George Will: GOP is discrediting true conservatism

[Upchurch]

My appologies if this has been brought up elsewhere. I've got a Yahoo! alert going on for "Intelligent Design Dover" and this morning it brought me, among other things, this:

George Will: GOP is discrediting true conservatism

I liked the commentary for a number of reasons. First, he echos something I've been thinking for a while. Namely, that the GOB is hardly conservative anymore. (Although I think that goes back further than Mr. Will implies.) Second, I love it when I run across a good line:

“It does me no injury,” said Thomas Jefferson, “for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” But it is injurious, and unneighborly, when zealots try to compel public education to infuse theism into scientific education.

Now that's just good writing. On both men's part.

 

[Hutch]

Now that's just good writing. On both men's part.

Concur. Read it in the Huntsville Times this morning. Don't often agree with Will, but he seems to echo the discontent 'mainline' Limited-Government Republicans feel about the more religious part of the party that is more concerned for the soul of America than the economic well-being. I quote his last paragraph (at least in my paper):

......limited government conservatives will dissassociate from a Republican party more congenial to overreaching social conservatives. Then those Republican congressional caucuses will be smaller, and Republican control of the executive branch will be rarer.

Be interesting to see if there is any counterpoint from more 'social conservative' Republicans, either in print (Cal Thomas comes to mind) or in media (Fox News, Rush, Hannity). One bet is that they won't write half as well as Will.

One last quote:

....as the Kansas Board of Education, which is controlled by the kind of conservatives who make conservatism repulsive to temperate people, voted 6-4 to redefine science.

Bingo.

 

[headscratcher4]

Why do I feel that Will is reaping the rewards of a revolution he helped to sow?

He, in other articles, has pointed out that Republicans and Conservatism appeals because unlike its opponents it speaks to communities of faith who have felt abandoned. Now, those communities of faith are becoming Taliban like in their zelotry and Will, elequently, would distance himself from that portion of the movement. Typical.

 

[Hutch]

Why do I feel that Will is reaping the rewards of a revolution he helped to sow?

Most revolutionaries, temperate or not, are usually destroyed by their creations. (trying a Tony 1-liner for practice)

 

[BPSCG]

The Republican party has fault lines. Social conservatives (no abortion, no gay marriage), economic conservatives (lower taxes, budget balancing), "neocons" (we should promote democracy throughout the world), and traditional small-government conservatives.

The Democratic party has fault lines. Union workers, social liberals, welfare-rights groups, anti-corporation Democrats, bigger-is-better govenment Democrats, and so forth.

Does this mean either or both of the parties is going to disintegrate any time soon? No. Does it mean that there may be a fight for ascendency within each party? Always.

This is a Good Thing. The struggle of ideas in the public marketplace is always a Good Thing.

 

[Magyar]

"if limited-government conservatives become convinced that social conservatives are unwilling to concentrate their character-building and soul-saving energies on the private institutions that mediate between individuals and government, and instead try to conscript government into sectarian crusades"



I found this bit perplexing. Are "limited-govt" conservative that slow or is this just BS? I mean exactly HOW MANY decades will it take these limited-govt. conservatives to realize that the social conservatives are PURE ideologues and will sacrifice anyone and anything - including this country, it's freedoms, laws and foundations - to achieve what they want? Are they in the minority? If so where did they go? They certainly didn't become dems. If they are not the minority and remain silent - which is the bull flop we keep hearing - what will it take for them to wake up and save their party and possibly this nation?

And if they are silent and continue to remain so, I think they are far worse than any dem, because right or wrong at least the dems say/fight for what they believe. Even if they are doing it poorly and inconsistantly at least they
are true to their cause, while these "conservatives" remain silent cowards in the corner letting their party betray everything they beleive in.

Of course my personal opinion is that the "fiscal conservatives" are quit happy with what's going on because all the zelots in their party draw far more attention. Remember the $9 Billion and then some just missing from Iraq? It didn't go to the ACLU or any other Liberal cause. It ended up in the bank accounts of those same fiscal conservatives who, according to this article, lament the state of their party, while they are profiteering from the war and gas prices and slave labor from China. As long as their bottom lines increase they could give a sh8 about the fiscal issues of this country.

 

[Upchurch]

The Republican party has fault lines. Social conservatives (no abortion, no gay marriage), economic conservatives (lower taxes, budget balancing), "neocons" (we should promote democracy throughout the world), and traditional small-government conservatives.

While I would agree that promoting democracy throughout the world is a good thing, I would say the "neocons" are way beyond merely promoting it, but that's another debate.

Based on the above criteria, I'm socially liberal-ish and economically conservative-ish. I don't like abortion, but I don't want it criminalized, and I'm a big proponent of gay marriage. I recognize the need for taxes and would prefer to pay less of them, but a balanced budget is far more important to me and I don't mind paying more taxes if it means not being in debt to China or whomever it is we're borrowing from.

The Democratic party has fault lines. Union workers, social liberals, welfare-rights groups, anti-corporation Democrats, bigger-is-better govenment Democrats, and so forth.

I consider unions and welfare to be like drugs. They are incredibly useful and helpful when you are sick and actually need them. They are addictive and harmful when you don't. While in the past, they were useful and helpful, at this point in our history, I think unions and welfare are at the addictive and harmful stage. I think corporations are probably very similar, except that right now they're more mixed in the helpful/harmful spectrum.

I would argue that the Democrats are not the only ones who are bigger-is-better government advocates. Republicans are, too. They just focus their attention on a bigger and bigger military.

So, ultimately, which of these cubby hole parties do I fit in? I have no frellin' idea.

 

[drkitten]

So, ultimately, which of these cubby hole parties do I fit in? I have no frellin' idea.

Well, which way did you vote two weeks ago (or last year, for that matter)?

It's easy enough to say that you don't fit into the two-party system -- and most people, in fact, say that -- but the way the US electoral system is set up, you either forcibly fit yourself into a cubbyhole, or else you exclude yourself from political discourse altogether.

It really is as simple as that, I'm afraid. Just as a for-instance (although this would apply to any political subgroup), the small-government conservatives have, for the most part, chosen to ally themselves politically with the neocons and the social conservatives, thereby making their bed in which they can lie. As a group, they've decided either that having theocratic wingnuts in power is better than having trade unionists.... or else they've decided that they are more likely to be able to achieve some of their aims in collaboration with the theocrats.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

So, ultimately, which of these cubby hole parties do I fit in? I have no frellin' idea.

This is the problem with a system composed of only two parties. I'm in the same boat as you. Both parties champion some ideas that I find attractive and both parties champion some ideas that I find completely repugnant. My solution, not join any party at all. I will not be part of a group that promotes ideas I hate, even if it means promoting other ideas I like.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

but the way the US electoral system is set up, you either forcibly fit yourself into a cubbyhole, or else you exclude yourself from political discourse altogether.

I don't agree. It is the right-ish leaning Democrats, left-ish leaning Republicans and independants that BOTH parties court.

 

[drkitten]

I don't agree. It is the right-ish leaning Democrats, left-ish leaning Republicans and independants that BOTH parties court.

Yes, they court these voters to pigeonhole themselves into either the Democrats or the Republicans.

 

[Snide]

While I would agree that promoting democracy throughout the world is a good thing, I would say the "neocons" are way beyond merely promoting it, but that's another debate.

Based on the above criteria, I'm socially liberal-ish and economically conservative-ish. I don't like abortion, but I don't want it criminalized, and I'm a big proponent of gay marriage. I recognize the need for taxes and would prefer to pay less of them, but a balanced budget is far more important to me and I don't mind paying more taxes if it means not being in debt to China or whomever it is we're borrowing from.

I consider unions and welfare to be like drugs. They are incredibly useful and helpful when you are sick and actually need them. They are addictive and harmful when you don't. While in the past, they were useful and helpful, at this point in our history, I think unions and welfare are at the addictive and harmful stage. I think corporations are probably very similar, except that right now they're more mixed in the helpful/harmful spectrum.

I would argue that the Democrats are not the only ones who are bigger-is-better government advocates. Republicans are, too. They just focus their attention on a bigger and bigger military.

So, ultimately, which of these cubby hole parties do I fit in? I have no frellin' idea.

Since you've just described me exactly in Paragraph 2, and fairly well in Paragraph 3, let me try some mind reading:

Today, you vote pretty strongly Democratic, not because they're "your" party, but because 1) The Republicans have too much control right now; 2) You'd rather err on the side of too much compassion for the poor, sick, etc., even if it means some abuses of, and inefficiencies within the system, as well as higher taxes; 3) Both parties are loaded with lying weasles, but you find the Dems, right now, to be less repulsive and disingenuous; 4) Similar to #3, you find the people to whom the Dems cater, be they pundits or special interest groups, to be less disgusting than the Repubs'.

You are still perfectly willing to vote for any particular Republican, even more Repubs than Dems, in any given election, if the right (note the small "l") candidates are presented to you.

How did I do?

 

[Luke T.]

"if limited-government conservatives become convinced that social conservatives are unwilling to concentrate their character-building and soul-saving energies on the private institutions that mediate between individuals and government, and instead try to conscript government into sectarian crusades"



I found this bit perplexing. Are "limited-govt" conservative that slow or is this just BS? I mean exactly HOW MANY decades will it take these limited-govt. conservatives to realize that the social conservatives are PURE ideologues and will sacrifice anyone and anything - including this country, it's freedoms, laws and foundations - to achieve what they want? Are they in the minority? If so where did they go? They certainly didn't become dems. If they are not the minority and remain silent - which is the bull flop we keep hearing - what will it take for them to wake up and save their party and possibly this nation?

And if they are silent and continue to remain so, I think they are far worse than any dem, because right or wrong at least the dems say/fight for what they believe. Even if they are doing it poorly and inconsistantly at least they
are true to their cause, while these "conservatives" remain silent cowards in the corner letting their party betray everything they beleive in.

I would not say they have been silent. The press makes references to "moderate Republicans in Congress oppose" such and such, but never say who they are. But I think they are making headway, particularly with the Patriot Act, which is one of my own personal peeves. But they are a minority.

And I don't know where you would put John McCain, but he is pretty outspoken about a few of his pet topics, and it usually causes an embarassing pregnant pause in the right wing when he does speak out.

And I'm here. Not too quiet.

The funny thing is that I have been accused of being a Bushie, a neo-con, an extremist, a nutjob, and so forth. It's hard to be a conservative conservative these days without automatically getting associated with the real nutjobs and having your position pre-assumed. I'm sure Mark is probably rolling his eyes right now and saying, "Tell me about it" in regards to being a "liberal".

Where have we been, you ask? Well, certainly not in the voting booth voting for Kerry. No, thanks. What choice did we have but to vote for Bush, really?

Every once in a while, some lessons have to be re-learned. Right now, some religious people are re-learning that mixing religion and politics does more damage to their religion than good.

I've always liked George Will, and that's a darn good article. Thanks, Upchurch.

 

[Upchurch]

Well, which way did you vote two weeks ago (or last year, for that matter)?

I'm embarrassed to say that I missed the election a couple of weeks ago. It was one of those "find your election notification card the day after" affairs. I blame my job with the hellish project I was working on at the time for my mistake (but it was probably just my horrible memory).

Two years ago, I voted for Kerry. Not because I was particularly enamored with the man, but because I was very unhappy with Bush. If Bush embodies the neocon ideal of "promoting" democracy, then I am adamantly anti-neocon. There is something tragically ironic about using military force to establish a democracy in someone else's country.

Sorry. Old rant.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

It's refreshing to see that George Will has finally "gotten a clue". Like some earlier poster stated, he is partly responsible for this frankenstein of an administration.

Earlier this week I was listening to a book on CD (actually on an iPod) of Richard P. Feyhman speeches and essays. The one that sticks in my mind is the speech he gave to the Galileo Society (in Italy IIRC). He talked about the need to seperate science from politics and religeon. What I found amazing is that this speech was given in 1964 and is still relevent today. It seems we are moving towards the Dark Ages, rather than away from them.

Charlie (Bush leadership: an oxymoron) Monoxide

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Yes, they court these voters to pigeonhole themselves into either the Democrats or the Republicans.

Yeah, and it's unfortunate that we have to make such a choice. But it is those swing voters whose "Pigeon holing" is temporary. I.e. I voted for Kerry in the last presidential Election, but would be perfectly happy (so far, anyway) to vote for McCain in the next. The Dems may have gotten my vote last time, but they have to work if they want it again next time. Meanwhile the Republicans are trying to win people like me over to their side. Both sides know that party loyalists are pretty much in the bag and thus do not work so hard to get their votes. This is a far cry from being 'removed from all political discourse'.

 

[Upchurch]

You are still perfectly willing to vote for any particular Republican, even more Repubs than Dems, in any given election, if the right (note the small "l") candidates are presented to you.

How did I do?

Not bad. Traditionally, I prefer a Dem president and a Rep congress. I want a liberal leader representing us to the world and a conservative writing the laws and holding the purse strings. That, however, assumes traditional Democratic and Republican parties. And traditional definitions of liberal and conservative, for that matter.

 

[Luke T.]

Earlier this week I was listening to a book on CD (actually on an iPod) of Richard P. Feyhman speeches and essays. The one that sticks in my mind is the speech he gave to the Galileo Society (in Italy IIRC). He talked about the need to seperate science from politics and religeon. What I found amazing is that this speech was given in 1964 and is still relevent today. It seems we are moving towards the Dark Ages, rather than away from them.

This is kind of a funny coincidence. I just posted this in another topic in the Paranormal section:

Do Not Debase Science: Don't Call On It To Settle Your Ancient, Provincial, Medieval Disputes

 

[ranson]

Sigh . . . I can say I'm right in line with you, Upchurch. If I didn't want to vote in primaries, I'd register independent.

 

[Upchurch]

Sigh . . . I can say I'm right in line with you, Upchurch. If I didn't want to vote in primaries, I'd register independent.

Thanks and I'm sorry.

The nice thing about Missouri is they let you choose which primary ballot you want when you walk into the room. I get to look at both sides and decide which party I want to voice my opinion on.

This is all assuming I remember to go.