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 Conservatives Can't Govern

By Robert L. Borosage, TomPaine.com. Posted March 20, 2007.


Alberto Gonzales is the latest imperious conservative tripped up by his own ideological arrogance.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Robert L. Borosage

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Donald Rumsfeld has been axed. Tom DeLay cut and ran. "Scooter" Libby stands convicted. Michael "you're doing a heck of a job" Brown was tossed. Newt Gingrich disgraced himself. And now the clueless Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, is surely the next to go.

Why this confederacy of dunces? The conservative National Review cover asks plaintively, "Can't Anyone Here Play this Game?" Time Magazine puts conservative icon Ronald Reagan on its cover, a tear rolling down his face, reporting on "How the Right Went Wrong." But it's not incompetence or corruption -- although both abound -- that fostered the misrule of this conservative administration. And Reagan would feel not dismayed, but right at home with the follies and crimes. Remember: Reagan's attorney general, Edwin Meese, was disgraced. His national security advisor copped a plea. Oliver North stood convicted. His defense secretary, Caspar Weinberger, would have been indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice if George Bush the first hadn't issued a preemptive pardon.

What is it about conservative administrations that lead them into disgrace and indictment? Incompetence isn't at the core of these scandals -- ideology is.

Conservative presidents -- from Nixon to Reagan to Bush -- believe in the imperial presidency. They assume that in the area of the national security, the president operates above the law, or as Nixon put it, "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." They operate routinely behind the shield of secrecy and executive privilege, with utter disdain for the law. So Reagan spurned the Congress when it cut off funds for his loony covert war on tiny Nicaragua. And Bush trampled the laws to set up the torture camps in Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and elsewhere. Each would seek to keep their lawlessness secret; and that would foster lies, obstruction of justice and ultimately disgrace.

Second, conservatives are acutely aware that they represent a minority, not a majority, position in America. From Nixon to Lee Atwater to Karl Rove, they play politics and exploit America's divides with back-alley brass knuckles -- from Reagan's welfare queen to Bush's impugning the patriotism of Georgia Senator Max Cleland, a Vietnam War hero who literally sacrificed his limbs in the service of his country. They excel in the politics of personal destruction, as Democratic presidential candidates Michael Dukakis and John Kerry discovered. And in the grand tradition of the establishment in American politics, they are relentless in seeking to suppress the vote, particularly of the poor and minorities who would vote against them in large numbers.

Gonzales' imbroglio is a direct expression of this. At its core is the run-up to the 2006 elections with the Republicans under siege for the most corrupt Congress ever. The White House and Republican politicians grew exercised at Republican prosecutors who they considered too lax in exposing potential Democratic corruption, too avid in pursuing Republican crimes or too slow in prosecuting reports of "voter fraud," the GOP code for using investigations to disrupt minority registration and get out the vote programs, and to intimidate wary black and Latino voters. Justice was ranking U.S. attorneys based on whether they were "loyal Bushies."

The axing of David C. Iglesias, the U.S. attorney in New Mexico, is the archetype. With New Mexico up for grabs, Iglesias was being pressured directly and shamelessly by Republican Sen. Pete Domenici and Mickey Barnett, the attorney representing the Bush campaign in New Mexico to hustle up indictments on alleged incidents of voter fraud. (Iglesias found no evidence of any program designed to influence an election.)

Vulnerable Rep. Heather Wilson lobbied him to bring indictments against state Democratic officials before the election to help make the point that when it comes to corruption, everyone does it. When Iglesias refused to respond, he was targeted despite glowing performance reviews. The firings took place as an object lesson for U.S .attorneys headed into the donnybrook that will be the 2008 election. As Iglesias put it, "main Justice was up to its eyeballs in partisan political maneuvers."

Gonzales will surely be the next administration official to fall on his sword. Republican legislators are already questioning his ability to serve the president effectively. We'll see more stories about White House mismanagement and incompetence. But don't be misled. Bush and Rove know how to play this game. They play by their rules, the rules that conservative administrations have followed since Nixon. And that's the real lesson. The phrase "conservative misrule" is a redundancy. The two words mean exactly the same thing.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: conservatives, ideology

Robert Borosage is co-director of the Campaign For America's Future, and he has written on political, economic, and national security issues for publications including The New York Times and The Nation.

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:
The original
Posted by: spencerh on Mar 20, 2007 12:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why conservatives can't govern. Fundamental to understanding what's wrong with this movement.

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

» RE: The original Posted by: Lincoln fan
This is true, but...
Posted by: turbocrusher on Mar 20, 2007 2:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like this article; it's basically factual and concise. However, while I'm much more against Rebublicans than Dems, the tendency for presidents to feel above the law is not strictly a conservative one.

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

Conned by the neocons
Posted by: edith on Mar 20, 2007 4:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
W, Rummy, Scooter and Cheney are not conservatives in the tradition of American conservatives. They are big govt Republicans. There is a huge difference. They love to spend, violate individual rights, and involve the US in disputes that are best left to the locals. Goldwater and Buchanan are conservatives; Alberto Gonzalez is a bell boy for the Prez, and as an side, a Big Fat Govt Lover.

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

» Good point Posted by: kepstein7777
» Those honest democrats! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Those honest democrats! Posted by: lively56
» RE: Those honest democrats! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Those honest democrats! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Those honest democrats! Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: Those honest democrats! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Those honest democrats! Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Those honest democrats! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Those honest democrats! Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Those honest democrats! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Conned by the neocons Posted by: tap17x
Yes and no.
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Mar 20, 2007 4:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that our conservative leaders are self-destructive, power-lusting control freaks.

But what's your evidence that conservatives are a minority in this country? Or that poor people and minorities would vote against them if they had the chance? Didn't around 90% of Americans support GWB after 9/11?...And 70% up until 2003 or so? And over 50% in 2004?...And speaking of Reagan, don't most Americans still love him? And weren't his poll numbers high when he left office?

My theory is that we're very much a right-wing country down to the roots. And that's the problem. We spoil our conservative leaders so badly that they self-destruct. Whatever they want: money, toys, power...We give it all to them, and they use it to destroy everything.

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

» RE: Yes and no. Posted by: kenhouse
» RE: Yes and no. Posted by:
» From where I sit... Posted by: justaguy
Nice theory
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on Mar 20, 2007 5:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and most of it is correct.

Except for the part left out where the Republican Party was turned into a rather multipronged criminal syndicate by Bush, and DeLay, from Blackwater to election fraud to corruption to Haliburton to Katrina to the Federalist Society to the fundamental attitude of aggressive, relentless law breaking regardless of consequence. That piece may be a logical outgrowth of ideology, yes, but has a purely criminally entitled mentality about it that is quite pragmatic.

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

» RE: Here's the difference Posted by: kbest
» RE: Here's the difference Posted by: clthompson
» RE: Here's the difference Posted by: patszar
WRONG title. It should say, "Why Rightwing Republicans can't govern."
Posted by: HughScott on Mar 20, 2007 5:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To connect REAL conservatives like me with the rightwing GOP is like calling liberals "Communists."

Read Barry Goldwater's 1960 masterpiece. "The Conscience of a Conservative" and you will learn that true conservatives don't come close to Herr Bush and his neocon cabal.

For example. Barry approved of gays in the military and was vehemently opposed to nation-building. And, of course, he believed in fair taxation and balanced budgets, cornerstones of true conservatism.

Finally, acting as a four-year member of MoveOn.org, last night I joined fellow Iraq War protesters and held a lighted candle on a main street corner in Thousand Oaks, CA, a rightwing GOP hotbed.

I was amazed by the number of passing cars with honking horns, an obvious sign of approval. Afterwards, I joined another MoveOn member, a flaming liberal, for coffee and two hours of fun-filled bullshit -- the way Americans should behave.

Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam veteran, lifelong registered Republican, Goldwater conservative, RABID neocon-hater and the editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

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

» To Lincoln fan. I agree. Posted by: HughScott
» RE: To Lincoln fan. I agree. Posted by: Lincoln fan
» To LeeAnnG. You are correct. Posted by: HughScott
The answer...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Mar 20, 2007 6:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
could it be... ? Yes! Its because they aren't actually conservative!

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

Half the story; the little half.
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Mar 20, 2007 7:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Conservative presidents -- from Nixon to Reagan to Bush -- believe in the imperial presidency.

In my opinion, this is only half the story. The people who are most anxious for an imperial presidency are those with the most to gain. They are the corporate establishment. The big businesses that finance both our major parties; The Republican Rite and the Republican Lite.

They are a minority and their interests are almost always in direct opposition to the working class majority. Congress cannot be as tightly controlled by the establishment as the President can. Unlike the President, Congressmen must face their constituents throughout their careers and most try for more than two terms. They must give some consideration to the will of their people. Sometimes they'll buck the party line and serve their neighbors. The parties, which are controlled by business interests, are strong at national level, they lose influence on candidates at lower levels. While third parties are no threat on a national level their threat increases at state, county, and local levels. At these levels the voters have some power.

In short, I believe that the real drive for a unitary executive comes from the corporate establishment. The stronger the President, the tighter their control on the economy of the nation.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.

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

» RE: Half the story; the little half. Posted by: freedom_rings
» You're right again, Bob. Posted by: HughScott
THESE PEOPL ARE NOT 'CONSERVATIVES'
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Mar 20, 2007 7:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not to split hairs, but corruption, lies, theft, shrouded in secrecy, and generally mean spirited do not translate to being a conservative. Neither does being a Christian. The definition has been lost. No one goes around bragging about being an intolerable SOB. They had to call themselves something. They decided on conservative. It makes them sound almost likeable. They're going to take care of us. Right! Thanks, ANNA

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

At Odds With the Task
Posted by: Red Clover on Mar 20, 2007 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Post-Reagan conservatives love to quote their icon from his first inaugural: "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."

When they find themselves in charge of any branch of government, today's Republicans are philosophically at odds with the task of governing. All the messy details, the balancing of interests, the endless meetings, the conflicting evidence, the annoying media questions, the inconvenient politics are features of democratic governance that they would rather ignore.

They prefer a differenct model of leadership- the business owner or CEO whose word is law, and whose constituency is limited to stockholders or the bottom line. Even more, because they have a powerful non-democratic group of institiutions called our Armed Forces in their hands, they often graft its similar hierarchical authoritarianism onto their approach to the corporate governing of the US. Is it any wonder that the Department of Defense is more important to the Bush Administration than the State Department? This approach influences other leaders of their party in the governors 'mansions and State Houses to become a national phenomen of anti-democratic leadership. We see this strongly in Texas. And I worry that the phenomenon will infect Democratic leaders like Hillary Clinton and ambitious others.

One salient feature of this strongman approach to government is keep "enemies" central to the public discussion. Like Arab leaders pointing to Israel, or Stalin rounding up "enemies of the people," or Mao versus the counter-revloutionaries, or Limbaugh and Coulter's obsession with liberals, anti-democratic leadership requires an enemy like Bush's terrorists to maintain their legitimacy. They certainly don't gain legitimacy by creating the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Just like today's CEOs.

In short, most of today's Republicans can't govern because they don't believe in it. But they can rule, and this presents a greater threat to the US than any terrorist could hope to.

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

Temple 420
Posted by: Lauren on Mar 20, 2007 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I found a site with quick video tour of the Temple 420. The Rev. Craig X Rubin, who believes as I do that the biblical Tree of Life is marijuana, gives us a tour of his Temple 420's gift shop and ministerial sanctuary.

But way better than that, I think, is the center for the constitution. Sadly they seem to be missing the link between marijuana and religion. I think that is a discriminating practice against the various ganja religion practicers. I don't see an inclusiveness of the Native American view either. I believe my people are recognizably missing from this discussion of the jurisprudence. Hmm...

******
I was very sick friday, sick all weekend. I went to the psychologist friday morning, very early. I wanted help with dealing with the discrimination I am always facing. And positive steps for dealing with the anger I usually get from my daughter Claire, didn't even get to that. I felt fine that morning, it was a beautiful day, I had plans.

It was a disaster. The more I talked the sicker I became - back pain, really painful, quickly. When I started talking about the Sheriffs, I thought I was going to throw up. I went to the bathroom and got a drink of the life giving, most holy (water), but when I returned, I had to leave - in a hurry. I stopped once on the way home to barf up and ended up vomiting several more times over the course of the next few days. I was really, really sick, fever, chills, shakes, panting. I had a pain in my back that was absolutely excruciating. I couldn't eat anything and I had already been fasting. It was all dry heaves, sweats and a lot of pain.

The sickness was entirely from my psyche, no infectious disease, minor injury. The sickness was my own fear and anxiety, I am terrified by what I have done, what I've said and to whom I've said it. I have to keep telling myself to have faith, but to bring the lyons into my own friends' home?, I feel like a Judas. We are persecuted and I brought the lyons of zion to my neighborhood, to devour us (or be killed by us). I am praying. I am doing my dance the best I can. I am hoping. I am afraid. I must trust in my people.

I stood up a date with the folks at the dispensary friday, I didn't mean to. I feel bad about it. I was going to table there for our politics at lunch, I made a big deal out of it, but I just couldn't. I had to call Jeff to come home from work to take care of me, I was very ill. I couldn't drive, I couldn't do anything. I couldn't breath, I was a mess, an absolute mess.

I didn't make it to the peace march saturday either, I slept all day long. Sunday I gardened. Yesterday I was committed to a visit with my mom, plus house work, this place is always a mess after the weekend. I listened to the sound of impeachment starting on TV. And I discovered the email I got Jeff to send to Demetrio to explain my absence at Maricare friday afternoon never left my outbox. I still haven't dealt with that yet, I owe them an explanation.

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

» RE: Temple 420 Posted by: Lauren
» How much did you smoke today? Posted by: kepstein7777
Its not conservatives but the extremes
Posted by: EncinoM on Mar 20, 2007 5:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem is that the side of any ideology, belive that their goals are just that the laws don';t or shouldn't apply.

There has not yet been a purely progessive President, but look at the action of FDR. When facing opposition from the SCOUS, he sought, not to heed the advice of the third branch but to mute their collective voice. Many of the posts here, especially the ones regarding the enviroment, seek to take actions that may be in conflict with the property rights of others, but justify these actions by turning to a higher good.

The article is based summed up, by "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"

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

Bush and company are true conservatives
Posted by: robchapman on Mar 20, 2007 5:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remember the 2004 Republican Convention?

The GOP got together and reaffirmed their identity as the conservative party.

Speakers such as former NYS Governor G.E. Pataki and former NYC Mayor Rudolf Giuliani touted Bush as a true conservative and the indispensible man.

It seems the Republicans and Conservatives voted for Bush as a conservative before they decided to vote against Bush as a conservative.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

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

» THAT'S RIGHT Posted by: LMNOP
Republicans dont want to Govern, they want to RULE
Posted by: james2021 on Mar 21, 2007 6:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the culmination of the Republican philosophy, they are the better people, and deserve to RULE. It is just fudalism in a different age. Republicans have hit upon a goose that lays the golden egg. Eliminate retirement, health care, child care, public health, there by saving Corporate America billions, eliminate taxes on business. and borrow against the future to make themselves rich. The continue the war on the middle class. The Religious Right wants to return to feudalism so that they may live in the lap of luxury, as did the Clergy during the Dark Ages. And to add to all this. we elect these people, and allow them to destroy our way of life.

Feudalism is the same as it was in the 14th century, only the names have been changed.

Republicans have no wish to make mankind better, only to enrich themselves and enslave the poor.

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