Author Topic: Conservatism's 'loyal heir'  (Read 9111 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Conservatism's 'loyal heir'
« on: October 08, 2007, 11:30:09 AM »
Same Old Party

   
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 8, 2007

There have been a number of articles recently that portray President Bush as someone who strayed from the path of true conservatism. Republicans, these articles say, need to return to their roots.

Well, I don?t know what true conservatism is, but while doing research for my forthcoming book I spent a lot of time studying the history of the American political movement that calls itself conservatism ? and Mr. Bush hasn?t strayed from the path at all. On the contrary, he?s the very model of a modern movement conservative.

For example, people claim to be shocked that Mr. Bush cut taxes while waging an expensive war. But Ronald Reagan also cut taxes while embarking on a huge military buildup.

People claim to be shocked by Mr. Bush?s general fiscal irresponsibility. But conservative intellectuals, by their own account, abandoned fiscal responsibility 30 years ago. Here?s how Irving Kristol, then the editor of The Public Interest, explained his embrace of supply-side economics in the 1970s: He had a ?rather cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit and other monetary or fiscal problems? because ?the task, as I saw it, was to create a new majority, which evidently would mean a conservative majority, which came to mean, in turn, a Republican majority ? so political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government.?

People claim to be shocked by the way the Bush administration outsourced key government functions to private contractors yet refused to exert effective oversight over these contractors, a process exemplified by the failed reconstruction of Iraq and the Blackwater affair.

But back in 1993, Jonathan Cohn, writing in The American Prospect, explained that ?under Reagan and Bush, the ranks of public officials necessary to supervise contractors have been so thinned that the putative gains of contracting out have evaporated. Agencies have been left with the worst of both worlds ? demoralized and disorganized public officials and unaccountable private contractors.?

People claim to be shocked by the Bush administration?s general incompetence. But disinterest in good government has long been a principle of modern conservatism. In ?The Conscience of a Conservative,? published in 1960, Barry Goldwater wrote that ?I have little interest in streamlining government or making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size.?

People claim to be shocked that the Bush Justice Department, making a mockery of the Constitution, issued a secret opinion authorizing torture despite instructions by Congress and the courts that the practice should stop. But remember Iran-Contra? The Reagan administration secretly sold weapons to Iran, violating a legal embargo, and used the proceeds to support the Nicaraguan contras, defying an explicit Congressional ban on such support.

Oh, and if you think Iran-Contra was a rogue operation, rather than something done with the full knowledge and approval of people at the top ? who were then protected by a careful cover-up, including convenient presidential pardons ? I?ve got a letter from Niger you might want to buy.

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration?s efforts to disenfranchise minority groups, under the pretense of combating voting fraud. But Reagan opposed the Voting Rights Act, and as late as 1980 he described it as ?humiliating to the South.?

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration?s attempts ? which, for a time, were all too successful ? to intimidate the press. But this administration?s media tactics, and to a large extent the people implementing those tactics, come straight out of the Nixon administration. Dick Cheney wanted to search Seymour Hersh?s apartment, not last week, but in 1975. Roger Ailes, the president of Fox News, was Nixon?s media adviser.

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration?s attempts to equate dissent with treason. But Goldwater ? who, like Reagan, has been reinvented as an icon of conservative purity but was a much less attractive figure in real life ? staunchly supported Joseph McCarthy, and was one of only 22 senators who voted against a motion censuring the demagogue.

Above all, people claim to be shocked by the Bush administration?s authoritarianism, its disdain for the rule of law. But a full half-century has passed since The National Review proclaimed that ?the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail,? and dismissed as irrelevant objections that might be raised after ?consulting a catalogue of the rights of American citizens, born Equal? ? presumably a reference to the document known as the Constitution of the United States.

Now, as they survey the wreckage of their cause, conservatives may ask themselves: ?Well, how did we get here?? They may tell themselves: ?This is not my beautiful Right.? They may ask themselves: ?My God, what have we done??

But their movement is the same as it ever was. And Mr. Bush is movement conservatism?s true, loyal heir.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/opinion/08krugman.html?ex=1349496000&en=ffaa699077e7335a&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservatism's 'loyal heir'
« Reply #1 on: October 08, 2007, 11:34:10 AM »
ROFLMAO
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservatism's 'loyal heir'
« Reply #2 on: October 08, 2007, 11:38:39 AM »
Come on Paul.....don't hold back, tell us how you really feel           :D
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservatism's 'loyal heir'
« Reply #3 on: October 08, 2007, 11:42:31 AM »
Whether it is called "conservatism" or not is really immaterial.

President Bush and his administration has certainly led the right wing in this country, until perhaps 2006. I don't see a lot of inconsistencies with right wing thought.
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservatism's 'loyal heir'
« Reply #4 on: October 08, 2007, 05:49:16 PM »
Except for...ummm....increased Government bureacracy, increased Government spending on social programs, Steel Tarriffs, Bloated Pork Bills, Nation Building (which was supposedly a hallmark of the left), Advocation of amnesty for illegal immigrants, etc., etc., etc. 

Yea, really has been the spearhead of Conservatism      ::)   

Outside of support for Tax relief for EVERYONE who pays taxes and Faith Based initiatives, you'd be hardpressed to find much of any support to Krugman's current illogical rant
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

yellow_crane

  • Guest
Re: Conservatism's 'loyal heir'
« Reply #5 on: October 08, 2007, 09:59:06 PM »



The value of this piece illustrates just what is left of the structure of our nation. 

If the White House is ever to be repainted (restored to the Center), it won't be  by Republicans, including both those who are able to distance themselves from the Bush Neocon Machine and those who are not.

To fill the void by admitting the omitted--the Democratic Party--and thus to compliment these Republican Corporation Warlords with the rest of the very carefully controlled whole-pie entity--the author could have spent some adjectives on describing the Democratic Party:  picture a huge edifice which looks tall and in tact from a distance, and then zoom in:  what you now see is graveyard steel rendered through by rust by planned obsolescence and outsourcing (NAFTA, et al).  It is that broad swath, and getting broader, to which Joe and Jane Public had almost no informed idea that the center would indeed fail to hold; no informed idead due to careful MSM omission, but was later revealed by spoonfuls from the MSM,  gently covered in ribboned sniglets, and was somewhat affectionately, demurely referred to in summation as the "Rust Belt."   It took Michael Moore to shoot the scene with the lens-cap off.  The destruction of the middle class, and thus the Democratic Party, was a watercolored pastiche of sleeping rabbits, according to the media.

The Democratic Party, like its former base, is held together by wire, and only then to shoal up something dead in order to make people think it Still Is.  The leading contenders for the Democratic nomination are Republican Light, none more so than Hillary, but then look at who is giving her the hand-boost over the fence--who says American political parties cannot be bi-partisan?   There is no Norma Rae in Hillary, as there was none in sweet Bill.

What the Joes and Janes from Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, etc. learned is that tragedy and grief in America tends these days to stay local in America, while the rest of the country is kept audience with bouncing balls whose main intent is to entertain, rather than inform.



__________________________________________________

"Today America is no longer the inspirer and leader of the World revolution . . .  by contrast, America is today the leader of the world-wide anti-revolutionary movements in defence of vested interests.  She now stands for what Rome stood for."     --  Arnold Toynebee


_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservatism's 'loyal heir'
« Reply #6 on: October 09, 2007, 09:30:52 AM »
Except for...ummm....increased Government bureacracy, increased Government spending on social programs, Steel Tarriffs, Bloated Pork Bills, Nation Building (which was supposedly a hallmark of the left), Advocation of amnesty for illegal immigrants, etc., etc., etc. 

Yea, really has been the spearhead of Conservatism      ::)   

Outside of support for Tax relief for EVERYONE who pays taxes and Faith Based initiatives, you'd be hardpressed to find much of any support to Krugman's current illogical rant

The right wing doesn't spend money? Bull.

The Fascists were experts at both building up nations and quickly setting up government bureaucracies (before anyone starts, I'm not saying that Bush is a Nazi - don't be daft). And if we look at the structure of how the Iraqi nation building has been handled, we can see that it has been mostly through private contractors, almost exclusively (at first) the purview of American business. Even the war itself has had private mercenary contractors on a scale not seen before.

Increased spending on social programs. True, but primarily on one social program, which went to the wealthiest subgroup in the United States and again was handled through private companies (health insurance companies).

Illegal immigration is not the single purview of any political ideology. In fact, Bush represents a segment of the right that has tried to make labour costs cheaper for quite some time. Texans (and yes there are exceptions), in general, have not viewed Mexican immigrants in the same way as the more radical view of Arizona and California Republicans.

President Bush has come into office in 2000 and 2004 as exactly what he was billed to be - the overwhelming choice amongst the right in America.



I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Conservatism's 'loyal heir'
« Reply #7 on: October 09, 2007, 10:05:19 AM »
Krugmans main problem is he conflates neo-con foreign policy initiatives with paleo conservative fiscal doctrine. That is the equivalent of mixing blue dog dems with code pinkers.

It isn't that simple.

Bush is much more in the mode of Nixon than he is Goldwater or Reagan. He is a middle finder.





Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservatism's 'loyal heir'
« Reply #8 on: October 09, 2007, 10:17:41 AM »
Bush is much more in the mode of Nixon than he is Goldwater or Reagan. He is a middle finder.

=============================================================
Oh come off it. "Middle finder" my left butt.

Juniorbush hasn't found one damned middle except perhaps the NCLB very earlky in his term. He is an extremist, and as incompetent and bumbling as they come.

Goldwater was a true Republican Conservative.

Reagan was an actor who played at appearing to be a conservative while he practiced borrow and squander at home and delude and provoke abroad.
It is to his credit as an actor that so many people co0ntinue to beleive he was in some way a conservative.

Juniorbush is an ignoramous trying his hand at acting the part that Reagan played.

As they say, history repeats itself, first as a tragedy, then as a farce. But in the case of Juniorbush, he is a second repetition of the Reagan farce, now just a bad sitcom.

The Republicans that had roots are all pretty much deceased. If they reappear, prepare for a zombie attack.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Conservatism's 'loyal heir'
« Reply #9 on: October 09, 2007, 10:21:55 AM »
Quote
Juniorbush hasn't found one damned middle except perhaps the NCLB very earlky in his term.

Nonsense. He allowed stem cell research albeit without Federal Funding. Clinton didn't even do that.

Early on he had the steel tariffs. And then there  is  medicaid drug benefit.

In many ways Clinton was more conservative than Bush.

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservatism's 'loyal heir'
« Reply #10 on: October 09, 2007, 10:25:22 AM »
In many ways Clinton was more conservative than Bush.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that. The only thing is that Clinton's foreign policy was far more forward-looking.

Both are definitely on the right.
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservatism's 'loyal heir'
« Reply #11 on: October 10, 2007, 03:18:42 AM »
The right wing doesn't spend money? Bull.

The fiscally Wreckless GOP, that spends like drunken Dems, are NOT the "right wing".  The "Right Wing" are those CONDEMNING the GOP for their irresponsible spending


The Fascists were experts at both building up nations and quickly setting up government bureaucracies (before anyone starts, I'm not saying that Bush is a Nazi - don't be daft). And if we look at the structure of how the Iraqi nation building has been handled, we can see that it has been mostly through private contractors, almost exclusively (at first) the purview of American business.

And........?  Nation Building is the calling card of the liberal agenda, NOT a conservative one


Increased spending on social programs. True, but primarily on one social program, which went to the wealthiest subgroup in the United States and again was handled through private companies (health insurance companies).

Try MOST everything, from education to healthcare to social services, to pretty much everything, has received increases in their budgets


Illegal immigration is not the single purview of any political ideology. In fact, Bush represents a segment of the right that has tried to make labour costs cheaper for quite some time.

You keep trying to keep fitting in corporate interests as analogus to conservative ideology.  Conservatism is a strong advocate of private enterprise and capitalism, the hallmarks of freedom and individualism.  That doesn't equate into the "Right wing" or Krugman's asanine commentary as to what consitututes current conservative ideology.  Big busness does like cheap labor, no one is denying that.  Just because Bush doesn't follow traditional conservative values and goals however, doesn't mean that Conservatism has been given a new definition all this time.  Poll after poll, of not just Conservatives, but Americans, view illegal immigration as a bad thing, and that the Fed needs to do more to clamp down on it, including fencing and enforcement of current immigration laws.  Yes, more polls are showing more support for amnesty for illegal already here, but that doesn't refute the point that Illegal immigration is NOT a supported cause by conservative ideology, yet Bush wants it


President Bush has come into office in 2000 and 2004 as exactly what he was billed to be - the overwhelming choice amongst the right in America.

You're close.....he campaigned on MANY items that were NOT conservative; bigger government, amnesty, more spending on social programs, etc.  But given the choice between him and Gore/Kerry, he was "the overwhelming choice amongst the right in America".  That doesn't even come close in trying to validate how Conservative his policy decisions are.  As Bt (and many others at prior times have demonstrated) Bush is much more a moderate, with an overwehlming desire to run the middle, DESPITE the garbage by Krugman & like minds that he's this supposed Conservative 2nd coming of Reagan



"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservatism's 'loyal heir'
« Reply #12 on: October 10, 2007, 11:26:20 AM »
OK.

We need to work on some definitions or this is going to go nowhere fast.

Conservatism comes from a Latin word meaning "to keep guard." It is the preservation of religious, cultural, and nationally defined beliefs and culture as a way to allow only gradual change and conserve traditional values.

Historically, there is a cultural (including religious) and fiscal element to conservatism that places it well within the right-wing of the political spectrum.

It has nothing to do with nation building, individualism, government spending, or immigration. Now, conservatism may have something to say on those points (based on traditional norms) but it is not defined by those issues.

For example, clearly Mexican immigration is a threat to conservative ideology. Why? Because these immigrants are South American Catholics, which means they tend to not be the theologically conservative type of American Catholics. They have a completely different culture. They speak a different language. They are far from affluent and threaten current class stabilities.

So yes, for conservatives they are certainly a definitive threat to religious, cultural, and nationally defined beliefs and culture.

Yet, that is a single issue. Overall, the question is whether or not President Bush fits the mold of a Conservative?

I think it is difficult to argue that he does not. Perhaps on a few issues, but where does he really defy his role as the conservator of traditional values? I'd have to hear a good argument for that.
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservatism's 'loyal heir'
« Reply #13 on: October 10, 2007, 11:34:25 AM »
Overall, the question is whether or not President Bush fits the mold of a Conservative?

I understood pretty well before the election in 2000 that Bush was not a conservative.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservatism's 'loyal heir'
« Reply #14 on: October 10, 2007, 11:46:37 AM »
Overall, the question is whether or not President Bush fits the mold of a Conservative?

I understood pretty well before the election in 2000 that Bush was not a conservative.

Ditto
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle