Repudiating Republicanism...

Hillary says that "shared prosperity" or "we're all in this together society" should replace the "on your own society."

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--clinton-economy0529may29,0,2673374.story

Cyclops, are you going to vote for your communist or socialist candidate, better known as a Democrat?

PEGGY NOONAN
Too Bad
President Bush has torn the conservative coalition asunder.

Friday, June 1, 2007 12:00 a.m.

What political conservatives and on-the-ground Republicans must understand at this point is that they are not breaking with the White House on immigration. They are not resisting, fighting and thereby setting down a historical marker--"At this point the break became final." That's not what's happening. What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future.

The White House doesn't need its traditional supporters anymore, because its problems are way beyond being solved by the base. And the people in the administration don't even much like the base. Desperate straits have left them liberated, and they are acting out their disdain. Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place.

For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don't like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don't like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad.

But on immigration it has changed from "Too bad" to "You're bad."

The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism."

Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens? And often, though not exclusively, concerned conservatives? It is odd, but it is of a piece with, or a variation on, the "Too bad" governing style. And it is one that has, day by day for at least the past three years, been tearing apart the conservative movement.

Cyclonote: Hey Peggy, now you know what it's been like to be on the other side this whole time! They insult you and call you UnAmerican for disagreeing with them. Can't say that I'm sad you've joined the party, baby

I suspect the White House and its allies have turned to name calling because they're defensive, and they're defensive because they know they have produced a big and indecipherable mess of a bill--one that is literally bigger than the Bible, though as someone noted last week, at least we actually had a few years to read the Bible. The White House and its supporters seem to be marshalling not facts but only sentiments, and self-aggrandizing ones at that. They make a call to emotions--this is, always and on every issue, the administration's default position--but not, I think, to seriously influence the debate.

They are trying to lay down markers for history. Having lost the support of most of the country, they are looking to another horizon. The story they would like written in the future is this: Faced with the gathering forces of ethnocentric darkness, a hardy and heroic crew stood firm and held high a candle in the wind. It will make a good chapter. Would that it were true!

If they'd really wanted to help, as opposed to braying about their own wonderfulness, they would have created not one big bill but a series of smaller bills, each of which would do one big clear thing, the first being to close the border. Once that was done--actually and believably done--the country could relax in the knowledge that the situation was finally not day by day getting worse. They could feel some confidence. And in that confidence real progress could begin.

The beginning of my own sense of separation from the Bush administration came in January 2005, when the president declared that it is now the policy of the United States to eradicate tyranny in the world, and that the survival of American liberty is dependent on the liberty of every other nation. This was at once so utopian and so aggressive that it shocked me. For others the beginning of distance might have been Katrina and the incompetence it revealed, or the depth of the mishandling and misjudgments of Iraq.

What I came in time to believe is that the great shortcoming of this White House, the great thing it is missing, is simple wisdom. Just wisdom--a sense that they did not invent history, that this moment is not all there is, that man has lived a long time and there are things that are true of him, that maturity is not the same thing as cowardice, that personal loyalty is not a good enough reason to put anyone in charge of anything, that the way it works in politics is a friend becomes a loyalist becomes a hack, and actually at this point in history we don't need hacks.

One of the things I have come to think the past few years is that the Bushes, father and son, though different in many ways, are great wasters of political inheritance. They throw it away as if they'd earned it and could do with it what they liked. Bush senior inherited a vibrant country and a party at peace with itself. He won the leadership of a party that had finally, at great cost, by 1980, fought itself through to unity and come together on shared principles. Mr. Bush won in 1988 by saying he would govern as Reagan had. Yet he did not understand he'd been elected to Reagan's third term. He thought he'd been elected because they liked him. And so he raised taxes, sundered a hard-won coalition, and found himself shocked to lose his party the presidency, and for eight long and consequential years. He had many virtues, but he wasted his inheritance.

Bush the younger came forward, presented himself as a conservative, garnered all the frustrated hopes of his party, turned them into victory, and not nine months later was handed a historical trauma that left his country rallied around him, lifting him, and his party bonded to him. He was disciplined and often daring, but in time he sundered the party that rallied to him, and broke his coalition into pieces. He threw away his inheritance. I do not understand such squandering.

Now conservatives and Republicans are going to have to win back their party. They are going to have to break from those who have already broken from them. This will require courage, serious thinking and an ability to do what psychologists used to call letting go. This will be painful, but it's time. It's more than time.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father" (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Fridays on OpinionJournal.com.

Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

okie wrote:

So if a conservative advocates certain standards to have a drivers license for the common good of drivers on the road, he could become a nazi?

okie, I was not calling Bush a Nazi or a Fascist. I gave an example that can actually be seen here on A2K, where people are as quick in calling Bush a Fascist are you are in labelling Hillary a communist.

But your example of a driver's license: I don't think that wouldn't meet the criteria, unless drivers had to give up some individual rights or freedoms.

Once again, but individual rights or freedoms I'm referring to things like your right to a due process, freedom from other people listening in on your phone conversations, freedom from discrimination based on your age, race or sex when being screened at the airport, etc. etc. etc.

I'm not sure whether or not you'd agree with me, but I would say those are rights or freedoms of the individual (as opposed to society as a whole).

And I think that I'm correct in saying that conservatives are more willing to give them up than liberals.

Of course there are other rights that liberals are quicker to give up than conservatives are: the unabridged right to own and carry guns, the freedom from the burden of higher taxes, etc.

okie wrote:

One of the primary purposes of the federal government, as specified by the constitution, is for the defense of the people, old europe. So monitoring possible terrorist communications are totally reasonable and warranted, old europe.

One of the purposes. The focus merely on the issue of the defense of the people is a conservative focus, though. The Constitution also states that a primary purposes is to

Quote:

promote the general welfare

Yet, whenever somebody proposes measures that would possible beneficial for the society and that would, in fact, promote the general welfare, he often times gets called a socialist or even a communist.

okie wrote:

Things like shutting down tv stations, such as Hugo Chavez, is unwarranted, which he did not for defense but to squash the opposition within his own country. You use the same tactics the leftists use here, by citing the spying of communications that represent a national security threat, and frankly this has been going on a long, long time, under both Democratic and Republican administrations to protect the country. You are so totally out of balance in terms of comparison and purpose, it is utter nonsense.

I had difficulties following what you were trying to say here. But you may notice that the majority of liberals doesn't defend Chavez for restricting press freedom. Likewise, I haven't noticed the majority of conservatives defending e.g. Pinochet for having restricted press freedom in his time.

okie wrote:

Hitler rose to prominence through his workers party, then the Nationalist German Socialist Party with more of a socialist philosophy, not a conservative philosophy.

No, that is really utter nonsense. Hitler's party in 1920 was the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, DAP (German Workers' Party). The reason why it was called the "workers" party was to distinguish it from the parties that pandered to the middle class rather than for following some socialist doctrines. In fact, the original founders of the party wanted it to be in touch with the common people (hence "workers") and nationalist.

It later changed its name to Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party) in order to emphasize the nationalist part of it even more. Several "Worker's Parties" existed at that time though, and they covered all of the political spectrum (all of them trying to reach, yes, the downtrodden, the masses).

In order to deal with the contradiction between nationalism and socialism, Hitler redefined those terms: Nationalism was to be the unconditional commitment of the individual for his country; Socialism was the responsibility of the country for the safety and well-being of the individual.

okie wrote:

Calling him a right wing conservative in the same vein as that of American conservatism is utter nonsense in my opinion.

It doesn't make too much sense. Likewise, calling Stalin a liberal in the sense of American liberalism (or vice versa, calling liberals Stalinists) is really just utter nonsense.

okie wrote:

I think he was merely a different brand of left wing extremist than those he was opposing.

There is no need to guess, okie. Here is the 25 point manifesto from the NSDAP from 1920 (simplified version):

Quote:

The 25 points of the Program of the NSDAP (German Nazi Party) adopted February 1920:

1. We demand the union of all Germans in a Greater Germany.
2. We demand the end of the Treaty of Versailles.
3. We demand colonies for settling our surplus population.
4. Only those of German blood can be citizens. No Jew, therefore, can be a member of the nation.
5. Any non-citizen may live in Germany only as a guest, following special legislation for foreigners.
6. Only citizens can vote.
7. The first duty of the State is to promote the well-being of its citizens. If it is not possible to nourish all the people, then non-citizens are to be deported.
8. Any further immigration of non-Germans is to be restricted. All non-Germans who came into Germany after August 2, 1914, shall be deported at once.
9. All citizens of the State shall enjoy equal rights and duties.
10. The first duty of each Citizen must be to work, either manually, or mentally. The work of the individual must not be against the interests of the nation. Rather, the work of the individual must be to the benefit of the community.
11. Payments to the unemployed are to be abolished.
12. We demand that all war profits be taken over by the State.
13. We demand that the State take over all large businesses, such as trusts.
14. We demand profit sharing in large concerns.
15. The pension system (pensions due to old age) should be extended.
16. We want a healthy middle class of society. We also want the state to specially foster small businesses.
17. We demand land reform.
18. We demand a ruthless struggle against profiteers, who must be punished with death.
19. We demand that the Roman law be replaced by German law.
20. We demand that our whole system of education be revised.
21. The State must provide for improvement of public health by protecting mothers and children, ending child labor, and supporting health education for the young.
22. We demand the formation of a national army.
23. We demand laws against purposeful political lies and the spreading of those lies in the press.
24. We demand religious freedom, in so far as any religion does not work against the state.
25. To carry out these demands we call for the creation of a strong central authority in the Reich. The leaders of the party promise that they will fight, if necessary to their death, for the implementation of this program.

okie wrote:

I realize this does not fit with intelligentsia's take on it, but thats the way I see it.

This statement of yours bothers me the most. You are essentially saying that you are not going to consider the interpretation of original sources offered by others, but you are to lazy to read up on the original sources yourself. There are tons of sources out there, but you choose to not use the information available.

Instead you are second-guessing what might have been the ideology of Hitler or the Nazi party, or what the name of the NSDAP could possibly have meant. You are making wild guesses, while you already know what your conclusion is going to be: that whatever evil regime or ideology that ever existed is closer to liberalism than to conservatism.

oe,
Several of the points from the NSDAP manifesto do sound alot like what the left wants to implement in this country today.

Even you cant deny that.

Uncivil War: Conservatives to challenge a dozen GOP candidates
Alex Isenstadt, Charles Mahtesian Alex Isenstadt, Charles Mahtesian Tue Nov 3, 4:38 am ET

In what could be a nightmare scenario for Republican Party officials, conservative activists are gearing up to challenge leading GOP candidates in more than a dozen key House and Senate races in 2010.

Conservatives and tea party activists had already set their sights on some of the GOP’s top Senate recruits " a list that includes Gov. Charlie Crist in Florida, former Rep. Rob Simmons in Connecticut and Rep. Mark Kirk in Illinois, among others.

But their success in Tuesday’s upstate New York special election, where grass-roots efforts pushed GOP nominee Dede Scozzafava to drop out of the race and helped Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman surge into the lead on the eve of Election Day, has generated more money and enthusiasm than organizers ever imagined.

Activists predict a wave that could roll from California to Kentucky to New Hampshire and that could leave even some GOP incumbents " Utah Sen. Bob Bennett is one " facing unexpectedly fierce challenges from their right flank.

“I would say it’s the tip of the spear,” said Dick Armey, the former GOP House majority leader who now serves as chairman of FreedomWorks, an organization that has been closely aligned with the tea party movement. “We are the biggest source of energy in American politics today.”

“What you’re going to see,” said Armey, “is moderates and conservatives across the country in primaries.”

These high-stakes primaries, pitting the activist wing of the party against the establishment wing, stand to have a profound impact on the 2010 election landscape since they will create significant problems for moderate candidates recruited by the national party precisely because they appear well-suited to win in places that are not easily " or even plausibly " won by conservative candidates.

The tensions between the two visions threaten to limit the party’s gains in an election year that is shaping up in its favor.

Party strategists worry that well-funded, well-organized challenges from the right could force Republicans to exhaust precious resources on messy primary fights " or force moderate candidates to adopt more strident positions early on that could haunt them during the final months of the campaign.

“For me, what this says is, we need to take a deep breath and decide whether [moderates and conservatives] work together or not,” said Tom Davis, the former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “And if we don’t, it can get very, very ugly.”

Activists contend that the only way back to majority status is to embrace the conservative principles that the party jettisoned during the past decades once it became too enamored of power. To them, the issue is less about ideological purity than about the compromises they see the party’s Washington establishment making and what they contend is a lack of support for conservative candidates who are deemed unelectable by GOP solons.

“New York 23, on some scale, is the first battle of a larger internal Republican debate over how to define the party,” said former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio, a conservative who is challenging Crist for the Senate nomination. “They want us to vote for their candidates, but they don’t want us to run for office.”

Rubio’s race is one that many on the right point to as the next New York 23, a contest where conservatives and tea party activists are in open revolt about Crist and the national party’s decision to endorse him despite his embrace " literally " of President Barack Obama and his stimulus package during a Florida visit in February.

Rubio has won nearly a dozen county GOP straw polls across the state and is rapidly becoming a darling of the tea party movement.

Everett Wilkinson, an organizer for the Florida Tea Party Patriots, said his group plans to take part in get-out-the-vote activities and other efforts to deny Crist the GOP nomination, despite the fact that Crist leads both Rubio and Rep. Kendrick Meek, the likely Democratic nominee, by a comfortable margin.

To Wilkinson, he’d rather burn the house down if it means saving it.

“We would lose if Charlie Crist got elected or if another person who doesn’t support our policies got elected,” he said. “Our members are actively going to get out there and create awareness of the governor’s actions.”

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a leading conservative who has endorsed Rubio, said he viewed the Florida Senate race as distinct from the New York special election. But he agreed with Rubio’s contention that the national party needed to broaden its outlook on candidates.

“I’m not saying our party made a mistake, because there’s a debate within the party over what we should be,” he said. “If we just start looking at who can win " sometimes we might miss a gem in the rough in effect. And I said from the beginning, that’s what I think Rubio is.”

Florida turns out to be one of many states where Senate candidates favored " in one way or another " by the National Republican Senatorial Committee are facing serious pushback from the grass roots.

In almost every situation, the lay of the land is the same. Whether it’s California, Illinois, Connecticut, New Hampshire or Kentucky, the NRSC has found a candidate who appears to be an exceptionally strong general election prospect " either well-known, well-financed or ideologically well-suited to the state’s politics " who is nevertheless meeting with tough resistance at the grass-roots level from activists who believe the conservative cause would be better served over the long term, even if it means the party nominee loses in the short term.

Even in Illinois, where polls shows Kirk would be highly competitive as a general election candidate in a state in which Republicans have been crushed in recent elections, the prospect of picking up the president’s former Senate seat isn’t enough to win over many activists.

“We’re going to work hard as hell to make sure Mark Kirk doesn’t win,” said Evert Evertsen, an Illinois tea party organizer. “Mark Kirk is about as liberal as Arlen Specter was.”

GOP House and Senate incumbents are fair game, too.

In Utah, where Bennett has won reelection by landslide margins since first winning the seat in 1992, disgruntled conservatives are looking to take him down in next year’s state party convention after his Wall Street bailout vote last fall and several other high-profile votes in which he broke with the right.

In the House, Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) is among a handful of GOP veterans facing primary challenges of varying competitiveness for their departures from conservative orthodoxy.

“It’s kind of like investors in a company saying they’re not going to tolerate it anymore. And that’s what we’re seeing here,” said Eric Odom, executive director of the American Liberty Alliance, a libertarian-oriented group. “We’re already gearing up. This is just the beginning.”

Manu Raju and Josh Kraushaar contributed to this story.