Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Why Conservatives Can't Govern

By Alan Wolfe, Washington Monthly. Posted July 6, 2006.


Bush's presidency and Congress are imploding, not despite their conservatism, but because of it.
070606_story1
070606_story1

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Alan Wolfe

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Search hard enough and you might find a pundit who believes what George W. Bush believes, which is that history will redeem his administration. But from just about everyone else, on the right as vehemently as on the left, the verdict has been rolling in: This administration, if not the worst in American history, will soon find itself in the final four. Even those who appeal to history's ultimate judgment halfheartedly acknowledge as much. One seeks tomorrow's vindication only in the context of today's dismal performance.

About the only failure more pronounced than the president's has been the graft-filled plunder of GOP lawmakers -- at least according to opinion polls, which in May gave the GOP-controlled Congress favorability ratings in the low 20s, about 10 points lower than the president's. This does not necessarily translate into electoral Armageddon; redistricting and other incumbency-protection devices help protect against that. But even if many commentators think that Republicans may retain control over Congress, very few think they should.

Eager to salvage conservatism from the wreckage of conservative rule, right-wing pundits are furiously blaming right-wing politicians for failing to adhere to right-wing convictions. Libertarians such as Bruce Bartlett fret that under Republican control, government has not shrunk, as conservatives prescribe, but has grown.

Insiders like Peggy Noonan complain that Republicans have become -- well, insiders; they are too focused on retaining power and too disconnected from the base whose anger pushed them into power. Idealistic younger conservatives bewail the care and feeding of the K Street beast. Paleocons Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak blame neocons William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer for the debacle that is Iraq.

Through all these laments there pulsates a sense of desperation: A conservative president and an even more conservative Congress must be repudiated to enable genuine conservatism to survive. Sure, the Bush administration has failed, all these voices proclaim. But that is because Bush and his Republican allies in Congress borrowed big government and foreign-policy idealism from the left. The ideas of Woodrow Wilson and John Maynard Keynes, from their point of view, have always been flawed. George W. Bush and Tom DeLay just prove it one more time.

Conservative dissidents seem to have done an admirable job of persuading each other of the truth of their claims. Of course, many of these dissidents extolled the president's conservative leadership when he was riding high in the polls. But the real flaw in their argument is akin to that of Trotskyites who, when confronted with the failures of communism in Cuba, China and the Soviet Union, would claim that real communism had never been tried. If leaders consistently depart in disastrous ways from their underlying political ideology, there comes a point where one has to stop just blaming the leaders and start questioning the ideology.

The collapse of the Bush presidency, in other words, is not just due to Bush's incompetence (although his administration has been incompetent beyond belief). Nor is it a response to the president's principled lack of intellectual curiosity and pitbull refusal to admit mistakes (although those character flaws are certainly real enough). And the orgy of bribery and special-interest dispensation in Congress is not the result of Tom DeLay's ruthlessness, as impressive a bully as he was. This conservative presidency and Congress imploded, not despite their conservatism, but because of it.

Contemporary conservatism is first and foremost about shrinking the size and reach of the federal government. This mission, let us be clear, is an ideological one. It does not emerge out of an attempt to solve real-world problems, such as managing increasing deficits or finding revenue to pay for entitlements built into the structure of federal legislation. It stems, rather, from the libertarian conviction, repeated endlessly by George W. Bush, that the money government collects in order to carry out its business properly belongs to the people themselves. One thought, and one thought only, guided Bush and his Republican allies since they assumed power in the wake of Bush vs. Gore: taxes must be cut, and the more they are cut -- especially in ways benefiting the rich -- the better.

But like all politicians, conservatives, once in office, find themselves under constant pressure from constituents to use government to improve their lives. This puts conservatives in the awkward position of managing government agencies whose missions -- indeed, whose very existence -- they believe to be illegitimate.

Contemporary conservatism is a walking contradiction. Unable to shrink government but unwilling to improve it, conservatives attempt to split the difference, expanding government for political gain, but always in ways that validate their disregard for the very thing they are expanding. The end result is not just bigger government, but more incompetent government.

"Ideas," a distinguished conservative named Richard Weaver once wrote, "have consequences." Americans have learned something about the consequences of conservative ideas during the Bush years that they never had to confront in the more amiable Reagan period. As a way of governing, conservatism is another name for disaster. And the disasters will continue, year after year, as long as conservatives, whose political tactics are frequently as brilliant as their policy-making is inept, find ways to perpetuate their power.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Alan Wolfe teaches political science at Boston College and is the author of Does American Democracy Still Work? (Yale University Press).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
yawn
Posted by: nbrown on Jul 6, 2006 12:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
democrats vote with bush and the neocons on most of the core issues. vote them out of office too.

but wouldn't that mean the problem isn't conservative politicians, per-se, but that government in general is the problem? indeed.

let's throw them all out, all the bastard politicians, their military guns, their police.

i trust my neighbor more than the government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: yawn Posted by: jeff2045
» RE: yawn Posted by: Blanktivist
» RE: yawn Posted by: dangerouslysane
» RE: yawn Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: yawn Posted by: nbrown
» RE: yawn Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: yawn Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: yawn Posted by: WhuThe?!?
We Are NOT Governed By "Conservatives."
Posted by: aussidawg on Jul 6, 2006 12:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bush administration, as many times as I have said it in the past is not conservative, rather, NEOCONSERVATIVE, which has nothing in common with traditional conservatism. As such, this administration has nothing to do with the idea of "smaller" government, rather has everything to do with CORPORATE EMPOWERMENT.

Tradtionally, in a nutshell, Liberals are characterised as "tax and spend", and Conservatives are considered small government and pro business. This administration is "spend, and spend, and cut taxes to the rich." They have no vision except corporate empowerment and global domination. Further, the word Bush and the word Libertarian in a single sentence is slanderous to the Libertarians. Bush is no Libertarian, rather, a religious oppressor.

Bush wants dominance, period. The more money the more power. The only reason he is "pro" business is because he reaps the kickbacks from the corporations he (and his sorry comrades in the House and Senate) give free reign to, at the expense of ALL of us citizens.

What this whole nasty thing boils down to is that while many choose to label Bu$h, Inc. as conservative, that is a misnomer. Bu$h, Inc. are nothing less than corporate fascists. This isn't a conservative form of "governance." This is a new idea for the U.S., but it isn't new as Hitler and Mussolini were the first in modern history to apply this theory of rule. Make no mistake about it...they intend to RULE, not govern, and they intend to use the vast monies of corporate America to finance their rule. Further, these "gentlemen/woman" aim to restrict personal freedom through religious oppression, with their intent being that the government's purpose is to enforce their ideals of morality.

Bush is a fascist, not a conservative. If you don't believe this, I strongly suggest a read of "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That was his point Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: That was his point Posted by: aussidawg
» Fascist Moratorium: Please. Posted by: knocko
» RE: Fascist Moratorium: Please. Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Fascist Moratorium: Please. Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Fascist Moratorium: Please. Posted by: FedererFan
» RE: Fascist Moratorium: Please. Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Fascist Moratorium: Please. Posted by: aussidawg
» Solutions Posted by: WhuThe?!?
One conservative vision comes true
Posted by: YogiBear on Jul 6, 2006 2:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seeing the fishbowl that Hurricane Katrina turned New Orleans into -- where news teams got into areas with stranded dying and desperate individuals, but a leader-starved and hatched FEMA could not, made conservative Grover Norquist's infamous words really ring true:

"My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years," he says, "to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: One conservative vision comes true sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
» Black Power Posted by: knocko
» If you can't take the heat Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Use an Umbrella sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
» RE: Use an Umbrella Posted by: Mutternich
» RE: Use an Umbrella Posted by: Mutternich
» RE: Use an Umbrella Posted by: kryptx
» RE: Use an Umbrella Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Use an Umbrella Posted by: kryptx
» RE: Use an Umbrella Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Use an Umbrella Posted by: kryptx
» RE: Use an Umbrella Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» Correction Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Use an Umbrella Posted by: HeroesAll
» "Choosing" not to work Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Use an Umbrella Posted by: maribelle
» RE: Use an Umbrella Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Use an Umbrella Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Use an Umbrella Posted by: Wacre
» RE: Use an Umbrella Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Use an Umbrella Posted by: FedererFan
To govern a society takes insight
Posted by: Mycos on Jul 6, 2006 3:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...into how others think. However, a lack of empathy, insight into how others must feel, a shallowness (or refusal) to understand things from a point of view other than their own....is the very definition of a conservative. Change is different, and so "different" is evil as it brings change. But of course differences within any society is inherent! This alone is reason to disallow their election to public office. And the evidence for their lack of understanding is the bigotry, homophobia, racism, fear of drug use, of other religions, other monetary systems, etc. etc. that come only with conservatives (eg. there are no "liberal" KKK).

However, what they do understand is that people will respond to force . This doesn't require social insight. That's as bl;ack and white as it gets, and black and white thinking is another hallmark of the conservative. Thereby it is reasonable to assume a disproportionate number of conservatives to belong to law-enforcement agencies or have military careers. Of course, that is precisely what we see.

However, the road taken by the author of the piece fails to mention the part that PNAC plays in the formation of policy taken by this administration. Their disastrous handling of Katrina and the war isn't so much incompetence as it is the pursuit of a "Pax Americana" while it is still within grasp. America remains the sole superpower and rather than spend the "peace dividend" on social programs at home, developing economies overseas in Africa or S.A, they want to take this once-in-a-lifetime chance to attain global domination. To achieve that end they need a compliant public. Thus an enemy to keep the public terrorized. As such, OBL is better off loose in the world so the switch to oil rich Saddam He=ussen as a terrorist. Now, rather than a decisive in and out war in Iraq, we have an ongoing one; much better to build a base over there while pretending its about fighting insurgents that they had "miscalculated". They also miscalculated so many other things that it's obvious the intention. They left bunkers full of High Explosives, RPG's, nuclear isotopes for medicine to make dirty bombs,...virtually everything that would enable terrorists to continue the threat into the distant future while they proceed under cover of the War On Terror. Why else would they have had orders to guard one building only upon the capture of Iraq? The Ministry of Oil. Paperwork. Why? PNAC. And because this is a long range strategy, I very much fear for the future of a democracy in America. These people wont go away so easy having gotten this far with the deception. So many continue to think politics as usual, with just an inept administration. Not so. It's an uncaring administration bent on a ruling elite, not elections, replacing UN with the American threat of pre-emptive attacks on whoever threatens their dominance. Sound far-out? It's in writing, signed by Cheney, Runmmy, Kagan, Kristol, Perle, Bolton, Wolfowitz and a half dozen other neocons. Look where they are now. Look it up before they act ..and I think they will.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Britain already tried it Posted by: OranMor
An interesting article...
Posted by: adp3d on Jul 6, 2006 4:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is really too bad that the past 25 years have been wasted by such political partisanship. Focus should have been on the environment( we should have less polluting cars that get 75 mpg), space technology( we should have had a mission to Mars by now), rising industrial and economic might of China and India, the emergence of Latin America as true economic citizens of the world, combating the AIDS pandemic in Africa and a host of other things to bring this world into the 21st century a progressive society envisioned by those in the 1940's, 50's and 60's. Religious jealousy and economic disparity did much to bring about the rise of fundamentalism and the lack of acceptance that people have of other faiths.

The Bush adminstation has done much to accelerate this backslide of world wide citizenship. The Republicans can't cling to power much longer and I fear there will be such a backlash that the polarization of this country will be more pronounced and of course we will be the worse for it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sickofsleaze
Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com on Jul 6, 2006 4:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From watching Washington with an eagle eye since 1994 I am well aware Conservatives can't govern and it makes my day to see my opinion confirmed

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Neocon/Christian/Corruption/Death
Posted by: enzolima on Jul 6, 2006 4:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"For Pat Buchanan to blame the neocons for the failure in Iraq ignores the fact that the man most responsible for the failure, Donald Rumsfeld, has more in common with Buchanan than he does with Bill Kristol. (One prominent neoconservative, however, Paul Wolfowitz, did sign on enthusiastically to Rumsfeld's agenda.)"

Pat Buchanon does not like the neocons, did not participate in the neocons fascist cabal called The Project for A New American Century, and he is more a true Conservative than anyone currently involved with the Bush Mafia running our country. The author of this article is dismissing the hard truth of the influence the Neocons (aka The Israel Lobby) have had on the Republican Party while stroking the balls of the Christian Right-Wing fanatics, who hope to build religious theme parks along the coast of Israel and in Gaza, as they both bath in the swirling cesspools of corruption and ideological fanaticism.
The real conservatives in this country have nothing in common with Bush and his regime of NeoCons ( I think neo-nazi is more apt). These people have completely ignored our constitution and subverted our rule of law, and they wasted no time since 2000, when they seized power after stealing the election with E-voting machines, in looting our nation of every dollar from every source they could get their slimy hands on.
If we ever have remotely fair elections again I can't imagine these criminals ever holding seats in government as a majority. The only people who will vote for them are the many religious nuts seeking the reincarnation of a guy who died 2006 years ago.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sickofsleaze
Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com on Jul 6, 2006 4:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The mention by Mycos of Katrina reminds me: when the NO levees failed I saw ONE mention that Bush had diverted hundreds of millions earmarked for levee repair to one of his pet scams, I think Homeland Insecurity. Then the blame game started and everybody from Senator Mary Landrieu, Govenor Kathleen Blanco, Ray Nagin (all Democrats) on down to the meter reader and the carhops at Sonic were blamed except for the guilty one Bush and the crooked contractors who pocketed their share. Has anyone else any info on this?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not sick of Clintonsleaze? Posted by: knocko
» RE: Not sick of Clintonsleaze? sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
» AGAIN, it's Clinton's fault Posted by: russianblue1
» It's Always Clinton's Fault Posted by: sirossisofliver
» RE: AGAIN, it's Clinton's fault sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
» RE: Not sick of Clintonsleaze? sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
The Reagan Revolution Is Deader Than Ronnie Himself
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jul 6, 2006 4:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would seem to me that the American people are starting to awaken from the right-wing coma that they've been sleeping under since the day they foolishly sent a feeble-minded, failed "B" movie actor by the name of Ronald Reagan to the White House twenty-six years ago.

If you'll remember, by 1960, Reagan's career in Hollywood was over - for good reason. Let's be honest here: He wasn't much of an actor. The only thing he ever did that stands out was Kings Row (1942) and that's only because he probably had an exceptional director. Other than that (with the possible exception of Knute Rockne, All American) his stint as an actor is totally forgettable.

Just our luck, ay? The fact that this nitwit could have gone into a new career in politics and worked his way right to the top of the heap is just one of history's twisted ironies.

Remember this: Everything that George W. Bush has done to you, Ronald Reagan tried to do to you - and would have done to you had he had control of both houses of congress.

The first thing that Bush did on January 20, 2001 was to seal the papers of the Reagan White House indefinately. Why? Well let's just say that had the American people been able to have a look at all of the felonies commited by the Gipper and company, they would have knocked him right off of his pedastal.

The damage that that dirty old dingbat did to our country is so immense, it will never be acurately assessed. It is incalculable.

Saint Ronnie, indeed.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

Tom Degan's Daily Rant
http://tomdegan.blogspot.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well, You Go Your Way and I'll Go Mine
Posted by: knocko on Jul 6, 2006 4:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as a "traditional conservative" I thought Wolfe's historical analysis was clear and relatively accurate.

I think however he overestimates the degree of support Bush has had from traditional conservatives as opposed to people part of the military complex and Washington lobbying establishment who are big government "conservatives".

Moreover, illegal immigration is hardly touched on by Wolfe nor is cultural intergrity of American tradition. What is patriotism in th 21st century? While America changes daily from its white Anglo roots, the roots of national and cultural pride based on the American Revolution still exists.

Unless there is greater assimilation by Latinos and more importantly by Afric. Americans who are declining in educational achievement and social integration, the future may be breakup of the country into distinct cultures and possibly political entities.

For the near future, Wolfe may be right: the Bush corporate conservatism failures may give the "liberals"(poor term) short term adavantage. Given the poor long term economic prospects of the US given its long term defense, energy and entitlement commitments, the issue of culture and race will move to the fore. Tradiitional conservatives are best posed to appeal to Americans of all ethnic backgrounds who are willing to to assume an American identity based on strong family and neighborhood values, reverence for education and traditional moral standards applied equally without tolerance for "victim" based excuses.

Traditional consevatives also include adherents of America Frist and Robert Taft conservatives: they warned about the neocons
and undue foreign intervention long before Alternet liberals enamored of Bill Clinton and his Wall st. internationalist crowd slunk away in 2001. I commend Chronicles Magazine's website to you as to what traditional conservatives really think and really have done vis a vis Iraq and foreign policy. www.chroniclesmagazine.org. Also checkout oldright.com.

We do not take kindly to Goldman Sachs running this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What I don't get... Posted by: adp3d
» RE: I'll ask the right question. Posted by: Lincoln fan
sickofsleaze
Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com on Jul 6, 2006 4:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Didn't you know, Ronnie had charisma, a seemingly indispensable quality for a politician these days. He also was suffering from the first stages of Alzheimers which made him a patsy for any harebrained scheme dreamed up by his handlers. I could not shed a tear during the funeral spectacle, I couldn't get the image of an American President laying a wreath at a Nazi cemetery in Bitburg Germany out of my mind. My biggest worry was they would stuff him and mount him in the capitol rotunda like the Russians did Lenin

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sick of Ignorant Reagan Bashers sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
» I Don't Feel Your Pain Posted by: knocko
» Age of Reagan Posted by: jeff2045
» RE: Wipe the slurp off grandpa's lips sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
» RE: Wipe the slurp off grandpa's lips sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
» RE: grandpa was right Posted by: Ghoulman
» Reagan had the gift ... Posted by: AdamSelene40
» Selene40 Posted by: FedererFan
» Ronal6 Wilso6 Reaga6 Posted by: shangrilalad
The right stuff
Posted by: LMNOP on Jul 6, 2006 5:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Eager to salvage conservatism from the wreckage of conservative rule, right-wing pundits are furiously blaming right-wing politicians for failing to adhere to right-wing convictions."

Notice how as the conservatives screw up everything that they touch (whether by design or incompetence), they refuse to believe that the problem is due to them. It is ALWAYS somebody else's fault: Clinton, latte-sipping limousine liberals, or, as in this case, when it is ludicrous to think that anybody but they were at fault, it is still not a failure of their philosophy.

Blaming Clinton and the liberals for everything after more than five years of blame shifting and responsibility shirking ("You go with the Army you inherit [three years ago]") has apparently begun to pall even for their ditto-headed base of idiots

So now we hear instead that their problems are due to the present 'leadership' not being *true* enough conservatives. What a load of dookie.

Now that the neoconservatives have totally screwed the pooch and it has become increasingly difficult to get anyone else to listen to them whine about how the left or Democrats are at fault, the ditto heads and their pundits pretend that they were never in support of this particular the neoconservative form of conservatism in the first place. They just begin to distance themselves from the mess they whole heartedly facilitated and shift the blame and isolate this same group of pirates and thugs that they have been cheering and actively supporting from the start without having uttered a word of reservation or disapproval until recently. Now that's character! That’s the good American people. That's the right stuff!

But that dog don’t hunt no more. Only one kind of conservative has been in power in America for several decades now, and as I’ve already pointed out, the ditto heads supported them whole-heartedly until only recently. Remember,

[a] the fascists in power have had no difficulty recruiting volunteers from the general public to work for them in various capacities such as on editorial boards, school boards and the American pulpit,

and, as already noted,

[b] Ditto-headed Americans don’t object to the character of the Republicans, just their results. The Republicans are free to do the vilest of things to their own country and to the world without any fear that the American people will notice or take a moral stand.

The right stuff indeed.

You can be certain that when the dust settles in the future and it is generally accepted that Bush et al. were both morons and monsters, the ditto heads who until recently prominently festooned their vehicles with supportive symbols and slogans will disavow ever having supported this ignoble regime just as they did Nixon’s.

That’s the right stuff I say.

The stunningly stupid American people are the principle problem. Certainly, it was apparent by 2004 that the neocons were unfit for office. Yet Bush came close to winning it legitimately.

This is not merely a failure of leadership. It is also a stunning failure of citizenship as well without which none of this could have happened. I see no hope for lasting reform before they are reeducated or replaced by healthy citizens, and I have no idea how the American left can accomplish that task.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The right stuff Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: The right stuff Posted by: aurora2484
» RE: The right stuff Posted by: aussidawg
Dubya dubs GOP Party of Liars and Torturers
Posted by: owlbear1 on Jul 6, 2006 5:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You pukes voting for him twice. The Name has been earned and in a just world your war-mongering bloodthirsty bigots would never see power again.

It certainly explains why the GOP has to lie, steal, and cheat to 'win' the vote counts.

How proud all Goppers must be to KNOW the only way the Republicans can 'win' is by suppresses voter turnout...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The 'Grown-Ups' Did It
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jul 6, 2006 5:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Prior to the appointment of 'W' as President, someone on the Bush Team made the comment about the fact that the 'grown-ups' were going to be in charge now. The Bush team has not shown itself adept at anything other than graft, theft, corruption, influence peddling, and repression. Whether that is by design or happenstance is up to you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is not either/or
Posted by: luckypablo on Jul 6, 2006 6:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting ideas brought up in this article. The only problem is that everything is cast as conservative or liberal. I think Americans are more complex than that. Proof is the number of independent voters that each party courts in every election. Maybe if we stopped the us vs. them mentality the country can move to get things done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It is not either/or Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: It is not either/or Posted by: Ratskii
» RE: It is not either/or Posted by: LMNOP
Always Clinton's fault
Posted by: russianblue1 on Jul 6, 2006 6:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a TIRED argument-especially SIX YEARS AFTER CLINTON LEFT OFFICE!!!!!!

Wow, I thought one of the main mantras of the conservative movement was to take responsibility for one's actions, decisions, and life. When is Dumbya gonna take responsibility for his TWO terms in office? This is an "ownership society", right? Does he "own" his presidency? Is he going to own all of his mistakes? Will he ever show ANY humility (a Christian trait, I believe)? Can the next president blame all of his/her troubles on Dumbya? Any conservatives out there wanna take a stab at answering any of these questions? Anyone, anyone??

(*crickets chirping*) That's what I pretty much figured!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LiberalsRMental
Posted by: Wendy on Jul 6, 2006 6:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So conservatives can't govern, then why did Jimmy Carter turn out to be the most incompetent president we ever had! He wasn't a conservative!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» SECOND . . . Posted by: russianblue1
» Conservatives-r-Vicious Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: LiberalsRMental Posted by: eauclaireliberal
» RE: LiberalsRMental Posted by: oakgroveinn
» RE: You are insane. Posted by: enzolima
» RE: You are insane. Posted by: sirossisofliver
» RE: LiberalsRMental Posted by: jimhurt
» INTERESTING Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: LiberalsRMental Posted by: FedererFan
I Just Love the New Distinction...."Traditional Conservative"
Posted by: sirossisofliver on Jul 6, 2006 7:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Back in the Day....when the "conservatives" gleefully aligned themselves with, and pandered to:
-The Christian Wing-Nut Taleban;
-The "Kill-'em-All' Chickenhawks and the Viet-Raq debacle;
-The 'Flat Earth' Intellli-junt Dee-sine Idiots;
-Tom Delay's criminal conspiracies and Jerrymandering (Texas);
-and every aspect of the Frat-House Jerk-Off president's agenda,

they were oh just too proud and ready to step up and adopt the moniker of "Neo-Con Wing-Nut" (Hell Yeah!)

Now that their collective boat has taken a torpedo amidships, and is listing alarmingly, the calls go out from the bridge: "It wasn't me....I've always been a 'Traditional (Ray-Gun) Conservative'"... NOT a Neo-Con!!!" (as if there could be any possible difference whatsoever)

Not gonna fly.....You Morons OWN your Moron!

Remember the words of the immortal "Hannibal" (the A-Team):

"I love it when a plan comes together..."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You missed the point Posted by: sirossisofliver
People who despise government...
Posted by: RobW on Jul 6, 2006 7:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... should not be put in charge of government. I've been saying this for years. Duh...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Brilliant! Thank you!
Posted by: quadgemini on Jul 6, 2006 7:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Best political anaylsis ever.

Republicans have destroyed America's government because Republicans WANT to destroy America's government.
THIS IS THEIR IDEA OF SUCCESS.
New Orleans is a "heckuva job, Brownie," and it's coming soon to a neighborhood near you.

Remember New Orleans!
Remember New York!
Remember Enron!
Remember Guantanamo!
Remember Florida!
REMEMBER AMERICA!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Brilliant! Thank you! Posted by: RWCowboy
» RE: Brilliant! Thank you! Posted by: Lincoln fan
» The WalMart Crowd has arrived! Posted by: sirossisofliver
» RE: Brilliant! Thank you! Posted by: Ratskii
» GOOD GRIEF! Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: GOOD GRIEF! Posted by: sirossisofliver
» RE: GOOD GRIEF! Posted by: FedererFan
» THANKS (Part I) Posted by: LMNOP
» THANKS (Part II) Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: THANKS (Part II) Posted by: FedererFan
» Escapeartist.com Posted by: aurora2484
» RE: scapeartist.com Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: scapeartist.com Posted by: FedererFan
» RE: scapeartist.com Posted by: FedererFan
» RE: Brilliant! Thank you! Posted by: aussidawg
I Voted
Posted by: RWCowboy on Jul 6, 2006 8:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“But even if many commentators think that Republicans may retain control over Congress, very few think they should.” This is an elitist comment to suggest that the commentators know best who should govern rather than the American public who voted! There is a story about a guy that was losing a fight, he kept telling his opponent that he better get of or he would be the #(!! out of him!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I Voted Posted by: sirossisofliver
» Jetsons and Flintstones Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Jetsons and Flintstones Posted by: FedererFan
It's your money - bait and switch.
Posted by: LMNOP on Jul 6, 2006 8:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"the libertarian conviction, repeated endlessly by George W. Bush, that the money government collects in order to carry out its business properly belongs to the people themselves."

This is a lie too (so what else is new?).

The conservatives I'm familiar with consider my money theirs. They are very happy to collect my taxes and distribute them among themselves as huge military or industrial subsidies or windfalls.

The only parts of government that that today's brand of conservative thinks should be small are (a) the part that spends money on the cannon fodder (that's you and me) and the part that oversees and regulates them.

I know, I know. They're not *real* Republicans. To that, all I can say is that it depends what you mean by 'real'. If you mean actually existing (cf. potentially existing or nonexistent), then these are the real McCoys and it is the idealized conservative who is the unicorn.

Unfortunately, this is also what the Christians say about the entrenched religious right - not real *Christian*. They are if by real you mean what is really out there and affecting your life. What they are not is ideal (or idealized) Christians, but they are too real.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bait and switch
Posted by: LMNOP on Jul 6, 2006 8:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"the libertarian conviction, repeated endlessly by George W. Bush, that the money government collects in order to carry out its business properly belongs to the people themselves."

This is a lie too (so what else is new?).

The conservatives I'm familiar with consider my money theirs. They are very happy to collect my taxes and distribute them among themselves as huge military or industrial subsidies or windfalls.

The only parts of government that that today's brand of conservative thinks should be small are (a) the part that spends money on the cannon fodder (that's you and me) and the part that oversees and regulates them.

I know, I know. They're not *real* Republicans. To that, all I can say is that it depends what you mean by 'real'. If you mean actually existing (cf. potentially existing or nonexistent), then these are the real McCoys and it is the idealized conservative who is the unicorn.

Unfortunately, this is also what the Christians say about the entrenched religious right - not real *Christian*. They are if by real you mean what is really out there and affecting your life. What they are not is ideal (or idealized) Christians, but they are too real.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bait and switch Posted by: kryptx
» RE: Bait and switch Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Bait and switch Posted by: kryptx
» RE: Bait and switch Posted by: LMNOP
» Bassackwards Posted by: NC3
» RE: Bassackwards Posted by: Ratskii
Racism is the mother of fascism
Posted by: shangrilalad on Jul 6, 2006 8:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some don't recognize fascism until they are crammed into cattle-cars and transported to exterminatrion camps.

Racism is the mother of fascism and the cornerstone of the Republican party. Step one is selecting a scapegoat: anyone will do, but blacks are the easiest target. Step two is adding others to the enemies list: liberals, jews, muslims, homosexuals, dissenters, intellectuals, etc., soon anyone who isn't a fascist is the enemy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: acism is the mother of fascism Posted by: Lincoln fan
Missing the Boat
Posted by: Pseudonym on Jul 6, 2006 8:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Liberals, conservatives, neocons, right-wing fundamentalists are all distractions. The United States is and always has been a plutocracy--plantations in the south, financiers in the north. That's what the electoral college was designed to protect. That's why all our politicians are millionaires.

You'll see political and social change when it benefits the plutocrats. For example, Cincinnati rescinded its ban on gay-rights protections. Why? Because true conservatives wanted the government out of private affairs? Because liberals wanted individual freedoms? No. Because enterprises suffered a loss of business.

If you want political change, you have to convince the plutocrats that it is in their best interest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Missing the Boat Posted by: Lincoln fan
My opinion.
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Jul 6, 2006 8:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With all due respect to Mr. Wolfe and Political Scientists everywhere I disagree. Politics is not a science. Economics is a science. Politics is an economic war. In every war the contestants are the haves and the have-nots. It's about the distribution of wealth. In days of old when the peasants starved they revolted. Today we have a different system but it has the same dynamic.

In the case of democratic capitalism, we have a middle class, a contuum, that is a buffer between the very rich and the very poor. The wealth is created mostly by the labor of the working class. Some of this wealth goes to the very rich and some to the very poor but it comes from the working class. We are in the middle of the battle between the extremes and it's our money that they're fighting for.

When the average wealth of the middle class rises it identifies more with the rich and tends to be more capitalistic. When the average wealth of the middle class sinks it identifies more with the poor and becomes less capitalistic. Thus the amount going to the very rich and the very poor fluctuates and so does the control of capitalism.

All of this describes a reasonable, workable, self-regulating system. The questions then become, "Why isn't it working?" and "How can we fix it?".

It isn't working because the rich, corporate establishment has an advantage. They contribute (or more accurately invest) huge sums of money to both political parties in campaign funds and lobbying efforts. In effect they've bought our government by buying both political parties.

There is only one way to fix it. Take back our government. There are four ways to do it.
1. Campaign financing and lobbying law reform. This is impossible until we control the government.
2. A third party. This is a very long shot on a national level.
3. The old-fashioned way armed revolution. This is doing it the hard way. No thanks.
4. A grassroots movement to control the platforms of both parties. This is the most practicable solution.

The Lincoln Initiative is a grassroots movement not an organization. Our aim is "government of the peo0ple, by the people, and for the people". Our strategy uses the successful tactics of the labor unions.

To learn more about us click on The Lincoln Initiative

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a small goal
Posted by: richardpmendola on Jul 6, 2006 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would love to be a conservative. I would love to conserve what is best and successful about this country while taking change in policy slowly and carefully. I would like to see a society based on enablement, rather than entitlement, responsibility rather than rescue. I would like to see fiscal responsibility and reasonably low taxes. I would like to see a government which left “well enough” alone. I want the constitution compact and intact. I'd like us to have fifty states be fifty experiments in democracy.

Unfortunately, of course, even principled conservatives have gotten into bed with the mean-spirited son-of-bitch greed heads who run this place. Maybe in ten years I will get to be a conservative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

darby1936
Posted by: darby1936 on Jul 6, 2006 9:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Wolfe has indeed nailed it. What is so cold is that people like Grover Norquest are beside themselves when government of their making fails. We live in a global economy where big government is essential to protect society from the ramifications of the bad features of the global economy. The problem is society can't feel the true pain (debt) that is a function of the Republican's sell out to K street. Our grandchildren, however, will surely feel the pain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: darby1936 Posted by: Lincoln fan
Long article... I'll sum up...
Posted by: Ghoulman on Jul 6, 2006 9:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... the conservative movement, what used to simply be called Republicans in Nixons or Reagans time, believe, religiously, that "the invisible hand" of capitalism will guide the so called free market. The belief being, that letting corporations own and trade everything... everything... is beneficial to society when, actually, it's plain that the results are poison, poverty, and war.

The Democrates have always been domestically based regarding policy, creating laws and restrictions to capitalism in the USA. Of course, the Republicans use thier traditional "tax and spend" accusations against the Dems while under thier breath they say the Democrates are "commies" turning the US into a socialist welfare state at war with Jesus.

Hows that?

Of course, Governments must find a balance to allow free capitalism but not permit... like... murder and war. Call me crazy. Governments are supposed to create law to control capitalism, that's what they're for. That's thier actual job. The Republicans believe, truely BELIEVE, this is un-American.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Preach to the Choir some more
Posted by: dale0k on Jul 6, 2006 9:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't that special. Another "great" article.

We can again sit back and say - wow, these republicans / conservatives / fascists / neocons sure are bad.

So how is it these "terrible" people get elected and stay elected? Clearly, as millions of printed and spoken words have observed, these rascals rightly ought to be tossed out.

It is pathetic testament to the impotence of a legitimate opposition, as much as it may be evidence of a clever and effective propagandist mechanism of the people in power, that these people remain, and may continue to abuse, even after the next election.

The issue remains, even as we bury these criminals with damning words - we don't know how to actually get rid of them. Another revealing article, another new book of scandals, another sensible voice in the media - nothing really ever makes a dent in their stronghold, which is the framing of issues and subsequent powerful hold over the voters, that these people command.

Until a different message rises, above the din of the well-voiced observations and objections, as a cohesive message, and perhaps with a consistent voice in unison -- all these great new books and media messages can do is put some money in someone's pocket, and provide another chance for us to ruminate and self-congratulatorily gloat at our own prescience and awareness.

The abusive powerful will not just go away, despite all the clarity and awareness these wonderful voices of reason bring. They cling to power like a leach to skin, and must be irradicated. It will take more than a gloating "awareness."

Who will do it? How do we actually do it, remove them from power, get the required edge at the polls? When do we start?

And where do we start? Perhaps by recognizing the genius of those powerful in managing the message and mindset of the populace, and fighting directly back - maybe by directing a cohesive, formidable effort to loosen the stronghold.

I haven't seen evidence that the coming election will be anything but another disappointing victory and another majority for the republicans.

Unless we can somehow get it going. But where is the leadership? Where is the plan? In what and whom are our hopes to lie?

Let's be real. Is there any reason for hope, on the horizon?

To a more perfect union...

Dale O
Ypsilanti, MI

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: hope 4 u :) Posted by: Ghoulman
» RE: hope 4 u :) Posted by: dale0k
» RE: hope 4 u :) Posted by: FedererFan
Republicans believe in Socialism (for themselves)
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Jul 6, 2006 10:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's a continuing myth that Republicans represent "free, unfettered capitalism". Rubbish. They represent "crony capitalism"-- a form of government where elected officials line the pockets of themselves and their friends. This doesn't mean that the Dems don't do some of this themselves. It's just that they view corruption as a necessary evil, while the Republicans view it as the end in itself. George Bush's variation of crony capitalism is often refered to as "cowboy socialism". Republicans believe in "socialism for me, free enterprize for everyone else".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"The truth be told" in this article
Posted by: zvirgil2 on Jul 6, 2006 10:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I knew the conservatives where screwed up, but I never thought that they were guilty of everything I suspected. But it seems they are. I was considering a compromise with them somehow, but after this information the only compromise possible is a padded cell.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: CAN WE AGREE TO IGNORE THIS TROLL?? Posted by: sirossisofliver
Bush's regime is not collapsing!
Posted by: alternetleslie on Jul 6, 2006 11:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush's regime is not collapsing! What ever gave you that idea? He is still getting his agenda executed and we no longer have a democracy. Has H.R. 550, S. 450, S. 1975 passed to assure the integrity of our election system and results? Has the Voting Rights been made permanent and more inclusive? Does the Congress, the Bush Cabinet or his appointed heads of agencies listen to anyone but the big corporations? Have our domestic and foreign policies and civil rights of the pre-GWB days been restored? The answer to all these questions
is a loud dangerous NO. When Bush breaks a law, his attorney general doesn't prosecute him, Bush just asks his GOP Congress to pass a bill so what he does becomes legal. Is the corporate media demanding anything of him and his administration or reminding people what fascism is? Have they printed the Declaration of Independence and underscored all the King George the third did that King George the Bush is doing now? NO. Read it yourself.
What's collapsing? Our democracy, our well-being, our freedom.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LIB-Ds V CONSERV-Rs-WHAT A CHOICE...
Posted by: SamFox on Jul 6, 2006 11:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not happy with the only choice being the Dems and Repubs.

Both parties have been taking US toward the New World Order's One World Government. Clinton signed NAFTA I believe it was and Bush leaves the borders open and signed KAFTA. He is also giving us the super corridor from Mexico to Canada. This is only one of the Rep & Dem schemes to eliminate US borders to put US into an EU type union, the Free Trade Area of the Americas, if I'm not mistaken.

We need a real second party that will go back to true Constitutional Government. That would keep US out of places like Iraq, would have kept US out of 'Nam, so on. Following the Constitution would solve most of the problems the US has been saddled with by both the current parties.

Is it time for the Costitution Party? Look them up. Maybe they should merge with the Libertarians?

I do see that the Depublicans and Repulicrats have done little for the US. They have done a lot for the NWO and the forfieture of US sovreingty.

One of their stratigies has been to keep focus ONLY on Conserv-R's & Lib-Dem's catfight 'debate'. Most media is complicit in this scam. Few call for a return to the Constitution. Both parties are corrupt and many in each could and should be investigated and put in jail. Not only for their sell out to big business, but for treason. Both parties are guilty of leaving the borders open and for the un-neccesary Patriot Act. We have enough laws already that if followed could curtail terrorism and illegal immigration. We don't need more laws that only undermine US freedom and independance. Just enforce the ones we have. I'm tired of Capitol Hill's tennis match. One side makes an unecesary law, serves it up and the other hits it back. The game is on! We the people are the losers in the charade.

SamFox

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Constitution Party Posted by: knocko
Republicans = Sociopaths and Idiots.
Posted by: shangrilalad on Jul 6, 2006 12:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are basically two kinds of republicans: Sociopaths and Idiots.

Sociopaths tend to be the political, religious and economic leaders and idiots their idolizing followers. Idiots tend to be cultural republicans: nationalistic banzai patriots, militaristic bullies, racist, anti-abortion, anti-gay and religious fanatics. Sociopaths tend to be money obsessed republicans waging class warfare: anti-minimum wage, pro illegal aliens for cheap labor and to depress American’s wages, opposed to all programs that protect and promote the common good.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Imploding Liberal Heads
Posted by: NC3 on Jul 6, 2006 1:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Bush's presidency and Congress are imploding, not despite their conservatism, but because of it. "

Still waiting for the Democrats to come up with a plan other than Bush=Hitler and winning the war against Islamic Radicals by giving them John Kerry's talking points.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

History?
Posted by: calabash5 on Jul 6, 2006 1:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If history judges Bush on what he says instead of what he's done, he may be seen as a great President. It's all a question of the slant unfortunately. And, it is true that the winner writes history. Anyone who doubts that read Howard Zinn's America's Voices. Upon comparing it to my public school version of American history I realized why classes were so boring. If he had written my history book I really would have been interested. But, we weren't taught the truth only sanitized and distorted facts. It's these same sanitized distorted facts that the Bushies have been selling successfully.
We live by hope

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: History? Posted by: knocko
» RE: History? Posted by: Ratskii
» Zinn+ Posted by: knocko
knocko and cowardly conservatives
Posted by: Ghoulman on Jul 6, 2006 3:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing about conservatives is thier cowardice. See how knocko has trolled this entire forum and never once stood up like a man and posted his own opinions? No, he just attacked others with snide remarks and rudeness that would get him a bloody nose in polite company.

Conservatives have, as this article points out well, a system of belief that is a sort of double negative. It professes purity, but that's just a fantasy. It promises prosperity, but only for the elite. They promise salvation, but spend the money on war. They stand in rightious indignation, then murder from behind oak desks. They speak to the people like a father, but lies are all they offer.

This is cowardly.

Conservatives can be understood to not have the guts to stand up for what they believe in, but they have the gaul to murder others for it. Worse, they don't have the guts to stand up against thier fellows when they do wrong, but they are willing to accept a pay off.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just come out and say it!
Posted by: kryptx on Jul 6, 2006 4:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A friend sent me this article a couple weeks ago. It raises some interesting points, but it's far from an objective analysis.

The guy should just come out and say that he believes conservatives make decisions for political gain and liberals make decisions for the betterment of society. Because ultimately that’s what quotes like this boil down to:

“Unable to shrink government but unwilling to improve it, conservatives attempt to split the difference, expanding government for political gain, but always in ways that validate their disregard for the very thing they are expanding. The end result is not just bigger government, but more incompetent government.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NeoCons are the Republicans
Posted by: shangrilalad on Jul 6, 2006 5:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
REPUBLICANS coined the term NeoCons to distance themselves from their own ideology and criminal behavior. They will keep repeating the lie forever and no doubt deflect retribution for their crimes, but millions of decent Americans will remember that NeoCons are the Republicans.


.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not until we are on the brink of extinction
Posted by: sandy21 on Jul 6, 2006 8:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that the conservative movement is implicitly self contradictory, it appeals only because of it's promises of conservation of our financial resources and moral values. Those of us who understand the very dangerous social and global consequences of the present Republican agenda must sound the alarm and use whatever talent or ability we have to alert others. Still, I believe the last two years of this administration may put us all on the brink of extinction. From the brink, will we all suddenly wake up and take back control or will we all just die as obediently as we all live. Just wondering.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As a political science student...
Posted by: Scientz on Jul 6, 2006 9:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thought this was one of the most reasoned, well-thought out articles I have ever seen on this site.

Thank you, Professor Wolfe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No American conservatives among the Founders
Posted by: btraven on Jul 7, 2006 12:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like the Louis Hartz statement about the United States being "born liberal." C. Vann Woodward agrees, saying that the Founders were "all liberals under the skin." These observations apply to John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and John Marshall too. They all chose to support the American side (a likely loser) rather than the Tories; Hamilton and Marshall fought on the battlefields of ithe Revolution. Yes, Adams worried about his title, but then they were starting from scratch and wanted dignity for themselves and the new country. Yes, Hamilton and Adams and many, many others sometimes expressed doubts about the ability of ordinary citizens to help run the country, but they were also opponents of slavery, a very "liberal" stance in that era, and Hamilton, unlike Jefferson, argued against any essential differences between blacks and whites. Yes, they supported the 18th-century version of capitalism, but Hamilton wanted to protect our nascent industries, and the alternative to merchant capitalism was feudalism/plantantion slavery. Yes, they made some elitist remarks, but they also made some very liberal remarks that never get quoted. For example, Alexander Hamilton said,

“The true principle of a republic is that the people should choose whom they please to govern them. Representation is imperfect, in proportion as the current of popular favor is checked. The great source of free government, popular election, should be perfectly pure, and the most unbounded liberty allowed.”

Speech to NY Legislature, June 21, 1788 (Library of America, p. 493)

The notion that there were "conservatives" among the Founders is a received idea; none of them would have endorsed their contemporary Edmund Burke's insistance on the primacy of the past, hereditary privileges, etc., and Burke is agreed to be the first modern conservative. As I said in a comment on the current Lakoff article, let's stop calling the Bush administration "conservative." Let's deny them any philosophical ancestors among the founders. Let's treat them as political rogues, as in "rogue state." Let's not use their terminology, which they twist to their own purposes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CONSERVATISM IN AMERICA IS THE NEW COMMUNISM
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 7, 2006 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mark Fitzgibbons
Posted by: FitzgibbonsM on Jul 7, 2006 9:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The piece, well-written, is based on the wrong premises, which may be why conservatism remains on the rise, and liberalism in decline. Few non-conservatives demonstrate a good understanding of what conservatism really is. For example, the tactic of the K Street project is one really borrowed from a more liberal Washington establishment. That Gingrich and DeLay employed that tactic is perhaps more indicative that they were willing to play the Washington game, not that many non-Washington conservatives approved of that tactic. But it was tactic, not conservative philosophy, that seems to be the basis for such a project that tried to utilize the very powerful forces of corporate and big-money influence on Washington (which existed long before conservatives gained any real power in Washington).

Conservatives don't believe government is wrong, of course, so the analogy to a vegetarian preparing boeuf bourguignon, while intriguing, fails. True conservatives want to reduce government to be more consistent with its constitutional underpinnings. Many policies bloat government, intrude on freedom and amass power in Washington in ways inconsistent with the constitutional structure of limited and distinct powers among three branches. We believe that these abuses of government are wrong, and therein lies a major failed premise of your piece. Conservativism recognizes that government is essential but should be more limited than its current scope, but liberalism uses government to expand power over individuals and to amass central control.

More liberals in government have had careers in the public sector, and are part of a political "class" benefiting from more government. Fewer conservatives make the public sector a career, and issues such as term limits, popular among Americans generally, reflect a well-founded sense that power corrupts. That conservatives believe government should be limited is precisely why conservatives would govern better. The vested interests of conservativism in government are to protect what is not government -- in other words, government is there to serve.

Reagan governed quite effectively -- not perfectly, but then, who has? Anyone can argue about his or any president's policies, but to deny that Reagan governed well is to deny that any president did. George W. Bush and others who have benefitted from the rise in popularity of conservatism in America either abandoned true conservatism for big-government Republicanism, or never were really true conservatives in the first place, but merely stole the banner to get elected.

Your closing comment, that "government is the one institution that allows us some control over the future," sums up our differences quite well. Conservatives believe that individuals control their future better than Washington can, and that government can be more of an impediment than a help in many ways. There is a glut of power in Washington, which attracts money, creates an atmosphere of "welfare" recipients of government funds, and results in corruption. To say that Washington helps people control their future ignores the fact that big government results in people having less control of their future when government exceeds its authority from the people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Michael Townes Watson
Posted by: michaeltwatson on Jul 7, 2006 10:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The central notion of conservatism lately is that a central government should be given less and less power over the lives of the people. That notion was advanced by Reagan in the sixties and swept him into office in 1980. It was also advanced by one of the most vociferous conservatives of that era, George Wallace, who proclaimed there was not a "dime's worth of difference" between the two parties, since they were both too liberal (defined as letting the federal government do too many things.)
That conservatives are willing to go against that tide to get what they want is best demonstrated by their stance on medical care. They don't want any national health care program, because that, they claim, is too liberal. Yet they will use that national government to create a bureaucracy run by private insurance at the expense of the public till. They don't like lawyers who file lawsuits for people's injuries, because that is too liberal. Yet they still, seven times in the last four years, tried to let the federal government pre-empt all state laws and put uniform limits on what an injured patient could recover from an insurance company, saving the insurance industry and its CEO's billions of dollars per year. So they cry for limits on the federal government unless they want to use it for their own economic advancement. History teaches us that the conservative philosophy has always been used that way. Alexander Hamilton was a conservative and he did not mind using the federal government as a powerful central repository. Thomsas Jefferson was a liberal thinker, but he did not want federal government to be too powerful. The best liberal thought has always been to use the government, be it federal or state, to further the dignity, humanity and advancement of men and women, not companies and money. Michael Townes Watson. Author of Americas Tunnel Vision--How Insurance Companies' Propaganda Is Corrupting Medicine and Law.
www.stopmedicalerror.com.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Michael Townes Watson Posted by: FedererFan
How much longer are we going to continue to let the oil barons buy political office?
Posted by: Sojourner on Jul 7, 2006 12:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
$70+/barrel oil with Bush/Cheney shows how easily the market is pushed to favor the interests of Big Oil. Without resistance from US leadership, foreign oil comes at whatever price can be stuffed down American throats.

Why would Bush/Cheney and the rest of the oil magnates who run this US cut their own throats by negotiating with OPEC etc? Heck, they'd rather forbid cheap fuel from Venezuela for poor Americans.

Their profits will allow them to spend double whatever they've spent in the past to hold onto their power. They've become experts at brainwashing Americans. No need to buy votes. By repeating their lies loudly and often enough, the androids that pose as the American electorate will do as we are told.

I cannot recall how many times the connection between power in the Capitols and profit from oil companies has been demonstrated. Again and again. But unless it runs on Superbowl ads or NASDAC tv programs (for which a business deduction simply tempers the already extravagant oil company profits; advertising uber alles) giving our loyalty to the highest bidder seems like the popular thing to do.

The cheap version of the American Dream is that the winner is the one with the most money. We become whatever we believe. Believe in money, and you are for sale.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe they can't govern but they sure can win elections!
Posted by: jonwilson on Jul 8, 2006 1:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe they can't govern but they sure can win elections!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I disagree that conservatives are necessarily incompetent.
Posted by: Caro on Jul 8, 2006 3:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just imagine how bad things would be if Henry Kissinger or James Baker were in charge. They'd be COMPETENT shredders of the Constitution and destroyers of the American way of life.

If we don't fight them with full knowledge and understanding of who and what they really are, without indulging in wishful thinking, we'll continue to lose to them.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From Brent Budowsky, via email
Posted by: Caro on Jul 8, 2006 8:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Frankly, folks, George Bush, the Republican House and the Republican Senate have zero to do with conservatism, by any definition.

Big Government, Big Spending, Big Budget Deficits, Big National Debt, Big Trade Deficits, Big Current Account Deficits, Big Brother, reckless military ventures that ignore the advice of virtually the entire upper strata of the Army and Marine Corps, sending troops to war with such inadequate protection that 70% of the casualties were preventable, then neglecting them when they come home even when they are homeless or 100% disabled.

This has absolutely nothing to do with any form of conservatism. This is centralized statism, a variation of the most authoritarian form of Gaullism, with very serious anti-democratic and anti-republican tendencies.

Of course, Democrats, liberals, progressives cannot make this argument, because to do so, they have to stand for something clear, cogent and credible. The real issue is, why are the Democrats, progressives and liberals so incompetent that they cannot form the basis, politically or intellectually, of a true Loyal Opposition?

We have an inferior class of wealthy Democrats. Their Republican counterparts pour money into cable television, talk radio and organizing right wing causes; our wealthy are impotent by comparison. We have an inferior class of political leaders, who marched in lockstep with neocons going to war in Iraq. And measured by voter turnout, we have an inferior class of grassroots. They spend their time complaining about who stole which election, rather than fighting for voting rights, policing the polls on election day, or even turning out to vote, which they did not do for the California 50th district House seat. The conservative base, though, did turn out.

My conclusion is that the authoritarian one-party statism of Bush Republicanism is inherently doomed to fail in policy, and around the world, because it ignores and attacks the very classic American notions of diversity of opinion, respect for checks and balances that were put in place to prevent the most unwise policies, and quasi-imperial attitudes manifested by the Project for the New American Century, who pursue unwise war in the name of freedom, and corrupted occupations in the name of democracy.

And my conclusion is, equally, that unless there is dramatic change, the so-called Opposition is doomed to a submissive, second-place status in a one-party state because they have been conditioned to lose, demoralized to virtual inaction, with money people who do not support the real people, leaders who do not lead, a media infrastructure that gets virtually zero support from party and financial leaders, even though we have huge numbers and offer the real vehicle to organize for power and to answer the trash talk of treason.

We are reduced to liberal talk radio hosts who must panhandle for pennies to survive, and so-called blog leaders to go on Meet The Press claiming victory when their national convention is blessed by politicians whose major contribution is giving them the same superb shrimp and fancy parties that the hustlers in Washington give the lobbyists on K Street.

There is a battle for America going on, with only one side fighting the real war with real ammunition, and upon such things, one-party states are made.

Posted by Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I appreciate this piece about conservatism, but...
Posted by: Newsguy on Jul 8, 2006 10:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was way too long. These days no one really has the time to read something this long. I don't anyway. I wish the author could have found a way to boil it down to just a few paragraphs.

One thing I think he didn't mention, from my skimming of it anyway, was that present day Bush conservatives lower taxes on the rich, thereby not only putting more of a burden on the poor and middle class, but they borrow heavily, which puts a burden on our children and grandchildren. And government grows anyway...on borrowed money.
Wet Hat Walking

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's another article about conservatism.
Posted by: WhatNow? on Jul 8, 2006 10:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for any who may have missed it.

CONSERVATISM IS THE NEW COMMUNISM

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

VOTE WITH ALL YOUR MIGHT
Posted by: 1984NOW!!! on Jul 9, 2006 3:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Quoted by blogger btraven:
“The true principle of a republic is that the people should choose whom they please to govern them. Representation is imperfect, in proportion as the current of popular favor is checked. The great source of free government, popular election, should be perfectly pure, and the most unbounded liberty allowed.”

Speech to NY Legislature, June 21, 1788 (Library of America, p. 493)

The quote above saddens me because I know we have lost that whole lofty concept which has been totally bastardized by this administration. Its as if they've got a whole different set of books that they're going by. Never mind that Bush swore twice to uphold the Constitution, I have a feeling that
he wanted to spit on it instead as he has if not literally but figuratively.

Even with all the cheating and stealing, both the 2000 and 2004 elections were "won" by such a slim margin that it is clear that the majority of the people of the United States really do understand that this is not a qualified administration.

SO WHY ARE WE NOT DOING MORE TO MAKE SURE WE CAN TRUST THE RESULTS OF THE NEXT ELECTIONS? JUST IMAGINE WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO TO STAY IN POWER SO THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER FOR THE PERIL THEY HAVE PLACED THE WHOLE WORLD IN BY THEIR VICIOUS INCOMPETENCE?

At times I sympathize with people that say, that there is no point of voting and feel the same, wouldn't that just be a panacea for the NeoCONS/Theocrats if those that oppose them don't vote.
Clearly we must vote and need to do all we can to overwhelm their cheating and stealing by recruiting those we know that have not registered to vote or are too complacent, besides donating financially and participate wherever we can.

I WANT OUR COUNTRY BACK AND THE WORLD AT PEACE.
It won't happen with the likes of these power mongers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

newguy...Bush puts burden on the poor and middle class
Posted by: drappleby on Jul 9, 2006 5:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
newsguy, you state that.."Bush conservatives lower taxes on the rich.....putting more of a burden on the poor and middle class.." Is that really true? What IS the burden on the poor and middle class? using 2003 IRS data the top 1 % pay 34% of the taxes. the top 5 % pay 54 %. The top 10 % pay 65 % and the top 50 % pay 96.54 % of the taxes. The bottom 50 % (the poor and middle class) pay a WHOPPING 3 % of the taxes, down from 3.5 %. On the other hand who USES the tax money? Do you think the poor pay the $11,000 per child for school in Bridgeport Connecticut? Do the poor pay for their medicaid, food stamps, welfare, aid to dependent children, section 8 housing? etc etc?? Do the drug dealers, rapists and murderers in prison pay the $24,000 to incarcerate them and keep them off the streets? No, the rich, most of whom worked for their money, (very few inherited it like Sen Kennedy or Rockefeller or married it (twice) like Kerry). These people, the hated, despised rich people......pay for virtually everything in this country. Many of them trained for many years and work very hard...60 to 80 to even 100 hours a week. Maybe that's why some of them are rich. Maybe once in a while the people with their hands out for everything could show a little appreciation, cause "poor" in America is nothing like poor in the rest of the world. regards, I await the courtesy of your reply.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great Piece...
Posted by: littlebozo on Jul 9, 2006 5:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...I enjoyed the read and it pretty much covers it, well done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CRIME AND THE GOP SOLUTION
Posted by: fiskhus on Jul 10, 2006 11:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ronnie NEVER hated the fascists - no matter what myths you tell yourself when the sun goes down. And Ronnie ALWAYS had an affinity for the MAFIA.

In fact, most of the rabid anti-communists of the McCarthy/Dulles stripe were PRO-Fascist (because of the Fascists' focus on business) and PRO Organized Crime (because the OC guys like busting Commie heads).

And Ronnie's Organized Crime dealings went beyond admiration - he was a fixer for the Mob. Ronnie betrayed the members of the SAG when he was President - all in order to curry favor with the Mobsters running MCA. Who returned the favor by bankrolling his run for CA governor - and then reaped their rewards when Ronnie became US President. (Does anybody really think the S&L thefts happened by accident? Does anybody really think Ed Meese was into waste disposal because he wanted to help clean things up?)

And, of course, the Bush family have been there - in the forefront or the background - for generations, from their treasonous financial support for the NAZI Party's industrial development of Germany and their criminal money-laundering activities for the Rothstein/Lansky faction of OC to the S&L thefts, masterminded by Neil Bush and ably assisted by both Jeb and George.

No, folks, the current Bush administration is but another of the GOP's M&A style "acquisitions" whereby the GOP runs the country and OC steals all our tax dollars.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Lies Are Not Helpful Posted by: coldeye