Real Conservatism
| Wed Oct. 8, 2008 8:58 AM PDT
REAL CONSERVATISM....NRO's Andy McCarthy is seriously pissed that John McCain didn't turn last night's debate into a slugfest over Obama's terrorist/socialist/UN loving ways. Ross Douthat comments:
You know, part of me actually wishes that John McCain had started talking about Bill Ayers, the Annenberg Challenge, Rashid Khalidi, and how the Global Poverty Act will line the pockets of Hugo Chavez. (Maybe in his answer to one of the questions about the economy — why not?) Because that way we wouldn't have to hear — as we will hear, from McCarthy and others, for months and years to come — that the biggest problem with the McCain campaign was that it just wasn't willing to really takes the gloves off and call Barack Obama the terrorist sympathizer that he is.
Actually, it's worse than that. If McCain loses, as he's almost certain to, we're going to see two reactions. First, Steve Schmidt wasn't nasty enough. In the future, Republicans need to return to their Lee Atwater roots and really teach Americans what liberal treachery is all about. Second, we told you a RINO couldn't win. The conservative base will be convinced for years that the big problem with McCain was that he was trying to be a pale shadow of liberal Democrats. (Sarah Palin will be conveniently forgotten, or else finally seen for the tokenism she really is.) The nation still hungers for genuine conservatism, they'll say, and they knew McCain was a phony all along. If only the party had nominated a Romney or a Huckabee the public would have swarmed to their cause.
This is delusional, but it's probably good news for Democrats. It means the GOP is going to be riven by factional warfare for years, with moderates unable to get a purchase on the party apparatus because of the McCain albatross hanging around their necks. Eventually, like Britain's Labor Party in the 80s, they'll find their Tony Blair, but in the meantime they're likely to double down on the most strident possible social conservatism, convinced that the heartland will respond if only they regain the true faith. Ronald Reagan, who was more pragmatic about these things than any of them ever give him credit for, will be rolling in his grave. And Democrats, at least for a while, will go from strength to strength.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
When I was young I did a lot of stupid things that wrecked my life. I did not get a handle on it until I looked int the mirror, saw my shortcomings and deficiencies, and started making necessary changes.
The GOP is at about 5 years old in this time line. It's still everybody else's fault. Everybody is out to get them, blah blah blah.
The GOP is pretty freakin far from even looking in that mirror if they ever do.
I simply love it when some idiot like Andy McCarthy complains that they need to tack rightwards.
That'll work.
Submitted by walldon (not verified) on Wed Oct. 8, 2008 9:11 AM PDT.
Methinks you may be counting your chickens before they're hatched. Considering the likely "Bradley effect," (otherwise known as racial bigotry), Obama's lead in the polls is probably illusory. I can't tell you how many people I know who will say they're undecided but they "really don't know enough about Obama." That's code for, "I'm going to vote against him 'cause he's black."
I find it interesting to ponder whether Romney or Huckabee or Giuliani would have been doing any better than McCain if they had been the nominees.
It strikes me that Giuliani would probably be in almost the same position as McCain: an ignorant RINO blowhard.
Romney I'll bet would have been doing better than McCain is now, because he would have weathered the financial crisis somewhat more competently (although in the end the fact that he's a 'Wall Street' man and a Mormon would be fatal.)
It would have been really interesting to run against Huckabee - someone with Palin's evangelical and Joe Six Pack charm, and with more governing experience, and with a softer touch on economic matters. He would have been the real wildcard, I think; the only guy with a chance at winning.
Submitted by Lev (not verified) on Wed Oct. 8, 2008 9:14 AM PDT.
It took Labour 18 years to find their way back into power. I wonder if it will take that long for the Republicans. Somehow, I doubt it. There is a substantial number of Republicans who only want to win and keep power. You can call them the Bush Administration for shorthand, but it's broader than that. If they think they need to run a centrist in 2016 to win, they will. More likely, they'll run a W-like fake centrist that will make some symbolic denunciations of old Republicanism but will stick to the core Republican values that we've all come to love. Well, at least 9% of us. The media, of course, will buy into the act as it loves any chance to appear balanced. Will the American people? This is the question. What was George Bush's expression about "fool me once"?
This has been the Republican reaction since FDR was elected, since Truman beat Dewey, and especially since the Republicans lost control of the house in 1954 because they acted as idiotically from 1952 to 1954 as they have since Gingrich took the House in 1994.
They will never grow up.
Submitted by neil wilson (not verified) on Wed Oct. 8, 2008 9:14 AM PDT.
Weren't a lot of true conservatives running in the Republican primaries?
Trancado was a nut. Brownback, (I can't even remember the names of the losers) was almost the prefect conservative. Wasn't Thompson a good conservative? I can't figure out why conservatives didn't love Duncan Hunter.
I know there are others I left out but the Republicans could have chosen a perfect conservative but they chose McCain, Huckabee, Romney, Rudy and Paul. The real conservatives didn't even make it out of New Hampshire.
So forget all the crap about wanting a 'real conservative'. If the Republican party didn't want one then you can be sure the independents and the Democrats don't either.
Submitted by elmo (not verified) on Wed Oct. 8, 2008 9:17 AM PDT.
Ahhhhh, poor little babies can't win on the issues!
Life must suck when you can't run on your actual views for fear of permanent political banishment.
Submitted by Christopher (not verified) on Wed Oct. 8, 2008 9:20 AM PDT.
Doesn't the Left do the same thing? Don't we call for more blood when our chips are down? Isn't this what Nadar voters believed? That the Democratic party was ignoring "the base." Why can't party activists figure out that you can't rule from the margins?
It means the GOP is going to be riven by factional warfare for years, with moderates unable to get a purchase on the party apparatus because of the McCain albatross hanging around their necks.
You can't possibly be suggesting that McCain has been running as any kind of a moderate, can you?
This all sounds great and I hope it pans out like you say, but we all thought Nixon resigning after Watergate would give us the Presidency for a long time and instead we lost it 6 years later. Similarly we thought the country would never elect another Bush after Clinton beat Bush Sr. We all know how that turned out. If the economy doesn't recover strongly or there is a foreign policy crisis which Obama is perceived to have failed to respond to effectively the Republicans could be competitive again in 2012.
McCarthy is one of the worst haters over at National Review.
Given the ugly comments and behavior we're seeing and hearing at Republican rallies, it's sobering to see McCarthy write this on The Corner:
"The initial greeting between the candidates is something people watch closely. If McCain treats Obama like he's a pal and then goes for the jugular, he will look terrible and be seen as phony. The idea is to shake hands in a way that conveys, I'm polite but I'd rather be having a root canal than shaking hands with you."
So they can't even shake hands with the guy?
Makes you wonder these Wingers would say and do if there weren't some constraints imposed by civil society and laws.
Ron E.
I feel U dawg. But the thing is, this financial meltdown is the red pill.
People are waking up and finding the world the lived in was a computer simulation.
And in the grim real world they wake up in, their are parasites all over their bodies sucking the life out of them.
Those parasites are called Republicans, and look nothing like they did when everybody was still hooked up to the grid.
Plus ADD Americans HATE losers, and currently that's what the Republicans are categorized as.
I'll be comfy on Nov 5 with Obama sitting atop 270+ electoral votes, until then I ain't confident enough ever.
That said, I hope the Republican party is wandering in the wilderness for a generation. They richly deserve it.
Second, we told you a RINO couldn't win.
And it's funny that they will view McCain as a RINO.
Kevin, you seem to be suggesting that McCain is a "moderate". WTF? McCain has been anything but moderate in the past 8 years and jettisoned all remnants of "maverickyness" to lock in the nomination and begin his campaign.
This is just right: they're going to go for an even bigger wingnut next time. Even this time, McCain only won because the RomneyDroid and Huckabee split the wingnut vote, and the primary rules gave McCain all the delegates for a meager plurality in each state.
I think the only way they avoid this is if Gen Petraeus goes into politics: I don't like him myself, but he's been practically canonized by the press and politicians of both sides, and that might give him the stature to win the nomination without adopting wingnut policies.
"Kevin, you seem to be suggesting that McCain is a "moderate"."
No, he's suggesting that a large chunk of Republican primary voters view McCain as a moderate. And they're the ones who choose the next nominee.
You and I know that McCain has caved in on just about everything. But the hard-core Republican base remembers that he opposed Bush's tax cuts and he described the religious right as "agents of intolerance". They have long memories.
"This is delusional, but it's probably good news for Democrats."
Be careful what you wish for. Any good democracy needs a good opposition party. It's a kind of backstop against political hyperbole which degrades even the best majority party over time.
"Real conservatism" in America today is a pseudo-ideology that has no actual content except hatred of "liberals", just as the pseudo-ideology of 1930s brownshirts had no actual content except hatred of "Jews".
"Real conservatism" in America today is not a political philosophy or ideology. It is a cult of hatred.
And that cult of hatred is exploited by ultra-rich, kleptocratic, career white-collar crooks and their servants like Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, John McCain and Sarah Palin, who masquerade as "conservative" or "neo-conservative" politicians in order to gain power, loot the US treasury, and misuse the US military for corrupt purposes of financial gain for themselves and their cronies and financial backers.
Kevin wrote: "If McCain loses, as he's almost certain to ..."
I sure wouldn't count on that yet. There is still a long way to go before election day and Obama's lead may not hold.
And then comes election day when the Republicans will go all out with their voter disenfranchisement schemes (which have been under way for some time with voter purges, etc), and the expected large numbers of Democratic voters will have to struggle to be able to vote.
And then comes the counting -- or not counting -- of the votes, where again the Republicans have already prepared for the most massive fraud in the history of the country.
It is by no means certain that Obama will win, or that he will win by a large enough margin to overcome the voter disenfranchisement and fraud, or that having won, he will be sworn in.
Conservatives still don't understand that socialism is an economic construct, not a political one. You can have the same freedoms in a socialistic society as you can have in a capitalistic one. Look at Sweden - they have as many freedoms as we do here in the U.S. The one freedom you don't have under socialism is to be filthy rich at the expense of everyone else. Is that so bad?
Socialism produces a more stable and sustainable society. In fact, I would say socialism is a more Christian way of living than capitalism. Read the Acts of the Apostles, if you doubt me.
Submitted by Aaron S. Veenstra (not verified) on Wed Oct. 8, 2008 10:20 AM PDT.
FWIW, I think you're dead wrong about Palin. A lot of conservatives have convinced themselves that McCain's convention bounce was a Palin bounce, and that she's been unduly restrained by the campaign. There will almost certainly be cries of "If only she'd been the nominee!" after November 4, and if she survives Troopergate I can't imagine a significant Palin for Pres movement in 2011. Which is not to say I think she'll be a nominee.
Submitted by Carl Nyberg (not verified) on Wed Oct. 8, 2008 10:27 AM PDT.
Here's a worst case scenario for you.
Republicans nominate a racist, fascist candidate who sells the idea of reviving the U.S. economy through doubling down on the War on Islam.
And the Democrats stumble. Maybe a personal scandal. Maybe the economy. Maybe the Democrats govern from the center-Right and the Left nominates a separate candidate.
I worry about the GOP turning to the Right, but I don't see any way to avoid it.
As for Palin, there is plenty of evidence throughout her short political career that she is no more of a "real conservative" than John McCain, but just another ambitious, unprincipled, power-hungry, kleptocratic politician who cynically exploits the right-wing base when she needs them to gain power, and turns around and espouses "moderate" positions when she wants to appeal to the broader electorate. She relies on the right-wing extremist base for her support more than McCain has, so she tends to play to their "issues" more than McCain does. But she is just as much a cynical phony "real conservative" as George W. Bush.
(Sarah Palin will be conveniently forgotten, or else finally seen for the tokenism she really is.)
Conservatives in Alaska consider Palin a RINO because she raised taxes on oil companies and favored a publicly subsidized gas pipeline over a private sector proposal.
Leslie: "Palin is delusional enough about her experience to run for President in 2012."
Why not? She ran for governor in 2006 on the strength of her failed bit for LtGov in 2002.
The nation still hungers for genuine conservatism, they'll say, and they knew McCain was a phony all along. If only the party had nominated a Romney or a Huckabee the public would have swarmed to their cause.
I suspect you're right. Though how they'll explain to themselves why the country as a whole would have gone for those guys when the party itself did not is a mystery. But I suspect that won't bother 'em.
What is it with bloggers and "double down"? Seems like in the last 2 months, Kevin and Josh and Kos and others just can't use it enough. That and "reax." So difficult to spell out reaction.
Please, some words deserve honor, others do not. For the sake of the language, double down on this insanity and get rid of double down.
Reax?
I think McCain's ad hoc, incoherent campaign is due to the fact that he really didn't want the Repub nomination this year -- he wanted to give it one last shot so his half of the party could follow him out in good conscience, then try to run up the middle with Lieberman on an independent Unity ticket.
I think if the Repubs had nominated Romney or Guliani the attacks on Ayers and Wright would have been much more consistent and effective, and the McCarthy position would be their primary campaign argument.
As for Palin, there is plenty of evidence throughout her short political career that she is no more of a "real conservative" than John McCain
But she is genuinely rapture-ready and with newly whetted ambition. Barring some unforgivable revelation, she's comin' back. Palin/Santorum 2012? Someone's digging that.
Makes you wonder these Wingers would say and do if there weren't some constraints imposed by civil society and laws. --Socrates
I think you're getting a pretty good look at it in the reports of racial epithets and "Kill him!" from their recent rallies.
You think they're so dumb, you think they're so funny
Wait until they've got you running to the
Night rally, night rally, night rally
--The prescient Elvis Costello
"Real conservatism" in America today is a pseudo-ideology that has no actual content except hatred of "liberals", just as the pseudo-ideology of 1930s brownshirts had no actual content except hatred of "Jews".
Well... worth pointing out perhaps that "liberals" were pretty high on the brownshirt hate list too. One of the defining characteristics of fascist movements in fact.
As for Palin, there is plenty of evidence throughout her short political career that she is no more of a "real conservative" than John McCain, but just another ambitious, unprincipled, power-hungry, kleptocratic politician who cynically exploits the right-wing base when she needs them to gain power, and turns around and espouses "moderate" positions when she wants to appeal to the broader electorate.
Um, that IS a real conservative. In fact an ambitious, unprincipled, power-hungry, kleptocratic politician who cynically exploits the right-wing base when she needs them to gain power is as real a conservative gets. That's them in a nutshell.
"It means the GOP is going to be riven by factional warfare for years, with moderates unable to get a purchase on the party apparatus because of the McCain albatross hanging around their necks. "
I feel a strange need for a cigarette after reading this.
Another good parallel is the UK Conservatives after John Major lost in 1997.
Hopefully Obama will also do some campaign finance reform (e.g. to require votes of shareholders before political donations are given) to structurally weaken the GOP and reduce the flow of $$$ to the right-wing wingnut welfare institutions.
Here's a question though: is the availability of wingnut welfare good or bad for the GOP? It's helped with ready availability of voices for the mighty wurlitzer, but on the other hand it's meant there's hasn't developed a right-wing equivalent to the netroots of the left.
Don't count on the Bradley Effect to save your asses, Republicans. Judging by the 2006 Senatorial contest between Bob Corker and Harold Ford Jr, we can see Americans aren't hiding their racial bias. If anything, Ford Jr. didn't lose because he was black, he lost because he was a Ford. So keep dreaming crackpots.
If you want a small-scale example of this, look at what has been going on with the Virginia GOP for the last 6 or 7 years. They've been losing steadily state-wide since 2001 - the Governor's mansion twice, a Senate seat, the State Senate, soon to be the other Senate seat, soon to be the presidential election, etc. Part of that is changing demographics in the Commonwealth, part is general fatigue with the Republican Party. But they are convinced the reason they are losing is that they aren't conservative enough! If only the VA GOP were more anti-tax, more socially reactionary, more pro-war, they'd totally be winning!
So as a result of this train of thought, they've basically purged any moderates from the party. They held a nominating convention instead of a primary to choose the GOP candidate for Senate just so relatively moderate Rep. Davis (the only person who would have stood a chance in hell against Warner) wouldn't win. And now their chosen candidate is down 25-30 points in the polls.
There is no logic to it - the right-wing of the party is totally divorced from reality. One can only hope the national GOP follows a similar path, because that means the Democrats will win a cake walk for the better part of the next decade.
If the GOP loses as big as it looks this year, then a couple of things need to happen.
1: The dems have got to GOVERN. And they've got to do it well. Pelosi and Reid need to herd those cats so that everyone at least keeps going in the same general direction.
2: The economy and Iraq/Afghanistan need to be on the upswing in 2012. Before that, it won't matter one way or the other.
If these two things happen, the GOP is likely screwed for a very long time. The fiscal conservatives and the social conservatives will be in an all-out war. The Nixon coalition could completely collapse.
What you guys all seem to be forgetting, is the democratic party is no longer the party of JFK.
The democratic party is now more than ever the party of failed wealth redistribution.
We are going back to the Carter years with a hint of Hoover.
Gas is going up to $5 a gallon in the next few years, and the economy is already hurting badly.
To keep the coffers full, they will raise taxes, and the top 5% isn't going to be enough. Business taxes of all forms will go up while much of europe is moving away from a toxic business tax system. We will be driving new industry away.
As taxes increase revenue will decrease and taxes will again increase. Inflation is going to hit Carter levels as will umeployment.
You guys all forget... what started the Reagen revolution?
This isn't just a team sport, it's about running the country and on the economy, the carter economics fail.
Anyway, perhaps it's time to remember why socialism fails and why many European nations are running from it.
I think the primary problem republicans are having is that the country has outgrown "wedge issues".
The future of the party relies on appealing to the younger more moderate voters who are not influenced by the fear of gay marriage or roe v wade.
They need to get back to goal of smaller government. They also need to leave behind their bases aversion to science and education. The nation wants a leaner smarter government. Not one that intrudes on it's most personal decisions.
In addition the intrusion of religion into politics needs to stop. Moderate voters are turned off by the idea that policy decisions are made on faith rather than logic.
Submitted by iago18335 (not verified) on Thu Oct. 9, 2008 5:46 AM PDT.
If I may suggest another possible outcome. Palin uses the loss to highlight her conservative credentials and becomes a hero to the movement as someone who tried her best to fight against McCain's 'crypto-liberal' positions.
Further fleshed out here:
http://iago18335.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/intelligence-profiling-the-can...
in the meantime they're likely to double down on the most strident possible social conservatism, convinced that the heartland will respond if only they regain the true faith.
Isn't this what the folks at Kos have been saying for years about the Left?
If, by some disastrous happenstance, McCain/Palin (shudder) win, I don't believe they could govern for a minute. They have taken divisive politics to an even lower level than Atwater.
It astounds me, though, that the extremist and subversive views that Palin has supported in the recent past have not been an issue. I am quite a down-to-earth person and I am considering leaving the country if she gets near the WH. She is a cancer, just as David Brooks said. I fear for a civil society, should she make it to office. The McCain campaign has put us on a dangerous path.
It really is time for more voices from a few good men and women to come to the aid of our country.
I think the biggest problem facing the so called modern day conservatives in the US is this: IGNORANCE!
These conservatives need to travel the world to see how different systems in the world work. For instance, these US conservatives need to see how their fellow conservatives in the UK are "reinventing" themselves postively & in the process winning people's hearts & minds.
Instead, the GOP wants to move even more to the RIGHT by dreaming to be led by Mrs. Palin in 2012. Mrs. Palin, only got a passport recently & only appeals to people's IGNORANT fears.
We know what these conservatives are against: the usual suspects. However, what we need to know is this: what do these US conservatives stand for now, especially after Bush?
Instead of mongering fear, tell me, what is in it for?
McCain has sundered this country on his blind ambition to be president. The bottom line is we have a reckless, impulsive, ignorant, plane-crashing, nepotistic, insider-connected, misogynistic, wife-abusing, government power thug as the Republican nominee -- that's the reality, folks. The responsible choice for Republican nominee this year would have been Mitt Romney. But, unfortunately for this country, the voters of New Hampshire and the governor of Florida decided otherwise.
I strongly recommend that anyone who still has illusions about John McCain go and read the Rolling Stone article about him.
Once we have a communist apparatus in place, I'm hoping all the banking infiltration by world govt's is movement in the right direction, I'm hoping republicanism will be outlawed. It's for the good of all people that we succumb to the state.
