Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
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.

Why Republicans Are Running from Bush At Election Time

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted October 27, 2006.


Bush's White House is going down in flames, and the Republican machine is doing everything it can to keep "conservatism" from burning along with it.
102706story
Advertisement

So-called "principled" conservatives -- the faux libertarian voices of the Big Business elite that's always been the real base of the Republican Party -- are in full flight from the flaming wreck the Bush administration has become.

Former Bush I and Reagan official Bruce Bartlett lambasted the administration earlier this year with his book "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," which was soon followed by longtime conservative activist Richard Viguerie's "Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause." There are a dozen of them churning out columns and op-eds condemning Bush's profligate spending and pillorying his "compassionate," "Big Government" conservatism. Even former congressman Joe Scarborough -- MSNBC's cut-rate version of Bill O'Reilly -- got into the act, devoting a segment of his show to the fundamental question, "Is Bush an idiot?" and writing that he'd prefer "an assortment of Bourbon Street hookers running the Southern Baptist Convention to having this lot of Republicans controlling America's checkbook for the next two years."

And Christopher Buckley -- son of William F. and probably the funniest right-winger alive -- recently called Bush's governing philosophy "incontinent conservatism," and asked:

Who knew, in 2000, that "compassionate conservatism" meant bigger government, unrestricted government spending, government intrusion in personal matters, government ineptitude, and cronyism in disaster relief?

These "rebels" are enjoying a symbiotic relationship with the national media; writers love the intra-party feud -- usually the stuff of Democratic politics -- and the rogue conservatives get to brandish their "principles" and portray themselves as tip-toeing above the gutter of petty partisan politics in which the rest of us wallow.

But make no mistake: Underlying their dissent lies a massive deceit. Read between the lines, and you'll find that what really motivates them is a desperate attempt to save modern "conservatism" itself from going down with this administration. All of the libertarian rhetoric about limited government has always been a grand fraud; truly limited government is an anachronism. Perhaps it was appropriate in a time when small stakeholders toiled away in an agricultural economy, but it's simply impossible to govern a complex, modern, populous society like ours without a lot of staff.

Everybody knows it. The real question isn't about the size of government but whose interests it advances. Just consider that 42 of the 53 senators in the party of "limited government" voted for the bloated prescription drug bill that's now projected to cost $720 billion over the next ten years. It's a crappy, liberal-looking entitlement that was always just a giveaway to insurance companies and Big Pharma.

Judd Gregg, R-N.H., chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, says on his website that he's proud to have promoted "responsible federal spending" during his tenure, but after voting to increase the country's debt ceiling to $9 trillion, he said sheepishly: "It's hard to understand what a trillion is. I don't know what it is."

Political scientists have known for a long time that while people respond positively to the idea of limited government in the abstract, when it comes to specifics people love big government and most, if not all of what it does. They want a government that will educate their children and put out forest fires and pay for their million-dollar cancer treatments and make sure that big chemical companies aren't poisoning their water and keep them from having to eat cat food after they've busted their asses working for 50 years. They expect cheap student loans and meat inspections and smooth highways, and even the lowest of "low information" voters know they're not going to get that stuff from the private sector.

Much more importantly, most people won't vote for politicians who honestly endorse a scorched earth, slash-and-burn libertarianism. Just ask Congress's loneliest (and most frustrated) man, Ron Paul, R-Texas, the Republican Party's only real libertarian.

And, contra the limited government types' spin, people aren't afraid of paying taxes to get government to do the things they expect it to. Take health care. The results of an ABC News/Washington Post poll taken during Bush's first term found results that are pretty typical: by a 2-1 margin Americans favored a universal health care system "modeled on Medicare." The nightmare for anti-tax activists was that eight in ten said it was "more important to provide health care coverage for all Americans, even if it means raising taxes, than to hold down taxes but leave some people uncovered."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: election06, bush, conservatives, lies

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

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


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:
Brilliant piece of truth.
Posted by: tclaverdure on Oct 27, 2006 12:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a great piece to send to the people you know who are still sitting on the fence. It really nails the Bush mafia machine.

It would take millions of dollars to truly research and present a thesis on the Bush years, and hell it is not even over yet.

Lets hope the Dems take the house and the senate and impeach the whole lot of thieves.

WHY do one third of americans cling to Bush like pathetic culted out imbeciles?? Its so sad, so maddening, so confusing.

Someday, 2008, Bush will be in the past. Will John McCain be the next president?? Too Hawkish?? Will Bush destroy the earth before McCain can get a chance??

OR lets hope, will it be a Gore/Obama 08 victory??

You know compared to Bush/Cheney even Clinton/Obama would be a welcome relief.

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

» OH JOYOUS DAY!!! Posted by: mdruss42
truth
Posted by: rsaxto on Oct 27, 2006 12:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for the kinds of truth we need to know. The Bushies aren't just bad in Iraq they are bad at everything that they have done and haven't done. If the big bad Russians had sent spies over to demolish America they couldn't have done a better job of whacking us than the Bushies have done. Our job now is to whack the Bushies with every truth we can find and impeach their worse-than-worthless asses.

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

Times have changed. Maybe people will start to notice.
Posted by: Sojourner on Oct 27, 2006 1:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Screw the diehards. It's the majority approval of "no new taxes" that has cut corporate taxes and boosted profits. Covering that over with deficits into the unforseeable future makes your ordinary conman into a piker.

Republicans survive so long as Americans rally around any and all anti-tax schemes. Our tax system was way out of whack even before Nixon-Reagan-Bush-Bush. Sure, Clinton got the deficit down. And now the children living in poverty, and that number grows and grows, are paying the price.

Times have changed from the days (since WWII) when there was so much prosperity that the level of waste and damage could be ignored. Today American citizens are bleeding and dying from "business as usual." If we have not learned how to cry "Ouch," it's time we learn. And that time is here.

Even the former Nixon staffer Kevin Phillips began writing during Reagan's term of the biggest transfer of American wealth to the rich in our history. Duh uh!

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

» No new taxes = full employment? Posted by: eddie torres
An excellent article, Joshua
Posted by: Lizmv on Oct 27, 2006 1:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with everything . However, it is not just Bush who is to blame. We have a Congress and Senate that have enabled him every step of the way. While I dislike Bush, I am enraged that neither house has done anything to pull in the reins and regain control of our government. Instead they continue to hand Bush all the power he wants on a silver platter.

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

» RE: An excellent article, Joshua..sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
» RE: An excellent article, Joshua Posted by: drmflorida
"More Bread, Less Circuses"?
Posted by: Monitor523 on Oct 27, 2006 1:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Joshua: you often write perceptive pieces I agree with, and amply point out the reasons I find the right to be a hopeless basket case, but this kind of reasoning is why I just can't identify with the left either. Knee-jerk defense of big government by people who devote their lives to criticizing those which actually exist strikes me as quixotic idealism.

Isn't it also wanting to eat one's cake and have it too, to ask for increased government spending, increased regulation of almost every aspect of life (commonly accepted as necessary in an increasingly complex, interconnected, and generally cramped world), and yet also ask for less government surveillance, less militarism, less state power in civil affairs?

Okay, maybe the sustaining illusion of the contemporary right is to suppose that government can be all expenditure and no income. It seems that perhaps the sustaining illusion of the contemporary left is that state power can be all economic and regulatory, and won't automatically extend into civil, military, or moral matters. That the state will, in some ideal imagined future, persistently defend the interests of the powerless against those of the powerful, among whom its human agents are inevitably numbered.

Can someone present a sustained argument, or at least some historical evidence, supporting the view that governments have ever behaved like that, or plausibly might work that way?

Mind you, I'll agree that a modern industrial society is complicated and demands a huge investment in the infrastructure of management. For sure, it's pure speculation that the private sector could successfully provide services currently operated by government. It is also pure speculation that the government could do so. At least if by "successfully" one means in such a way that society does not relentlessly pursue short-term interests of elites at the expense of the prospects for survival.

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

» RE: "More Bread, Less Circuses"? Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: "More Bread, Less Circuses"? Posted by: drmflorida
» Oh and ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Oh and ... Posted by: Monitor523
» correction Posted by: Monitor523
» RE: correction Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Localization Posted by: Lizmv
» RE: Oh and ... Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Oh and ... Posted by: babs
» RE: Oh and ... Posted by: Monitor523
» RE: "More Bread, Less Circuses"? Posted by: Monitor523
» RE: Other ideas about government Posted by: Monitor523
» RE: Other ideas about government Posted by: Monitor523
» RE: Other ideas about government Posted by: Monitor523
» RE: "More Bread, Less Circuses"? Posted by: Monitor523
» RE: "More Bread, Less Circuses"? Posted by: oregoncharles
» plausibly might work that way Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: plausibly might work that way Posted by: Monitor523
» RE: plausibly might work that way Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: plausibly might work that way Posted by: Monitor523
» RE: plausibly might work that way Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: "More Bread, Less Circuses"? Posted by: WILDSTARCHILD
» RE: Oh and... Posted by: WILDSTARCHILD
» RE: "More Bread, Less Circuses"? Posted by: Monitor523
Let's put Bush, Blair and Stephen Harper in history's political incinerator
Posted by: Bobsays on Oct 27, 2006 1:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All three can go down before the end of the year if given the right push. Blair is so in meltdown he can barely govern and gets little respect from people; Harper is in a dodgy minority government and can go down at any moment; and Bush in the hands of Americans.

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

» You missed one Posted by: HeroesAll
» Be fair to herpes. Posted by: Colin
» RE: Be fair to herpes. Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Be fair to herpes. Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: You missed one Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: You missed one Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: You missed one Posted by: polyquat50
» RE: And the little idiot is continuing to defend Bush big time! Posted by: Robert_Hoogenboom@leftfoot.com.au
We need big changes in our political system
Posted by: Moonray on Oct 27, 2006 2:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's all well and good to point out the Republicans' wretchedness, but let's not stop there. Every four years we do this -- get all worked up about the evils of Tweedledee while ignoring the fact that our only alternative is Tweedledum. The Democratic Party is only a slightly less conservative version of the GOP. Both parties are dominated by big-money interests and establishment attitudes.

Instead of expending all our energy flailing at Republicans -- and they deserve every kick they get -- we should try to make our government and society more truly progressive. To do that we need to 1) Get private money out of election campaigns 2)make elections more direct and immediate (abolish Electoral College; develop secure Internet voting option, more mail voting, etc.) and 3) make presidential and congressional elections nonpartisan so the Dems and GOP party machines can't dominate.

These are very difficult propositions, but until we make such changes our periodic elections will be what Shakespeare called "sound and fury signifying nothing" -- or at least very little.

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

Democracy by Tyranny?
Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar on Oct 27, 2006 3:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not clear just sort of social arrangement Holland would have us have. There was one point on particular that I think raises some questions:

"Political scientists have known for a long time that while people respond positively to the idea of limited government in the abstract, when it comes to specifics people love big government and most, if not all of what it does."

I think that libertarianism (“anarchism,” to use a less polite and more blunt word) and democracy are synonymous. The question is: do you want to make important decisions that affect your life for yourself, or do you want someone else making them? I am not a political scientist, but would be willing to bet that everyone would prefer to decide for themselves rather than defer to an arbitrary authority (e.g. government [including a socialist one] or corporations). As Bakunin points out:

"No state, however democratic," Bakunin wrote, "not even the reddest republic -- can ever give the people what they really want, i.e., the free self-organization and administration of their own affairs from the bottom upward, without any interference or violence from above, because every state, even the pseudo-People's State concocted by Mr. Marx, is in essence only a machine ruling the masses from above, from a privileged minority of conceited intellectuals, who imagine that they know what the people need and want better than do the people themselves...." "But the people will feel no better if the stick with which they are being beaten is labeled `the people's stick' " (Statism and Anarchy [1873], in Dolgoff, Bakunin on Anarchy, p. 338) -- "the people's stick" being the democratic Republic.

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

» RE: Democracy by Tyranny? Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Democracy by Tyranny? Posted by: Annarisse
» RE: Democracy by Tyranny? Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Democracy by Tyranny? Posted by: oregoncharles
» Oversimplification. Posted by: no one special
Too bad the GOP in South Dakota is winning thanks to the JH SCHADENFREUDE syndrome !
Posted by: SDres11 on Oct 27, 2006 4:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Democrats running as so-called "pro-business centrists" all the while making social issues such as gays and abortion their central themes on the campaign trail.

If Democrats win, it will be because of the ones who stood up for genuine populism and focused on important issues.

Joshua Holland may want to learn from Jon Tester of Montana who's running as an unapologetic progressive/liberal in a state that's supposedly "conservative". Better yet, he should take a look at the governor's race in Wyoming and the races in Colorado where Democrats are sticking to important issues and putting frivolous issues such as guns (most refute gun control I hear and it's understandable) and abortion on the backburner.

It's one thing to drool over the GOP imploding but as long as the GOP continues to go on the offensive and frame the debates and most of the Democrats sit by and play the "Seinfeld" strategy of SCHADENFREUDE, the GOP will keep winning.

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

just a giveaway to insurance companies and Big Pharma.
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Oct 27, 2006 5:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To say that the seniors' prescription drug plan was a "giveaway" is to misstate the facts. The pharmaceutical industry paid both parties $30 million in campaign contributions and who knows how much in lobbying bribes. I don't know offhand how much the insurance industry paid them. If you want to know click on Open Secrets. The corporate establishment runs our government and we can't vote them out.
Bob Reichembach
Director, The Lincoln Initiative

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

» Wish list part 1 Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: Wish list part 1 Posted by: Lincoln fan
Republicans Will Devastate Healthcare
Posted by: michaeltwatson on Oct 27, 2006 5:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My biggest fear about the Republicans keeping control is what they will (or will not) do about healthcare. As you address, the insurance companies have taken over our healthcare and our prescription drug industry. We now have 190,000 deaths each year from hospital error, 1.5 million injuries from medication error, and 90,000 people killed each year from hospital error. Yet the insurance companies, the largest contributors to the Republican party, want to blame the injured patients for the high cost of healthcare.

Five times in the last four years they have been narrowly defeated in their effort to place draconian limits on the damages a jury could award for the loss of a life, limb or health as a result of medical or pharmaceutical error. If they continue to control Congress, they will surely pass such measures, just as many states have already done. We have far too many people killed and injured by medical error in this country, and we are doing the wrong things to fix it ,until we wrest control of the healthcare system from big business and insurance.
Michael Townes Watson, author of America's 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]

Words should mean something.
Posted by: 4sense on Oct 27, 2006 5:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article points out just how deeply our political culture is dysfuntional.

If we are not going to keep the meanings of words, and let the parties and politicians change the meanings of words like "liberal", "conservative", etc. then how are we even going to know what's going on? It's up to us to decide how political terms are defined, yet we allow politicans and pundits to do that for us.

Likewise, we need to drop membership in and self identification with political party defined positions. It's just another verson of the corporatocracy we are all complaining about. It's nt that the parties are so heaviliy influenced (though they are), but that they are themselves corporations vying for market (the polity) control. We need to think, and stand ground on, ideas.

Imagine if the parties each only had 20-30,000 members. They would have to behave in a very different way then they do now.

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

Who pays for the free lunch?
Posted by: Democritus on Oct 27, 2006 5:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It used to be an axiom of economics that there's no such thing as a free lunch. But now the Bush administration and the Republican congress have convinced people that we can have the government pay for whatever we want--schools, roads, military, health care, social security--and we don't have to reimburse it with our taxes. In fact, the lower we make our taxes, the better off our economy and our lives will be. What camouflages this sham, of course, is that we're dancing on someone else's dime. Our red-hot economy is being fueled by borrowed money--mostly from Japan and China. They keep buying our promissory notes, and we get to keep dancing. Not much thought is given to what happens when the music stops. That's when we wake up with an enormous hangover, and our children and grandchildren get stuck with the bill.

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

Other governing paradigms
Posted by: Jesse on Oct 27, 2006 6:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Without getting into too deep a discussion that would eat all the space here, I might point to Kim Stanley Robinson (yes, the science fiction writer) who has one of the better thought-out alternate societies described in his Mars trilogy. THe interesting concept is "polyarchy" -- something that we have to a degree in the US with the separation of powers concept.

But another thing he has is the idea that instead of being elected, people would be drafted on a rotating basis into the local legislatures, as a sort of rotating electoral college. The plan is that everyone would have to take part in government, and if you are in on a rotating basis it is harder to cement power elites via manipulating elections, for instance.

This requires a good edcuational system, of course, but that's part of the deal. And when everyone has to take part in decisions they feel they have a greater stake.

That's just part of it. If anyone else has read the books I'd be interested to know what they think. Josh, have you read them?

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

» RE: Other governing paradigms Posted by: HeroesAll
Good Job Mr. Holland- Thank You
Posted by: R.I.P. on Oct 27, 2006 7:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's the not so simple truth.

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

I don't have time to read the whole article and comments...
Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle on Oct 27, 2006 7:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
--Judd Gregg, R-N.H., chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, says on his website that he's proud to have promoted "responsible federal spending" during his tenure, but after voting to increase the country's debt ceiling to $9 trillion, he said sheepishly: "It's hard to understand what a trillion is. I don't know what it is."

...but the name Jjuddd Ggreggg jumped out at me nonetheless. Not long ago he won (if memory serves) about $800,000 in our state's lottery. And he was like, "Whoopee, I've won!" just like any poor laid-off mill worker. That plus this shows you his real attitude towards money.

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

The bigger the government, the bigger the corruption.......
Posted by: Prophit on Oct 27, 2006 7:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, we have lost our agriculture base, our manufacturing base, we have torn up stable communities that existed and provided jobs for generation after generation. We have torn families apart and communities apart because we are now a service economy. We are way more mobil than we used to be.

We can't afford stay home moms any more to raise our children after 3 pm in the afternoon, so no little lessons for the day about how to care about others, and since we get torn up from our communities regularly following the work, we don't connect on a deep level with our fellow neighbors and school chums. We begin to not get close because we know we will have to leave those we have come to care about, we have no connection to history through our grand parents cause they live in another town.

Our entire society has been made transit and disconnected from their history, geneology, and roots. So if you wonder why we are in the condition we are in, quit looking to big brother to become that family, those roots and that stability.

Look to ourselves and the industries we now have that force us to move in order to stay employed. The banks are as bad. There used to be small community banks that supported those generational families and they all knew each other and lend money for cars, home improvements and based the repayment on the local banks history with that family. The banks would pay those people to deposit their money with them since the banks made money overnight or longer on those deposits.

Now they don't do any of that. Banks are national, disconnected from the community and generally gouging every cent out of its customers that it can. Where is that so called government?

I don't have the answers to these points, but if we don't look at how we got to depend on the gov for every single thing then we won't be able to ween ourselves off of it in an effective manner. It will continue to grow and grow and we will continue to work and work to support the bohemoth until we are truly slaves working for nothing.

WE have to start thinking outside the box.

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

Conservative deficits
Posted by: darby1936 on Oct 27, 2006 8:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our deficit has exploded under two CONSERVATIVE presidents, Reagan and Bush. Our trade deficit threatens middle class jobs and way of life. Let's try liberal for a while?

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

I agree but...
Posted by: kenhymes on Oct 27, 2006 8:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with Josh Holland's general point that the big/small government debate is phony, and that most, if not all conservatives like big government when it suits their interests, and not when it protects people they don't feel need protection.

However, there is a glaring blind spot in the Democratic Party on this topic as well. Examples like Sweden and Canada are misleading because they are smaller, in population, less complex socially and demographically, and most critically have not been sucked in to the role of global cop.

Until the Dems consistently argue for a reduced military; an end to all corporate welfare that does not serve a compelling social need; social welfare, education and healthcare programs that serve the middle class as well as the working and unemplyed poor; until such time, the public will not be able to have any real confidence in voting for change, because it's not clear what that change would be.

You're right, Josh, that it's about GOOD governance. But that is not being defined by the Dems precisely because they are as beholden as the GOP is to those who benefit from the toxic combination of neglect of true needs and intervention for the powerful which characterizes our existing "big government."

Given that our electoral system forces us to choose between two parties, shouldn't the first order of business be pressing locally for electoral reform, such as instant run-off voting, or proportional representation. These are winnable proposals at the state level, and would also encourage the left to shift its focus away from the national Goliaths and onto grassroots organizing for pressing local needs. The greatest successes of the 60's and 70's for progressives were not national, they were the embedding of alternative institutions into local communities. To change the character and priorities of our big government, we need to work on changing the smaller governments we interact with where we are.

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

» RE: I agree but... Posted by: Lincoln fan
A note from Richard Viguerie
Posted by: sausage on Oct 27, 2006 8:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An email from GOP-fundraiser Richard Viguerie confirms Joshua's column.
Richard Viguerie: Halloween Scare Tactics Won’t Work for GOP;
Republicans Must Propose a New Contract With the Voters and Promise to Govern Differently
(Manassas, Virginia) Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman of ConservativeHQ.com, warned Republicans that scare tactics against Democrats will not succeed in increasing social or economic conservative voters on Election Day.

“The big-spending, high-deficit, morally-deficient Republican Party hasn’t anything to offer conservatives except Halloween scare tactics about the Democrats. But since the GOP majority in Congress has engaged in an unprecedented spending spree, conservatives know that Democrats cannot be any worse and that divided government may lead to less spending,” Viguerie said.

“And conservatives have learned that, while Republicans sometimes provide significant symbolism on social issues, in truth, many of them have a disdain for values voters,” he added.

“Trying to frighten conservatives by yelling ‘Nancy Pelosi’ and ‘Harry Reid’ won’t work this time. As I mention in the Introduction to Conservatives Betrayed, similar tactics didn’t work in 1948, 1960, 1976, and 1992 either,” he said.

Viguerie said that, for the Republican Party to retain its majorities in the House and Senate, President Bush and Congressional leaders should convene a summit to spell out specifically what they would actually do if they were left in power. He said Republicans should enter into a new contract with the voters to include such items as:

A complete termination of “earmarks” and pork barrel spending in appropriations bills. Opposition to all increases in non-defense spending.

A constitutional amendment to balance the budget and limit taxes.

Making permanent all of the temporary tax cuts and pushing for significant additional tax relief.

Recommit to securing the border with Mexico to stop the invasion of illegal aliens.

Fighting hard for the confirmation of strict constructionists to the federal judiciary.

Energy independence through increased exploration for oil, development of coal resources, and expansion of nuclear energy.

Appointment of many more Reagan-type conservatives, rather than big-business establishment Republicans.

Senate confirmation of John Bolton as U.N. Ambassador.


“Many conservatives and moderates have tuned out the Republican Congressional leaders. But President Bush owns the world’s largest microphone. If he will use it to make serious promises on issues that grassroots conservatives can relate to, voters might give Republicans one more chance,” Viguerie said.

Richard Viguerie’s Conservatives Betrayed
9625 Surveyor Court, Suite 400
Manassas, Virginia 20110

Now, mere hours after the Betrayer-in-Chief signed a bill authorizing the construction of a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, at a campaign stop for a Iowa Republican candidate for the US House, Bush said:""One big reason we're going to win is because the truth is the Democrats will raise your taxes," (The Des Moines Register, October 27, 2006.)

In one "news cycle" Bush hit two of Viguerie's "contract" points squarely on the head. Either way, bullshit artists like Viguerie and the rest of his ilk can't lose. If the Democrats wrest control of both Houses of Congress away from the Repugs, donations from Reagan cultists will pour in. If the Republicans keep Congress Viguerie, et al, will complain they aren't conservative enough.

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

» RE: A note from Richard Viguerie Posted by: Joshua Holland
Bush is a STATIST
Posted by: bjerko on Oct 27, 2006 8:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...not a conservative. It's time we all got it straight. Call him a statist like he is. So is the rest of his administration and much of Congress and the Senate. Just look at the defense budget! The U.S. spends more on "national defense" than the rest of the world - combined, while spending next to nothing on peacebuilding. Where are our priorities?

One might also point out that tax cuts for the rich have taken higher priority than protecting the population from violence, poverty, or disease.

Anyone reading this far has noticed that Big Business and Big Government (Brother) are in bed together, but they're not screwing each other, they're screwing the American people (and the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Iran, Korea, etc.) - whoever can turn a profit.

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

» RE: Bush is a STATIST Posted by: oregoncharles
» "The era of big government is over" Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
Polyarchy is not new
Posted by: putman9 on Oct 27, 2006 8:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wager that the author in question is getting his inspiration for the idea from classical Athenian democracy. Aside from random rotating office holding, the Athenians also had the notion that professional prosecutors and police officials were to be abolished, due to potential for abuse/corruption. They also had a national income via silver mine shares (the mine was worked by slave labour, but it was the 5th century BCE after all), the idea being that the people had to be relatively equal in order for the thing to have a chance at working, a sentiment which Aristotle echoes in his _Politics_.

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

» RE: Polyarchy is not new Posted by: oregoncharles
The Democratic Alternative to Conservatism Is?
Posted by: rwa on Oct 27, 2006 9:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"And if Americans get a clue that modern conservatism is nothing but a bunch of economic lies gilded with some bogus "family values" and softened with a bit of morphine for the terror junkies, he can bring the whole fetid house of cards down with him. "

Joshua, I think this applies to Democrats as well as Republicans. This is confirmed by the recent polls on congressional approval.
Ken Hymes analysis in the comment above is more spot on.

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

Republicratic Conservatism
Posted by: rwa on Oct 27, 2006 9:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jason Miller:

"Reactionary forces wielding powerful tools of psychological manipulation have trained most US Americans to reflexively reject virtually any publicly funded programs that would be socially beneficial, idealize material success, and embrace grossly exorbitant military spending as “necessary”.

Endless rhetoric and propaganda, the Cold War, free trade, and a multitude of murderous military interventions resulting in the deaths of millions of innocent human beings have kept the world safe for the “democracy” that serves as cover for remorseless seekers of profit at the expense of others."

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

So where's the "opposition"?
Posted by: oregoncharles on Oct 27, 2006 9:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great rant. You're really good at this, Joshua.

So glad you mentioned things people "expect", especially universal health insurance. Yes, polls consistently show solid majority support for that stuff, and even a willingness to pay for it. (Hey, we're already paying for the health care - it's just the the insurance co's are walking away with most of the dough.) (& in case you hadn't guessed, no, I & my wife aren't insured.)

So why don't the Dems campaign on these known winners, or push for them in office? Is it because they run on pretty much the same money, and are just as beholden to the corporate big boys? Truthfully, we all know that - Bill Moyers reported it on Frontline about 10 years ago now.

Sooooo, maybe that's why the Rethugs get away with their con: nobody calls them on it, because they're in on the game! (This is Thomas Frank's point in the Kansas book. Obviously, it's not just Kansas.)

At what point do we call a halt to the con game BOTH parties are playing - in full, knowing collusion?

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

Bush Was Never A Conservative
Posted by: edith on Oct 27, 2006 9:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not going to bore everyone with a dissertation on what I think a real conservative is. I only want to state that while the writer correctly points to the recent converts to Bush Bashing from the Right Side, since at least the first Bush President(1989) there have been Conservatives in the Kirk-Buckley-Taft-Burke Tradition who have been pointing to the dangers of Bushes and their greed for Power, Big International Finance, and Big Government.. While a minority in the Republican Party punditocracy and almost absent in GOP leadership, their prescience about the sellout of conservative principles by paid hacks of Wall St and the MIC imay generate some addtional support in the future. I hope that is true. In the meantime true traditionalists will and are working with elements of the Left like Counterpunch, the antiwar movement, the labor movement's fight against unfair trade and even the Green Party. Reverence for nature and the unbreakable connection between Nature and Man is a Conservative principle. You say Bush isn't about these matters? Right you are. He is not a conservative, in spite of the lazy ignorant commentary of most journalists who live and die by polls and easy labels.

Fair trade, fairer taxation, antitrust, a more America centered foreign policy, and even environmental issues(if the UN or international organizations are kept out) are examples.

Even on immigration, if it can be shown that US workers, (many minority workers included) are in fact passed over for employment for cheap immigrant serf labor, I believe labor progressives and traditionalists can join hands to defend the American worker who built this country.

Let the investment bankers and defense contractors play with the prostituted Democrats and Republicans.

Old media-created labels like liberals and conservative mean nothing as they are used in the MSM, full of poorly educated people with good looks and addiction to polls and aversion to reading history, science and philosophy.

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

Making hay while the sun shines
Posted by: willymack on Oct 27, 2006 10:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Much has been said about how the bushies have fouled everything up so badly, so let's take a look at things from a different angle. If you had full control over your earnings, work hours, and date of retirement, I'll bet it'd be a lot different than it is now. Who actually wants to work full-blast to age 65, for instance? Wouldn't it be nice if you could retire at age 40, while still young and vigorous? Of course, that would mean you'd have to make your nest egg in fewer years, which means more money per year. Now, if there were no impediment to your accumulation of wealth-economic,moral, legal, or otherwise, you could grab what you want, and woe be unto anyone who gets in your way. The bushies are just that way. They're predators; no, they're far worse than that; they're cannibals, who devour their own kind. The carnage in Iraq is but an abstraction to them. Iraq is seen as a means to seize all the wealth from that poor country, and then, leave them twisting in the wind, while looking for their next victim. One thing the bushies are not, and that's stupid. They know their (expendable) front man, that hapless twit, impersonating a president will be gone in 2 years, unless another 9/11 is used as an excuse for martial law. After every dime is extracted from us, the Iraqis, and who knows who else, this vile gang will retire to a life of lavish luxury, leaving the rest of us to sort through the wreckage left behind.

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

Watch out progressives!
Posted by: Edward George on Oct 27, 2006 10:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Watch out for what these "real" conservatives try to salvage out of Bush debacle. For example, how about a disguised privatized Social Security. Chile privatized their social security, the big fund built up was a great place for business to borrow momey at low interest rates and now the retiree recepients are paupers complaining bitterly that they are not getting nearly what had been advertized.

Of course our long lived retirees are getting more than they put in because many die before they get theirs back. Longer life averages need to be addressed but not by privatizing.

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

» RE: Reply to Edward George Posted by: Ellie1
» RE: eply to Edward George Posted by: Edward George
» Need to rethink the whole SS issue Posted by: ReallyBearish
Congratulations, Joshua
Posted by: oregoncharles on Oct 27, 2006 10:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a great piece, actually worth commenting on. And it brought out the most interesting comments I've seen in a while. (Not even counting my own.)

Thanks.

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