Point/Counterpoint: Conservatism Is Dead/The Future of Conservatism - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Baraka_Guru · 02-15-2009, 05:56 PM

Quote:

The New Republic
"Conservatism Is Dead" by Sam Tanenhaus
An intellectual autopsy of the movement.
[EXCERPTS]
Post Date Wednesday, February 18, 2009

[...] What passes for conservatism today would have been incomprehensible to its originator, Edmund Burke, who, in the late eighteenth century, set forth the principles by which governments might nurture the "organic" unity that bound a people together even in times of revolutionary upheaval. Burke's conservatism was based not on a particular set of ideological principles but rather on distrust of all ideologies. In his most celebrated writings, his denunciation of the French Revolution and its English champions, Burke did not seek to justify the ancien regime and its many inequities. Nor did he propose a counter-ideology. Instead he warned against the destabilizing perils of revolutionary politics, beginning with its totalizing nostrums. Robespierre and Danton, the movement ideologues of their day, were inflamed with the Enlightenment vision of the ideal civilization and sacrificed to its abstractions the established traditions and institutions of what Burke called "civil society." They placed an idea of the perfect society over and above the need to improve society as it really existed.

At the same time, Burke recognized that governments were obligated to use their powers to meliorate intolerable conditions. He had, for example, supported the American Revolution because its architects, unlike the French rebels, had not sought to destroy the English government; on the contrary, they petitioned for just representation within it. Had King George III complied, he would have strengthened, not weakened, the Crown and Parliament. Instead, he had inflexibly clung to the hard line and so shared responsibility for the Americans' revolt. "A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation," Burke warned. The task of the statesman was to maintain equilibrium between "[t]he two principles of conservation and correction." Governance was a perpetual act of compromise--"sometimes between good and evil, and sometimes between evil and evil." In such a scheme there is no useful place for the either/or of ideological purism.

The story of postwar American conservatism is best understood as a continual replay of a single long-standing debate. On one side are those who have upheld the Burkean ideal of replenishing civil society by adjusting to changing conditions. On the other are those committed to a revanchist counterrevolution, the restoration of America's pre-welfare state ancien regime. And, time and again, the counterrevolutionaries have won. The result is that modern American conservatism has dedicated itself not to fortifying and replenishing civil society but rather to weakening it through a politics of civil warfare.

[...]

The right, which for so long had deplored the politics of "class warfare," had become the most adept practitioners of that same politics. They had not only abandoned Burke. They had become inverse Marxists, placing loyalty to the movement--the Reagan Revolution--above their civic responsibilities. In 1995, the time of Gingrich's ascendancy, Kristol buoyantly spelled out the terms of revanchist strategy: "American conservatism is a movement, a popular movement, not a faction within any political party. Though, inevitably, most conservatives vote Republican, they are not party loyalists and the party has to woo them to win votes. This movement is issue oriented. It will happily meld with the Republican party if the party is 'right' on the issues; if not, it will walk away." By this calculus, all the obligations flow in only one direction. Parties are accountable to movement purists, while purists incur no reciprocal debt. They determine the "right" position, and the party's job is to advance it. Kristol does not consider whether purists might be expected to maneuver at all or even to modify their views--for the good not only of the party but also the larger polity.

Kristol went on, in this essay, to extol the contributions of two movement subgroups, the neoconservatives and the evangelicals. It was of course this alliance that most fervently supported George W. Bush during his two terms and remains most loyal to him today.

By their lights, they are right to do so. Bush, so often labeled a traitor to conservative principles, was in fact more steadfastly devoted to them than any of his Republican predecessors--including Ronald Reagan. Few on the right acknowledge this today, for obvious reasons. But not so long ago many did. At his peak, following September 11, Bush commanded the loyalties of every major faction of the Republican Party. The big central domestic proposal of his first term, the $1.3 trillion tax cut, extended Reagan's massive "tax reform" from the 1980s. Shortly before the Iraq invasion, Martin Anderson, Reagan's top domestic policy adviser, told Bill Keller (writing in The New York Times Magazine) that Bush was unmistakably Reagan's heir. "On taxes, on education, it was the same. On Social Security, Bush's position was exactly what Reagan always wanted and talked about in the '70s," Anderson said. "I just can't think of any major policy issue on which Bush was different." The prime initiative of Bush's second term, the attempt to privatize Social Security, drew directly on movement scripture: Milton Friedman denounced the "compulsory annuities" of Social Security in Capitalism and Freedom. Buckley noted the advantages of "voluntary" accounts in his early manifesto, Up From Liberalism. So did Barry Goldwater during his presidential campaign in 1964. Bush went further than Reagan, too, in the war he waged against the federal bureaucracy. And his attacks on the "liberal-left bias of the major media" were the most aggressive since Nixon's.

And then there was Iraq, the event that shaped Bush's presidency and, by most accounts, brought both him and the movement to ruin. It was also the event most at odds with classic conservative thinking. It is customary even now to say that the architects of the Iraq occupation failed because they naively placed too much faith in democracy. In fact, the problem was just the opposite. So contemptuous of the actual requirements of civil society at home, Bush's war planners gave no serious thought to how difficult it might be to create such a society in a distant land with a vastly different history. Those within the administration who tried to make this case were marginalized or removed from power.

[...]

In the end, movement conservatives got the war they wanted--both at home and abroad. It ended, at last, with the 2008 election, and the emergence of a president who seems more thoroughly steeped in the principles of Burkean conservatism than any significant thinker or political figure on the right.

What our politics has consistently demanded of its leaders, if they are to ascend to the status of disinterested statesmen, is not the assertion but rather the renunciation of ideology. And the only ideology one can meaningfully renounce is one's own. Liberals did this a generation ago when they shed the programmatic "New Politics" of the left and embraced instead a broad majoritarianism. Now it is time for conservatives to repudiate movement politics and recover their honorable intellectual and political tradition. At its best, conservatism has served the vital function of clarifying our shared connection to the past and of giving articulate voice to the normative beliefs Americans have striven to maintain even in the worst of times. There remains in our politics a place for an authentic conservatism--a conservatism that seeks not to destroy but to conserve.

Conservatism Is Dead

Quote:

Pendulum Online
Spotlight moves off Obama, Republican Party in need of change
by Daniel Shutt
February 10, 2009

As a proud and partisan Democrat, the last few months have brought me a great deal of personal satisfaction. My candidate and my party have won a sweeping mandate to change the direction of the country and repair the damage that former President George W. Bush and the Republican Party have done over the last eight years. As an American, though, I am deeply troubled by the new political dynamics that have emerged. While I may disagree with my Republican friends, there can be no doubt that our country is better off when we hear the voices of all Americans. That is why I am concerned about the future of the Republican Party.

It is clear that the 2008 election represented not just an electoral defeat, but a thorough rebuke of the Republican brand. If Republicans fail to drastically overhaul their approach, they are destined to wander in the political wilderness for years to come.

It is with these concerns that I, a concerned Democrat, offer some suggestions:

Listen to young voters. In November, President Barack Obama won 66 percent of voters between the ages of 18 and 29. Few politicians in American history have captured the imagination of young people like Obama has, and his personal magnetism certainly accounts for his success. It is clear that Republicans have an outdated set of priorities that do not appeal to the millennial generation. Voters our age want to hear more from candidates about the environment and global poverty and less about culture war issues like abortion and gay rights.

Make peace with Hispanic voters. In 2004, Bush won the Hispanic vote by 12 percent. In 2008, Sen. John McCain won only 33 percent. McCain, a strong proponent of immigration reform, should have appealed strongly to Hispanics. But his individual positions were overwhelmed by the noxious anti-immigrant tone coming from his party. By 2030, Hispanics will be one-fifth of the country’s population. Simply put, the Republican Party cannot continue to be an almost exclusively white party. If they don’t change their tone, Republicans will find themselves marginalized.

Broaden middle-class appeal. When the fall campaign turned abruptly to the issue of economic security and jobs, the Republicans seemed completely lost. As voters became more anxious about their jobs, pensions, homes and healthcare, Republicans gave them the same old song and dance about tax cuts for the wealthy. It’s no wonder polls indicated that Americans trusted Democrats with the economy. With the economy in a free-fall, Republicans would be smart to listen more carefully to the middle class. Put tax cuts for big corporations on the back burner and start talking about healthcare, education and retirement security.

Get serious. At a recent conference on “the future of conservatism,” the headline speakers were Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Joe the Plumber. If any of these people represent the future of conservatism, Republicans are in real trouble. The American people are starved for serious ideas and solutions, not talk-show bluster. What if congressional Republicans offered principled conservative criticisms of the president’s stimulus plan, rather than deferring to the likes of Limbaugh and Fox News? Our public debate needs thoughtful exchange.

Leave Sarah Palin in Alaska. I know, some conservatives want to nominate her in 2012. But her over-heated rhetoric about “pro-America” parts of the country and Obama “palling around with terrorists” are needlessly divisive and ugly. Besides, after eight years of Bush, do you really want another punch line as a president?

Coming from a Democrat, this advice may not mean much to Republicans, and they might ignore it. That’s their prerogative. But I’d rather face a worthy competitor than watch old friends lose their way.

Pendulum Online

This topic has more or less come up a number of times in recent threads in Tilted Politics. Here I have referenced two essays that discuss conservatism and its current status--and possible future. Some conservatives here at TFP have admitted that the Bush administration was a far cry from conservatism, and deplore the Neocon movement.

I'd like to open a discussion about conservatism and how it's changed in recent years.

How far has conservatism been taken from its roots?
What fundamental elements are currently missing from the "conservatism" of the current Republicans?
What sort of policies, changes, etc., both domestic and international, do pre-Neocon conservatives want in the U.S.?

I see a problem even in the conservatism in Canada. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his mentors/advisors are from that same Chicago school that espouses neoliberalism and other elements of the Neocon movement. Much of what's wrong with conservatism can be traced even as far as here in Canada.

Do contemporary conservatives look to Burke's view of conservatism as a starting point? What sort of changes since Burke are reasonable to conservatism and what sort aren't?

Help me get a view as to what contemporary conservatives want. How much work do they have in wresting power from the Neocons?

What is the possible future of conservatism in America? How close are these essays to their mark?

Seaver · 02-15-2009, 07:59 PM

Conservative policies failed in public support because those in power ignored the economic conservative policies which the vast majority supported and kept the conservative social policies which a good amount of conservatives never did.

I never voted Dem because I hate the size of our bloated government, and Bush burned that whole ideology and gave everyone blank checks. McCain does not have a better track record, so it's a choice between two parties which have the same basic economic strategy.

Conservative Capitalism ideology did not fail, the people that were chosen to represent the ideology did.

Derwood · 02-15-2009, 08:14 PM

Bush did so much damage (IMO) because he mixed his ideologies. He had a Neo-Con foreign policy while attempting Reaganomics at home. He also kowtowed to the evangelicals when it came to social policies, pitting science against morality, etc.

As long as the GOP holds Reagan as the ideal, they'll never be able to evolve.

guyy · 02-15-2009, 09:37 PM

i remember a conversation about the LDP with an eldery and conservative Japanese man. I said the LDP was inconsistent. He said, no, you're wrong, it's always been the party of capital.

I think that was a more realistic self-assessment than we'll get from American conservatives.

ASU2003 · 02-15-2009, 10:00 PM

Conservatives never promoted a clear image of what their perfect society would be, and if it would include everyone. Ron Paul style fiscal conservatism could be big in the next election, but I think he was a little too free market for some moderates.

roachboy · 02-16-2009, 04:26 AM

i think the first edito above is not far from the mark. fact is that george w bush was an ideological conservative--"realist"/neo-con on foreign policy, reactionary on social policy, and he at least talked the talk of fiscal conservatism. he was a monetarist, his policies did, in fact, wage class war conservative style. etc...none of that has anything to do with burke, but that's not surprising. populist conservatism/the poujadist-neoliberal coalition--this is an explicitly ideological movement.

Sun Tzu · 02-16-2009, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

Ron Paul style fiscal conservatism could be big in the next election, but I think he was a little too free market for some moderates.

I wish this were true, but the mere thought of dismantling parts of the government is frightening to a majority of people. The question was posed in another thread to name one country or society that has implemented this approach. Initially America was somewhat of an experiment.

I also can't see the Fed ever giving up its hold on the monetary system.

guyy · 02-17-2009, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

Conservatives never promoted a clear image of what their perfect society would be, and if it would include everyone. Ron Paul style fiscal conservatism could be big in the next election, but I think he was a little too free market for some moderates.

You think so? Ron Paul is a neo-liberal extremist. His economic theories were implemented, more or less, and they failed. Spectacularly -- as we are now finding out. Now is the time for him to take responsibility and for us to ridicule him.

Sun Tzu · 02-18-2009, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guyy

You think so? Ron Paul is a neo-liberal extremist. His economic theories were implemented, more or less, and they failed. Spectacularly -- as we are now finding out. Now is the time for him to take responsibility and for us to ridicule him.

Oh really at what point was the Federal Reserve abolished? Neo-liberal. . . what? Is that a joke or sarcasm? Can you explain? The first thing I thought about after reading your last sentence was this:

Baraka_Guru · 05-01-2009, 07:00 AM

Quote:

The Dismal Future Of The GOP
Bruce Bartlett, 05.01.09, 12:00 AM EDT
Losing its moderate voice and its moderate voters.

The defection of Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party has engendered little anguish within the GOP. The general attitude seems to be "good riddance." Democrats had the same attitude when conservative Southern Democrats began defecting to the Republicans back in the 1970s. The result was GOP control of the Senate in 1980 and the House of Representatives in 1994.

For 100 years after the Civil War, the Democratic Party was based in the South. Northern Republicans were blamed for destroying the Southern way of life by engaging in a war of aggression against the South. The Republican Party was also the home to most African Americans for many decades after the war.

Although the former slaves had been given the vote by the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, there was no way that Southerners were going to allow them to exercise political power. Once Reconstruction ended and federal troops were withdrawn from the South, Democrats conspired to disenfranchise blacks using every legal means they could conceive.

When these methods were inadequate, violence was commonly used to maintain Democratic control of the South. Groups like the Ku Klux Klan were essentially the militant arm of the party of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.

The main way Democrats maintained control was by barring blacks from voting in the Democratic primary. Within the Democratic Party, different factions representing rural populists and establishment conservatives would fight tooth-and-nail. But at the end of the day, they all voted for the winner of the Democratic nomination.

After World War II, the Supreme Court held that restricting Democratic primaries to white voters only was unconstitutional. But it wasn't until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that blacks were truly able to exercise their voting rights throughout the South.

As time went by, populism gradually declined and the Democratic Party in the South became dominated by conservatives. After Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to purge some of them in 1938 for opposing his liberal agenda, Southern Democrats and Republicans joined together in a conservative coalition that exercised effective control of Congress for the next 36 years.

In the wake of Watergate, Democrats won big in 1974. In the House, their membership increased from 243 to 291. And most of the newly elected Democrats were Northern liberals who wanted nothing to do with their Southern brethren. Several Southern Democrats were purged from their committee chairmanships and reforms instituted to diminish their power.

At this point, conservative Southerners had no reason to stay in the Democratic Party. The Republican Party became viable in the South for the first time since Reconstruction. When Southern Democrats began to switch over to the GOP, Northern liberal Democrats considered themselves better off for it.

The Democratic Party became a more purely liberal party no longer restrained by a conservative Southern wing. In the process, it lost millions of conservative voters and became less attractive to middle-of-the-road voters as well. In 1980, they voted for Ronald Reagan and also put Republicans in control of the Senate for the first time since 1954.

After Walter Mondale was soundly defeated in 1984 running as an unabashed liberal, moderate Democrats saw the handwriting on the wall. Unless the party's liberalism was curbed, the Republicans would continue to gain power. These moderates formed the Democratic Leadership Council in 1985.

In 1988, Democrats nominated Michael Dukakis for president. Although a liberal, he was more of a technocrat and less of an ideologue than Mondale. Nevertheless, George H.W. Bush had little difficulty painting him as an extreme liberal. This was possible because at this point, the Democratic Party was indeed very liberal, with those on the far left like Jesse Jackson often calling the tune.

In the wake of the Dukakis defeat, the DLC became more aggressive in trying to curb the Democrats' liberalism. Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, who became chairman of the group in 1990, pushed the party to tone down the liberal rhetoric and concentrate on practical solutions to the nation's problems, even if it meant conceding that Republicans sometimes had worthwhile ideas.

Clinton's election in 1992 was viewed as a triumph of the DLC strategy. But in his first two years, he governed more as a traditional liberal than the moderate he had run as. Newt Gingrich, then the House Republican whip, recognized that Clinton's betrayal of his moderate image created an opportunity for Republicans to take control of the House.

Gingrich's key insight was that the few remaining Southern Democrats were the primary barriers to Republican control because they all represented districts that Republicans could win. Historically, Republicans had given a pass to conservative Democrats in the South because they mostly voted with Republicans. But there was one time when the Southerners were loyal Democrats: when it was time to organize the House and elect a speaker.

Gingrich's strategy was to put severe pressure on conservative Democrats. Either retire, switch parties or suffer an aggressive Republican challenge, he told them. Most chose to retire or become Republicans. This is what gave the GOP control of Congress in 1994. Thus we see that Republican control of Congress was the ultimate result of the Democrats' decision to purge their conservative wing in 1974.

After winning control of Congress and the White House in 2000, Republicans were as full of themselves as Democrats had been after achieving the same goal in 1976 and 1992. Cooperation with the other party was viewed as a sell-out by partisans of the party in control. The dominant element of each party--liberals in 1977 and 1993, and conservatives in 2001--moved quickly to implement long-cherished measures that had been blocked by a lack of unified control of the executive and legislative branches.

At this point, Democrats finally accepted that applying ideological litmus tests was self-defeating. If some moderate or conservative wanted to run in a district that would only elect a moderate or conservative, then it was stupid to insist that they endorse every liberal item in the Democratic agenda. Moderates and conservatives were permitted to dissent from the party line on issues such as gun control if that was what it took to win.

This "big tent" approach was highly successful and greatly helped Democrats retake control of Congress in 2006. What probably hurt congressional Republicans the most, however, was their down-the-line support for every action by George W. Bush, no matter how ill-conceived, poorly implemented or at odds with the party's basic philosophy, such as when he insisted on a massive expansion of Medicare in 2003.

As a consequence, the Republican brand was destroyed. The party is now widely viewed as corrupt, incompetent, ideologically rigid and out of step with the American mainstream. It should be engaging in self-examination, developing an agenda that addresses the real problems faced by Americans and reaching out to the millions of voters who have left the GOP in recent years. Instead, Republicans are pushing out the last of the party's moderates as if that will somehow make them more popular with the very moderates whose votes are essential if they are to regain power.

I think Republicans desperately need a group that will do for them what the DLC did for the Democrats. Unfortunately, I see no such organization or any resources available for those that might start one. Those with such resources are either turned off by Republican pandering to its right wing and have left the party or they agree with it. Either way, no one in the Republican Party seems to have any interest in victory, and they prefer to wear defeat as some kind of badge of honor.

Eventually, Republicans will tire of being out of power just as Democrats did, and they will do what it takes to win. But I fear that Republicans will have to at least lose in 2010 and again in 2012 before they start to come to their senses. Perhaps by 2014, some leader with maturity, resources, vision and discipline will find a way of leading the GOP out of the wilderness. But I see no one even in a position to start that process today.

Bruce Bartlett is a former Treasury Department economist and the author of Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action and Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy. He writes a weekly column for Forbes.com.

The Dismal Future Of The GOP - Forbes.com

Is the loss of Specter a huge hit to moderate Republican politicians and moderate Republican voters?
How are the Republicans doing in the wake of GWB and a Democratic government?
Are Republicans losing their grip as the voice of conservatism?
Does conservatism need to be more flexible in changing times?
What's going on in American politics on the right? How will conservatives need to change to get back on track to their core values in a changing world?
How do you see the future of conservatism?

loquitur · 05-01-2009, 07:20 AM

The republican party was taken over by a pack of lunatics (Terry Schiavo, anyone?), and the last Republican president made a decision that he'd never allow himself to lose political support by refusing to spend money or by acting with fiscal prudence. So you had a big government busybody under the Republican banner doing some insane things. Bush was many things, but a Goldwater/Reagan style conservative isn't one of them. NCLB wasn't remotely conservative, and neither was much (thought not all) of his foreign policy. Bush was a do-gooding born again Christian evangelist, and if you look at his presidency you'll see that his mindset that one must do good and preach good was driving much of his decisionmaking. Whatever else that may be, it's not conservative. It looks nothing like the Reagan model or even the Bush Sr model. The only thing he took from them is some of the rhetoric.

I don't particularly care because I'm not a conservative. It's clear that my own views probably won' t be adopted by either party because there's nothing in it for the politicians. Like most people, they look out for themselves first and foremost.

Willravel · 05-01-2009, 08:01 AM

My hope is that the Republican party will fracture, but the sad truth is that there aren't enough moderates left in the party to really do the job. We'll be seeing more and more "conservative independents" that happen to be registered Republican, but the party itself will remain extreme right and radicalized.

You conservatives need to nominate a moderate in 2012. If you go with a complete idiot like Palin, an empty suit like Jindal, a religious radical like Huckabee, or a fucking asshole like Rudy Giuliani, you may lose all 50 states. Ron Paul will run and get electoral numbers in the teens again. Wait... are there moderate Republicans in power?

loquitur · 05-01-2009, 11:02 AM

The last moderate Republican president was Bill Clinton. Honest.

Who were you addressing with "you conservatives"? I wasn't aware there even were more than one or two in this whole community.

Willravel · 05-01-2009, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Who were you addressing with "you conservatives"? I wasn't aware there even were more than one or two in this whole community.

All registered Republicans and people that might consider voting Republican. That encompasses pretty much all of you.

inBOIL · 05-01-2009, 12:00 PM

Now's the time for the Libertarian party to prove they're not completely disfunctional by making a push to reach out to fiscal conservatives who have been alienated by the Republicans. Of course, that would require more willingness to compromise, so I'm not holding my breath.

roachboy · 05-01-2009, 12:36 PM

the republicans are in quite a pickle.
their coalition appears to be as much a problem as an advantage and the language that the right developed to integrate the myriad right-to-extreme right groups that were of it has entirely fallen apart. what's worse, the economic ideology that was a lynchpin for not only the hard-right version of the republican coalition that took shape under clinton, but the entire conservative movement since the middle 1970s has been pretty thoroughly pulverized--but there's not a clear alternative at this point, so functionally i think it's still operative as condensed onto schemata that folk use to order information and comportments, so is in myriad fragments....one of the problems that's created by the fact that there still hasn't been a serious discursive break with the bad old days of cowboy capitalism is the difficulties the obama administration seems to have in talking about longer-term objectives and the roles that the state can play in furthering them. which is not good.

anyway, i don't see any obvious way out of this situation for the republicans...they've lost control over what once was a pretty well-oiled ideological system--so the dissociative fox news operates in lunatic mode because, well, they have to...if they don't want to abandon their reactionary business model---so limbaugh, so all of it.

worst thing that could happen to the republicans now would be for more prominent moderates to leave the party, because that would send them tumbling into an abyss nationally.

so they're in real trouble.

loquitur · 05-01-2009, 01:33 PM

RB, if the Republicans go back to "just leave people alone and let them do their thing" they'll do just fine. They went off the rails when they went holy and when they started to believe they could use govt to force all the results they like. Can't be done. Dems think it can, and they're more resistant to disproof of that point than the Repubs (or maybe I'm wrong about that, they might both be resistant because it's just a political disease). But when they rediscover Hayek (if ever they knew him to begin with) they'll start cohering again. In the auction of govt-sponsored goodies it's suicidal to try competing with the professionals.

aceventura3 · 05-20-2009, 10:30 AM

No doubt Republicans have their problems, but at what point does it become embarrassing to be a Democrat, especially given the latest with Gitmo today? Please discuss among yourselves.

Willravel · 05-20-2009, 10:40 AM

Congressional Democrats want clarification from the president before closing the prison. They're practicing caution when dealing with terror subjects. President Obama is trying to honor his campaign pledge and will likely clarify his intent soon to the Dems. There's nothing to be embarrassed about yet there.

roachboy · 05-20-2009, 10:51 AM

well i dunno about that, will. harry reid's statements about why the democrats acted as they did are repellent, very bush-administration-like sentiments. i put this up in another thread, but my basic position is that obama and the democrats are starting to run into some trouble because they're still too locked into the language of the obsolete conservative movement--so they're still framing issues in the same terms. the problem, as i see it, is that they really are moderates and nothing at all like what the fragments of the right would pretend. it follows, then, that they really haven't got an ideological position or positions that enable a redefinition of basic situations in the world, of the possibilities and limitations of state action, of goals and how to carry them out, not to mention how to make these processes transparent.

the administration has gone nowhere near far enough in marginalizing conservative discourse.

i can imagine them getting eaten alive because of the resulting paralysis.
i hope it doesn't happen--but i can see how it's possible.

Willravel · 05-20-2009, 11:42 AM

They're Democrats, they've been locked in Republican axioms since before I was born. I don't expect them to really start separating from them until things have started to stabilize under Obama's second term and people are starting to*feel* liberal again.

02-15-2009, 07:59 PM	#2 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Conservative policies failed in public support because those in power ignored the economic conservative policies which the vast majority supported and kept the conservative social policies which a good amount of conservatives never did. I never voted Dem because I hate the size of our bloated government, and Bush burned that whole ideology and gave everyone blank checks. McCain does not have a better track record, so it's a choice between two parties which have the same basic economic strategy. Conservative Capitalism ideology did not fail, the people that were chosen to represent the ideology did. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

02-16-2009, 04:26 AM	#6 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i think the first edito above is not far from the mark. fact is that george w bush was an ideological conservative--"realist"/neo-con on foreign policy, reactionary on social policy, and he at least talked the talk of fiscal conservatism. he was a monetarist, his policies did, in fact, wage class war conservative style. etc...none of that has anything to do with burke, but that's not surprising. populist conservatism/the poujadist-neoliberal coalition--this is an explicitly ideological movement. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-01-2009, 12:00 PM	#15 (permalink)
inBOIL I have eaten the slaw	Now's the time for the Libertarian party to prove they're not completely disfunctional by making a push to reach out to fiscal conservatives who have been alienated by the Republicans. Of course, that would require more willingness to compromise, so I'm not holding my breath. __________________ And you believe Bush and the liberals and divorced parents and gays and blacks and the Christian right and fossil fuels and Xbox are all to blame, meanwhile you yourselves create an ad where your kid hits you in the head with a baseball and you don't understand the message that the problem is you.

05-01-2009, 12:36 PM	#16 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the republicans are in quite a pickle. their coalition appears to be as much a problem as an advantage and the language that the right developed to integrate the myriad right-to-extreme right groups that were of it has entirely fallen apart. what's worse, the economic ideology that was a lynchpin for not only the hard-right version of the republican coalition that took shape under clinton, but the entire conservative movement since the middle 1970s has been pretty thoroughly pulverized--but there's not a clear alternative at this point, so functionally i think it's still operative as condensed onto schemata that folk use to order information and comportments, so is in myriad fragments....one of the problems that's created by the fact that there still hasn't been a serious discursive break with the bad old days of cowboy capitalism is the difficulties the obama administration seems to have in talking about longer-term objectives and the roles that the state can play in furthering them. which is not good. anyway, i don't see any obvious way out of this situation for the republicans...they've lost control over what once was a pretty well-oiled ideological system--so the dissociative fox news operates in lunatic mode because, well, they have to...if they don't want to abandon their reactionary business model---so limbaugh, so all of it. worst thing that could happen to the republicans now would be for more prominent moderates to leave the party, because that would send them tumbling into an abyss nationally. so they're in real trouble. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-20-2009, 10:30 AM	#18 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	No doubt Republicans have their problems, but at what point does it become embarrassing to be a Democrat, especially given the latest with Gitmo today? Please discuss among yourselves. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

02-15-2009, 08:14 PM	#3 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	Bush did so much damage (IMO) because he mixed his ideologies. He had a Neo-Con foreign policy while attempting Reaganomics at home. He also kowtowed to the evangelicals when it came to social policies, pitting science against morality, etc. As long as the GOP holds Reagan as the ideal, they'll never be able to evolve.

02-15-2009, 09:37 PM	#4 (permalink)
guyy Addict Location: Cottage Grove, Wisconsin	i remember a conversation about the LDP with an eldery and conservative Japanese man. I said the LDP was inconsistent. He said, no, you're wrong, it's always been the party of capital. I think that was a more realistic self-assessment than we'll get from American conservatives.

02-15-2009, 10:00 PM	#5 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	Conservatives never promoted a clear image of what their perfect society would be, and if it would include everyone. Ron Paul style fiscal conservatism could be big in the next election, but I think he was a little too free market for some moderates.

05-01-2009, 07:20 AM	#11 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	The republican party was taken over by a pack of lunatics (Terry Schiavo, anyone?), and the last Republican president made a decision that he'd never allow himself to lose political support by refusing to spend money or by acting with fiscal prudence. So you had a big government busybody under the Republican banner doing some insane things. Bush was many things, but a Goldwater/Reagan style conservative isn't one of them. NCLB wasn't remotely conservative, and neither was much (thought not all) of his foreign policy. Bush was a do-gooding born again Christian evangelist, and if you look at his presidency you'll see that his mindset that one must do good and preach good was driving much of his decisionmaking. Whatever else that may be, it's not conservative. It looks nothing like the Reagan model or even the Bush Sr model. The only thing he took from them is some of the rhetoric. I don't particularly care because I'm not a conservative. It's clear that my own views probably won' t be adopted by either party because there's nothing in it for the politicians. Like most people, they look out for themselves first and foremost.

05-01-2009, 08:01 AM	#12 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	My hope is that the Republican party will fracture, but the sad truth is that there aren't enough moderates left in the party to really do the job. We'll be seeing more and more "conservative independents" that happen to be registered Republican, but the party itself will remain extreme right and radicalized. You conservatives need to nominate a moderate in 2012. If you go with a complete idiot like Palin, an empty suit like Jindal, a religious radical like Huckabee, or a fucking asshole like Rudy Giuliani, you may lose all 50 states. Ron Paul will run and get electoral numbers in the teens again. Wait... are there moderate Republicans in power?

05-01-2009, 11:02 AM	#13 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	The last moderate Republican president was Bill Clinton. Honest. Who were you addressing with "you conservatives"? I wasn't aware there even were more than one or two in this whole community.

05-01-2009, 01:33 PM	#17 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	RB, if the Republicans go back to "just leave people alone and let them do their thing" they'll do just fine. They went off the rails when they went holy and when they started to believe they could use govt to force all the results they like. Can't be done. Dems think it can, and they're more resistant to disproof of that point than the Repubs (or maybe I'm wrong about that, they might both be resistant because it's just a political disease). But when they rediscover Hayek (if ever they knew him to begin with) they'll start cohering again. In the auction of govt-sponsored goodies it's suicidal to try competing with the professionals.

05-20-2009, 10:40 AM	#19 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Congressional Democrats want clarification from the president before closing the prison. They're practicing caution when dealing with terror subjects. President Obama is trying to honor his campaign pledge and will likely clarify his intent soon to the Dems. There's nothing to be embarrassed about yet there.

05-20-2009, 10:51 AM	#20 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well i dunno about that, will. harry reid's statements about why the democrats acted as they did are repellent, very bush-administration-like sentiments. i put this up in another thread, but my basic position is that obama and the democrats are starting to run into some trouble because they're still too locked into the language of the obsolete conservative movement--so they're still framing issues in the same terms. the problem, as i see it, is that they really are moderates and nothing at all like what the fragments of the right would pretend. it follows, then, that they really haven't got an ideological position or positions that enable a redefinition of basic situations in the world, of the possibilities and limitations of state action, of goals and how to carry them out, not to mention how to make these processes transparent. the administration has gone nowhere near far enough in marginalizing conservative discourse. i can imagine them getting eaten alive because of the resulting paralysis. i hope it doesn't happen--but i can see how it's possible. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-20-2009, 11:42 AM	#21 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	They're Democrats, they've been locked in Republican axioms since before I was born. I don't expect them to really start separating from them until things have started to stabilize under Obama's second term and people are starting tofeel liberal again.