  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Conservatives BewarePosted on Mar 24, 2008By E.J. Dionne WASHINGTON—What’s the matter with conservatism? Its problems start with the failure of George W. Bush’s presidency but they don’t end there. Inequality is rising and working-class voters are being hammered. The cost and availability of health coverage are a big problem, and some Republicans don’t want to talk about that simply because they see it as a “Democratic issue.” Don’t take my word on this. The themes I just outlined come from two important new books written by conservatives. The authors are worried about their movement’s future, and accept—to use the language directed once upon a time against liberals—that the right is tired, short of ideas and mired in the past. The appearance of these books is a sign of something deeper: Much as liberals and Democrats realized in the 1980s that their side needed to rethink old assumptions, the shrewdest conservatives understand that the old faith, if it goes unreformed, is in danger of dying out. David Frum, a one-time speech writer for President Bush and the author of “Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again,” says nice things about the president but concedes he has “led his party to the brink of disaster.” Frum is not one of those conservatives who think that running against government is always the right thing. “There are things only government can do,” he writes, “and if we conservatives wish to be entrusted with the management of the government, we must prove that we care enough about government to manage it well.” Many on the right think there is no problem with conservatism today that doing a better job of imitating Ronald Reagan wouldn’t solve. But the 1980s were a long time ago. What made Reagan great, Frum argues, “was his ability to respond to the demands of his times. We must respond to the demands of ours.” Frum acknowledges that the problem of economic inequality is real. “The American economy grew handsomely between 2001 and 2006,” he writes. “But over those five years, the income of the median American ... did not rise at all. The number of people in poverty rose by 5.4 million between 2000 and 2004.” A concern for the working class animates the other hot, new critique of conservatism from the inside. Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam give their book “Grand New Party” (to be published in June) a long but revealing subtitle: “How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream.” They admit upfront the challenges and problems created by globalization: “the rise of the knowledge-based economy, growing outsourcing and the demise of lifetime employment, the expansion of credit card debt, the decline of retirement and health care security, the pressure from below created by unprecedented illegal immigration.” Their last point about immigration might arouse some dissent from liberals, but not their conclusion: that “these developments of the last three decades have made American workers feel more insecure.” More pointedly, Douthat and Salam add that “the Republican Party has failed to adequately address these concerns.” On policy, the books are less persuasive, partly because conservatism, almost by definition, has trouble achieving the level of intervention in the economy that the current inequities may require. Nonetheless, these writers at least acknowledge the need for public action to bring health coverage to everyone. Both books stress the costs of family breakdown to Americans of modest means—and particularly to their children. Here is an area where liberals could make common cause with these next-era conservatives. Douthat and Salam suggest expanding the current tax credit for children from $1,000 to $5,000. It’s a relief to see conservatives willing to make a link between economic forces and family life, something their more radically free-market comrades are rarely willing to do. Two books do not a revolution make. But they are a symptom of a healthy dissidence within the conservative movement and a sign of its instinct toward survival. “There is emerging within the Republican Party a very interesting debate about whether we need to change our approach, or just reassert the policies we already have,” Frum said in an interview.
Frum would like the heretical Republicans to come together to create their own version of the Democratic Leadership Council. The GOP sure could use something. A Pew Research Center survey released last week found that only 27 percent of Americans now identify themselves as Republicans, the lowest percentage in Pew’s 16 years of polling. If ever there was a moment for change agents within the nation’s conservative party, this is it.
Previous item: The Next 4,000 Next item: War of the Word Elsewhere: . Comments: 61 Published. Add Yours?Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. |
Report from Baghdad
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
By Lefty, March 30 at 4:18 pm #
(947 comments total)
E.J. Dionne, the journalism tapeworm strikes again. E.J., you insufferable douche bag, the problem with conservatism is that IT’S A FUCKING FRAUD, A SUBTERFUGE FOR CORPORATE FASCISM. Now bend over while I inject this RFID chip in your ass, you pea brained invertabrate!
Reply to this | Report thisBy mikekohr, March 29 at 3:30 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Marshal,
The statistics I have put forth document the sucess of Democratic administrations over the results of the economic policies of Republican administrations.
You dismiss these statistics because they discredit your view point. You can offer any number, any manner of excuses and rationalizations, but show me when your conservative economic policy has ever bested the economic pragmmatism and accomplishment of Democratic economic practice.
Republican administrations produce higher debt, greater government spending as compared to GDP, higher unemployment, lower GDP, lower bond markets, lower stock markets, lower job creation, lower per capita income, and higher inflation.
America is tired of failure. We’ve heard your excuses. We are looking for results and it is clear which party produces them. In November the Republican party will be thrown on the scrap pile of history’s failed political movements.
Drop me an e-mail after the general election and we can discuss just who is on the winning side of this arguement.
mike kohr
Reply to this | Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, March 29 at 1:23 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
“Are you kidding me? In 2000 years no one will remember your name or mine. 2000 years after Jesus spoke truth to power and was crucified for it, Christianity, one of the World’s most followed religions, is based on his life.”
His message was “Peace and love” there have been 2000 years of war and hate.... most of it in his name.
Just as glad not to have anyone “remember” me…
Reply to this | Report thisBy Joe, March 28 at 11:50 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I thought that Dionne had a pretty good handle on things till his closing sentence blew the moment, stating that the Republican Party is “the nation’s conservative party..” The Republicans, overwhelmingly, have nothing to do with conservatism. Since the nightmare of the Reagan Presidency, this Party has looked only to short-term remedies between election cycles (see Bernanke), has spent like drunken sailors, the money borrowed from military foes such as China, active collaboration with corporate bigshots in such sectors as energy and lumber in trashing the public lands for profit, bigger and more confused government, inability to respond to emergencies, dangerous and unchristian fixation with intervention overseas, disrespecting our military by misusing them and trashing equipment and overall readiness, destroying civil liberties and due process, encouraging the spread of nuclear weapons through both aggressive behavior and a failure to set a proper example. Reagan started the ball rolling with these thugs. The spirit of Goldwater, Eisenhower, today’s Chuck Hagel and all true libertarians must feel a sadness and revulsion at the state to which today’s Republican Party has devolved. The one positive thing I can say about this Party is that their confusion and lack of a cohesive ideology reduces the threat they will ever realize any fascist ambitions.
Reply to this | Report thisBy bozhidar bob balkas, March 28 at 6:58 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
dionne
ihavebeen bombarede
Reply to this | Report thisBy Louise, March 27 at 6:43 pm #
(743 comments total)
Well of course a lot of folks cant remember Reagan. They just remember the “story” so I suppose they can be forgiven for not remembering the pain. And a lot of folks cant remember Ford, or Nixon ... so ditto. Some folks cant even remember Bush One. Come to think of it, some folks cant remember two years ago under Bush Two. Which pretty well sums up the conundrum loyal republicans face.
They have a serious problem focusing on real issues and an incredibly short memory span.
Perhaps Frum may be on to something. At least he is calling them conservatives and not just republicans. So maybe there’s hope. Maybe those conservatives who actually do pay attention and actually do have real values will finally realize their party has been hi-jacked. And the thugs that stole it wouldn’t know a conservative value if it fell on them.
So I guess what I’m really saying is Frum’s efforts are laudable, but he too is the victim of a short memory and fantasy stories passed down through the years about the great republicans who went before. Truth is, the republicans haven’t had a good, let alone great president since Eisenhower, which is why so many of the older “conservatives” have long since preferred to call themselves Independents.
Perhaps a shot of truth and reality is what the republican party really needs, if they want to return to their “glory” days.
For starters, the mess we’re in right now is the inevitable consequence of those good old republican policies. Think I’m wrong? Dig out a few history books and study some on republican policy before the Great Depression.
I suspect most conservatives smart enough to remember anything they ever learned in history might be a tad embarrassed to admit they are republicans. And blaming Bush, although I do constantly, is disingenuous coming from a republican. Because Bush is the ultimate and to be expected product of years of republican control.
Maybe Frum’s efforts are really more his own need to do penance and salve his conscience. After all, what does a former writer for George W. Bush put on his resume if he’s looking for serious employment?
Taking Karl Rove as an example. I’m sure there are still enough crooked republican politicians around to keep his “consulting” firm busy. But where are all those contracts for speaking engagements?
Karl has become totally irrelevant, because beyond his ability to make stuff up as he goes along, and the crooks need to follow his lead, he really has no credibility.
Wondering if Frum’s book gives him any credibility. But not wondering enough to go out and buy a copy.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, March 27 at 1:43 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I lived in Corvallis when Tom McCall was Governor of Oregon. Wirked at the Children’s Farm Home out on US highway 20.
My favorite McCallism was “Come visit, but don’t forget to go home....”
Loved that man, too bad he’s gone.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, March 27 at 4:37 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
mike kohr
Jesus was an abject failure he would also be called a Communist today.
JFK would be a “conservative” by todays standards...cold warrior, world policeman, and the person who appointed Byron (wizzer) White to the supreme Court.
Teddy Roosevelt a conservative in his time, would be a unelectable liberal today.
These terms, like your meaningless financial postings, mean NOTHING!
Although I dislike and did not vote for GWB my stock did far better under him than it did under Clinton....Of course I’m heavily in energy.
My point is that each of us look at the world through different colored glasses, what appears “liberal” to some (for an instance removal of the death penalty) is “conservative” to others (alignment with like countries around the globe, is a conservative principle)
My friends ask me “How can you favor “single payer national health care” and call yourself a “conservative” I answer because “single payer national health care helps US industry compete with countries like France (where the air refueling tanker jobs have gone) by removing the onerous administrative costs of employer based health care.
From my “conservative” POV it’s a no-brainer… everyone wins!
Reply to this | Hide 2 replies | Report thisBy Emma Hussein Goldman, March 28 at 3:13 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re: Jesus
I agree with Conservative Yankee about Jesus. He was a failure. He didn’t do what he meant to do, which was reform Judaism, and free the Jews from the Romans. Christianity is basically an unintended consequence, a fluke.
Reply to this | Report thisBy mike kohr, March 27 at 6:08 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
"Jesus was an abject failure."
Are you kidding me? In 2000 years no one will remember your name or mine. 2000 years after Jesus spoke truth to power and was crucified for it, Christianity, one of the World’s most followed religions, is based on his life.
JFK a conservative? Are you serious?
The Dow Jones Average, when Wild Bill the Great Fornicator, took office was at 3400. When he left office it was at 11,300. Glad you’ve done well the last 7 years. I’m happy for you.
Kudo’s on your take on “Single payer.” We share common ground there.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, March 27 at 3:16 am #
(259 comments total)
“Conservative” used to mean resistant to change, and desirous of any change to take place SLOWLY. It meant fiscal responsibility in government.
But today’s “Conservatives” are nothing of the sort. They are more properly described as Radical Reactionaries, which are, of course, proto-fascists.
“Conservatism” seems to have 3 branches:
1) Radical fundamentalist Christofascism that mirrors Islamofascism in everything but the local dogma.
2) Neo-cons--a group actively advocating a government solely answerable to the corporate interests, kinda of like the old Dutch East Indies Company, a state within a state that answered to NO ONE! They seek to remove all obstacles to the acquistion of wealth and power by a few.
3) “Libertarians”. These are phony Objectivists who advocate NO restrictions on business no matter how absurd or destructive that would be--like dumping toxic waste into rivers and streams. The ONLY positive about Libertarians is they actually believe in the Bill of Rights. However, Republicans “Libertarians” don’t abide by that nicety.
True Conservatives, the ideological children of Barry Goldwater near the end of his life, get no ink and are called “Liberal” by the 3 evil witches I described above. Moderate Republicans today come closer to true Conservatives than that troika does. We see an Arnold Schwartzeneggar or a John Warner, a William Weld or a Lincoln Chafee and don’t realize that THESE are the true and honest, and even ADMIRABLE Conservatives.
What’s wrong with the “Conservatives” is there are no Conservatives amongst them...and America is finally figuring this out.
Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, March 28 at 4:39 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Your "3 evil witches" sell and you are
Inherit The Wind Your post alleging no true “conservatives” is apparent to those who buy the line of the “3 evil witches”
Olympia Snow, and to a lesser degree Susan Collins have followed the example of Margaret Chase Smith as Senators of my State. Bill Cohen was another. We here in Maine are happy with our truly “conservative” Senators.
Unfortunately we are cursed with a legislature intent on bankrupting working folks. They are a majority of Democrats. They say things like “Due to the economic downturn nationally, the revenue stream from Washington has dried up so we will have to increase taxes to make up the difference.” A disingenuous statement which keeps me in the conservative ranks.
I can’t be considered a “social conservative” as I am against the death penalty, support the right of women to have control of their own bodies...even when they are pregnant. I am also an atheist.
I surely can not be considered a “neo con” As I am absolutely opposed to government pawing through my papers, listening to my conversations, or turning the “driver’s license” into a national identity card.
I’m surely no liberal as I own guns, support the NRA, believe in minuscule government (Defense welfare and commerce) am absolutely opposed to institutional charity and believe the best social program ever created is a job that pays the bills.
I’m no “libertarian as I am against “free” trade, in favor of tariffs against people who use prison labor, or government subsidies to undercut prices. I believe in strong borders, and oppose general amnesty for illegals.
I also have a bunch of strange beliefs which do not seem to fit anywhere ... For an instance, I believe children should be paid to attend school, and that as they get older this pay should be based on performance. If this is in fact a “capitalist” society, why should children be forced to work for free…
Reply to this | Report thisBy Paolo, March 26 at 6:01 pm #
(277 comments total)
"Conservativism" Meaningless II
A further point needs to be made regarding the meaninglessness of the term “conservative.”
Today’s alleged “conservatives” call, unconvincingly, for “smaller, less intrusive government.” Simultaneously, they call for war on the far side of the globe, plus several spots in between.
Madison pointed out that war is the mother of all tyrannies, in which the government presumes to take over everything--economic production and the lives of young men.
War is the ultimate, most destructive of all government programs. It produces nothing of value; in fact, it accomplishes nothing but death, destruction of property, and mountains of debt.
Support of war is “conservative?” In what way?
This is why I became a libertarian long ago.
Reply to this | Report thisBy mike kohr, March 26 at 2:05 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
“THE PARTY WITH THE BEST RECORD OF SERVING
“THE PARTY WITH THE BEST RECORD OF SERVING REPUBLICAN ECONOMIC VALUES IS THE DEMOCRATS, AND IT ISN’T EVEN CLOSE!” -Michael Kingsley-
1). FEDERAL SPENDING: since 1960 Republicans increased Federal Spending by 71% more than have Democrats
2). FEDERAL DEBT: since 1960 Republicans have increased the National debt by 100% more per year than have Democrats.
3). GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT: since 1921, adjusted for inflation, Democrats out-produce Republicans by 43% . Starting in 1940 the Democratic advantage is 23% better.
4). REAL PER CAPITA INCOME: since 1960 Democrats have outperformed Republicans by 30%. (This is perhaps the most important economic statistic of all)
5). INFLATION: since 1960, Democrats outperform Republicans 3.13% to 3.89%
6). UNEMPLOYMENT: since 1960 it decreases in an average Democratic year by 0.3% to 5.33%, and increases in average Republican year by 1.1% to 6.38%.
7). JOB CREATION: from 1945 to 2003, Democrats produced 174,200 jobs per month, Republicans have only produced 60,600 per month. Every time a Democrat succeeds a Republican, job creation soars. Every time a Republican succeeds a Democrat job creation plummets. NO EXCEPTIONS!
8). DOW JONES AVERAGE: since 1921 the DOW has increased by 52% more under Democratic administrations
9). THE BOND MARKET: since 1940 the value of 10 year Treasury bonds rose 1.2% under Democrats and fell 0.5% under Republicans
SOURCES-Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic Policy Institute, Christian Science Monitor, “The Los Angles Times -Michael Kingsley-
by mike kohr 3/7/2006
RESULTS MATTER, VOTE DEMOCRATIC!
Reply to this | Hide 4 replies | Report thisBy Marshall, March 27 at 10:10 am #
(358 comments total)
Re: “THE PARTY WITH THE BEST RECORD OF
It doesn’t help the discussion when you post unreferenced statistics. These claims are so broad and unsubstantiated as to be completely meaningless except as partisan propaganda. Did you pull these out of a spam email or something?
Reply to this | Hide 2 replies | Report thisBy Marshall, March 27 at 6:03 pm #
(358 comments total)
Re: Re: “THE PARTY WITH THE BEST RECORD
By mike kohr, March 27 at 2:23 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re: Re: “THE PARTY WITH THE BEST RECORD
“I accept your apology in advance of it”
Yes - I apologize for not reading the last line there.
Now, are your statistics referring to the President, or to Congress?
Report thisBy mike kohr, March 27 at 2:23 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re: Re: “THE PARTY WITH THE BEST RECORD
The sources are at the end of the article. I have copied them and reposted them here. I accept your apology in advance of it:
SOURCES-Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic Policy Institute, Christian Science Monitor, “The Los Angles Times -Michael Kingsley-
mike kohr
Report thisBy Christopher Robin, March 26 at 6:09 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re: “THE PARTY WITH THE BEST RECORD OF
Thanks for posting that.
Reply to this | Report thisBy ocjim, March 26 at 9:31 am #
(355 comments total)
Conservative War will continue with McCain -- if
EJ can say conservatives beware, but the truth is that they have descended upon us like a plague and we can’t simple innoculate ourselves from them. Conservative think tanks are still well funded and neocons are still relentless about keeping their agenda. Remember their methods are Machiavellian and thus ruthless, at the point of destroying healthy tissue with what they deem as unhealthy. Deception and distortion are theirs.
Conservative leadership has spouted family values, while advocating greed and materialism. It speaks private charity while vilifying the poor. It speaks war with peace and freedom euphemisms, a double-speak that leaves you logically and rhetorically aghast.
Sensitivity to the interests of others is effete, bleeding-heart liberalism, and everyday concern for the interests of the vulnerable is tiresomely politically correct – qualities neocons raucously ridicule.
In fact with the bunker mentality of Republicans, Democrats are timid, even squeamish, about mentioning reforms that are sorely needed, like a one-payer health care system, a more fair tax burden, homelessness, poverty, and rising wages for workers.
They actually fear the ridicule and cringe from defending the interests of their base.
Then there is the war: wasting lives and soaking up resources needed for so many other American needs.
But the Bush war legacy seems to be continued with the candidacy of John McCain, perhaps as a continuation of neoconservative goals. The Project for a New American Century (PNAC), a neoconservative think tank and a prime driver for the Iraqi war, epitomizes neoconservative militaristic goals:
· Remake America in the image of an imperialistic nation prepared for global domination.
· National security has priority over our rights.
· Spend more for defense.
· Intervene in the affairs of evil countries – hence abandon the more Christian, isolationist mentality of the founding fathers.
· Infiltrate and hold high often unelected government positions.
So they plan to continue with McCain. Perhaps John doesn’t know he is mutating toward their doctrine of eternal war against heretics, including American dissenters and the American non-rich.
Reply to this | Hide 3 replies | Report thisBy Marshall, March 26 at 11:03 am #
(358 comments total)
Re: Conservative War will continue with McCain --
You need to cut down on the caffeine my friend. As a conservative, I’m not driven by the evil intentions you’ve attributed to all those who disagree with you. By demonizing the opposition, you cut off useful discourse and back yourself into the very isolationist corner you accuse the Dems of being in. Nor are Conservatives in complete agreement among themselves. So rather than painting us all as evildoers, you might try relaxing a bit and understanding that conservatives are trying to get to the same destination that liberals are; they just believe it’s a different road that’ll take us there.
Reply to this | Hide 2 replies | Report thisBy cyrena, March 26 at 2:48 pm #
(4023 comments total)
Re: Re: Conservative War will continue with McCain
Ocjim writes in response to Marshall:
• “I stand corrected in specifying conservatives. The problem is whether you know it or not, neo-conservatives have taken over the Republican party and I described their agenda. Conservatives have been captured under this agenda, and voters have been fooled. McCain appears to be captured by this agenda as well.”
Thanks for the excellent (original) post ocjim.
This is important for self-escribed “Conservatives”. It has long ago become apparent, (though far too many have failed to realize it yet) that the terms “Conservative” and yes, even “Liberal” no longer carry or maintain the same principals. I’ve tried to make this point before, but it’s been lost on those who are unwilling or unable to ‘keep up’.
The current Administration of neocons do not, and I repeat DO NOT, carry with them a ‘Conservative” tradition. The ‘conservatives’ of the Goldwater era have been usurped and yes, USED by a radical movement of authoritarian fascists, operating under the ‘name’ of conservatives but are in fact radically authoritarian. Until the older Conservatives ‘get’ this, they too will continue to fall under the hammer of that fist.
For those who continue to identify themselves as ‘conservatives’ under a republican party banner, it would be helpful to ‘catch-up’ with the ideological changes that have taken over that party. John Dean, one of the most prolific followers of the Goldwater Conservatism, has noted this change, and written on it extensively.
His most recent book, (I think it’s his most recent) is titled “Conservatives Without A Conscience”. I found it very enlightening, in attempting to understand the atrocities that have been perpetrated by the neocons, under the banner of Republican Conservatism.
So, check out some of that stuff Marshall, just so you can catch-up with what’s going on in the world. It’s just not your old republican conservatism any more.
I believe that the SAME can be said of what used to be called ‘liberal’. What used to be called ‘liberal’ is really neoliberal, and it is NOT the same as progressive in the sense of what liberalism may have originally been intended to encompass.
Things are very ‘upside down’ now, and at some point, we have to revamp what we mean by liberal and conservative. OR…abandon those terms entirely.
Otherwise, we stay highjacked by the radicals who did exactly that, (Cheney et al) in The Coup of 2000, when Cheney instructed the party operatives to “just get the Oval office”…no matter how you do it, just GET CONTROL OF THE OVAL OFFICE.
It was a coup, and we won’t survive it much longer.
Report thisBy ocjim, March 26 at 12:14 pm #
(355 comments total)
Re: Re: Conservative War will continue with McCain
I stand corrected in specifying conservatives. The problem is whether you know it or not, neo-conservatives have taken over the Republican party and I described their agenda. Conservatives have been captured under this agenda, and voters have been fooled. McCain appears to be captured by this agenda as well.
Report thisBy JNagarya, March 26 at 9:19 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
“By Marshall, March 25 at 9:22 pm #
“Re: A Meaningless Term
“I assume you’re referring to the war as the budget buster. But no one said that national security would suffer in the name of smaller govt.”
It has suffered even though no one who drinks the kool-aid sees or admits it.
“Now I know you believe the war was unnecessary, but that’s a different argument.”
It’s the same “argument” if it is the budget-buster—which you clearly assert it is.
“The fact is that Bush has lowered domestic spending, and has cut taxes across the board - twice. So in that regard, he’s done a pretty good job at domestic conservative fiscal policy.”
“Conservative"/Bushit trickle-down/piss on you economics:
1. Spend all your savings [surplus], and
2. Quite your job [cut taxes], and
3. Your income will increase.
How come the party of greed/money can’t do simple math?
Or is it that the tiny-minority-rule Grover Norquist fanatics have a hidden agenda?
Reply to this | Report thisBy JNagarya, March 26 at 9:13 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
“By Paolo, March 25 at 6:13 pm #
“A Meaningless Term
“Conservative” is now a meaningless term. It used to mean, roughly, someone who advocated smaller, less expensive, less intrusive government. But if this is true, in what way can George W. Bush be considered “conservative?”
The original meaning of the term was not “smaller gov’t”—which are words the Founders/Framers never used—that’s an invention of those who oppose our gov’t and the fact that it is none other than We the people.
See as example of the original meaning Republican Theodore Roosevelt’s establishment of the National Parks system in order to preserve those publicly-owned lands by removing them from commercial exploitation—the exact opposite of today’s fake “conservative“‘s trash-everything rapacity.
Reply to this | Report thisBy JNagarya, March 26 at 8:58 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Conservatism 000
“By 1twenty1, March 25 at 8:38 pm #
“Conservatism 101
“Conservatives believe the homo sapien zygote is the highest form of life on the planet.”
White only.
Reply to this | Report thisBy bozhidar bob balkas, March 26 at 8:20 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
isms
when god made us and isms, IT was joking. so one day i prayed to IT to get serious. IT was a serious mistake. the next night i couldn’t sleep; woke up w. pains all over. it was a bitter lesson. i’l never talk to another IT, the scariest and meanest bugbears one could ever talk or pray to. but then, i’l never talk to bush, abbas, olmert, cheney, a priest, either; for they surely would report me to IT; and i get punished. posting posts on haaretz’ backtalk, i said in one of my posts, Torah’s a whora; bible a blabble; koron a moron, the btalk team stopped printing my posts. i didn’t feel any pain cuz of that, so i assumed, i wasn’t reported to any of the 3 ITS. don’t worry ab. me; i h. a devil of my own and it protects me against bushesblairs much better that any other IT. thanx
Reply to this | Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, March 26 at 6:07 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
LIBERALS:
Believe that people not adhering to politically correct principles should be bullied into those beliefs.
Feel man is inherently weak, and needs a strong government to lead him to correct thinking and behavior… and guide him to the bathroom when he has to pee!
Believe that people should have standardized thoughts based on their class, ethnicity and political leaning.
countenance a strict separation based on status (Redneck, southerner, NASCAR enthusiast) but rail against segregation.
Liberals love education except when professors teach against the liberal party line.
Liberals tend to be all one color… green, but they also tend to drive SUV’s live in large inefficient homes, and pay particular attention to the golf-coarse size lawns which surround those houses.
If there is a synonym for “liberal” I would guess the word would be “hypocrite”
Gee… hope I didn’t hurt any feelings… It’s tough for us conservatives to know about such things as we don’t have any!
Reply to this | Hide 3 replies | Report thisBy mike kohr, March 26 at 2:00 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
JOHN KENNEDY on being a liberal
President John F. Kennedy on being a liberal…
“I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man’s ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves
I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.
Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies.
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people—their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties—someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”
President John Fitzgerald Kennedy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reply to this | Hide 2 replies | Report thisp.s. Jesus is a Liberal
By mike kohr, March 29 at 5:16 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Responce to "Typical White Person."
John Kennedy volunteered for combat service during WWII and served with distinction. Kennedy then gave the rest of his life in service to the nation before being assassinated while serving as president.
What have you given back to this country that surpases the sevice and sacrifice of President Kennedy?
mike kohr
Report thisBy Typical White Person, March 27 at 9:27 am #
(53 comments total)
Re: JOHN KENNEDY on being a liberal
And a Kennedy is still a Kennedy, self centered multimillionaire blowhard, money obtained through graft and corruption. Whats good enough for everyone else, will never be good enough for a Kennedy.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, March 26 at 5:10 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Conservative (where I come from) is an evolving ideology, involving slow thoughtful change based on bed-rock principles set down by the founders. You are correct in that two-hundred years ago, conservatives (particularly in New England) may have been monarchists but that position has evolved. True US conservatives would shun a return to Monarchy today as being a “radical” or “reactionary” solution.
As for torture, that is not a “conservative” position today… see my post above… Drilling in Alaska, I am assuming you mean in ANWR, no conservative can be conservative and support the deconstruction of Teddy Roosevelt’s conception of National Parks as belonging to ALL the people.
Of course, you are mistaken in your (stated) view of America as a “classless society” the founders bought and kept slaves, lived on the top of the economic heap and were far better educated than local farmers and shop-keepers. From the beginning of our Nation they were allowed to pass their wealth on to their children (who often squandered it) and if you still contend we live in a society intended to be “classless” take a ride through Cleveland’s Shaker Heights and continue down-town. Take a ride South on the Bronx-River Parkway past the Million-dollar homes in Scarsdale and Pelham, and down to White Plains Road and Jerome Avenue… Check Saddle Brook against Patterson in New Jersey, Lawrence against Rowley in Massachusetts, and Falmouth Foreside against Lewiston in Maine and tell me the children born and raised in the poorer neighborhoods have the same chance at success as those form wealthy homes.
No, there are the realists and the dreamers… the realists tend to be conservative.
Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report thisBy Expat, March 27 at 6:23 am #
(828 comments total)
CY, thank you for that........
^ excellent statement. I have my moments on the “left” but my being is truly conservative. I lived in Oregon from 1957 to 2003 and had the pleasure to be governed by Tom McCall. He was the best governor that state ever had; he was in my view a true conservative; the meaning of which has been lost on most of us. I have always defined conservatism by his governance. My understanding of a true conservative is; one who seeks the truth…the thing that best serves the people.
Reply to this | Report thisBy mike kohr, March 26 at 5:02 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Under Bush, federal discressionary spending exploded, contrary to your claim. His tax cuts were scewed to benefit the upper 10% of the American People. He is the greatest deficit spender in the history of mankind, exceeding his father and Ronald Reagan who come in second and third in this fiscal responsibility hall of shame.
Over the last 48 years, in EVERY measurable economic standard, Democratic administrations outperform Republican administrations. It should be no surprise that conservatism is not working today. It never has.
mike kohr
Reply to this | Hide 5 replies | Report thisBy Marshall, March 27 at 11:38 am #
(358 comments total)
Re:
You’re partly right: federal discretionary spending has exploded under Bush, but primarily as a result of the war on terror. As a percentage of GDP, federal discretionary spending is historically pretty average. Interestingly, the very categories that the left criticizes Bush for cutting/underfunding are the areas that have increased the most (education, veteran benefits, etc...).
But you’re wrong about his tax cuts. The shuffling of tax brackets helped across the board. Of course, the wealthy pay more in taxes, so in raw dollars, they got more back as you’d expect. But remember that the poor in the U.S. pay no taxes whatsoever, so it’s difficult to cut their taxes any further.
If you’re trying to argue that the increased taxation and spending that almost inevitably occurs under Democratic administrations or Congresses benefits the economy more than a philosophy of fiscal restraint, then you are ignoring reality.
Reply to this | Hide 4 replies | Report thisBy Marshall, March 29 at 1:32 pm #
(358 comments total)
Re: Re:
By mike kohr, March 29 at 6:39 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re: Re:
Mike - of course you can paste from your own article. I’ll disagree with it the same wherever it came from.
You accuse me of rigid dogma, but the results you cite and attribute to progressive politics are skewed. As an example, your stats-laden post repeatedly refers to the deficit in raw dollars rather than as a percentage of GDP, which we both know is how it’s measured.
Another example of this is your references to “Republican administrations” - when we both know that Congress holds the purse strings and is thus an integral part of the economic equation. The Republican Congress under Clinton, for example, significantly trimmed his budgets.
As a third example, it’s a common neophyte mistake to attribute the 2001 recession to Bush. If you’re writing articles on economics, I’d hope you’re aware that an administration’s economic policy and tax code remain in effect through the third quarter of the next President’s first term; placing that recession squarely in the lap of the previous administration. Of course, I don’t actually blame Clinton for the bursting of the Internet bubble, the primary cause of the recession, anymore than I blame Bush for the bursting of the realestate bubble. That would be simple minded partisanship.
But as long as we’re talking stats, here’s one you can take to the bank: every time an administration has lowered taxes in the U.S., federal tax revenues have increased; just as they did during Bush’s two recent tax cuts. That’s why both parties are talking tax rebates to stimulate the economy; a tacit admission by Dems that tax cuts are good for the economy, contrary to their discredited but habitual tax and spend philosophy. Now if only they’d support making them permanent, they could travel the rest of the way towards becoming fiscal conservatives.
Not to make this personal, but honestly, your rhetoric gives me less faith in the objectivity of major news outlets that printed your article because your understanding of economics seems, well, simpler than what I’d expect from an author on the subject. And I’m no economics expert - I write software for a living.
Report thisBy mike kohr, March 29 at 6:39 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re: Re:
Marshal,
I am allowed to copy and paste the article “Fiscal Responsibility,” I wrote it, and published it.
You are correct, Bush is not privatizing Social Security. We stopped him.
Your contribution to this converstaion is not about results, accomplishment, or accountability. It’s about holding fast to rigid, unbending dogma and political therory. That quality has not served Bush well as president.
Pragmatism and accomplishment count in the real world. That is why history, like reality, has a liberal bias associated with it.
The conservative movement has an unbroken 70 year record of fubar, faiure and “F” up, on the economic front. We on the progressive wing of the political spectrum will be reminding you and the American public of our success and your failure, as this 2nd Bush recession plays out during this election cycle.
Incidently, 9 of the last 10 recessions have occured under Republican administrations, including the “Reagan Recession,” of 1982, the most severe economic durnturn since the Republican gifted Great Depression of 1929.
You must be so proud.
mike kohr
Report thisBy Marshall, March 28 at 1:36 pm #
(358 comments total)
Re: Re:
By mike kohr, March 27 at 5:46 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
Mike - I can see that you have a bumper-sticker approach to economics, so I’m not going to address your copy/pasted propaganda points; you probably haven’t even thought about them enough to formulate a cogent reply anyway. Suffice to say that the article you cite is over 2 years old - Bush isn’t privatizing Social Security, for example.
Report thisBy mike kohr, March 27 at 5:46 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
Bush’s economic policy is the single largest cause of the exploding national deficit. Federal domestic discretionary spending has exploded under Bush and his budget will add $1.3 trillion to the National Debt over the next decade. “The Saint Petersburg Times,” calls Bush’s debt reduction plan “Deficit Deceit,” noting that Bush’s privatization of Social Security alone, will add an additional $2 trillion to the national debt over 20 years.
Bush’s economic policy, in his first year turned the greatest surplus in history to the greatest deficit in history, a swing of over $500 billion in a single year. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neil raised alarm but was dismissed by Dick Cheney who said, “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.”
Deficits do matter and have real consequences. Economic historian, J. Bradford DeLong of the University of California, wrote “Reagan’s economic policy was a disaster … and the deficits slowed economic growth in the 1980’s significantly.” Reagan’s own member of the Council of Economic Advisors, William A. Niskanen, notes that deficits make us, “….terribly dependant and terribly vulnerable.”
Author Michael Kinsley writes, since 1960, Republican administrations have increased Federal spending by $60 billion a year, nearly double that of Democrats. National debt has increased by $200 billion per year under Republicans, twice the increase of Democrats. The results are predictable. GDP (adjusted for inflation) averages $212 billion for Democrats only $165 billion for Republicans. Democratic economic policy increases real per capita income for individuals at a rate 30% better than Republicans. Democrats outperform Republicans on inflation 3.13% to 3.89%. Republican policies result in increases in unemployment at an average of 6.38% as opposed to falling unemployment when Democrats take office, achieving an average of 5.33%.
Fiscal responsibility has its rewards beyond the numbers noted above. CNN reported that the Clinton administration balanced the budget, and paid off $355 billion of the National Debt. The interest saved on paying down this debt added 54 years to the fiscal solvency of Social Security. When Bush tells us he wants to save Social Security he is telling us in effect, he wants to save it from himself, hoping to be the hero of his own self-inflicted disaster.
The National Debt is over $9,262,096,350,500.00, growing by over $1.68 billion per day, a birth tax of $26,213.97 for every man, woman and child in the country. By 2030, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will grow to the size of today’s ENTIRE Federal budget.
That light at the end of the tunnel is not day-light, it’s the headlight of a freight train named Credit Card Republicanism, coming to crush our children and grandchildren, to whom we are handing this crippling debt. Shame on us.
mike kohr
Report thisBy 1twenty1, March 25 at 8:38 pm #
(55 comments total)
Conservatism 101
Conservatism today is principally oligarchigal, anti-progressive, obstructionism prostituted by small-minded, amoral political lackeys with overinflated egos who are enabled by an even smaller-minded authoritarian, pious electorate.
Conservatives believe Ronald Reagan is God’s first cousin and they’re not going to let any of us forget it.
Conservatives already know we are headed into a recession, probably beginning 1-20-09.
Conservatives believe that if global warming even exists it is easily remedied by exploding a few dozen nucs in Iran, producing a mild, counteractive nuclear winter.
Conservatives believe the homo sapien zygote is the highest form of life on the planet.
Conservatives believe deficit spending’s ultimate achievement will be economic bliss.
Conservatives believe the most effective anti-gay agenda is counciling them in restroom stalls.
If Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter have a love child Satan will be able to retire.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Crimes of the State Blog, March 25 at 6:13 pm #
(11 comments total)
Hollywood’s Newest Neo-Con: David Mamet Chugs the Kool-Aid
On the homepage of the Village Voice David Mamet (bio) goes on a keyboard rampage. That’s right, Mamet preaches the glory of America, the free market, and the idiocy of the “Brain-Dead Liberal” view.
Mamet compares his neo-conning epiphany to that of Norman Mailer panning a play he didn’t bother to go see, and then after actually seeing it, Mailer retracting everything and labelling it a masterpiece. That’s Mamet’s opening salvo. The “Brain-Dead Liberal” view, to which he tells us he once subscribed, isn’t just wrong, it’s so wrong that only a complete and total outright rejection can suffice.
The False Dichotomies
Mamet ought to know better than to put all of politics into a Coke v. Pepsi false choice. But several “tells” give us reason to question the depth of the man’s analysis…
Continued at:
Reply to this | Report thishttp://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
By Paolo, March 25 at 6:13 pm #
(277 comments total)
A Meaningless Term
“Conservative” is now a meaningless term. It used to mean, roughly, someone who advocated smaller, less expensive, less intrusive government. But if this is true, in what way can George W. Bush be considered “conservative?”
Reply to this | Hide 3 replies | Report thisBy Marshall, March 25 at 9:22 pm #
(358 comments total)
Re: A Meaningless Term
I assume you’re referring to the war as the budget buster. But no one said that national security would suffer in the name of smaller govt.. Now I know you believe the war was unnecessary, but that’s a different argument. The fact is that Bush has lowered domestic spending, and has cut taxes across the board - twice. So in that regard, he’s done a pretty good job at domestic conservative fiscal policy.
Reply to this | Hide 2 replies | Report thisBy Paolo, March 26 at 5:53 pm #
(277 comments total)
Re: Re: A Meaningless Term
I was astounded at the claim that Bush has cut domestic spending, so I checked this claim out on Wikipedia. As I expected, there is no truth to this claim. [source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_bud get,_2008 ] Every category except department of labor shows an increase. You will note that virtually all categories of spending go up, year after year.
As a libertarian, even though I am against taxation, I find Republican claims of tax cuts being “conservative” particularly noisome. If you cut taxes, but don’t cut spending, you just make up the difference by either “monetizing” the debt (fancy speak for printing money), or by issuing government bonds (that is, pushing the debt onto our children).
An old style, paleoconservative would call for cutting spending first, then lowering taxes. Lowering taxes alone is a typical gutless, modern “conservative” approach.
By the way, Bush, like all other politicians, likes to claim he “cut spending” by simply calling for a smaller increase. That is, if the Department of X calls for a ten billion dollar budget increase, but Bush only gives it nine billion, Bush claims he “cut spending” by a billion dollars.
If you tried this with your family budget, you’d be broke in a flash.
I stand by my claim that “conservatism” is a meaningless term.
Report thisBy James, March 26 at 5:15 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re: Re: A Meaningless Term
OK so you are saying that there are exceptions to what has to be done to shrink government. Them being war/military industrial complex and national security in your words. But since you say Bush has done a good job I guess there must be other exceptions. Corporate welfare, Big Pharma hand outs (medicare drug benefit), unfunded federal mandates (no child left behind), wasteful spending in non-combat Iraq (something like 2 billion unaccounted for). . . those are just the ones off the top of my head. Just because Bush has slightly decrease domestic spending (one of the smaller pieces of the budget pie) and has decided to fund the budget increasingly with debt does not mean he is a small government conservative. But then again if you make enough exceptions I guess even Ted Kennedy could look like a small gov conservative.
Report thisBy DennisD, March 25 at 12:39 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
One rich party
Frum concedes he(Bu$h) has “led his party to the brink of disaster.”
I’d say he’s led the country, I could care less in who’s “party” name, well past the brink of disaster.
The only people who really “party” in this country are the rich, everyone else is just here to clean up their mess and pay taxes.
Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report thisBy Typical White Person, March 26 at 12:28 pm #
(53 comments total)
Re: One rich party
Didn’t hurt mine one bit, made me feel pretty good..someone actually can see both sides.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Sol, March 25 at 10:36 am #
(3 comments total)
David Frum
Please save us from any comments by David Frum. A Canadian that no one cared listen to in Canada due to his extreme conservative views, goes to the US to be able to mingle with his 6000 year old Earth believers, publishes books on how great George Bush is and helps spread the vicious and extreme conservative ideologies that have created the situation the US is in right now. To make it more interesting he writes a new book