Peggy Noonan on GOP Leaders:
Peggy Noonan has a powerful essay in the Wall Street Journal on how Republican politicos in DC lost their way in the years of the Bush Presidency:
Many are ambivalent, deep inside, about the decisions made the past seven years in the White House. But they've publicly supported it so long they think they . . . support it. They get confused. Late at night they toss and turn in the antique mahogany sleigh bed in the carpeted house in McLean and try to remember what it is they really do think, and what those thoughts imply.
And those are the bright ones. The rest are in Perpetual 1980: We have the country, the troops will rally in the fall.
. . .
What happens to the Republicans in 2008 will likely be dictated by what didn't happen in 2005, and '06, and '07. The moment when the party could have broken, on principle, with the administration – over the thinking behind and the carrying out of the war, over immigration, spending and the size of government – has passed. What two years ago would have been honorable and wise will now look craven. They're stuck.
Mr. Bush has squandered the hard-built paternity of 40 years. But so has the party, and so have its leaders. If they had pushed away for serious reasons, they could have separated the party's fortunes from the president's. This would have left a painfully broken party, but they wouldn't be left with a ruined "brand," as they all say, speaking the language of marketing. And they speak that language because they are marketers, not thinkers. Not serious about policy. Not serious about ideas. And not serious about leadership, only followership.
If you mean the mods, I would think that has not historically been the function of this place.
I'm more interested in what the enablers on the WSJ's editorial board think about Ms. Noonan's thesis. Is she going to be disinvited to the parties now?
Certainly President Bush deserves his share of blame for things like the massive increase in spending for the prescription drug benefit addition to Medicare and not holding a tighter budget line. On some of those issues, yes, DeLay and others went along because the President demanded that they do so. But it wasn't George Bush cramming pork into every nook and cranny of the budget. It wasn't George Bush feeding at the trough with all the lobbyists on K Street. It wasn't George Bush that installed the woefully under-powered Dennis Hastert as Speaker of the House.
We didn't lose Congress in 2006 because of George Bush, but because of Tom DeLay and his crowd of self-righteous hypocrites.
But what Noonan says about people blindly following Bush is also true of DeLay followers. There was no Republican opposition to DeLay. He was a hero to the party - the Hammer, the big fund-raiser, etc.
No, the 80's generation of conservatives ruined conservatism by withdrawing into little pockets like the Heritage Foundation and National Review, and allowing elite/left opinion to mold general cultural debates/framework. Conservatives are not the republican equivalent of liberals, yet they have allowed the entire 'conservative' brand as some sort of similar idealogical extreme. Evangelical protestants, who are tepid Republicans at best, were allowed to be branded 'social conservatives'. Iraq war boosters were allowed to be branded 'Neo-conservative', though they represented a pretty broad center-right stripe. The 'conservative' brand was allowed to be made toxic; young folks have grown up with the term 'right-wing' being a meaningless term that simply denotes something you disagree with. Liberal fight tooth and nail not to be labeled liberals, 80's/90's generation conservatives wonk away in their little magazines as the entire cultural understanding of conservatism was redefined by their political enemies. In short guys like Newt Gingrich, however smart they may be, ceded the general cultural field to the Left, and in turn allowed the Left to dominate public discourse, entertainment, academics, and the attitudes of the younger generations.
Empty, 'Slightly different then Democrats' Republicans like Bush were allowed to shape the GOP because conservatives were good at producing folks who could wonk in think tanks and scribble at NR, but couldn't passionately argue the merits of the conservative position in public like Reagan. Conservatives of the previous generation also allowed evangelicals to turn the conservative staple of the importance of 'civic virtue' into the easily mock-able/school marm-ish 'family values'.
The Wall Street Journal, and Peggy Noonan, are prime players in the 'Drop core conservative values, just be popular' GOP incarnation ('Only yahoos have a problem with unbridled immigration! Who else will maintain your mansions on the cheap?'). This complaint coming from them is beyond ironic.
No. By two years ago they were already stuck, having colluded for so long in dismissing earlier critics of the administration as victims of BDS. That's one crow they'd never be willing to eat.
I'm curious -- what do you think real conservatism means? Who are the real conservatives and what do they think?
I agree that leaders like Lott and DeLay are culpable but why is Haley Barbour included? Barbour was the RNC Chair from 1993 to 1997 which arguably was when the GOP Congress was at its best. AFAIK he had nothing to do with the decline of the GOP Congress which occurred after he left.
I'm sure DeLay's negative influence on the GOP factored into their 2006 losses, but its an act of tremendous denial to assume that the president's unpopularity wasn't also at issue. 2005 was the year Bush's approval ratings sank into the 30s -- its reasonable to assume this had a negative coattail effect on the party down the line.
This has the air of excuse-making for a president that hardly deserves the benefit of the doubt.
DU
Please provide an example of an earlier critic of the Bush administration, the actual criticism that they made, evidence that they were labeled as suffering from BDS, who labeled them as such, and an explanation for why you think it was wrong to label them as such.
I detect a bit of facetiousness, but I'll come right out with an answer: nobody. Ain't never gonna happen until the Republicans go the way of the Whigs and the subsequent conservative party lays the blame on the dead one.
mathgeek:
GV: When was it ever unpopular to criticize Bush?
Srsly? I'd like this question to be posed to Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and others of that ilk. Still looking for an answer?
The Ron Suskind article from 2004 that I blogged about here is an interesting example of a Bush criticism that drew a lot of BDS-style comments but that as best I can tell seems to have been pretty accurate.
Do Democrats think Obama has ideas that will really work? I sure as hell hope he does but I think the average Obama supporter just wants to
get a new face on TV. They will find that does not help a whole lot.
I think the president has, on the main issues before the nation, tried to lead us to deal with structural questions that require short-term pain for long-term gain. Obviously he has not succeeded, but I can't fault him for trying. I also think this approach satisfies my sense of conservatism, since what he has been trying to conserve, domestically, is a sound economy for the long run. I have more problems with GWB in foreign policy simply because I still don't understand fully the rationale for the Iraq war. But once we crossed the Rubicon, I have failed to see how we could not be fully committed to achieve the best possible outcome. I have been deeply impressed by the Iraq litmus test: we now see and understand the enemies we face in the region with far greater clarity, and far greater appreciation of the stakes -- or should I say, those of us who have not adopted an unremittingly hostile approach to everything our government has done over the past 7.5 years. In my view it is wishful thinking of the worst sort to think that we can somehow talk ourselves and our friends out of this conflict.
In other areas of foreign policy, esp. econ. development and
the president's fund for aids etc. Mr. Bush has gone far beyond any bipartisan consensus on foreign aid going back to the 1950s, and deserves great credit. I don't think it is conservative to begrudge the funds that demonstrably relieve
health problems in the developing world; indeed, I think of that as a form of compassion that should be a part of the conservative ethic. As for Peggy Noonan, I think she's a schismatic.
To describe her current editorial as "powerful" says more about Orin Kerr's hopes and dreams than Ms. Noonan's capabilities as a political thinker or writer.
In kind of a snarky way your framing it as if I'm laying down a hard-core ideological line and looking for heretics. The issue isn't 'what does real conservatism means?', but 'how is conservatism argued for, and presented, to the public?'. The fact that the article linked to in thread is essentially questioning the emptiness of the current GOP powers, and scolding conservatives who have held their tongues too long kind of makes my point, doesn't it?
It's no secret that the last decade or so of folks like Bush, Delay, Lott, etc., whatever one thinks of them personally (or of small success's), have exuded a kind of ideologically adrift political atmosphere. For as unpopular as Bush is, the American public isn't rejecting the GOP because it's too conservative, their rejecting it because the Republicans are ineffectual and they (the public) no longer see much distinction between the parties. Have rudderless Republicans failed conservatives, or have conservatives sat too long on Reagan's laurels and allowed to much of the parties key values slip away uncontested?
I have a lot of respect for institution's like NR, AEI, Heritage Foundation, etc., and think they produce important and vital work. I also have a perspective on everyday culture in ways that many of these places may take for granted however. I'm a grad student in Poli-Sci, and a high-school teacher. Everyday deal I'm dealing with undergrads, High-School classes, or adult learning groups in the community. One of the things in History/politics I always discuss is how the nature of well-meaning 'Grand Ideas' often intersects poorly with human nature, a basic staple of conservatism. Whether it's college undergrads, working class adults, or well-to-do High Schoolers, the vast majority treat such concepts as if they've flown in from the moon. Again, I'm not talking about expecting some 'in the weeds' idealogical hard-ball, just basic 'critical thinkng' concepts of the nature of Government, bureaucracy, and how 'Big Concepts' go awry. When I can get any number of 'Government is Great' tropes from such a broad, diverse audiences, but almost no innate recognition of basic conservative principals, something is desperately wrong with how conservatives are putting their ideas out in the general public.
The Left (used loosely) has think-tanks, for-the-party support, and magazines just as conservatives do. But they also know how to get their ideas out in front of the every day public and create cultural momentum; conservatives operate silently (in the public sense) behind the walls of the GOP, and have been seemingly content to rest on Reagan's popular legacy to do the cultural heavy-lifting.
Ask any college student who they think is a cool/funny liberal-leaning entertainment personality, and they'll have a quick answer for you regardless of their own political affiliations. Now ask the same students who they think is a cool/funny conservative-leaning entertainment personality. That silence you hear speaks to a pretty big problem, and that's not George Bush's fault.
I don't mean to be unduly combative here, but the other consequence of so many (not all, of course, but many) Republican party leaders and conservative thinkers publicly supporting so much of what the Bush Administration has done, even when the actions in question are beyond plausible defense, is that many people who might otherwise be willing to listen to these folks' arguments now just think they are liars and shills.
AntonK, you tease, you. If you're going to play amatuer political psychologist, at least give us the goods and tell us of my hopes and dreams for the future of the GOP.
amen, bro. She hasn't had an original thought in years.
But back to the Republicans: They have no one to blame but themselves.
When Bush was elected, there was glee all across the Republican land. Now, for once, they had in place a plan to make the R's a permanent majority. And so they set about doing so. They planned to reduce taxes on the wealthy, who would in turn use a portion of those taxes as contributions to the R Party. Then, they would privatize as much of the gov;'t as possible, making it clear that this new businesses would be loyal to the Rs and donate to their party. Then they established system of largess to religious groups -- bribes really. These religious groups would vote R, and donate to R causes, and in turn would recieve federal funds to operate day care centers, drug abuse centers, and sexual reorientation camps to get rid of those gays. They would deal only with R lobbyists, and federal funds would be funneled to only R districts and R projects. People like Tom DeLay would work to redistrict the congress.
On the other hand, liberal programs would be cut and reduced to nothing, the source of funding for many Dems would be cut off by limiting the awards available in jury trials (the trials lawyers being a large contributor to D party). D lobbyistst would be shut out.
Once accomplished, the R party would have a steady stream of income from the rich, and the businesses that feed off the federal teat, and the D;s income would be decimated. This would pave the way for a permanent R party rule.
Once permanent R party rule would be in place, the prez would be given enormous powers, environmental rules would be eliminated, consumer safety rules eliminated, the gay agenda would stop in its tracks and maybe reverse them (the R's don't really care about gay rights, but it's an issue to the religious right. Got to throw them a bone for all the support they give. Terrry Schiavo was another bone for them.). And abortion would finally be outlawed throughout the land.
The White House and the R leaders decided that reality isn't something that binds them -- they can rewrite their own reality.
Think this is a conspiracy theory? Think again. R's relished this idea and talked about it in their think tanks. It's been in numerous articles, reports, and quotes.
The R's actually believed this hubris, that they could get away with anything, but the public is fed up. This is why people are going to the polls to throw the bums out. When you mess with the system, Americans get pretty damn angry.
Have you actually ever listened to the radio commentators you listed? I suspect the answer is no. Michael Savage, to give one example, is two things, 1) a loon; and 2) probably as anti-Bush as many of the commenters here, albeit because the President is insufficiently conservative.
Conservative talk radio collectively criticized the Medicare prescription plan, Harriet Mier's nomination to teh Supreme Court, and the 2005 immigration proposal.
So when you imply that conservative talk radio is in the tank for the Bush Administration, you do nothing more than display your own ignorance.
Meanwhile, let's not pretend that Bush's popularity ratings are in the 20's because of the prescription drug plan, which is actually pretty popular.
Gas prices, the economy, and foreclosures only surfaced 1-1.5 years ago.
Not chronic. Sure Bush was lousy at talking. It's trivial to explain the war and other choices. "have you mental defectives ever looked at a map of the Middle East?". He was good enough to get Demo support for the war. Sure he spent too much. Demos can hardly complain about that. Maybe McCain could have won in '00. But he can win in '08 as well so what's the diff?
The Dems are running a Chicago machine Pol (whose claim to fame is that a town ruled for 60 years by a Demo Machine needs a Community Organizer. Shouldn't the queens just be able to lean back and open their mouths for the honey in a Demo paradise?). He's a hard left, sellout wimp, Punk from Punahou (I went to much humbler school across the street), who has almost nothing in common with most voters (and shows it).
If the Republicans would bother to run with some simple ideas, they could do OK. Hanging focuses the mind. Maybe some will wake up.
"Bobby Jindal - I know it's too soon but your Party needs you for Veep." Think of it. He's darker than Barack (but a caucasian), he's smarter than Barack (Rhodes scholarship), he's younger than Barack (more than 10 years), he's Catholic (and Hindu), he has more administrative experience than Barack (or JM or HRC), ad he speaks better off-the-cuff, and he delivered his 3rd child himself (biology degree).
Did you know that Hindus have the highest family income of any religious group in the US? I guess we don't discriminate.
And 20 years from now when some queer, hack writer interviews W and rehabilitates him as one of our greatest presidents, I'll laugh.
I didn't agree with all of your rant, but I do agree that Bobby Jindal would be the boldest choice John McCain could make for VP--and one I hope he makes.
Bobby Jindal as McCain's VP reminds me of the old 'your heaven/my hell' joke. (Quick ex: A bitter, mean-spirited woman is hit by a bus. On awaking in the afterlife she's surprised to find she's been bunked in a room with Frank Sinatra, returned to his youthful form. The woman says' Mr. Sinatra, no offense, but I'm surprised you made it to my Heaven too.' 'No' say's Sinatra, 'This is my Hell'.)
Jindal would be great for McCain, and McCain would sink Jindal. I'd rather wait to see if Jindal can keep his mojo going in LA, and let him shine in a few years. A McCain ticket would be throughly dominated by McCain to begin with, he doesn't need to take (or take down) a promising guy like Jindal.
Well it helps that the propaganda wing known as the MSM of the Democrat party tells us this. But it is not the truth. You Libs are a bunch "reality based" idiots.
The Left just has it wrong at a philosophical level but the Republicans don't seem like the Right to me. They use some of the right ideas as fig leaves while they mostly are just hypocrites. A pox on both their houses.
Examples are legion.
1. Washington should devolve to the rights of state, yet when the citizens of Oregon wanted physician assisted suicide, conservative urged the Feds to intervene and contradict.
2. California wants to have stronger auto emission standards than the federal govt, but because Republicans don't want stronger standards they overrule California.
3. Private behavour is not the business of the government, but Republican do not like homosexual activity and so want to make it illegal.
4. Conservatives believe in the rule of law, not the rule of men, but the leader of the Repubicans says he does not have to follow the law.
I could go on, but you get the point. If you abandon your phisophy when the outcomes are inconvenient, you have no philosophy.
This is pretty funny, even if unintentionally so.
Is there even one political party that believes most of this? Any of this? (OK, maybe racial preferences.)
I don't think the GOP is going to get back on track by caricaturing the opposition.
Hmm....I always remember Kerr being circumspect about Bush. And I don't remember too much right-wing hackery here; so while you are usually very insightful and credible, the burden of proof rests on you show the pro-Bush hackery present here. Now, if you wanna talk about The Right Coast...
You are right about one thing (to the extent one can infer it from your comment)... I do see how the comments to various political posts have changed. Now-a-days only one or two people will call you a traitor for being critical of Bush. That was not the case even just a couple of years ago. Four years ago? Man, even suggesting that Bush should, you know, present some evidence in support of his views would be enough to have someone de-flag your lapel.
For the most part, partisans from both parties are thoughtless ghouls. Trevor Morrison notes that: "Republican party leaders and conservative thinkers publicly supporting so much of what the Bush Administration has done, even when the actions in question are beyond plausible defense, is that many people who might otherwise be willing to listen to these folks' arguments now just think they are liars and shills."
But what about the support "feminists" gave Bill Clinton when women came forward with very credible evidence of rape? To this day, many people (like me) do not take that group of people seriously, either. Thoughtful people don't pay much attention to partisan hacks.
And where is the outcry from liberals regarding Obama's shameful treatment of a female reporter?
So I agree with Mr. Morrison's point, to the extent we would insert "Democrat" right next to "Republican."
I had a rule, forgotten for a while- never vote for some mutt who pays $110.00 for a haircut.
Throw the majority of 'em out, and start anew.
a bold choice, yes; I disagree on timing. Jindal wants to do his full term as governor, and remember, reform governors of Louisiana historically only serve one term.
Jindal is a fine figure of a conservative, and an American success story- let him mature in office, let him actually run a state, and gather that experience. He'll only get better.
I think McCain needs to do something besides choose a middle aged white guy as his running mate. Since Jindal is only one out of 3, that alone is a good thing.
Frankly, he is one of the few "rising stars" in the Republican Party I am excited about. I would rather have him as Vice President (assuming McCain wins) than have him have to battle an incumbent Vice President for the nomination--because if you are Vice President you are the instant front-runner next time for President (unless you are Dan Quayle, of course)
In the last 10 years, the GOP abandoned the intellectual underpinnings that forged its late-20th-century identity in favor of quick, easy, outcome-based policies that lacked any methodological cohesion. The intellectual dynamism is what must return for the party to lead once again.
If Jindal was VP, wouldn't a heck of a lot of people who would otherwise vote for McCain stay home? I can't imagine people who wouldn't vote for a dark-skinned fellow would be enthused about voting for a ticket that also has a dark-skinned fellow. Also, adding Jindal completely inoculates Obama from any youth/inexperience arguments - don't you think McCain wants every personal difference (not political difference) between him and Obama maximized?
And Jindal was the guy behind the idiotic "purple finger" crap. Yikes.
I'd bet Wal-mart has done more for low-priced prescriptions than the Medicare program.
Bush signing on to No Child Left Behind was a mistake too but it enabled the administration to take a breather from supporting Charter schools and vouchers. They really didn't seem to have the drive to do much more than do the tax cuts. After that it was slow going despite a plurality in both houses.
He got his SC choices eventually but not without a fairly typical stumble.
I wonder how tough the media will be on Obama if he's elected. Bush has been a mother lode for all types of critics, from the sincere to the ludicrous.
The big question is whether the opposition has anything to offer. As Matt Taibbi has suggested, the Dems are often beholden to special interests and seem impotent to stop an increasingly unpopular war that sucks $330M out of the treasury every day.
But if I had to choose between a party that was bribed into giveaways to the privileged, and one that believed such giveaways ideologically commendable, I'd choose the former....at least the bad guys can occasionally be outbid!
"The grinding occupation of Iraq is only partly responsible for the nation's discontent. Decades of government inattention have allowed chronic problems to grow and fester and putrefy and . . . well, we'll abandon that metaphor lest it turn into something that no one wants to read over breakfast, but you get the idea.
"It turns out that Americans don't want their leaders to simply shrug, as George Bush shrugs, at the fact that 47 million citizens do not have health insurance. It turns out that Americans don't want their leaders to simply tsk-tsk, as George Bush tsk-tsks, at the wrenching economic dislocations that stem from globalization.
"It turns out that if government declines to adequately regulate or even monitor the financial system, unfettered markets can make catastrophic blunders. When Joseph Schumpeter wrote admiringly of how capitalism was buffeted by the "perennial gale of creative destruction," I doubt he was talking about exotic mortgage-backed securities so complicated that nobody really understood how much risk was being undertaken, or by whom. I also doubt that families facing foreclosure are much comforted by being told that they're playing an essential role -- that of loser -- in classical free-market theory."
Abroad, he's committed the US to spreading liberal democracy at gun-point. At home, he's presided over an almost unprecedented expansion in government, and the dissolution of Americas borders. We're not exactly talking Reagan here. Bush's failures have been liberal failures.
That number is completely false. Now, it may be that 47 million people living in America don't have health insurance, but that's a whole different matter.
As for Jindal, frankly, the conservatives in the GOP love him. I suspect you would see him embraced wholeheartedly. Limbaugh, et al. love him. The supposition that conservatives would stay home with him on the ticket is part of the old, discredited conservative = racist meme.
As for experience, Jindal graduated from high school at 16 (a year older than Eugene, I believe, but still damn impressive). He was Rhodes Scholar and has a Masters from Oxford. He headed a Lousiana cabinet department at age 22. If the Democrats want to compare Obama's experience with Jindal's, be my guest.
On the contrary, I suspect the public is rejecting the GOP because they do see a distinction between the parties, and don't like what the GOP and the appeasement wing of the Democrats (including Ms. Clinton) have been offering.
There's a conscious, deliberate rejection of the Bush wing and anyone who cannot adequately distinguish their position from it. People are weary of unending human rights abuses; of the continued failure to apprehend Bin Laden; of a war concocted of lies and maintained at the expense of thousands of our young men and women; of lack of transparency; of cronyism; of debt; and of general incompetence. Mr. Obama is nowhere near perfect, but he says even to people who disagree with much of his platform: The U.S. doesn't have to be an asshole.
(I'm hardly a Democrat. I'm a libertarian, registered Republican who voted for Ron Paul in the primaries. I expect to vote for Obama in the general election -- McCain can't seem to distinguish himself from Bush's thoroughly nasty human-rights record and other neo-fascist policies. If I have to choose between a social-democrat and a neo-fascist I will grit my teeth and choose the social-democrat, even though I would prefer a libertarian or a paleoconservative over either one.)
Yeah, there's that, but there's also the little matter of Obama already having beaten Keyes 70% to 27%, the biggest victory in Illinois state history.
To Dave N, I think Jindal's youthful laurels match up fairly well to being (the first black) president of Harvard Law Review and writing two best-selling memoirs. BTW, nobody cares about high school after high school.
Thus, I vote Democrat almost across the board. I'll keep doing so until I get something different. I'll vote Obama in November. If She wins, I'll vote Libertarian, or Bloomberg, or something. I think McCain is an honorable candidate, but I won't vote for anyone who voted for the war.
Her op-ed goes far too easy on the party. The budget-busting farm bill in 2002 wasn't the President's idea, it was the Congressional party's, for example. I also disagree with her apparent claim that cracking down on immigration would have been the political answer-- though we see even on this thread as many people claiming that it's anti-immigration (including anti-illegal immigration) sentiment is a reason to vote against the GOP as people claiming that being too pro-amnesty broke the GOP like Ms. Noonan does.
[i]McCain can't seem to distinguish himself from Bush's thoroughly nasty human-rights record[/i]
Right, because even when he votes against them no one cares one way or the other.
[i]The U.S. doesn't have to be an asshole.[/i]
I consider Sen. Obama's strong support for the farm bill and opposition to free trade agreements as being an asshole to other countries. As do I consider his "Patriot Corporation Act" with Sen. Sherrod Brown as the move of an asshole. I really dislike his rhetoric on outsourcing, and his speech about "don't fear and hate immigrants who come to this country and are willing to work for lower wages, fear foreigners who are willing to work for lower wages." (Even though he wrapped the latter in talk about "greedy corporations" employing the foreigners, as though corporations aren't always greedy and trying to get the most from their wages, whether by employing natives, immigrants, or foreigners.)
Hear, hear.
In the GOP, collaboration with evil has come under the cover of loyalty to nation and party. In place of personal responsibility, we have seen the surrender of responsibility to authority not even worthy of the name. In place of meritocracy, we have seen cronyism and the appointment of incompetents. (Heckuva job, Brownie.) In place of leadership, we have seen the careful cultivation of fear and subjection. (Duct tape and plastic sheeting, anyone?) In place of reasoned and informed discourse, we have seen civil servants and military leaders dismissed for telling the truth when it was not what authority wanted the public to hear.
Bush's GOP is neither conservative nor liberal. It is overweening authoritarianism layered on top of thick, oozing incompetence.
1) Obama could be an incredibly incompetent President in the mold of a Jimmy Carter, and/or the economy could stay in the tank (this, however, wouldn't solve the underlying problems the party faces)
2) Obama interprets his win as a mandate to go way left, allowing the GOP to take back the center
3) Or, they reframe the debate entirely. Instead of essentially ignoring the problems of the poor, black, uninsured, mired in bad schools, etc., and always just hoping to win elections with the base and some swing voters swayed by attacks on Democrat X's toughness in the war on the Soviets/terror/drugs/crime/whatever, we say that we want to fix all the same problems the Democrats do, but that we have solutions that work - for example, Swedish-style education reform - while the Democrats just want to build bigger bureaucracies and throw money at everything. The conservative party across the water's already going in this direction. I'm pretty confident we will too, but it'll probably take a few more crushing defeats before it happens.
I suggest you see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Street_Project for one part of what he's talking about.
However, everyone seems to agree that (i) his platform is the true conservative program, (ii) his platform is wildly popular and (iii) Bush is an idiot for not implementing it.
Thoughtful conservative though migrated to the libertarian-leaning conservatives, like most of the people on this blog, and sites like Andrew Sullivans.
Race-baiting and gay-baiting started to lose its effectiveness, and Obama co-opted Reagan-style big picture hopefulness, and the transformation was complete.
That's the classic problem with trying to have it both ways: When your rhetoric doesn't match your actions, the people who don't like your rhetoric ignore your actions, and the people who don't like your actions ignore your rhetoric, and you lose on both ends. It's a trap Bush has alternately led and followed the Republican Congress into repeatedly, on illegal immigration, spending, righting corruption in government, you name it. If they'd ever just picked a side, and made their rhetoric and actions match, they might have had a chance.
I'd identify the moment it all went wrong as the end of the '95 budget standoff: Dole pulls his trademark move, convening a rump session of the Senate without a quorum, and voice voting with the Democratic leadership to end the standoff, and isn't expelled from the Republican caucus for the deliberate betrayal. Isn't even stripped of his leadership position. Proving the GOP leadership didn't WANT to win.
The corrupt leadership of the GOP had gotten tired of trying principle, and was glad to get back to rent seeking instead.
Exactly how as the war in Iraq gone badly? Or to put it another way, fill us in on a few wars that have gone swimmingly.
What is that about? He is as statist/collectivist and un-libertarian as they come. Is this an example of hastening the plunge into the abyss and hope the voters "wake up" in 2010 and 2012?
Admittedly, the choices suck - from my perspective, McCain is the least noxious collectivist running, but, he too, is one.
The only thing I think is true is the McCain might appoint SCOTUS justices who turn into Souter, but Obama or Clinton will appoint Ginsburg-Breyer clones.
The lesser evil sucks, but Obama? Talk about giving the car keys to Thelma and Louise
No. There are thoughtful conservative arguments against all of the proposals I mentioned (except evolution). The Right just wasn't making them. Instead, they resorted to talking points and jingoistic insults on their opponents.
Republicans are going to spend a lot of time disassociating themselves from their failed policies, but in the end they'll do what they always do - create a mythology about how their plans would have succeeded except for liberal treachery.
SIG357:
We're not exactly talking Reagan here. Bush's failures have been liberal failures.
Didn't take long.
All this business about Bush not being conservative or pure enough or whatever is total BS. Conservatives backed him to the hilt for years. Now he's a flop and they scurry off in all directions. Rats. Ship.
Posted By: Tom Cole, May 16, 2008 - 9:52 AM
http://blog.nrcc.org/comment.cfm?entry_id=400
Read the responses (about a thousand of them).
The NRCC gets dressed down, correctly and too late, IMO.
typical:
limit your trips to McDonalds and you'll accomplish the same thing... oh, and pay a negligent mother to take her children to the dentist.
To a certain extent, yes. But alas, the conservative commentators are basically following the Administration's talking points. You are right on a certain level. The problem isn't just the rhetoric. It's that there doesn't appear to be any thought behind the rhetoric.
Now, it's Saturday, and I'm going to be pro-family by not frittering the day away on a blog.
I will take my lumps when I say dumb things, but when I get quoted for someone else's statements, at least ask that they be attributed correctly. You attack me for saying something I did not say, but rather, something Wm13 said yesterday at 8:26 p.m.
In fact, I agree with your post other than the misattribution.
What you're really saying is that the republicans who voted for him lacked the intelligence or judgment to know they were being taken for a ride. No real surprise there.
Since McCain is even more "un-libertarian" than Obama (unless you've got some definition of "libertarian" under which Hermann Goering qualifies), you've answered your own question. As for SCOTUS appointments, for myself and most other lower-case "l" libertarians I've spoken to about the subject, those are the second biggest reason we're supporting Obama. (McCain's war-lust being number one) Obama's likely court appointments will almost certainly be better on civil liberties than McCain's likely court appointments, while McCain's appointees will most likely not give a fig about civil or economic liberties. I will happily pay an extra $6000 in taxes (which is what calculations show Obama's tax proposals will cost me) for saving what's left of the exclusionary rule.
I like forward to the Republicans campaigning in November on the slogan "Everything's going just fine in Iraq!"
• Mistake #1 is violating Godwin's Law
• Mistake #2 is not recognizing Mistake #1
• Mistake #3 is not acknowledging Obama's collectivist's philosophy
• Mistake #4 is not recognizing Mistake #3
• Mistake #5 is not understanding that economic liberties are the last thing on Obama's mind, let alone those of the people he might appoint to the Court
• Mistake #6 is a complete lack of understanding that the loss of civil liberties will be exacerbated regardless of who is in office if there is another 9/11 type of attack
• Mistake #7 is not sending a check to the US Treasury for $6000.00 in order to put your money where your mouth is.
• Mistake #8 is not recognizing Mistake #7
Take a cue from M5
As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. . . . The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable.
I didn’t say there was pro-Bush hackery; I said there was little critical examination of Bush’s handling of the war and at least some of the conspirators seem to uncritically accept Bush’s claims about how easy the war in Iraq is going to be. In other words, while none of them were calling everyone who disagreed with Bush a traitor, they did little to critical examine Bush’s policies. I’m not going to expend the effort to meet my burden of proof, but here is one post from Eugene that perhaps demonstrates the attitude of at least some (although obviously not all) of the conspirators at least with respect to the war:
I guess I should be content that Eugene granted that it was “theoretically conceivable” that there were no weapons of mass destruction.
My point, not explicitly made, is that it’s frustrating that before the war, so many conservatives either viciously attacked liberals for opposing the war or stood by and said nothing, as Bush made mistake after mistake. It wasn’t until 2005 or 2006 when conservative intellectuals really started to admit that perhaps Bush had made some really, really bad mistakes with respect to the war, the economy, and his general handling of the country.
Bottom line is that I’d like to think that stories like the linked one will help conservative academics perhaps be more critical of government, even when the party in power is not your own, even when it is not popular to do so.
The recent CA ruling on gay marriage is a good proxy for why. I think it is safe to say that in the next four years we could have two to three vacancies on the SC. There is no doubt that Obama will appoint Ginsburg-like clones to those seats and we will have the CA ruling writ large. For the record, while I find the idea of gay marriage to be absurd, I think it is quite reasonable for CA or any other state to legislate the right to gay marriage if they so chose. And just for the record, I am against any federal remedy. Let the states decide. The living-breathing part of the constitution is the legislature. I think McCain understands that better than Obama. I realize this is off topic. My bad.
How is it controversial to state plainly that the Republican Party does indeed get the bigot vote compared to Democrats? Similarly, Democrats will get the socialist vote over Republicans. It doesn't mean that all Republicans are racist or all Democrats are socialist.
Frankly, Jindal's two runs for governor show the impact a non-white candidate can have on southern republican-leaning whites. Jindal lost in 2003 because white conservatives sat out the election in massive numbers. Even in 2007 after 4 years of Democratic incompetence, Jindal could only pull 54% of the vote. Heck, there is a reason that Jindal uses the made-up name of "Bobby" rather than his real name, "Piyush." There are an awful lot of white conservatives who would just never vote for a Piyush Jindal.
Reagan helping to tear down the wall and working in opposition to the Soviets, well and good. And, that was far from an easy fight on domestic turf, if far less tangled with military engagements.
But taking the initial steps in what still could be a multi-decades long war, conceivably a century-plus long war, and she opts to advance and channel prevailing moods.
When Noonan describes the state of the GOP as, to put it politely, circling the bowl, her work is described as powerful. I doubt "powerful" would've been used to describe her essay if it had predicted, for example, impending doom for the Obama's campaign.
But of course, I used the whimsical phrase "hopes and dreams" to suggest the 'lightness' of my post :)
For example, in 2003, the first time Jindal ran, he came in first with 33% of the vote, followed by 18% for the lieutenant governor, Kathleen Blanco and 16% for the attorney general, Richard Ieyoub. Jindal and Blanco met in the runoff, where Blaco won 52-48%.
Some argue that race was a factor in 2003, though I would note that in the jungle primary, Republicans captured only 39% of the vote, with Democrats taking 59% of the total vote. Additionally, Blanco was the two-term lieutenant governor, Ieyoub was a popular attorney general, and this was Jindal's first campaign for any kind of public office.
Right [/irony]. That "peace dividend," politically exploited, amounted to an extortion against future generations since there was a failure, during that "end of history" moment, to better realign our strategic assets, WTC '93 alone occurring at the very commencement of that earlier presidency. (Not to mention other specious aspects of that economic period, such as the tech bubble and soft credit.) Yet now we're perhaps prepping for Carter II, in BHO, because it's all about Change™ and Hope™ and all manner of things Wonderful™ and Pleasant™.
I'm essentially on your side of your feud with AntonK, but you resort too often to incivility, sometimes, as here, dispensing with the argument part altogether. Please cut it out.
So called "journalists" who cheered this war on at the start,such as Noonan,must bear at least some responsibility for all the needless deaths.
"It's not about ideology, it's about delivery; it's not about bigger or smaller government, it's about better government. Especially since Iraq and Katrina.
I said the former to Ken Mehlman at a Grover Norquist vast-right-wing-conspiracy meeting, and the room booed. They don't get it. They deserve whatever happens to them."
For each liberal complaint, the GOP has simply to tried to address it, rather than challenge. Katrina is a good example. Instead of arguing that it isn't the federal governments' job to evacuate those poor schmucks in New Orleans and that those people were stranded there as a result of big government liberalism, they just took the blame as if they got caught being racist. That was a teachable moment, but the GOP "leaders" let it pass. Same with the Iraq War. They rarely respond to liberal criticism. They just let is stand as if it is true. No wonder people are pissed. Liberals never liked Bush, but his approval rating fell because conservatives became disenchanted with him. Why no one realizes that is beyond me?
If the Republicans aren't going to stand up to big government socialism, who is? That's why the GOP is losing. When they wake up and start advocating conservative principles again, we'll come back. Until then, stockpile guns and money, because the utter hell that liberalism will bring is coming.
Peter Robinson?
Not "so called" by anyone I'm aware of. She's a columnist, and to most people, "journalist" means a news reporter.
With that in mind, do you still consider her responsible for the war? I understand the argument that journalists bear some responsibility, because they abdicated their adversarial duty by acquiescing to the Administration's narrative about WMD's. But why should a columnist, whose job is to comment on the news, not to gather and report it, bear moral responsibility for an erroneous opinion?
JMHO, but I'd say she should for two reasons:
1. She was in a better position than most Americans to judge the case for war; and
2. She cheered it on, thereby making it more likely.
Now, that's not an especially big bundle of moral responsibility -- not anywhere near the level of Bush or Cheney -- but it's not zero.
I'm at a loss for words, because I don't want to be snarky, but I also don't know how to say respectfully how far from reality that is.
Maybe because it's belied by the evidence? Bush's approval between 9/11 and the run-up to Iraq was at or near 90%. It's safe to say his slide to the current level had to do with more than just Conservative disenchantment.
If #1 is indeed true, then I'd agree with #2. I just don't know of the details that would make her privy to better evidence than was reported publicly.
I don't think she had access to secret information or anything. I just think she follows the details of political events more than most and seems smart enough to analyze the information for herself. Maybe she just fooled herself, or allowed herself to be fooled, but either way, I'd still say she bears more responsibility than those who opposed the war.
For your information I have heard Noonan describe herself as a "journalist"--I've also heard the likes of Bill "The Pervert" O'Reilly do the same. He's about as much a journalist as Junior Samples from "Hee Haw". If you really don't understand the press' function you should read some of Thomas Paine's words.That's why they're called "The Fourth Estate"--You would be shocked how many people see someone on TV and because they're on TV,believe every word they say.Or if it's in print as far as that goes.My God,look at this Opra thing--Hell,there's people praying to her.Yes,this country is packed with "cool-ade drinkers"--And someone who get's on TV calling herself a journalist has greater impact then you obviously believe. Having said all that,let me add that I will defend with my life Noonan's right to blabber whatever foolishness she wants to and swoon over whoever she wants to. But she still has to take at least some responsibility for what she says when given a nation wide forum.
If you can show me evidence that ideological blindness is volitional, you'll have my attention. Otherwise, I assume it's an involuntary affliction. And I don't believe in blaming people for the consequences of expressing honestly held opinions.
If Peggy Noonan considers herself a journalist, I stand corrected. As to your more general point about the responsibilities of journalists and other public opinionaters, I neither underestimate their influence nor absolve them globally of responsibility for their written and spoken words. Obviously, journalists have a substantial canon of ethical responsibility, and as I mentioned to Mark, as a group they appear to have breached some important ones in their handling of the Iraq debate. As for Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and their ilk, I absolutely hold them responsible for poisoning the public discourse with broad smears, distortions and partisan hostility. And I hold anyone who lies responsible for the consequences of being believed. But as I said to Mark, I don't believe in attributing dishonesty or bad motives without evidence, or demonizing anyone for their bona fide opinions.
I don't believe that saying "Noonan bears some responsibility for her words when given a national forum" is
exactly "demonizing" her. As far as evidence,the fact that Rupert Murdoch owns stock in Halliburton is proof enough for me although your idea of what it takes to reach the threshold of "evidence" may be higher than mine.I'm of the "walks like a duck,quacks like a duck" school of thought. With this bunch you can always follow the money.
And as an 80% disabled veteran I would defend with my life Noonan's right to french kiss Bill O'Reilly in prime time if that's what she wants to do.
We all have biases and blind spots, yet none of us thinks our perceptions are unreliable. That's why I think we need to be skeptical of our various notions of "obviousness," and instead look to reliable processes for finding the truth. Since we reach different conclusions about Noonan, we may have different thresholds of proof. I don't know. But to be clear, I think everyone bears responsibility for their words, just not necessarily blame for the events that ensue.
I hope we can at least agree that you bear some responsibility for the image I have in my head of Peggy Noonan french kissing Bill O'Reilly. ;)
Glad to see, apparently as a Democrat, you have a keen interest in our security, AJ.
Feel free to "love it," but I did not simply "blame it" on him (Clinton) in some categorical sense. I took note of the appreciable fact that WTC '93 took place within one month after he took office, in February of '93. I might have highlighted other items, such as the fact that one or two of the perps managed to escape to Saddam & Sons' Iraq. Other items still come to mind, such as Kenya, such as Kobar Towers. Still, I wasn't categorically blaming it all upon the prior president.
As to realigning our strategic assets, I'm referring to the aftermath of the bi-polar Cold War. During that era the so-called "peace dividend" was in fact exploited for political gain. Nonetheless, in taking note of historic facts, I was not blaming anyone in a categorical sense, to the exclusion of others. Similarly, in taking note of Fukuyama's "End of History" thesis, I'm obviously recalling an entire set of contemporaneous critiques and policy interests, which further illustrates the fact I wasn't simply or categorically blaming Clinton.
Here's a thought. Perhaps "your party" needs to quit blaming someone and, first and foremost, admit your own partisan purity is a figment of your imagination and a laughable one at that, given politicos ranging from Kerry to Dean to Kennedy to Edwards, to name a few. Bush/Blair=Stalin/Hitler along with a surfeit of smarm and facile arrogations may still win you votes in Berkeley and other spots on the east and west coasts, a couple places between as well, but it's not likely to win you Peoria. Obama as savior is a safer route, but that too may end up being revealed for what it is, a house of cards put together by a single fancy shuffler.
Finally, what we did "we