What's wrong with Sean and Rush?
By mschuyler Posted in Archived — Comments (94) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Why McCain is a better Conservative than most True Conservatives
True Conservatives are always right. Rush is Right; Sean is right. Anyone who differs is wrong. End-of-story. True Conservatives are also right about everything. It doesn’t matter whether the discussion is about abortion or a fifty cent rise in property taxes, about immigration or the proper positioning of God in the Pledge of Allegiance. True Conservatives are right about everything all the time. Anyone expressing the slightest dis-ease with True Conservative ideology is immediately suspect and soon ex-communicated as “not a True Conservative.” The price of admission is high, thus there are fewer of them than there otherwise might be. Because of this rigid stance True Conservatives have developed quite a bad reputation. They remind us of authoritarian employers, rigid school-teachers, and forbidding clergymen. They are always right. They know the Truth about everything. And you had better, too, or face the consequences.
True Conservatives never compromise. Any compromise is seen as a betrayal of Conservative Truth, therefore compromise is simply impossible. Even talking about compromise is disallowed. And conciliation? Impossible. It is a sign of weakness, of True Conservative betrayal. It cannot be tolerated. It cannot be tolerated at any price. Yes, True Conservatives are those kind of people who do not play well with others. Even acknowledging others exist is hard for them. Indeed, if you are not solidly in the True Conservative Camp, you are the enemy. It’s just easier that way. It’s one less thing to worry about. “Nuance” is not in the True Conservative vocabulary.
And just what is the issue, exactly? The American Conservative Union gives McCain a lifetime conservative rating of 83 compared to Fred Thompson’s 86.1, hardly a large difference. But compared to Hillary Clinton’s 9 and Barak Obama’s 8, it’s huge. (Note: The ACU does not rate governors, therefore we have no rating for Huckabee or Romney. Paul’s rating is 82.2)
Now we have the absurd scenario of True Conservatives banging away at John McCain. John McCain has a 100% conservative rating on many things, from abortion to foreign policy. He’s anti-pork, for smaller government. His credentials proving him a conservative are actually pretty good, and they are light-years ahead of the Democrats, whoever gets nominated. True Conservatives don’t like the fact that John McCain is willing to talk to Democrats. That sin cannot be forgiven. They would much rather support Fred Thompson. He’s a True Conservative. And he’s polling where he should be. He’s got the True Conservative vote.
I suspect Sean and Rush and all their buddies are banging on McCain in hopes of ‘turning the tide’ and throwing support to someone like Thompson. In this scenario their efforts succeed, Thompson becomes the nominee, and somehow the rest of the country, including moderates, independents, and right-leaning Democrats flock to his side to beat Hillary or Obama in November.
Such a strategy is myopic, even ignorant of the political realties of this country. A True Conservative is not (I repeat: “Not” as in “It won’t happen.”) going to suddenly convert an Independent or right-leaning Democrat leery of Hillary into a True Conservative. Even some moderate Republicans (The Rudy-ites, if you will) are going to have a hard time supporting a True Conservative. In other words, to appoint a True Conservative as the nominee of the Republican Party is a sure route, an absolutely and completely guaranteed route, to failure in November. A True Conservative can’t win.
The very things that Sean, Rush and their buddies are accusing McCain for now are all out the window for November. The very things McCain does to infuriate them are the very things that draw moderates, Independents, and right-leaning Democrats to him. His willingness to compromise, his willingness to work with Democrats, his well-known willingness at reconciliation—even to the North Vietnamese who tortured him for five years, are legendary. An extremist will never get anything done in a divided country. John McCain can. What Rush and Sean ought to do right now is endorse John McCain and get the True Conservatives to back him as the best candidate who can win the White House.
If John McCain is the Nominee, who is the True Conservative going to vote for? Hillary?
As much as I like Rush and the others, I feel they have been on a power trip, seeing how many people will echo their talking points when it comes to McCain.
There is not "true conservative" position on some of these issues. The term "conservative" is in many ways a relative term. conservatives in Iran, for example, bear no similarity to conservatives in Sweden.
McCain is much more conservative, in the American sense, than people are making him out to be. It is a shame, especially since a man who can no longer lift his arms over his shoulders because of torture suffered at the hands of our enemies is not afforded more consideration.
I almost think the talk show hosts want a Democrat in office so they'll have a little fresh meat... it's good for ratings.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
federal global warming legislation, and shammesty----and McCain is downright hostile on all 3.
Is McCain ever expected to "place nice with others" if the others are conservative? Or is that requirement only for Kennedy liberals?
is just as much about shrinking government as freeing markets. McCain's stand was on principle...we were increasing spending. It takes a few years for the windfall to materialize from tax cuts. In the mean time, the budget is inflated by spending. Growing government without paying for it is not a conservative position.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
Incessant cutting of taxes without cutting spending is a recipe for catastrophe.
Gregory Mankiw, former Chairman of George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors has already acknowledged that Bush's tax cuts haven't payed for themselves.
Tax relief is good for growth, but only if the tax reductions are financed by spending restraint.
but tax cuts make spending cuts possible. Nobody even raises the issue of spending cuts unless there is a source of outside pressure to do so---tax cuts are a great source of that pressure. When do you hear serious talk of spending restraint---only when there is a tax cut on the table. Tax cuts shift the debate in a way that is important tactically, as well as substantively.
Tax cuts may not "pay for themselves" but the "negative" impact of tax cuts on the budget are ALWAYS overestimated and the positive impact are ALWAYS underestimated
Our deficit this year is something around 1.4% GDP---not great, but better than it is in most years. Keep the economy growing and the other problems are easier to deal with (if not easy).
Here in Carver County a clerk accidentally typed in $18,000,000 for the value of a small city lot instead of $18,000. From the school district to the city to the county all budgets were based on way more tax revenue than was really there. Once the error was discovered we lobbied for spending cuts ONLY to resolve the issue, but the county ended up splitting the difference. We got a modest tax increase, and a sizable spending cut.
That's the kind of clerical error I can live with!
Attacking Rush isn't going to help McCain any more than it has helped Huck. The problem isn't Rush. It is what your guy has been busy doing the past 10 years and where that has left his relationship with the base.
As far as the rest of the diatribe about "True Conservatives" goes, it isn't even worth addressing. Definitely not recommended.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
and I agree with some of the substance here. McCain is a moderate but he's not a liberal Republican or a RINO; his voting record is fairly solid. But the reasons for conservatives like Rush to be skeptical of McCain are not made up or invalid at all.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Hillary and Obama represent low character, retreat and defeat, and ineffective leadership. They would bring catastrophe in the war, dissolution at home and even more pandering on immigration.
That said, I do not like McCain very much. I htink he would be a *very* vulnerable candidate, from his age to his Keating 5 payola to his anti-freedom stands on elections and freedom of speech.
in the primary.
McCain has backstabbed conservatives too many times, and his positions are RINO not conservative positions.
We can do better, we must do better, we will do better - with Romney.
As for "Hillary and Obama represent ... even more pandering on immigration."
On that issue, at least with a Democrat in the White House Republicans can unite to oppose it. Far more dangerous to have 'our own' leaders pushing the toxic swill of massive amnesty for illegal immigrants. McCain says he's gotten the message, but listen carefully and you will find the same pro-amnesty sentiments he had before.
He's not changed, and voters who buy it are like abused housewifes who let the wife-beater come back home with promises he'll be good. Oh, no he won't.
I will vote for McCain in the general, but in the Republican primaries, I will vote Repub . . er conservative.
McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, and either isn't good at cutting a decent deal when he "compromises" or he simply doesn't care about the conservative position. In other words, capitulation is more accurate than compromise.
...Vesuvian Temper!!!
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
traditional American values and socialism and you expect me to support a man who compromises with the enemy in the name of getting something done. The problem with Rep's is they don't get this. Every time they compromise with the Lib's it only strengthens them. We've got to win this thing out right and swing this nation back to it's core principles. I believe Fred's the man that will help us take that next step. If America doesn't want Fred I'll support the Rep nominee. If it's McCain, it'll be hard to stomach but, I'll support him in the general only because he's the lesser of two evils.
Conservatism is about empowering people to do the work, not the government!
We've got to win this thing out right and swing this nation back to it's core principles.
I tend to be very suspicious of politicians selling "core principles" because so few of them practice what they preach. Huckabee's religious comments about the Constitution (RE: the Christian Nation meme) is but one example wherein a Populist/Republican notion of "core principles" can sometimes lead to very disturbing policies that would be opposed by the likes of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
I track the Saudi-backed expansion of extremist Wahhabi Islam
http://wahaudi.blogspot.com
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
You make some excellent points.
I would add that many of the CSM (Rush, Malkin and others) define "Conservative" as a "black and white" issue.
They seem to think one is either a conservative or is not a conservative, leaving no room for gradations.
As I've said before at RedState, I think Fred is the "purest" conservative, but all of the presidential candidates are generally conservative...some more than others.
For example, to say Huck is not a conservative is quite disingenuous. He certainly IS conservative on many, if not most, of the three-legged stool issues. He is just not AS conservative as Fred. Overall, though, Huck is just as conservative as any of the other presidential candidates.
I'd rather have an ACU 83% conservative who can win than an 86% conservative who can't win in November.
Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth
and his comments in this campaign (until about a month ago) are not indicative of conservative thought on foreign policy.
Why can't Huckabee supporters admit the following:
Huckabee is a social conservative
Huckabee is a great communicator and a very skilled politician--the best this election cycle
Huckabee does want to be liked (opposite of a McCain who prides himself on making conservatives angry)
Huckabee does not have a deeply held framework of beliefs when it comes to economics, immigration, or foreign policy. His comments are all over the map on these topics.
"a deeply held framework of beliefs when it comes to..."
It's a complete absence of beliefs in those areas which require him to lift policy positions from others (FairTax & CIR), to flount them and then prove he knows zip about the subject.
The guy is simply a fool.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I thought you gave up something serious, like beer.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
pharmaceutical products - 32 years ago. Kept waking up in states I didn't start out in.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Kept falling asleep on trains, eh? So that's how you got to Phoenix.
Bitter cold up here tonight.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
I don't think you can entirely equate a governor's economic record with his federalist/conservative philosophy.
Governors
1) can't print money
2) can't obtain debt
3) are required to balance budgets (atleast in Ark.)
4) can't rely on the cut taxes approach to economic stimulation which the federal government can
5) are bound by many federal mandates impacting their states' budgets
The record in Arkansas showed that when Huck cut taxes, state revenues went down; when taxes were raised, state revenues went up. This is generally the opposite effect seen at the federal level.
90% of Huck's state budget were mandates; there was very little room for cuts on the expense side. His most significant tax increases occurred the two years following the most drastic tax cut the state had ever seen.
So, given all of this, I'm a bit more flexible in how I evaluate an "economic conservative" governor versus when I evaluate one in Congress or as POTUS.
Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth
can't obtain debt
That's what the voters voted for, remember. A half a billion dollars in bonds to fix the roads. You know, the vote that Huckabee likes to lie about and call a referendum on the gas tax.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
maybe I was wrong. Maybe its perfectly legitimate to prefer a clean government to a free one.
Compromising principles is like cheating.
You start out with a little flirting, then an "innocent" kiss and then you end up in bed. You can't toy with it.
that the complaints about all the candidates are where they stray from the Conservative fold. That's kind of a trademark of the Republican Party, you know, conservatism.
Sean and Rush bang on McCain because they don't think he is Conservative. Conservative on some issues, but inconsistently conservative, and downright liberal in some areas.
We really don't mind that McCain is willing to talk to Democrats. Or even when he co-sponsors legislation with Democrats. We question why he compromises with the most liberal Democrats like Feingold and Kennedy, and saves his harshest attacks for conservatives, like Cornyn. We question his commitment to a solidly conservative judiciary when he is the founder of the Gang of 14. Global warming, amnesty and taxes have already been mentioned. The list of complaints grows when McCain's name gets mentioned.
Your attack on conservative talk radio hosts is ludicrous. Sean and Rush have a following of conservatives because they are conservatives. Their concerns about McCain may indicate problems with McCain's conservatism.
without setting a dangerous precedent (the nuke option)that the democrats would feel most obliged to borrow now that they are in power. The Gang of 14 accomplished its goals with minimal interference to the status quo. How conservative!
A scientific judgement about global warming has nothing to do with conservatism. How we respond to the hysteria does.
McCain is pro-life, pro-military, pro-fiscal responsibility, pro-environment (think TR)
And yet he's the very antithesis of a conservative. C'mon. We can criticize Rush and Sean, can't we? They are mortals like the rest of us.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
McCain is about as far from a conservative as you can get.
Please name one piece of "conservative" legislation he's gotten any of his Democrat friends to cosponsor. Just one.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
McCain and Joe Lieberman were co-sponsors of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act and the resolution authorizing the use of force against Milosevic in Kosovo.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Yeah, I'm so glad the dems won't use the nuke option, it's a good thing we've got the judicial filibuster because we've used it so many times in the past. Oh, wait...
The Gang of 14 gave the Democrats a veto over judges. The nuclear option would have removed the Democrat veto over judicial nominees.
Guess where McCain came down on that one?
McCain supported letting Democrats retain their minority veto over Bush's judicial nominees and publicly announced that he would vote with the Democrats on that issue it the Republicans forced a vote on the nuke option.
Even Arlen Specter didn't announce his position on the nuke option one way or the other.
It's pretty bad when you are to the Left of Arlen Specter on judicial issues and you are running for the Republican nomination.
TR was into conservation. He was not an environmentalist.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
It's interesting to me that McCain and His People make frequent mention of the "Republicans who are now in prison." Never a passing comment on the "Democrats who are now in prison," or even the "elected officials who are now in prison." Where's the bi-partisanship in that?
It's pretty clear that McCain's loyalties lie with McCain.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
Because, you know, lots of people are calling for some mythical True Conservative that never compromises on anything, and eats hippies and activists for breakfast. Or whatever.
As I said before, I'll pull the lever for whoever the GOP nominates come November. McCain may not be my favorite guy, but I'd really rather have Ron Paul than Hillary, Obama, or the Breck Girl.
When I was reading Bill Whittle's Silent America a couple years back, there was a phrase that stuck in my mind. It wasn't about politics, exactly. Whittle was explaining something his father once told him which, and I'm paraphrasing because I'm too lazy to look it up and it wouldn't pass the RS language filter, went about like so: if it seems like three out of four people around you are miserable jerks, maybe the problem is you.
The major problem I have with John McCain is not his lifetime record, but his more recent trending toward the center, where all the best media coverage seems to be. The point that he's more conservative than anybody the Democrats will offer is beside the point: all the major Republican candidates are more conservative than any likely Democratic nominee. This is a troubling tendency in a President.
The last post, you argued that we should vote for McCain, because he was going to win anyway. That was not persuasive, because his inevitability is not in evidence.
In this post, you argue that we should vote for him, because he's conservative enough, even if he isn't as conservative as some of his current opponents. I don't find this argument any more persuasive, because I could say almost the same thing about any of the major candidates. "Good enough" isn't a goal. "Good enough" gets you in the race, it doesn't make you a winner.
McCain has compromised the Republican Party on numerous occasions for the sake of comity or adulation from the Partisan Press.
A Conservative will not compromise his/her core principles. Period.
Your question is misguided. It should read: "What has happened to Sen. McCain? I thought he was a Conservative."
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
You can put lipstick on a pig and call it a promdate, but it's still just a pig with lipstick. Rush spoke today of the disturbing trend going around in which bloggers are bashing conservative stalwarts like MahaRushie, Sean, Mark Levin, et. al., and demanding that conservatism be redefined in people's eyes to fit the times. Phewey! No thanks! I'll pass on that !@#$ sandwich! I can't be the only one out here that thinks this post stinks a little. Being a little bit liberal is like being a little bit pregnant. Bah humbug.
Tim Schieferecke
You don't think the idea of "Conservatism" changes over time? How many Conservatives today are of the Barry Goldwater mold or would even accept Barry Goldwater as a "true" Conservative?
I track the Saudi-backed expansion of extremist Wahhabi Islam
http://wahaudi.blogspot.com
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
Unlike populist, poll driven, nanny state liberalism, conservatism DOES NOT CHANGE. From the Constitution forward, conservatism has always stood for strict interpretation of the Constitution, rugged individualism, and the freedom that comes from pursuing YOUR OWN HAPPINESS without the intrusive nature of an overbearing government. Along with this stated freedom, conservatives believe it can only be maintained by embracing personal responsibility guided by our Dear Sweet Lord with morality and a sense of civic duty. So in answer to your question, conservatism hasn't changed in all these years. When you have a firm grasp of moral standards and what it means to be free, you will understand that conservatism can't change to fit the times, people have to fall back to it to recover from the various insane liberal policies that just won't go away. Conservatism is easy to define and of a permanent nature. Everything else eventually leads to nanny state socialism or worse.
Tim Schieferecke
Just out of curiousity, are you a descendent of King John Sobieski of Poland? It has been passed down through the generations in my family that we are direct descendents of the King, but I have no idea if it's really true or not. My Mom's maternal grandfather changed the name to Cersovski sometime in the late 1700's or early 1800's, and I was just curious. He was quite a King, and was personally responsible for the fact that all of Europe doesn't pray to the east every day when he stomped the Turks at the gates of Vienna. Please let me know.
America stands for bold colors1
Tim Schieferecke
which is Falkowski. I chose this pseudonym as a way of emphasizing that the war on Islamo-Fascism is quite old---older than this country.
There is an actress who is a direct descendent---but she is "embarassed" to bring him up (she is 100% PC think).
Remember that the Battle of Vienna happened on September 11th . . . 1683.
because you seem to be cut of the same cloth. John Sobieski, scurge of the Turks was a great man!
America stands for bold colors!
Tim Schieferecke
Well, you find in conservatism the same thing you found in liberalism: a split. You had liberals like Hubert Humphrey that were really trying to make the country go with liberalism, and you had others that didn't care what they said or what they appropriated, just so they made a noise that was formerly unacceptable to American thinking. Now, conservatism has its others too. We have conservatives who literally want to do everything in the bag, and that's not possible. We have other conservatives like Ronald Reagan, myself and most conservatives, who want to make progress on the proven values of the past, which to me is a whole essence of conservatism. This doesn't mean we have to bring in abortion or school prayer or every other thing in the book or everything you find under the rocks. Make your progress on the proven values, the Constitution, the free enterprise system, and don't mess around with it.
Barry Goldwater, 1987
I track the Saudi-backed expansion of extremist Wahhabi Islam
http://wahaudi.blogspot.com
There is only conservatism. He spoke the word well in his younger years, but he was only a conservative in a long unbroken chain of conservatives. Conservatism isn't going extinct, but it unfortunately has to fight the moral relativism of liberalism at every turn. This post exemplifies the sad reality that many so called conservatives are coming down with a bad case of relativitus. Liberalism is a confederation of entitlement driven hogwash groups. Conservatism is just tried and true conservatism.
America stands for bold colors!
Tim Schieferecke
Goldwater, Jefferson and I share the same view that "moral relativism" is a right enshrined in the Constitution. The danger comes from people like Huckabee who truly believe that Conservatism means the Federal government confining indvidual Liberty to their notion of "God's standards".
I track the Saudi-backed expansion of extremist Wahhabi Islam
http://wahaudi.blogspot.com
What page of the constitution is Moral Relativism enshrined on? The whole concept of Human, not to mention inalinable rights come from the Christian view of Natural Law, which is certainly not relativistic. It sounds like your more enamored with "Libertine" than "Liberty"
Huckabee. The Constitution is what it is. A man like Huckabee saying he has a direct channel to God and can run roughshod over the Constitution to make it fit his subjectivist interpretations is to me not far removed from the proverbial snake oil salesman. It is a stunning personal indictment of your lack of understanding of conservatism to admit that "moral relativism is a right enshrined in the Constitution." Wow, that's news to me!
America stands for bold colors!
Tim Schieferecke
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...
Because of the First Amendment, I can freely exercise my right to believe and practice any religion (or none) that I so choose - that's moral relativism enshrined in the Constitution.
Some people choose to be a Quakers and are committed pacificists and conscientious objectors. Other people choose to be Amish (Anabaptist Christians) and live apart from modern technology and society. Still others choose to be Christian Scientists (not Scientists who happen to be Christian) and reject most modern medical treatments. While each individual's moral choice may be different from another, all are equally accepted and protected by the Constitution.
I track the Saudi-backed expansion of extremist Wahhabi Islam
http://wahaudi.blogspot.com
How do you make progress on the proven values AND not "mess around with it"? Don't you have to "mess around with" something in order to make progress? I actually agree with him, but that sentence confused me. Can someone clarify that?
I would think Goldwater would say that ending Social Security, for example, would constitute as progress towards proven values that doesn't mess around with the Constitution.
My faith in the future rests squarely on the belief that man, if he doesn't first destroy himself, will find new answers in the universe, new technologies, new disciplines, which will contribute to a vastly different and better world in the twenty-first century. Recalling what has happened in my short lifetime in the fields of communication and transportation and the life sciences, I marvel at the pessimists who tell us that we have reached the end of our productive capacity, who project a future of primarily dividing up what we now have and making do with less. To my mind the single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom.
Barry Goldwater, With No Apologies (1979)
classically liberal documents. Fortunately, conservatism changed well enough to forsake the Divine Right of Kings.
In considering McCain's accomodationist approach, let's consult that conservative (then liberal) thinker and Father of Conservatism Edmond Burke as understood by Russell Kirk:
"Conservatism never is more admirable than when it accepts changes that it disapproves, with good grace, for the sake of a general conciliation; and the impetuous Burke, of all men, did most to establish that principle"
(The Conservative Mind 47)
The point is McCain's conservatism is that of a Senator, someone who sees the wisdom in compromise here and there in order to preserve the general continuity of society at large.
This, too, is conservatism.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
Please get it through your head, "classical liberalism" IS Conservatism. Didn't you pay attention in history class? The libs usurped OUR term in the early 1900's like a leech sucks onto a healthy bloodvein. We don't want the term back now, but it WAS INDEED our term to begin with.
America stands for bold colors!
Tim Schieferecke
has always been understood in relation to its society. Classical liberalism was a product of the Enlightenment, which was a reaction against the conservative forces of King and Church. Modern liberalism (progressivism) is a perversion of this in that it forsakes the individual in the name of making life better for each individual in the group.
The point I was making is that the very essence of conservatism as we understand it today is the product of change (i.e. classical liberalism). McCain is being attacked for reaching out to liberal Senators and co-sponsoring unpopular legislation.
My quote from Kirk helps to explain how McCain's actions do not run counter to the essence of conservatism in the sense that he is trying to smooth out the rifts in society to make for more measured change. This is the essence of conservatism. It is more than digging in one's heals and pitching a fit. That is counter-productive and results in violent and sudden change, which is bad for society (Think FDR and the New Deal).
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
Conservatism as defined in many college textbooks does seem to be all about opposing change. But the modern American conservative movement is not defined by opposing change. If anything, it has evolved into a reform movement in favor of rapid change from the late 1960s era of big government and social liberalism. Modern American conservatism is synonymous with classical liberalism because modern American conservatives have the same beliefs despite the fact that returning to classical liberalism, while conserving the original American ideology, would be a radical change from the status quo.
If you're going to say that conservatives should be all about "slow, gradual change" because of the outdated textbook definition, then liberals should be in favor of individual freedom over statist government control like the original liberals, but of course liberals are defined by their preference for government control over individual freedom. In the modern United States, conservatism means returning to classical liberalism regardless of what liberal or marxist political philosophy professors say in their obligatory class or two on conservatism where they compare Newt Gingrich to Edmund Burke as if it has any relevance.
Great reply! I would only add that any modern "change" done in the conservative movement is "change" back towards originalist constitutional doctrine. Have a great night!
America stands for bold colors!
Tim Schieferecke
Nice little summary that pretty much nails it. One little addition regarding fiscal coservatism - early American liberalism never really contended with marxism and were never wholly attached to free trade like modern conservatives. Tariffs and trade regulation were the norm at that time. The roots of fiscal conservatism I think are a little different.
murkier in that regard. How do marry Americanism satisfactorily with a freeman's natural embrace of unencumbered free trade? I think you are spot on on this. My only possible answer to this quandry is that the freeman demand the type of morality he holds himself to personally with the international trading parties he comes in contact for. For instance, the demand of human rights standards from trading partner nations would help to ease said man's criticle balance between Americanism and free trade pursuit of happiness, but it's definitely not cut and dry.
America stands for bold colors!
Tim Schieferecke
conservatism. Healing "rifts" sounds like knee jerk populism. Also, it is a travesty of logic to lump conservatism in with king and church. Am I to assume that you place conservatism in the same room as theocracy or despotism? That's sure how you come across to me. You can try to redefine conservatism, but rest assured, I have no shortage of greymatter in my head to refute you at every turn if thats where you want to go.
A Knight in the service of good King Rush.
Tim Schieferecke
"McCain is being attacked for reaching out to liberal Senators and co-sponsoring unpopular legislation."
Well, the legislation is unpopular, but McCain isn't being "attacked for reaching out to liberal Senators." He's being criticized for making terrible decisions. If he had convinced them to join with him in passing non-liberal legislation, he would be having no trouble right now. Instead, he threw in with them.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
In a sense - yes. The Amendment process makes the Constitution "living," as in the case of the 14th Amendment. Once adopted, the amendment must be read with equal weight and status as the original document.
Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I track the Saudi-backed expansion of extremist Wahhabi Islam
http://wahaudi.blogspot.com
It's not easy to change our blessed Constitution and it never should be made easier.
Tim Schieferecke
He has been repetitive and annoying this election season: saying things like the GOP is dead if they nominate Huckabee or McCain is silly and wrong. For saner election coverage, I have been tuning into Prager (anti-McCain, but in a polite and thoughtful way) and Medved (pro-McCain.). Unfortunately these guys aren't as national as Rush & Sean but you can find them on the internet: www.krla870.com
Guns don't kill people, abortions kill people.
Aren't as national? Why don't you admit that they aren't even close! If Rush said they are silly or wrong, I'd have to concur 100%. I love it, you don't, but Rush is the uncontested leader of the conservative movement, sorry Sean, nobody else even comes close. Various pundits call it attacking McCain or Huckabee when their various populist positions are challenged, but if shining the light of truth on something is an attack, then I'm all for attacks.
America stands for bold colors!
Tim Schieferecke
Michael Medved has become virtually un-listenable. His show today was a 3-hour advertisement for McCain.
I would like to ask him what the cutoff date is when he can no longer mention or recommend McCain on the radio because of McCain-Feingold restrictions. It would also be interesting to know just why his outright promotion of McCain on nationwide radio doesn't amount to a campaign contribution.
The only thing worse were the previous two weeks, which he mostly spent defending the conservatism of Mike Huckabee against scurrilous attacks from everybody else.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
but "literally" is dxxx close to being the correct word. I've turned the show off more than once.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
Notice that neither of them have been critisizing Rudy nearly as much. The problem is that McCain and Huckabee aren't even close to being conservatives. Huckabee is so far from being conservative it goes without saying.
As far as McCain, he talked about Bush's tax cuts being give aways to the rich. OK that's only one (incredibly important) issue. McCain tried to get instant amnesty for all illegal immigrants with weak, unproven border security. OK that's only two (incredibly important) issues. McCain banned political advertising 60 days before elections by 3rd parties! OK, that's only three issues, including violating the 1st amendment. McCain is a staunch advocate of greater environmental regulations and a firm believer in global warming. Wow, he's already up to four big issues he's wrong on. McCain calls pharmaceutical companies "the bad guys" and supports the trial lawyer and liberal Democratic "patient's bill of rights". That makes five issues. McCain opposes drilling in ANWAR and the Gulf of Mexico. That's the sixth issue McCain is liberal on. McCain wants to close down Guantanamo and went on a blame America first-style crusade to "ban torture" because of the use of waterboarding THREE times on the highest level Al Qaeda leaders such as the man who planned 9/11. That's the seventh important issue. There are more issues that McCain is wrong on, but my hand is getting tired from typing because there are so many reasons not to nominate him!
I think they are easier on Rudy because Rudy (1) acknowledges his deviations from "orthodox" conservatism; (2) does not rub it in our faces on those issues (in contrast to McCain and a lesser extens Huckabee, who seem to take pleasure in poking us in the eye).
In other words, they are easier on Rudy because he is respectful
very well said. McCain also disturbs me as to his emotional stability. He has kook moments from time to time. This is something we can hardly afford in a President.
in all the recommendations for this blog.
The mindset of the writer is clear. "True Conservatives have developed quite a bad reputation....True Conservatives never compromise....A True Conservative can’t win." True Conservatives are "extremists." (I suspect they're also bigots.)
No, we need to nominate John McCain. "The very things McCain does to infuriate (True Conservatives) are the very things that draw moderates, Independents, and right-leaning Democrats to him."
"If John McCain is the Nominee, who is the True Conservative going to vote for? Hillary?"
Maybe nobody. But I think it's a great selling point to tell the True or nearly-True Conservatives that we don't really care about their concerns. They're stuck with the Republican Party. The Whigs aren't coming back, and they'll just have to learn to live with that. We know what's best. They can vote for McCain or vote for HillObamWards.
More to the point, why should we think that those "moderates, Independents, and right-leaning Democrats" will vote for John (semi-Progressive) McCain when they can have the real thing?
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
Well, not really answer it, but I have a suggestive anecdote.
I've probably told this story too many times already, but my coworker is a democrat. She has been volunteering for the Hillary campaign. She think of herself as a dedicated democrat but an American.
She has slowly been changing her mind. It started, at first, as anti-Obama. Foreign policy problems of course. Then there were the debates. She started thinking about the War on Terror.
She's planning to vote for John McCain if he's the nominee.
Why would they vote for John? Because some of them want what you want. To be able sleep at night, secure. They don't trust their leaders to make that happen.
My story is informative but don't think that I presume it is necessarily indicative.
absentee
It's a good story, certainly worth telling (I hadn't read it before, it think). Of course I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole to make my contrasting point. You are much more low-key, and probably more effective.
I would hope your friend could eventually see her way clear to vote for Thompson or Romney or Rudy, too. Who knows about Huckabee's national security creds, but he'd still be better there than any of the Democrats, who engaged in a foot race away from the Middle East in their debate yesterday. We have about ten months to convert her, but not by ragging on each other for imaginary sins, particularly the sin of being "too conservative."
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
Once the light has shined in it's hard to put the boards back up. Now that she has accepted her sense that Clinton and Obama won't protect her or the Nation's interest, I feel confident she can be swayed.
Ironically, most democrats I know vote on social issues. But National Security really is a trump card. Dem strategists know it's their achilles heel with the electorate.
absentee
Nothing, once you understand that what they really care about are ratings, settling grudges and increasing their own power and influence.
They didn't question Rumsfeld's incompetent and liberal handling of the war. They carried water for a Republican Congress that borrowed and spent very liberally. Now they want to decide who is a conservative and who isn't.
Contrary to what you hear on their shows, Regan did not die and leave them in charge. They are not leaders, they are entertainers.
:)
That would be good, and I just bet you really don't listen to him or you wouldn't possibly have that opinion. LOL!
A Knight in the service of good King Rush!
Tim Schieferecke
they would clean my clock. I do listen when I can. Rush took a brake from attacking McCain yesterday and played his "Obama the Magic *****" song again. Like I said, they are entertainers, not leaders.
I'm getting tired of the revisionst history and the Idolitry. Federal spending went up and up during Reagan's term and now we have 8 years of exponential spending and too few vetos too late. I love rush but frankly he's carried the water for 8 years and as fine a man as w is, He has set back the cause of conservtism at least 4 years. God love him for Roberts and (Meyers) I mean Allito but other than that and some measly tax cuts that aren't even permanent he's been a domestic disaster, just like his daddy.
in terms of Reagan--the deficit starting going way down in '86. You can look it up if you want, but the deficit went below $100B.
Jump starting the economy with tax cuts work.
Look at the 20 years preceeding 1981.
Compare with the 26 years since.
Unemployment rates?
Growth?
Inflation?
GDP compared to Europe and Japan?
The Reagan '81 tax cuts were the most significant fiscal policy since the New Deal, and unlike the New Deal, the '81 tax cuts were AWESOME!
I, like many others, will support McCain if he is the republican nominee. I'm not sure that will happen because of his "maverick" tendancies to gain media favor by sticking it to the conservatives. He is more conservative than most, & would be light years better than either Hillary or (Reagan lover?) Obama. His stances on some issues diverge greatly from conservative principles. I believe that the illegal alien issue will be a huge issue for not only the presidential races but also the congressional & senate races. McCain does not have the personal authority on this issue. My household income is somewhere around $65k/year - the tax cuts have helped me in a tangible way; by not voting for them & saying he would STILL not vote for them because these were tax cuts for the rich really bother me. I support Fred because his conservative - libertarian - federalist principles most closely match my own. I am working for & will support Fred as long as he's in the race & hope that's all the way to the WH. If not, & McCain is the nominee, I will support him but hope there is a great conservative swing in the house & senate to offset where his policy stances diverge from my conservatism.
Word leaked out today that the Republicans in Congress will NOT be pushing to keep the Bush tax cuts in place.
It's time for a major House (and Senate) cleaning, starting with every incumbent Republican who has defected to the Dark Side. Replace them before they run again. If they run again, you might as well vote Democratic. Conservatism still exists; it just isn't evident in the Republican Party.
And the Administration apparently wants to pass some kind of warrant-less internet spying program, just before the elections. These people are brain-dead. The Democrats are going to put up an eminently beatable candidate, and our party is just going to say, "Oh, no thanks, you get to win this one, too."
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
"What's wrong with Sean and Rush?"
Nothing.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
I assume he likes making that sausage they have been ladling out for the last 25 years since he has stayed on the job.
I am of the opinion that Legislators make bad leaders. The art of the compromise, and all.
...although I'm not really supporting him in the primaries.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”