![]() |
|
| |
|
Conservatives in CrisisPosted on Oct 23, 2008By E.J. Dionne Conservatives are at each other’s throats, and here’s what’s revealing about how divided they are: The critics of John McCain and the critics of Sarah Palin represent entirely different camps. Skeptical social conservatives are precisely the people McCain was trying to mollify by picking Palin as his running mate. These include the faithful of the religious right who remember McCain as their enemy in 2000, and parts of the gun crowd who always saw McCain as soft on their issues. That McCain felt a need to make such an outlandishly risky choice speaks to how insecure his hold was on the core Republican vote. A candidate is supposed to rally the base during the primaries and reach out to the middle at election time. McCain got it backward, and it’s hurting him. A Pew Research Center survey this week found that among political independents, Palin’s unfavorable rating has almost doubled since mid-September, from 27 percent to 50 percent. Whatever enthusiasm Palin inspired among conservative ideologues is more than offset by middle-of-the road defections. Even on the right, she hasn’t done the job. In The Washington Post tracking poll released on Thursday, Barack Obama drew 22 percent of the vote from self-described conservatives. That’s a seven-point gain on John Kerry’s 2004 conservative share. Yet the pro-Palin right is still impatient with McCain for not being tough enough—as if he has not run one of the most negative campaigns in recent history. This camp believes that if McCain only shouted the names “Bill Ayers” and “Jeremiah Wright” at the top of his lungs, the whole election would turn around. Then there are those conservatives who see Palin as a “fatal cancer to the Republican Party” (David Brooks), as someone who “doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin” (Kathleen Parker), as “a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics” (Peggy Noonan). These conservatives deserve credit for acknowledging how ill-suited Palin is for high office. But what we see here is a deep split between parts of the conservative elite and much of the rank and file. For years, many of the elite conservatives were happy to harvest the votes of devout Christians and gun owners by waging a phony class war against “liberal elitists” and “leftist intellectuals.” Suddenly, the conservative writers are discovering that the very anti-intellectualism their side courted and encouraged has begun to consume their movement. The cause of Edmund Burke, Leo Strauss, Robert Nisbet and William F. Buckley Jr. is now in the hands of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity—and Sarah Palin. Reason has been overwhelmed by propaganda, ideas by slogans, learned manifestoes by direct-mail hit pieces. And then there is George W. Bush. Conservatives once hailed him for creating an enduring majority on behalf of their cause. Now, they cast him as the goat in their story of decline. The conservative critique of Bush is a familiar rant against his advocacy of big government and huge deficits—now supplemented by a horror over his embrace of actual socialism with the partial nationalization of big banks. And, yes, a fair number of conservatives were never wild about the adventure in Iraq. Things are so bad that the internecine warriors on the right have begun copying the rhetoric of the old left. In a Washington Times column this week upbraiding dissidents such as Brooks and Noonan, Tony Blankley, the conservative writer and activist, fell back on an old-left slogan, asking them: “Whose side are you on, comrade?” This is a revelatory question. It arises when a movement has lost its sense of solidarity and purpose, when the “sides” are no longer clear. There is no unified “right” or “center-right,” which is why we are no longer a conservative country, if we ever were. Conservatism has finally crashed on problems for which its doctrines offered no solutions (the economic crisis foremost among them, thus Bush’s apostasy) and on its refusal to acknowledge that the “real America” is more diverse, pragmatic and culturally moderate than the place described in Palin’s speeches or imagined by the right-wing talk show hosts. Conservatives came to believe that if they repeated phrases such as “Joe the Plumber” often enough, they could persuade working-class voters that policies tilted heavily in favor of the very privileged were actually designed with Joe in mind. It isn’t working anymore. No wonder conservatives are turning on each other so ferociously. Previous item: Life After November 4th Next item: McCain Banking on a Confederacy of Dunces Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, October 27, 2008 at 5:02 am #
ITW,
Politics has made “liberal” into a four-letter-word
campaign mantra of the Right. “Liberal” is synonymous with “tax and spender.” Both are synonymous with “Democrat.”
Right-wingers don’t even have to think about either what “liberal” really means or what they’re trying to “conserve” because it’s all already spelled out for them in the campaign rhetoric by their party leaders.
Ask a Right-winger, if they’re so much against tax and spending, what they call the debt run up by their party over the last several republican administrations and how they expect to pay for this one without raising revenue?
The answer: Pass the bill on to their children.
They’re “restaurant deadbeats” which is what one who wants to conserve his own wealth is likely to do: eat a sumptuous meal then duck out on the tab leaving the serve person to pay it.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, October 26, 2008 at 7:00 pm #
“But now I am older and wiser.
So that’s why I’m turning you in!
So love me, love me, love me:
I’m a Liberal!” —Phil Ochs
Nobody could say “Liberal” with disdain like Jerry Falwell. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coultergeist are pale images of ol’ Jerry when they say “Liberal”!. But, Hey! He had God and Jesus on his side: “I’m as sure for Heaven as if I’m already there!” This justified his gay-bashing, fascism preaching and out-and-out LYING and money-grabbing.
Report thisBy Anarcissie, October 26, 2008 at 5:21 pm #
Except for the frequent confusion of liberal with leftist, I think the popular use of the word is coherent—it refers to people who are actually conservative about (that is, want to keep) the classical liberal rights as amended by the New Deal, post World War 2 imperialism and the Civil Rights movement. Liberalism allows for some personal exceptions—abortion, gun laws, intellectual property, fiscal discipline, this war or that—but the individual in question can still be a liberal because they are in the liberal category on every other question. You don’t have the sort of fundamental difference of worldview and philosophy you find among those who are currently being called “conservatives”.
Of course I am speaking here of the modern, popular usage of the words. Liberals are not classical liberals and conservatives are not classical conservatives, at least not in the United States. The linguistic slippage makes discussions about these things pretty confusing at times.
Report thisBy Jim C, October 26, 2008 at 2:36 pm #
Leisure suit Larry , From your post and litany of votes it sounds like you are somewhat confused . What is a liberal , well , you named three , to that you can add FDR , TR and JFK . You want to hear a discription , John Kennedy gave a quite eloquent one early in his presidency , you can probably find it by googling ” John Kennedys what is a liberal speech ” it was quite profound . If that doesn’t answer it for you both FDR and TR spoke of the values and ideas that would be rather orthodox liberal values and thought many times . I am also at a loss to remember the sixtys you speak of , I was alive and active in that period and can not remember liberals being scorned by the left . The terms you refered to , limousine liberal in particular was coined by the drooling dumbass reagan and his crew , they made a concerted effort to make the term liberal demeaning , I never heard the other terms you refered to in the 60’s , 70’s or frankly at all . I also don’t beleave considering yourself a ” liberal ” or ” conservative ” is putting ones self in a box . It simply quantifies ones political leanings , two quite diffrent world views . I also own guns , but I am very liberal , I must have missed that rule . Unlike you I don’t vote for republicans . The reason is simple , I don’t believe in their governing philosophy , it’s just that simple . Why would I vote for someone who represents a political philosophy I don’t agree with in general ? I can also look at history past or present and see which governing philosophy I would rather live under . Would you prefer to live in a country like , say , Saudi arabia , Iran , Nth Korea , all very conservative or , Denmark , France or Germany , quite liberal ? I don’t know about you but I would prefer the latter , hands down .
Report thisBy Leisure Suit Larry, October 26, 2008 at 7:52 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Ahh but the term “liberal” is just as convaluted. What is a “liberal?” Ted Kennedy? Dennis Kucinich? Paul Welstone?
Back in the Sixties, “liberals” were seen as the “center” scorned by both right and left alike. “Limosene liberal” “stay at home liberal” and “Suburban liberal’ were epithets used by right and left to point out how small their class was.
It is hard to put folks in a box. I own guns but vote Democratic sometimes. I disavow the death penalty, but occasionally vote Republican. I’m opposed to trying juveniles as adults, opposed to jailing folks for property offenses, but also opposed to mandatory enrollment in health care plans, and and government give-a-ways.
I voted for Reagan in 80, Mike Dukakis in ‘88, Ross Perot in 92, Bob Dole in ‘96, and Al Gore in 2000 (I was in Israel in ‘84, and in Peru in 2004.
Conservative and liberal are terms for folks like Dionne to make neat packages… the truth is often messier
Report thisBy lawlessone, October 25, 2008 at 1:13 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Maybe we should let the Republicans win. Sure, it will probably result in a fiscal depression, wipe out quality of life for hundreds of millions, cost trillions of dollars, sacrifice needlessly tens of thousands of lives around the world, earn the undying enmity of almost the entire world, devastate the environment, suspend all the bill of rights except the 2nd amendment and devalue just about everything this country stands for, but maybe the current Neocon Republican leadership will finally be revealed once and for all to the rest of the population as the lying, malicious, destructive, self centered, greedily, thieving, predators they are. Maybe it will finally be seen as patriotic to despise anyone who labels himself as a Neocon.
Report thisBy Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, October 25, 2008 at 12:25 pm #
@JNagarya
You seem to equivocate.
Help me out here. What is it, exactly that conservatives are trying, in 21st century America, to conserve? I’d very much appreciate an answer because, I haven’t found one yet.
Then, I’d be open to discussing your answer with you.
Report thisBy JNagarya, October 25, 2008 at 8:49 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
By Fadel Abdallah, October 24 at 3:12 pm #
I believe that the label of “conservative” for the types of people many Americans label them is indeed a misnomer.
_____
It is more a misappropriation of a term which is relatively “moderate” compared to what they are behind that label.
_____
I happened to like labeling myself as conservative and reserved in relation to social and economic issues, yet I don’t find anything in common between myself and those who are called conservatives.
_____
Actually your notion of “reserved” as the meaning of the term “conservative” is exactly the same as theirs—an example being their demand that gov’t not interfere in their lives.
However, “reserved” is NOT the correct meaning of the term, though that is the thrust of their meaning—Teddy Roosevellt was a genuine conservative but not at all reserved.
The original, correct meaning of the term “conservative” should be obvious: TO CONSERVE. It was Teddy Roosevelt, as example, who established the National Parks system—the purpose being to protect publicly owned lands from commercial exploitation—which is clearly NOT what these so-called “conservatives” are about.
_____
I believe that the word “reactionaries” and “backward-thinking” are more suitable words to describe those types!
_____
Yes—reactionary. But I’ll go further: they are far-right lunatic fringe—the latter being the TRADITIONAL term for them—who have misapropriated and are hiding behind the terms “Republican” and “conservative” in dishonest effort to appear relatively moderate, and legitimate in view. But we have seen, with the efforts of such as Michelle Bachman, to advance their views the final mile—and seen what their views actually are. The mistake she and her ilk make is to mistake their propaganda and falsifications of reality for reality: they have insisted that their views are “mainstream,” and that everyone to the left of those is “far left,” and begun to believe that. But as we’ve seen, Bachman is nowhere near mainstream in her views: she is the poster child for the most extreme, violent anti-all-other-views far-right lunatic fringe. She and her ilk have funally reach the end of the line for them, at which point the tore off their masks and the vast majority shrieked in horror at the reality and are in the process of repudiating them into the sewer from when they crawled. Clothes may “make the man,” but in the cases of Palin and Bachman it cannot conceal the ugliness enrapped thereby.
Conservatives are by-and-large about preserving the status quo; the controversy is this: Which status quo? There is very little distance between Willliam F. Buckley’s blue-blood/patrician “conservatism” and the whites-only activism to his right arming themselves to enforce that vision of the “real America”.
You want to be careful about which labels you adopt in order to hang out with your intolerant and racist enemies. But in order to do that you’ll have to overcome your own knee-jerk pretensions to superiority.
Report thisBy Anarcissie, October 25, 2008 at 6:17 am #
Report thisIt sure is. For one thing, many profoundly contradictory groups, beliefs and activities are lumped together under that name: religious zealots and those who exploit them, neo-cons, those who pursue the interests of the wealthy and their corporations, libertarians, social conservatives and racists. Most of them are not actually conservative in the old sense of the word. The main reason to use it, I guess, is that the members of this unlikely collection often call themselves that.
By Fadel Abdallah, October 24, 2008 at 3:12 pm #
I believe that the label of “conservative” for the types of people many Americans label them is indeed a misnomer.
I happened to like labeling myself as conservative and reserved in relation to social and economic issues, yet I don’t find anything in common between myself and those who are called conservatives. I believe that the word “reactionaries” and “backward-thinking” are more suitable words to describe those types!
But I guess American English keeps giving me cultural shocks even after living in America for thirty years! My first shock was with the word “football” which is a misnomer for a game where the “foot” is hardly used!
Report thisBy Big B, October 24, 2008 at 7:51 am #
The conservative movement has indeed lost control of it’s new base.
The old guard repubs, that is big business and the wealthy, were a dying breed in the era of the “new deal”, “new frontier” and “great society”. A middle class had risen from the ashes of WWII and the great depression, and had built america into THE world power for the second half of the 20th century. The american working class had become empowered like no other working class in human history. Wealth was being redistributed at a record pace, the “neaveau rich” were popping up all over place, and the old rich could finally stand no more!
But how could the american blue bloods turn the tide against these petty commoners who now make too much money, have too much political power, and are now(gasp!) sending their children to college, making the next generation even more of a threat to the future of their old establishment ways?
Easy, we turn them against each other by accentuating their differences, thus starting a class war. And it worked!
They began with racism. The repubs went throughout the old south prior to the passage of the voting rights act of 1964, and told the people that this would be the final nail in the coffin of states rights and thus the confederacy itself. New northern liberals were coming to tell them how to live their lives, that the N word was frowned upon, and you could no longer threaten to hang blacks for trying to vote. The repub plan worked wonderfully! The dye was cast for the largest voting block the repubs would ever enjoy. 1968 became the deathknell for the new deal and the great society, and liberals scurried for whatever dark corner they could hide. The repubs had more power than they had enjoyed since the days of Teddy Roosevelt! But now there was much work to done, for all the trappings of the new deal would have to be slashed and burned before americas Blue Bloods could fully return to prominence.
It took fourty years, but they succeeded! There was a brief hick-up in the plan in 1976. But the repubs smartly threw that election, knowing that they, and their newly created conservative media outlets could, in the next four years, make americans believe that Carter was responsible for Watergate, Vietnam, and the lindberg kidnapping. But the people had swayed away from the right to vote for Carter. They would need to bind the cohilition tighter, permit no more straying from the path. What to do?
Create a religious class war.
Appeal to the lowest common denominator of your new southern working class and poor white base by accentuating their intolerances for abortion and womens rights. At the same time tell them that liberals are coming for their guns, and don’t want their kids to pray at school, that unions are communist anti-american organizations that want to kill God. Put preachers on TV and the radio every day, with one cohesive message, you are either with us or against us!
And while all of this is going on, big businesses were calling the shots in DC. Deregulation was the word of the day. The Blue Bloods once again consolidated their power and cut the balls off the working class in the US.
But they did it all on borrowed money. And now the Piper is here.
And the beast they created, the religious right, has grown beyond their control. They don’t like Mac because he’s a moderate. They don’t like Palin because she’s a woman. They don’t like bailing out big business because that’s Communism!
No one in america should be surprised by the attrocities that the wacko right will attempt to perpetrate in the next four years. Hell hath no fury like a christian wacko scorned on election day!
Report thisBy jake3988, October 24, 2008 at 7:46 am #
The problem with McCain is not the parroting of the talking points, it’s the parroting of talking points that either he himself (or Palin) suffers from themselves OR that they’re false.
You can’t attack someone for no experience when your running mate has less experience than nearly anyone in america. Attacking someone as elitist when you yourself are one of the most elitist people in America doesn’t work.
You can’t continue to parrot talking points like ‘joe the plumber’ and ‘he wants to raise your taxes’, because they aren’t TRUE!
If this was 1990 and no one had the internet, they could probably get away with it. Presidents in the past have. But this is 2008. A good majority of people have the internet and can see right through McCain’s lies.
Report thisBy JNagarya, October 24, 2008 at 5:27 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
”. . . outlandishly risky choice . . . .”
Palin “risky”!? Try UNQUALIFIED. And qualify that with ABSOLUTELY.
And her unfavorable is not 50 per cent; it is 55 per cent. At best, it one supports her.
$150,000 for CLOTHES while not only down-ticket Republicans are STARVED for campaign funds, but McCain himself is! My GAWD are these ever the stupid nominating the stupid!
Report thisBy LJ in MD, October 24, 2008 at 4:53 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
No wonder the GOP is imploding on itself.
Report thisIt selected a presidential candidate on the basis of his hero status and maverick, non-ideological history. As it turns out, he is no hero (ran from fire on Forrestal, begged for care and favors as POW, abandoned his wife and family to shack-up with rich bitch) and he has sold his soul to the very ideologues that destroyed him the last time he ran (fathered a black baby, Cindy’s drug adiction, etc.).
For VP the ideologues demanded a solid, right-wing, pro-gun, anti-abortion, earmark hating evangelist. What they got was a vapid, earmark loving, America hating (AIP) nut job only capable of spouting simple talking points - she even needed to be purged of witchcraft by her church (sort of like a flea bath for the soul). Now, as it appears they are headed to an embarrassing defeat and taking most of the house and senate candidates with them, no wonder the rats are jumping from the ship. Self preservation makes one do some interesting things. Their plight does not bother me in the least - it will be fun to see a 3 or 4 party system in this country for a few cycles.
What does bother me is MkKKain and Palin still have more than 5% of the vote - says way too much about the values of our society.
By Purple Girl, October 24, 2008 at 4:43 am #
Teddy not only singed the eyebrows of the Clintons as he ‘Passed the Torch’ to Sen Obama- he threw the Gauntlet at their Heads! Now we have clear distinction about What constitutes a Democrat.
Report thisthe Clintons & the DLC were slipping Republican ideas in to our platform (aka NAFTA, ‘Don’t ask Don’t Tell). And after 12 yrs of Neo Con Crap, we were willing to compromise on those thinking it would finally give Us an Inch in the political arena.It didn’t it only moved the ball towards the Neo Cons agenda. Hindsight Being 20/20, I KNOW the Clintons had no interest in the returning to a Real Democrat Platform, but contaminating it. what does the DLC call it ‘The Third Way’....Not the Labor way, Nor even the Free Market Way..the Corporate Way- just like the Neo Cons. Hillary’s Red Slip was Showing throughout her campaign- She obviously has her own autographed copy of the Neo con handbook & manifesto.
I Know there are some Good Republicans still hiding in the Party. Chris Matthews was trying yesterday to show how the Dems & Repubs have far more incommon then we have been allowed to discuss for Decades.
Small Gov’t…YEAH BABY!! Get rid of ‘Homeland Security’, the NSA ,the Federal Reserve,and Private Contractors like Blackwater & Halliburton OFF our Payroll. Get the Feds out of my pockets, off my Phone line and out of my body (abortion,Stem cell, vices- Tobacco, Pot, Prostitution)
Limit our presence in foreign countries…Let’s allow soveriegn countries to handle their Own defense- ie Iraq & Israel. We don’t need to be Standing over their shoulders, Nor footing the Bill. And Certianly should NOT be their Hitmen for Hire (Saudi’s).
Reduce Spending…Great let’s start with the Wages & Bennies of the Public Servants, Tax loopholes and concessions to Corps,Needless Foreign handouts
If Bush & cheny have done nothing else positive for this country, they may have played their hand out to far and Now we are going to cut it Off!
There is talk Sarah is trying to build her base for a ‘12 run…LOL. I don’t think she’ll have one by that time.The Religious Right has been revealed as the ‘Immoral Minority’ with UnAmerican Ideologies.
It’s time they recognize the fact it is THEIR TURN to compromise. We will Reduce or eliminate Unwanted pregnancies (Since there is No Such thing as a ‘ProAbortionist’), by encouraging education and accessiblity to Preventive Birth control. We will allow Gays to Marry (in churches who agree to perform such services) otherwise they can Legalize their union at the Court house.We will move Forward on Stem Cell, because ‘Life’ does not end at birth.
Why will We be able to move these issues towards our way of thinking, Because REAL republicans find them more intune with their Original Doctrine…They have No Place in the Federal Gov’t and impede Upon the Freedoms and Rights in our Free Democratic Society.
WELCOME BACK REPUBLICAN PARTY!!!
Sit Down ..We have Sooo Much to discuss and solve together!
Thank you Gen.Powell for helping bring Real Republicans out of the shadows. You may have not only Saved their ‘Brand’, but may have given them a Shot at Redemption and ‘12!