The death knell for the conservative movement? I think not.
In the week since the election, the talking heads on the left side of the political perspective have been gloating over the election results, as well as the so-called demise of conservatism in America. While I am admittedly happy about the results of the election, I certainly am not ready to put any nails into the coffin of the American conservative movement.
Even some on the right are suggesting a conservative implosion in this country. A former director and trustee of the National Review, Austin W. Bramwell, has a piece in the November 20th issue of The American Conservative entitled “Good-bye to All That - A former National Review trustee surveys the wreckage of contemporary conservatism.”
"Until recently, it has been almost impossible for me to speak candidly about the conservative movement, for it was my strange fate to serve as director and later trustee of the movement’s flagship journal, National Review. Earlier this year, at William F. Buckley’s request, I resigned both positions. I can therefore now declare what perhaps has oft been thought but never, at least not often enough, expressed. Notwithstanding conservatives’ belief that they, in contrast to their partisan opponents, have thought deeply about the challenges facing the United States, it is they who have become unserious."
Here’s a link to the article: http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_11_20/cover.html
While I don’t share Mr. Bramwell’s pessimistic outlook on conservatism in America, I do find his analysis fascinating. And some of what he suggests falls along the lines of what many of us on the left have been saying for years – QUIT DRINKING THE KOOL-AID!
My personal opinion is that the recent elections, and the aftermath to come, do not necessarily represent the death of conservatism in America. I think this represents an opportunity for the leaders of the conservative movement to reflect, regroup, and refocus on where the movement is, and where it needs to be. Make no mistake though; conservatism has been dealt a major blow, and a self-inflicted one at that. How the conservative movement chooses to deal with it will determine whether it was a fatal one.
Labels: conservative, politics
posted by Marlipern @ 1:36 PM
14 comments
14 Comments:
This is much ado about nothing.
The American conservative movement is no more moribund than the American liberal movement was when the Republicans took over. What I think we are really talking about is more a Republican, Democrat issue than a conservative, liberal one. The Republicans made some "unforced errors" which cost them dearly at the polls. This has nothing to do with conservatism as a political ideology.
And I have to say I was really quite impressed with the restrained tone of your post until I got to the "QUIT DRINKING THE KOOL-AID" comment. So in the spirit of bi-partisan co-operation, which I am certain is currently on display in our nation's capital, I will offer to meet you half way if you will agree to TAKE OFF YOUR TIN FOIL HAT!
Well, I'm sorry you took offense to the "drinking the kool-aid" remark. But I used that phrase to highlight the points that were being made by the conservative author of the article I cited:
"In the run-up to the invasion, leading conservatives announced that conservatism now meant spreading global democratic revolution. This forthright radicalism—this embrace of the sanative powers of violence—became quickly accepted as the ineluctable meaning of conservatism in foreign policy. Those who dissented risked ostracism and harsh rebuke. Had conservative leaders instead argued that global democratic revolution would not cure our woes but increase them, the rest of the movement would have accepted this position no less quickly."
"conservatism is concerned less with truth than with distinguishing insiders from outsiders. Conservatives identify themselves in part by repeating slogans (“we are at war!”) that, like “ignorance is strength,” are less important for what (if anything) they say than for what saying them says about the speaker."
"the conservative movement engages in selective editing of history. When events have a tendency to disconfirm ideology, down the memory hole they go. Thus, conservatives do not recall their dire warnings about the Soviet Union during the Cold War or about the economy after the Bush I or Clinton tax increases. On the Iraq invasion, they will not remind you of their claims that Iraqis would welcome us as liberators, that the world would soon be applauding the Iraq invasion, or that events in Lebanon and the Ukraine heralded global democratic revolution. Nor will conservatives remind you of their predictions that the insurgency’s demise was imminent, that Saddam Hussein and then Zarqawi were the Big Men of the insurgency, or that the insurgency consisted largely of foreign jihadis. As in 1984, the ability to forget that any of these events ever occurred signals one’s loyalty to the movement."
Again, this coming from a conservative.
And what, exactly is wrong with my tin foil hat? I think it looks good on me. :-)
Marlipern,
I think we can stick a fork in this one. One disaffected conservative with multiple axes to grind does not make succeed in making a convincing case for the end of conservatism. Sorry.
And as for your tin foil hat - it's darling and it really does look good on you too - especially the propeller on top!
Well, I don't recall the Dems saying anything in the "late 90's" regarding the "run-up to the 2003 invasion". As I recall, the Clinton admin. hadn't planned a 2003 invasion. Do you know something that I don't know?
And I'm betting the Democrats who voted for the funding believed the cherry-picked intelligence they were being fed, as most of the public did.
Of course you will argue that the Dems were "looking at the same intelligence that the administration was", which is simply not true. The complete analysis and details like the questionable reliability of sources like "curveball" was omitted when presented to the Congress and to the public.
"How many Dems voted against it the funding?" Regarding the infamous $87 Billion ("I voted for it before I voted against it"), 11 in the Senate, 115 in the House. Source: The Senate and House Roll Calls. (again, do your own homework) Your point is?
"Conservative In Name Only" eh? That's rich. That is of course why he was made director and trustee of the National Review. Boy, he sure pulled the wool over the eyes of the likes of William F. Buckley.
Lone, disgruntled conservative?? (and it is lone, not "loan") Do you really think he is the only person of the conservative persuasion frustrated with the highjacking of the Republican party and the conservative movement by the current band of neocon and CINO (Christian in name only) wack jobs?? Sure. Keep telling yourself that.
"Ummm... well for starter the policy for regime chnage in Iraq began under the clinton administration...
Yes or no?"
Ummm... No. But nice try. The policy for regime change in Iraq started under Bush 41. Not with G.H.W.B himself, but with others within his admin.
Gather 'round children... Uncle Marlipern wants to tell you a little story about "The Project For the New American Century".
Way back in 1992, then (soon to be ex-) Defense Secretary Dick Cheney commissioned a strategy report from the Defense Department, written by then (soon to be ex-) Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy, Paul Wolfowitz. In the report, among other things, Wolfowitz outlined plans for military intervention in Iraq as an action necessary to assure "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil" and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats from terrorism. 1.
After the draft of the report was leaked to the press, and there was an outcry from Democratic side of the aisle, Bush senior publicly denounced it.
During the Clinton years, several hard-right-wingers wrote articles and op-eds about American global leadership in the post cold war world, many advocating the U.S. using its military and financial influence to dominate the rest of the world. Several of these movers and shakers on the far-right got together and formed "The Project For the New American Century", a "non-profit, educational organization" that includes as founding members: Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard L. Armitage, John Bolton, Richard Perle, William Kristol, etc. This group, among other things, is a virtual who's who of the George W. Bush administration.
Anyhew, in 1998, the PNAC unsuccessfully lobbied President Clinton to attack Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power. President Clinton replied that he was focusing on dealing with al-Qaida terrorist cells. 1.
So, you see my friends, it was a forgone conclusion that once Bush 43 & Co. took office, "regime change" in Iraq would soon be a matter of official U.S. foreign policy. Hell, within hours of the attacks of 9/11, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld ordered his aides to begin planning for an attack on Iraq, even though his intelligence officials told him it was an al-Qaida operation and there was no connection between Iraq and the attacks. 1.
So, even though many on the right like to use Clinton as a convenient scapegoat for just about everything, this was a right-wing operation from the get-go, and had absolutely nothing to do with Bill Clinton.
1. Much of the information presented here is available at the PNAC Primer page: http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/PNAC-Primer.htm
as well as the PNAC site itself: http://www.newamericancentury.org/
OK Bigdog, let's talk about the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998"...
"SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act ."
Reference to 4(a)(2):
"SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ...
(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE- (A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations."
I NEVER had a problem with regime change. An all-out invasion of a sovereign nation is a whole 'nother story.
Please tell me where in the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" it refers to 150,000 of our troops on the ground, 3,000 American personnel killed, 20,000 wounded, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed.
I've said it before, I'll say it again... you can't blame this one on Clinton.
Republicans should stick with their obsession with Clinton's penis. While misguided, and humorous to be sure, it has more validity than any feeble attempt to blame the current administration's failings on the Clinton administration.
Like I said Bigdog, nice try.
Marlipern,
I've been sitting on the sidelines watching you and Big Dog duke this one out. However, I have two comments about your most recent post....
1. "I NEVER had a problem with regime change. An all-out invasion of a sovereign nation is a whole 'nother story." I’m sorry, but this smacks of you were for it before you were against it. Sometimes, depending on the bad actor we're going after, boots on the ground and everything it entails are the only means of making regime change happen.
2. And as for “Republicans should stick with their obsession with Clinton's penis.” The only time Republicans were forced to deal with Clinton’s penis was when it became the only head he thought with. Let me spell it out for you, P-E-R-J-U-R-Y.
Gentlemen,
As a semi-disinterested observer, may I suggest that we chalk this one up as a win for Bigdog? Without a doubt, he scores points for the best lead paragraph of any comment yet posted. SMACK, indeed!
And Bigdog, in answer to your oft asked question, which I think by now has attained rhetorical status, "Should we take the Dems at their word in the "run-up"?" the answer is, obviously, yes. But we should also note that they have an uncanny ability to be on both sides of the issue which is why they are politicians and not statesmen.
Yes, by all means, let's declare Bigdog the winner. Bravo Bigdog!
Bigdog, you've just won the "They're just as bad as we are" World Championship, what are you going to do now? Disneyworld perhaps?
This thread as I recall, was about a player within the conservative movement who actually was willing to break ranks and point out the fallacy of much of the recent "conservative" policy and ideology.
But no, let's not talk about that. Let's dismiss him as a "conservative in name only" with an axe to grind, and switch focus to whether the Dems are to be trusted.
And no doubt, that is a valid question. But it wasn't the conversation I was trying to have here.
Is it at all possible for either of you to say anything critical about your party, this administration, or the policies it has pursued? Anything at all? Or is all right with the world as far as where we are going and how the hell we got here?
Here's a hint... Admitting mistakes does not make one weak, nor does it invalidate your beliefs, your ideology, or your past successes.
On that note Squire, yes you bet Clinton was an ass to perjure himself. And there most certainly should have been ramifications because of it. And he was all the more an ass to perjure himself when testifying about an act that wasn't even illegal. Morally reprehensible to be sure, unacceptable for a man in his position at the time, and seriously embarrassing to him and his family. He screwed up, and should have been man enough to admit to it.
Of course when this President screws up, he doesn't seem to be able to admit to it as well.
Gee, I guess Clinton & Bush have more in common than I thought. Of course when Clinton screwed up, he didn't take 3000 military personnel with him.
And it matters gentlemen. It matters.
I said before that I had no problem with regime change, but I did have a problem with an all-out invasion. Squire, you suggested that sometimes having boots on the ground is necessary. Perhaps it is. But it should be a last resort.
Bigdog, you asked how you achieve regime change without invasion. Please tell me you're not naive enough to believe that has never been accomplished without an all-out invasion, even in cases of a "dictator who refuse to leave or cooperate". Of course the methods necessary to accomplish this require patience, persistence, and sophistication. Traits sadly lacking in U.S. foreign policy for many years.
I take this misguided war in Iraq very seriously, and very personally. As do you, I'm sure. Those are our citizens being killed daily. Squire, you have children the age of those fighting over there right now. And in a very short six years, it could be my kid over there, fighting, and God forbid, dying. And for what????????????
Regime change? Please. WMDs? Nope, apparently not. A free, democratic Iraq, and the possibility of that freedom spreading to the rest of the Muslim world? Truly a noble goal. But tell me, how do you accomplish that at the point of a gun, after killing thousands of the citizens you're supposed to be "liberating"?
BTW Bigdog, congratulations on your "win".
Geez, Marli – you’re a really sore loser. Bigdog comes back after doing the “homework” you assigned, hands you your ass and you get pissed. Now that’s worth a trip to Disney World!
We have discussed the free-wheeling traits of these comments offline, but if this wasn’t the conversation you wanted to have then why did you prolong it with three additional comments of your own?
The “holier than thou” admit thy mistakes cure the Democrats would have the Republicans take would be like pouring blood into shark infested waters. And if “Admitting mistakes does not make one weak, nor does it invalidate your beliefs, your ideology, or your past successes” then the Democrats can make it their full time avocation. As for “When Clinton lied nobody died” it makes a much better bumper sticker than a statement of fact. I’m sure a few people in the Balkans would like to argue that one with you. I seem to remember they called it Monica’s War.
A last resort is when the boots hit the ground. Exactly how much longer did you want to give Sadam anyway? “Patience, persistence, and sophistication” must be the smarter, Democrat way of dealing with foreign affairs. Kick the tin can down the road for the next guy. If you thought Sadam was going to leave without people forcefully removing him, you’re more naïve than I thought.
In the future I would appreciate it if you left my family out of these discussions. However, since you raised the issue I will address it - exactly one time. My son discussed the possibility of joining the military instead of going to college. He was dissuaded by his uncle, an Air Force major, who advised him to get his degree first and if he still wanted to serve his country he could do so as an office instead of an enlisted man. I would obviously be concerned if he was in harms way but I would also be extremely proud of him. If Charlie Rangel has his way and re-institutes the draft then you and yours may have something to be concerned about. But everyone in the military volunteered to be there. And sometimes liberation does occur at the end of a gun. Your problem with all of this is you think we're the bad guys.
Squire...
And exactly how many U.S. soldiers died in the Balkans???? And in the end, Milosevic died in a prison in the Hague. Sounds like a regime change occured there.
"Kick the tin can down the road for the next guy." Isn't that what dubya said when he made the comment about "future Presidents". But of course, I forget, Pres. Bush can do no wrong.
Naive? Perhaps. But I think it's naive to believe that our government, our allies governments, their diplomatic corps, and their intelligence services, can't orchestrate a regime change without the bloody mess of this protracted invasion and occupation. And don't tell me that you believe that it's never been done before. But again, I forget, war is so much more profitable.
And I don't want to bring your family into it. No more than I want my own family brought into it. But thousands of families have already been brought into it. And for nearly 3,000 of those American families, this Holiday season will be without one member.
For the record, I don't think all Republicans, or conservatives, or any particular group of Americans are the bad guys. I think, however, there are some within the current administration who are bad guys, and there are entirely too many people who blindly defend them.
You may be right in your beliefs, and I may be way off base. But just consider, just for one moment, the possibility that I may be right. That this was a war of choice, the seeds of which were planted many years ago. That it's about power, politics, and greed, and not some noble cause. If you believed what I believe, wouldn't you be just as outraged as I am? Now imagine what it's like for the families who have lost loved ones in this war, and believe what I believe. It's unimaginable.
For the past several years, I have found myself in the apparent minority in this country. Nevertheless, I have not hesitated to express my beliefs to friends, family, and in forums like this. As an American, I'm blessed with that right, even in the minority.
Edward R. Murrow said, "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it." Until January, I am proud to consider myself in the "loyal opposition". After that, you guys get a chance to help keep Congress honest. I would hope that you do it with no less passion and patriotism than I have tried to do in my small part in this forum.
This is what I mean by naive. Please list for me all of the wars that were not fought for power, politics and greed. And just for one moment, consider that wars are often fought for power, politics, greed AND a noble cause. I also think you have a great deal of difficulty understanding that our servicemen volunteered to be there. Stop viewing the current war through the prism of Viet Nam.
As an American citizen you are entitled to express your viewpoint. But being in the minority does not confer any special status on your views. Over the next two years as the Democrat majority in Congress tears apart this war and decides how much longer they will fund it, just remember the first line of your Murrow quote “We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.” Disloyalty can be cloaked as dissent. Also remember that we are the greatest nation on earth, armed with the finest military in history and the only way we can be defeated is by internal forces.
Bigdog,
You proceed under the assumption that I always march in lockstep with the Democrats in Congress. I don't. Nor, quite frankly, do they march in lockstep with each other.
The Dems in the Senate voted FOR the $87B in funding. The Dems in the House voted AGAINST it. Take a look at the Congressional record if you don't believe me.
Thanks so much for showing me "what is going on", since obviously only conservatives have the skinny on "reality".
Do you really think that I don't realize that members of BOTH parties have lied for political gain in the past, and will continue to do so?
Please feel free to show me that Joe Wilson is a liar, if it will make you feel better. While you're at it, show me that Bush isn't a liar. Cause that'll make ME feel better.
Do you think I like how things have turned out in this whole asinine fiasco? Do you think I really want Bush to be such a deceitful, divisive scoundrel? Do you really think I like the fact that my party has often times become simply the lesser of two evils? If you believe all that, then I think it might be you who is not dealing with a full deck.
I would love to be able to support this President. I can't. I would love to be able to get behind this war in Iraq. I can't. (Afghanistan is a whole different ball game - I'm fully behind it)
At the end of the day, the Republicans lied. The Democrats lied. Pointing that out doesn't bring back 3,000 dead soldiers.
But in the final analysis, Bush gave the order to invade, no matter who else lied on our road to getting there. And the sad truth is history will judge him largely on what happens at the end of this whole mess, not the means used to get us there.
Perhaps I'm one of the few who believes that the means do matter.
And Squire, this is why I sometimes feel the need to close out the comments on my posts. This petty competition over who gets the last word (myself included) detracts from the legitimate intention of the discussion.
The majority of the Dems in the house voted AGAINST it. That's what I meant and you fucking know it.
"WOW!! like you really care about the 3000 soldiers....whos dead soldier household have you visited to help the widow and their children out?"
Watch your fucking tone with me, Bigdog, and your choice of words. You have no idea what is in my heart, nor do you know what I do or not do to support our troops and their families.
I may disagree with you on a number of issues. But I have never, not once, questioned your compassion, your motives, your patriotism, or your character.
And you had better not do it with me again. Otherwise you'll be finding another blog to troll.
We're done here.
<< Home