often as most here, but I am guilty of lengthy responses. On the other hand, what you get from me is strictly my own opinion and not the cut and paste jobs of some yahoo commentator from either extreme. If you want to see/read/listen to those folk's opinions, I expect you can find them without my help. I try to stay reasonably current, but certainly don't make a fetish of it. Most of my comments are drawn from the fundamentals I've come to believe in over my life.

Yes, and don't forget some of us appreciate your honest, forthright, and well thought out opinions. Refreshing to say the least.

0 Replies

Re: AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

nimh wrote:

In the original post of this thread,

Foxfyre wrote:
It is a given that most American liberals didn't like President Bush to begin with and didn't vote for Republicans for Congress either. Therefore, it can be concluded that the GOP lost power when it violated those issues most important to their base generally imbedded in an ideology known as modern Conservatism.

What is striking to me is the absolute us/them, black/white thinking involved in this analysis: if you're not with us, you're against us. Liberals wouldnt vote for us anyhow, so the only reason we are losing now must be because we're not properly catering for conservatives.

Striking by their absence in this view: moderates. ......
......

nimh, I think the voting population is becoming more liberal all the time. In order to survive, the Republicans will have to cater to more moderate and liberal voters. I am sad about it, but that is what I see. The reasons are myriad, but I would blame it on popular culture, the buy now - pay later culture, its somebody else's fault culture, the do whatever feels good culture, the age of materialism, government can solve any problem mentality, and an educational system that enforces the above notions. Consequently, politicians pretty much give to people what they want, and so we will continue to see a gradual shift to the left. Unless there comes along an event that changes attitudes, or if a conservative leader of extraordinary ability comes along to articulate and lead the cause much better than we see now. I hope I am wrong on the above, but thats the way I see it going.

0 Replies

Quote:

Steering an even closer, narrower conservative line will not win you back Independents, Hispanics, suburban voters and the youth vote. But of course, I encourage the Republicans to try to do so anyway.

Yes, please.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

No, I don't regard it extreme idealism to "generally better the world for the benefit of" ourselves and others. That isn't idealism so much as it is working to advance the our own self-interest, while improving the lot of others.

It is extreme idealism to suppose that human imperfections can somehow magically be erased by the adoption of some "ideal" system. We can dream of a world without imperfections, but expect that to occur anytime in the next ten centuries is "extreme".

So far in my opinion, no system of government so practically deals with imperfectability of humans as does the United States Consitution. No system of economic or politics is better suited to promoting diversity and individual liberty than that which has evolved in the United States since 1787.

I won't go into the rationalizations about invading and occupying Iraq (I can see the rational behind that of Afghanistan), I've done that here on A2K for years to the point of near obsessive compulsion, but in your first paragraph you left out the qualifying part about the policy of invasive and occupational war to effect the betterment of the world. That's pretty extreme, invasive and occupational war to better the world. Also, if you know human imperfections cannot be erased (at least by magic, you don't mention war.), what is the purpose of these wars? Surely, it's not an idealistic attempt to implement some system of government like that of the United States Constitution. It would be extreme idealism to suppose that human imperfections can somehow magically be erased by the adoption of some "ideal" system.

So, if the US is working to advance the our own self-interest, while improving the lot of others, how exactly is the US trying to effect these ends, and more to the point, how is this approach not idealistic by the criteria that you've established?

0 Replies

"... in your first paragraph you left out the qualifying part about the policy of invasive and occupational war to effect the betterment of the world."

That's because I don't agree with your assertion that our involvement in Iraq was in pursuit of a "policy of invasive and occupational war to (a)ffect the betterment of the world". Nor was Iraq "invaded" on any single and simply stated basis.

Iran was in violation of Cease Fire terms, and promoted the illusion that it had, or was in close pursuit of WMD. Our resumption of hostilities was reasonable, and justified by Saddam. He was given ample opportunity to avoid the resumption of hostilities, and chose to believe that the U.S. wouldn't dare act so long as his allies in the UN objected.

Iran was targeted because it lies at the center of gravity for the Radical Islamic Movement between the Suni radicals in Saudi Arabia/Palestine and the Shi'a of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Ba'ath Party of Iraq and Syria were secular only in the sense that the head of government is a dictator rather than a Mullah. Both Syria and Iraq provided financial and moral support of terrorism against Israel and the West. Regime change from Saddam's dictatorship to a representative secular government would be an important element in blunting the terrorism preached by the Radical Islamic Movement in the region. In hindsight, that hope may seem optimistic, but it remains a valid reason for working for a stable secular representative government in Iraq.

One of the reasons that the Taliban felt confident enough to openly support Al Queda and other Radical Islamic organizations, was the remoteness of their position and the difficulties the U.S. would have in making a direct military response there. But, Al Queda overplayed its hand and in the wake of 9/11, the newly independent states to their north agreed to allow small contingents of US to cross over into Northern Afghanistan where a few War Lords still held out against the Taliban. Pakistan permitted overflights of combat and logistical aircraft. Saudi Arabia, embarrassed by the nationality of the 9/11 terrorists and uneasy with Ossam's condemnation of Saudi policies, gave permission for an increased US military presence along the Iraqi border. All three of those concessions were important factors without which a successful land attack on Iraq would have been nigh on to impossible.

To leave Iraq now to fall into civil war and ultimate domination by the Radical Islamic Movement would be a disaster. Logistical lines to support our efforts in Afghanistan would be long, arduous and insufficient to counter a resurgent Taliban, especially if the Pakistani government were to fall into the hands of Radical Islamists. A secure and stable Iraq is an important foothold in the very heart of the region. We need at least the potential for forward basing US forces there, and as a logistical node to Afghanistan.

We abandoned the Iraqi People by leaving Saddam to murder thousands after Gulf I, and we "owed" those people and their families relief from one of the world's most brutal dictatorships. The Iraqi People, by and large wanted and still want a secular government and the peace to practice their religion without interference and suppression by others. Saddam is gone, but the violence continues. Again in hindsight, errors were made. The US military doctrine espoused by Rumsfeld worked, but was inadequate to maintaining security and restoring order after Saddam was gone. Our inability to guarantee security made formation of a new secular Iraqi government more difficult than supposed. Our troops were kept small and in garrison to protect the troops, and avoid the appearance of being an "occupation force" setting up a puppet government. These were all mistakes in hindsight, but were reasonable at the time. Our good intentions led to more problems than if we had just laid down the "law" from the get-go.

Is our involvement in Iraq in our own best interests? You bet. Is it to extend the benefits of liberty and individual choice? You bet. Is it to carry the fight to the stronghold of an enemy who has "declared war" on us and everything we value? You bet. Is it worth over 4,000 American casualties and the expenditure of huge sums? You bet.

0 Replies

Footnoting for the moment that I intend to get back to Nimh's post but, alas, the real world requires that I be elsewhere for awhile.

0 Replies

Re: AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

nimh wrote:

In the original post of this thread,

Foxfyre wrote:
It is a given that most American liberals didn't like President Bush to begin with and didn't vote for Republicans for Congress either. Therefore, it can be concluded that the GOP lost power when it violated those issues most important to their base generally imbedded in an ideology known as modern Conservatism.

What is striking to me is the absolute us/them, black/white thinking involved in this analysis: if you're not with us, you're against us. Liberals wouldnt vote for us anyhow, so the only reason we are losing now must be because we're not properly catering for conservatives.

Striking by their absence in this view: moderates. They make up some 40% of the voting population. They are neither liberal nor conservative. Many of them thought Kerry too liberal; and a strong case could hypothetically be made that Obama is really too liberal for them too. But of course, in order to make it, one's own side in turn shouldnt be too conservative for moderate tastes.

The Republican Party is not losing elections primarily because of disappointed true conservatives. They might not be as passionate as they were in 2000 anymore, but by and large they will still come out and vote, especially is the opponent is liberal enough. The Republican Party is losing elections because of disappointed moderates. Those are the ones who are not just less energised than normally, but are outright defecting to the other side.

The idea that it's just liberals who think the republican party is too conservative, and since they wont ever vote red anyhow, the only thing that'll really help is too better cater for the real conservative tastes, misses the point that in the US landscape, conservatives (much like liberals) dont have a majority behind them in the public opinion. There's too many moderates between 'em.

Between Democratic and Republican partisans, there is an ever increasing number of Independent voters, who now outnumber either party's supporters. And just like they may be turned off by what they see as Democratic candidates' love for big government and weakness on national security, so they are turned off by the neoconservative wars and religious conservative zeal in the Republican party. Steering even more true to the conservative line wont win you back those votes.

It's like NRCC chairman Cole is said to describe it in the above article: the conservative movement's "aggressive rhetoric on some social issues alienated young voters, its swagger on immigration hardened Hispanic voters against Republicans and its emphasis on tax cuts for the wealthy made it difficult for the party to appeal to populist voters". Or like the former R.N.C. chairman Ken Mehlman is quoted in the same article: "What is concerning is that we lost ground in every one of the highest-growth demographics."

Look again at how it counts the ways: "Republicans had traditionally won the votes of independents; in 2006, they lost them by 18 percent. Hispanic voters, who gave the Democrats less than 60 percent of their votes in 2004, cast more than 70 percent of their votes for Democrats in 2006. Suburban voters, long a Republican constituency, favored Democrats in 2006 for the first time since 1992. And Democrats won their largest share of voters under 30 in the modern era [..]".

Steering an even closer, narrower conservative line will not win you back Independents, Hispanics, suburban voters and the youth vote. But of course, I encourage the Republicans to try to do so anyway.

Excellent post. Highlighted in Red is definately something I can identify with.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Quote:

The Republican Party is not losing elections primarily because of disappointed true conservatives. They might not be as passionate as they were in 2000 anymore, but by and large they will still come out and vote, especially is the opponent is liberal enough. The Republican Party is losing elections because of disappointed moderates. Those are the ones who are not just less energised than normally, but are outright defecting to the other side.

As I argued earlier, this gets it right whereas Foxfire's insistence (she's echoing the insistence of movement advocates) that the movement/republican party is in trouble only because it hasn't been true enough to 'movement principles' or to 'conservative principles' gets it wrong.

These folks get it wrong in two ways; first, the new conservative movement does not, in many important aspects, reflect traditional conservatism at all, and second, the movement holds to a circular and axiomatic notion that it has got hold of the truth of things and therefore whenever or wherever it fails, it only fails through falling away from self-certainty and rigid maintenance of ideology.

Paul Weyrich, early new conservative movement organizer (co-founded the Heritage Foundation, for example) said, "We are different from previous generations of conservatives...We are no longer working to preserve the status quo. We are radicals, working to overturn the present power structure of this country."

The shift towards radical ideology in the new conservative movement can be seen in many ways, but here's one example related to health care. In 1974, Richard Nixon said, "Comprehensive health insurance is an idea whose time has come in America. Let us act now to assure all Americans financial access to high quality medical care." Which places Nixon left of many Democrats presently.

Jonathan Chait writes of the radicalism of the modern conservative movement in terms of its relationship to a cult or sect...

Quote:

One of the classic traits of sectarian thought is a belief that failure can result only from doctrinal impurity. This is one of the defining features of modern conservatism. Every conservative setback is invariably followed by a purification ritual, whereby the conservative leader is declared a heretic. As we saw earlier, the most famous such apostate is, of course, George HW Bush. But nearly every titular leader of the Republican Party since Reagan has suffered a similar fate. New Gingrich, even before he led the GOP takeover of Congress, was the very face of conservative zeal...By 1997, the Republican Revolution, as its adherents called it...turned against their champion, "Where once there was awe and gratitude [toward Gingrich], there is now disdain and disgust" reported the Weekly Standard...

George W Bush, too, was revered by conservatives before many of them finally decided he was a heretic and a fraud..."

the Big Con, page237-238

0 Replies

Once more the cons con.

Quote:

Fox hired Megyn Kelly because she understands 'left bias.'

Megyn Kelly is the co-anchor of Fox's daytime news program "America's Newsroom." In a profile in today's Washington Post, Howard Kurtz explains why Brit Hume - Fox's Washington managing editor - why he hired Kelly:

"Here is this woman who was strikingly attractive but has tremendous air presence and a very strong voice," Hume says. "We were knocked out. It was screamingly obvious that this was someone with tremendous potential."

What's more, says Hume, "she seemed to get what we've talked about with �'fair and balanced news' She came in believing there was a left bias in the news. That's not common." He quickly created an opening for her.

http://thinkprogress.org/

When Faux folds, would anyone actually hire a dolt like Hume?

0 Replies

Bringing yet more honor back to the WH. Just how does he do it! It must be his fundamentally moral nature.

Quote:

Jackson ignored housing crisis, solicited 'emergency bid' for oil portrait of himself.

This week, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Alphonso Jackson will be leaving office under a cloud of ethics investigations. But less examined than his corruption was his inattention to the housing crisis. During Jackson's tenure, "foreclosures for loans insured by HUD's Federal Housing Administration (FHA) have risen and default rates have hit a record high." The Washington Post reports:

In late 2006, as economists warned of an imminent housing market collapse, housing Secretary Alphonso Jackson repeatedly insisted that the mounting wave of mortgage failures was a short-term "correction."

http://thinkprogress.org/#21688

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Is our involvement in Iraq in our own best interests? You bet. Is it to extend the benefits of liberty and individual choice? You bet. Is it to carry the fight to the stronghold of an enemy who has "declared war" on us and everything we value? You bet. Is it worth over 4,000 American casualties and the expenditure of huge sums? You bet.

Gasp, textbook exteme idealism. That you can't (or won't) see it for what it is is dumbfoundingly ironic.

0 Replies

I certainly know that European conservatives are different to those in the USA, and I'm aware of the fact that this thread is only about those in the US.

But nevertheless I find it interesting that the German conservatives (the Christian Democratic Union) in the state of Hamburg will form a coaliton government with the Green party.

It will be the first CDU-Green coalition in a state government in Germany.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Once more the cons con.

Quote:

Fox hired Megyn Kelly because she understands 'left bias.'

Megyn Kelly is the co-anchor of Fox's daytime news program "America's Newsroom." In a profile in today's Washington Post, Howard Kurtz explains why Brit Hume - Fox's Washington managing editor - why he hired Kelly:

"Here is this woman who was strikingly attractive but has tremendous air presence and a very strong voice," Hume says. "We were knocked out. It was screamingly obvious that this was someone with tremendous potential."

What's more, says Hume, "she seemed to get what we've talked about with �'fair and balanced news' She came in believing there was a left bias in the news. That's not common." He quickly created an opening for her.

http://thinkprogress.org/

When Faux folds, would anyone actually hire a dolt like Hume?

Fox enjoys the highest ratings--not just barely but substantially--of all the cable news media and is not likely to fold any time soon. And why are they so successful? Because they actually DO provide more news and less indoctrination--they even dare to give GOOD news now and then and don't go out of their way to present most news as something sinister and negative.

I'm still going to get back to Nimh's post, but will preface that by saying that you can't judge the attitude of the American public by political party affiliation alone. I plan to explore it in more depth, but initially I do not believe that most 'moderates' or 'independents' are anti-conservatives. I believe that without labels attached, most will hold more modern conservative views than modern liberal views. As the Republican are in a distinct majority in voter registrations--I don't think they have ever outnumbered the Democrats--the fact that Republicans keep winning elections suggests that their base is not necessarily registered Republicans.

0 Replies

The success of the Fox Network reminds me an H. L. Mencken statement:
"no one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

Fox is aimed at the lowest common denominator relative to intelligence, and this is an absolutely no-fail economic strategy.

0 Replies

"It will be the first CDU-Green coalition in a state government in Germany."

the worst thing in German politics is this.
Green party of Germany had produced a taxi driver as American professor.( 60 year's birthday)
A guy who had ruled or ruined with his party had a nice legal luminary after the death of an intellectual multilingual wife. His name is Kohl.
The lady represent Germany with her saging curves in internation press.
Nazi kids are butchering the immigrants.
Talk show ( halfbacked potatoes) avoid the real problems of Germany.
Corruption is all pervasive like Jesus.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

The success of the Fox Network reminds me an H. L. Mencken statement:
"no one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

Fox is aimed at the lowest common denominator relative to intelligence, and this is an absolutely no-fail economic strategy.

You might want to try it sometime instead of parroting the standard liberal anti-Republican line Advocate. Fox News is the one network that actually gives Israel fair treatment in its presentation of the news.

0 Replies

I do tune into Fox occasionally, and find that it mostly sophomoric and biased. Moreover, it is at the bottom rung of the media.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

I do tune into Fox occasionally, and find that it mostly sophomoric and biased. Moreover, it is at the bottom rung of the media.

But it is consistantly at the top of the ratings.
So it must be doing something right.

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know