[Note: This is part four of a four posts series on revitalizing the conservative movement. The first entry can be found here.]
Treat for Shock
When a person is injured or under great stress, the cardiovascular system may not be able to circulate enough blood to maintain normal bodily functions. This condition is called shock. The fact that many conservatives are in shock is evident by their willingness to cede the election to Clinton or Obama. For them to be able to make such comments is evidence that an adequate supply of blood is not getting to their brains.
The treatment for this condition is to have them lie on the floor with their feet elevated until the blood flows back to their head. Once the circulation returns, have them sit by an open window so that the breeze can blow in allowing them to catch the pungent whiff of what is commonly called "reality."
The reason many conservative have become susceptible to shock is because they are infected by a strain of political purism. At best conservatism is a philosophy of governance that mixes pure practical wisdom with the dross of political folly. But some have come to expect a pure, unadulterated ideology--and reject anything that falls short of the ideal. They have succumbed to a pseudo-nostalgia for a brand of pure conservatism that never actually existed. A prime example is the hagiographic reflections of Reaganism as a conservative ideal. Instead of remembering a a savvy leader made necessary concessions and compromises, they long for the messianic return of the conservative king who will lead us back to Eden (or, at least, the 1980s).
Perhaps we have caught this peculiar disease from our political cousins, the Libertarians--a group for whom political purism has become a genetic malady. If so, then we conservatives may find the answer in applying the same curative approach used by the neo-libertarians.
In a brief but enlightening description, Jon Henke explains neolibertarianism and how it corrects for the excesses of libertarianism:
The libertarian ideal of a truly limited government is an utopian dream. In the real world, where powerful interests-individual and collective-compete for the reins of power, there will be violations of the ideals libertarians hold. After all-as a result of their disavowal of power-libertarians are uniquely unqualified to defend their ideals against political opposition.
In his book "The Autobiography of an Idea: Neo-Conservatism Selected Essays 1949-1995", Irving Kristol wrote…
"In our urbanized, industrialized, highly mobile society, people need governmental action of some kind if they are to cope with many of their problems: old age, illness, unemployment, etc. They need such assistance; they demand it; they will get it.
The only interesting political question is: How will they get it?"
Indeed, all the "standing athwart history, yelling 'stop!'" we can muster will not be enough to assuage the natural human desire to "vote themselves largess out of the public treasury", or otherwise seek their own interests.
So, doctrinaire Libertarians are fighting an uphill battle against human nature. And they do so, precisely because they refuse to accept human nature as a part of their political calculation. Economics is the study of how humans allocate scarce resources. Politics is merely a social corollary to economics-the study of the allocation of values….Pragmatic libertarians—Neolibertarians—cannot win, but we can ameliorate the loss.
This seems like a sober and sensible approach to take. While I'm less sanguine about conservatism chances than Jon is about neolibertarianism, I do think we have to brace ourselves for the inevitable setbacks. Even in the GOP were to win control of both the Congress and the Presidency, the conservative movement is likely to undergo more losses than victories over the next four years.
Nevertheless, we can ameliorate the loss. To paraphrase Henke, "Indeed, Leviathan is with us, for better or worse. [Conservatives] should try to make it better, rather than worse." This we can do whether the President is McCain, Clinton, or Obama.
So after the blood returns we must once again take to our feet, stand athwart history, and yell, "Whoa, dude, slow down!"
This we can do whether the President is McCain, Clinton, or Obama.
Sounds like you're accepting the apprent inevitable.
Collin
Mr. Carter, another fantastic post. You are truly an excellent writer.
I do have one question, though. Unless I have misunderstood--which is entirely possible--you begin your post with a gentle reprimand to conservative purists. But then at the end, you say that "'[conservatives] should try to make it better, rather than worse.' This we can do whether the President is McCain, Clinton, or Obama." I totally agree with this statement...which is why I believe it's acceptable to remain an ideological purist. If a certain candidate does not share core beliefs that I hold dear, I will not vote for him/her. And since I believe we can still make it better regardless of who is president, I believe that I don't have to compromise with my vote. If the candidate of my choice loses, he loses. We can still make a difference regardless of who is president.
Am I way off here?
Let us not sacrifice the good for the perfect?
It would be good for conservatives to undergo a similar process of evaluating how their social ideals conflict with reality. Not to beat a dead horse, but the conservative stance on drugs is based almost purely on idealism. In fact, I have yet to see a conservative honestly look at the costs of the War on Drugs, such as the impact that militarized police forces have on the relationship between the government and community and weigh them against the cost of legalizing drugs under a similar plan to how alcohol is legal, but heavily regulated in its consumption.
My own views are more "neolibertarian" in that respect. I recognize that there are problems with libertarianism in its purest forms, and just tend to reject the platform in those problem areas. Conservatives, however, seem to be as incapable as "liberals" at reflecting on the success or failure of their ideas, and admitting that when they fail, they need to reject the areas that fail.
If conservatives are going to win, what really needs to happen is conservatives need to go back not to Kurk and Burke, but Locke, Madison, Jefferson, Montesquieu, and other classical liberal philosophers. They need to reject the neo-conservative Trotskyites, and go back to the core principles that guided the founding of this country.
MikeT:
Two things.
Are you a conservative or do you just care about us?
Second, there has been a discussion for many years by none other than William F. Buckley (and probably many others) about the war on drugs. I believe he is in favor of legalizing marijuana. So the notion that conservatives can't learn from mistakes is not true--certainly not to the degree that liberals can't. Personally, I tend to agree that the war on drugs is a two-edged sword. But, how much do we actually spend on it? And, second, what would the costs be to our society if we didn't do it. I think The Netherlands and Switzerland have not benefited much from legalization, have they?
So after the blood returns we must once again take to our feet, stand athwart history, and yell, "Whoa, dude, slow down!"
Updating the hackneed slogan won't help rescussitate a system that's as bloated and decrepit as the Soviet politburo was back in the early 80s.
Really, all you guys need is a Gorbachev to help turn the lights off in an orderly manner.
Can't wait to see who's your Yeltsin, though.
Mumon,
You forget that above all, we are evil through and through. Because of that we can do things you can't even imagine to take and hold power. Your analogy to Soviet communism is right on, after all Vladimir Putin is no democrat. What can you do stop it? We can build a hundred Gtimos to hold you and your ilk.
jd,
Most estimates range around $40B/year of law enforcement money is spent per year enforcing the War on Drugs. However, it is often profitable for the government to do this. Back when my dad was a senior federal agent managing one of Customs' larger offices in the mid-90s, he told me that on average, Customs brought in about $18 for every $1 that came out of the treasury to fund the agency. Even if only 1/3 of that is drug seizures, you can imagine how many government agencies would be tempted to "spend money, to make money."
The cost of the War on Drugs is not primarily financial, it's social. There are at a minimum three major things that have come out of it that should be appallingly unacceptable to conservatives, as they are to libertarians:
1) The militarization of local police forces. Most local police forces more closely resemble the National Guard in terms of armaments and tactics at their disposal today, than they do the police forces traditionally used in our country. This has created a more violent and confrontational set of policies on how they arrest many types of offenders. It is not uncommon to use a military-style raid of a citizen's home over something as simple as drug possession. In fact, SWAT teams are frequently used to enforce the law across the board today in the jurisdictions that have them (which are more than you probably realize).
2) The asset forfeiture laws that allow law enforcement to seize your property without proving that you have broken the law. Here's one of many examples of what I mean if you aren't familiar with it.
3) It has created an underground economy where poor people can make a lot of money without getting an education or contributing to the regular economy. Conservatives say that ending or scaling back welfare is the key, but that's only half of it. You have to take away the ability of many poor people to make a living selling drugs in order to really force them to get an education and an honest job.
The problem as I see it is that a few people who are in the intellectual side of things have realized that drug prohibition is starting to show obvious signs of not working, but the average conservative would just say "damn the consequences, it's the right thing to do!" What's ironic is that the single biggest source of increase in state police powers across the board in America has come from the War on Drugs, and conservatives are now starting to slowly see that coming home to roost. I just saw not that long ago a case of a homeschooling family that got hit by a SWAT unit because the father, a former Navy Corpsman, diagnosed his son's injury, and refused to let the paramedics take him to the hospital.
I actually agree with the average conservative that drug use is dangerous for society, but the average conservative won't even look libertarians in the eye on the consequences of the War on Drugs. The moment that we admit that it isn't a good thing, that's an "aha! moment" where all debate is ended, and they don't want to hear of any toxic effects such as having police forces that are as heavily armed as third world armies.
Personally, my favorite gripe that conservatives tend to have with any form of libertarianism is that it does not take human nature into account. That's ironic in light of the tendency that conservatives have today to trust the government with discressionary powers. One would think that those who claim to be cynics about human nature (which the Bible teaches us to be), would not be in favor of giving corrupted, fallen men powers over others that aren't clearly defined by law.
Fine note.
Key is how to change the gov't service provisions so that folks get the stuff they "need" / want a lot, without using gov't to take Other People's Money.
OPM is the opiate of the voters in a democracy.
As a policy wonk, I suggest a Tax Loan program, where gov't replaces current entitlement programs with Tax Loans. Whereby the individual recipient makes a new, explicit social contract to get some cash, and agrees to pay it back thru taxes plus a graduated loan repayment plan.
Whether it's this or some other idea, the Reps need to go back and discuss ideas for improvement more than handicapping the current horses in the race.
Still, VA went to Huck ...
McCain - Huckabee 2008
Wait, VA to McCain...
OK, I didn't wait, and should have.
Joe, I think there is an even more fundamental question that needs answering. Is Conservatism worth saving? Obviously, you think it is or you wouldn't be writing a multi-part series. I am still disillusioned over the way Gov. Huckabee was treated by the conservative and Republican elites this primary cycle. The fact that all the biggest names in talk radio were Pro-Romney and Anti-Huckabee, and that so many columnists and commentators from the right through every thing but the kitchen sink at Huckabee, including Krautheimer, Will, Noonan, Novak, etc. The elitism was breath taking. And the eastern elitist do not really care about the social issues at all and apparently have a disdain for Southerners. National Review said nice things about every other Republican candidate including Mayor Guiliani in their endorsement of Gov. Romney save one - Mike Huckbee. The elites are all too willing to compromise or more commonly surrender on many of the issues we social conservatives care about. The fact that Gov. Huckabee has maintained a positive campaign with no signs of bitterness that I have seen is testament to the man's character.
In the last post I left only one comment...mostly because these multi-post threads tend to get lost with discussions going on scattered over the different threads....here is what I wrote:
The problem with subsidiarity is that you don't really believe in it.
The problem with conservatives is that they really don't believe in conservatism. Conservatism means that one is skeptical about one's own knowledge. The reason you stand in front of history yelling 'stop' is because you don't know, not because you do. That being the case, you worry more about breaking things than making them better.
A good analogy might be to imagine a medicine cabinat where all the labels have fallen off the pill bottles. You wouldn't take anything because you wouldn't want to accidently kill yourself. Maybe if your life was in immediate danger if you didn't get your medication you'd try taking one pill carefully...after intensively trying to identify it by looking at pill pics on the internet...but you'd be as careful as possible and the last thing you'd do is down a bunch of them.
That was conservatism but that is long gone. Now the GOP has become the party of daydreamers who think their wishes and fantasies are the same thing as reality. And I include not only the usual GOPers but also those who supposedly are 'insurgents' like Huckabee.
If conservatives want to 'stop the bleeding' they should stop doing harm which means get out of politics for a while. Kill off this generation of establishment types by letting go of this election and let a new crop of intellectuals return to the wilderness to reflect carefully on reality, not their fantasies. Even Jesus had to spend 40 days and nights in the wilderness to see things clearly. 4-8 years seems like a pretty modest requirement in comparison.
It isn't term limits that are needed. Term limits are an artifical constraint and actually quite anti-conservative. They kill the good with the bad and there's no evidence that artifically manufactured turnover will fix anything. What's needed is for the GOP to lose this election and lose it bad, really bad.
Boonton :
So right. You can't say you're "pro-life" and equate zygotes with human beings; because of the rank indifference that stances gives to born human beings.
You can't say you want a "fair tax" that is monstrously regressive, and falls on those least able to pay it, and you can't then have the next words out of your mouth be that you're some kind of moralist.
oclarki :
You forget that above all, we are evil through and through.
Don't think you're not...
What can you do stop it? We can build a hundred Gtimos to hold you and your ilk.
Who's that "we?" You and the other guy who still posts at the Free Republic? David Duke? Your local chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens? (That group will have created delicious scandal-fodder should Rhymes-with-Suck-a-Pea wind up being McCain's running mate in November.)
Seriously, have you even seen the people coming out to vote for Obama?
It's shocking even me.
Mumon,
Zoom! Right over your head.
Mumon,
I'm not talking so much about pro-life v pro-choice. That's an old disagreement and it isn't the source of the GOP's problems.
But to use it as an example, you can be an idiot arguing for either position or a genius. In general it is better to not be an idiot. If either side sees its champions dominated more by idiots then its time to change something.
oclarki :
That's probably what should be called a double or triple irony.
I knew what your intended meaning was, but you failed to see that you were being unintentionally ironic.
That's OK. The Bolsheviks and Nazis had the same difficulty.
;-)
Boonton:
Interesting theory. I'd say "ideologues," or The Possessed
(http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/d/dostoyevsky/d72p/) instead of The Idiot.
;-)
The problem with conservatives is that they really don't believe in conservatism. Conservatism means that one is skeptical about one's own knowledge. The reason you stand in front of history yelling 'stop' is because you don't know, not because you do. That being the case, you worry more about breaking things than making them better.
The problem with this statement is that it completely ignores the context of the statement "Standing athwart history, yelling Stop!". From the Publisher's statement of National Review:
"Let's face it: Unlike Vienna, it seems altogether possible that did NATIONAL REVIEW not exist, no one would have invented it. The launching of a conservative weekly journal of opinion in a country widely assumed to be a bastion of conservatism at first glance looks like a work of supererogation, rather like publishing a royalist weekly within the walls of Buckingham Palace. It is not that, of course; if NATIONAL REVIEW is superfluous, it is so for very different reasons: It stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it."
"NATIONAL REVIEW is out of place, in the sense that the United Nations and the League of Women Voters and the New York Times and Henry Steele Commager are in place. It is out of place because, in its maturity, literate America rejected conservatism in favor of radical social experimentation. Instead of covetously consolidating its premises, the United States seems tormented by its tradition of fixed postulates having to do with the meaning of existence, with the relationship of the state to the individual, of the individual to his neighbor, so clearly enunciated in the enabling documents of our Republic."
"'I happen to prefer champagne to ditchwater,' said the benign old wrecker of the ordered society, Oliver Wendell Holmes, 'but there is no reason to suppose that the cosmos does.' We have come around to Mr. Holmes' view, so much that we feel gentlemanly doubts when asserting the superiority of capitalism to socialism, of republicanism to centralism, of champagne to ditchwater — of anything to anything. (How curious that one of the doubts one is not permitted is whether, at the margin, Mr. Holmes was a useful citizen!) The inroads that relativism has made on the American soul are not so easily evident. One must recently have lived on or close to a college campus to have a vivid intimation of what has happened. It is there that we see how a number of energetic social innovators, plugging their grand designs, succeeded over the years in capturing the liberal intellectual imagination. And since ideas rule the world, the ideologues, having won over the intellectual class, simply walked in and started to run things.
"We begin publishing, then, with a considerable stock of experience with the irresponsible Right, and a despair of the intransigence of the Liberals, who run this country; and all this in a world dominated by the jubilant single-mindedness of the practicing Communist, with his inside track to History. All this would not appear to augur well for NATIONAL REVIEW. Yet we start with a considerable — and considered — optimism."
In other words, what the founders of modern American conservatism where trying to stop was the progression of Communism. In the 1950's, it was assumed, at least by elite opinion in the West, that assendency of Communism was historically inevitable, and why not? Soviet Russia controlled Eastern Europe and had made substantial inroads into Western Europe. China had fallen to Communism as had North Korea, and we had just barely saved South Korea from falling. Also, let's be honest, Communism's promise of equality held a lot of appeal to a US in the middle of the Civil Rights struggle. Of course, the reality of Communism was significanlty different from the promise of Communism, and this reality was not unknown to people like Buckley and Whittaker Chambers. Really, the founders of Conservatism weren't afraid of change because of a skepticism of their own knowledge, but because they had a very good knowledge of what they were opposing. Your idea that Conservatism skeptical about one's own knowledge is false, what it is skeptical of is the wisdom of these "energetic social innovators" with their "grand designs", who think that they are better able to advance society than millions of ordinary people acting in their own self interest. That really hasn't changed.
If conservatives want to 'stop the bleeding' they should stop doing harm which means get out of politics for a while.
The harm that could be done with 4 to 8 years of these "energetic social innovators" and their "grand designs" could take a generation or more to undo. That's why conservatives can't afford to take an election cycle or two off. Somebody's still got to be "yelling Stop!" to liberal dreams of nationalized health care, restrictions on free speech, restriction on energy use, etc.
Mumon,
Only unintentionally ironic to one who's own views are so at odds with reality he honestly believes there is no difference beween people he disagrees with politically and people who exterminated tens of millions in pursuit of their ideology. It's kinda sad.
Bottom line, too many folks confuse being anti-state with right-wing state.
The rhetoric of anti-statists make many swoon and dream beautiful water-colored memories of the way we were, however when in power they embrace right-wing statist theories of government.
oclarki:
I didn't say there's no difference; that's a typical right-wing mischaracterization. There is a matter of degree, on which of course the Bush regime's been working to narrow the gap.
It's more than sad, it's an obscenity. And thankfully the majority of Americans recognizes this.
ucfengr:
Even back then referring to the NY Times and the League of Women Voters as advocates of "radical social experimentation" was either delusional or deliberately dishonest.
The United States, contrary to right wing and fascist myth, has never had a "tradition of fixed postulates."
Its "fixed postulate" of freedom of religion led to the deaths of Unitarians, Shakers, Mormons and Buddhists.
Its "fixed postulate" of liberty and justice for all led to declaring that slaves were 3/5 of a person of European descent, that women couldn't vote, and of course, the 2000 Florida debacle in which George W. Bush was selected as president.
...the founders of modern American conservatism [were] trying to stop was the progression of Communism...
It might have been better if Buckley had either stayed in the CIA or joined the Army, rather than tell one big whopper after another.
it was assumed, at least by elite opinion in the West, that assendency of Communism was historically inevitable,
Really? Who?
Soviet Russia controlled Eastern Europe and had made substantial inroads into Western Europe.
We're through the looking glass now, folks.
Can you name one country in the West in which the CIA did not intervene in elections prior to 1953?
Also, let's be honest, Communism's promise of equality held a lot of appeal to a US in the middle of the Civil Rights struggle.
'Cause let's face it, folks like Buckley and you just didn't give a #*$& about those brown folk.
...this reality was not unknown to people like Buckley and Whittaker Chambers...
Not to mention Bertrand Russell, who showed that the mindset of Bolshevism was the logical successor to Western Christian thought, down to similar eschatologies.
The harm that could be done with 4 to 8 years of these "energetic social innovators" and their "grand designs" could take a generation or more to undo.
Don't worry, it'll take us a generation or so to get the flotsam off the Supreme Court.
I think Boonton's point is a valid one. It's the flip side of Joe's point.
Joe's point is that we have to many "conservative" thought leaders who are conservative in name only. Their philosophy/ideology isn't actually conservative at all. It's a real problem.
Boonton's point is that too many of those who actually do have a conservative view don't believe it enough to live it out consistently. This is also a real problem.
I believe that Boonton's example was conservatives who claim to want a less-powerful federal government, but who also try to use the power of the federal governnment to make their conservative agenda happen. This is not automatically bad - one can be a true conservative and still believe that there are legitimate uses of the federal government, and use it within those bounds to do what you believe needs done. But it seems to me that we conservatives have been much too eager to use the federal government as a blunt instrument to further our agenda. It is not always wrong, but in many instances it is, and the degree to which we do this is inconsistent with our view of the role of the federal government.
Of course, it's not just the conservatives with this problem. You can find plenty of it to go around. But Boonton is correct, it's a problem for conservatives as well.
Mumon,
Just because one has a PhD, it does not follow that they are knowledgeable of ares outside their specialty. It's the mistake of many to confuse being well educated for wise. You should remind yourself of that constantly.
The United States, contrary to right wing and fascist myth, has never had a "tradition of fixed postulates."
Funny how lefty's always try to tie conservatives and fascists together when the fact is that fascism was an ideology of the "progressive" left, not the right. It was another "grand design" of "energetic social innovators" that didn't pan out too well in practice.
Its "fixed postulate" of liberty and justice for all led I also really like the implication that the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore is to declaring that slaves were 3/5 of a person of European descent, that women couldn't vote, and of course, the 2000 Florida debacle in which George W. Bush was selected as president.
I love how leftists always ignore (or are ignorant of the fact) that the "3/5 rule" was designed to limit the power of slaveholders and slavery, not increase it. Regarding Bush's "selection not election", get over it already. Your guy lost "fair and square".
I could go on, but you're a bit of a delusional lunatic, and I really try to limit my exposure to such folk.
Treat for Shock
Yes Joe, we must save Conservatism from the shock of seeing leftist liberals denigrating America:
http://www.zombietime.com/berkeley_marines_2-12-2008/
Such typical liberal behavior can be explained by reading "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness".
This article can be found at:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LyleHRossiterJrMD/2006/12/04/the_liberal_mind_the_psychological_causes_of_political_madness
ucfengr,
Anyone who asks the question "Can you name one country in the West in which the CIA did not intervene in elections prior to 1953?" in seriousness is beyond help. I'm sure the British will be surprised to hear that the CIA has been rigging their elections. Diabolical. Especially since the CIA is such a tool of conservatives that they have gone out of their way to undermine the president on the war on terror at every turn.
I'm sure the British will be surprised to hear that the CIA has been rigging their elections.
As will the French and the Canadians. That De Gaulle was a real CIA puppet, wasn't he?
oclarki :
I'd have gone with Spain and Portugal and Vatican City, which of course did not have elections.
No matter.
The CIA has been operating illegally in the UK, evidently:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/aug/21/business.currentaccounts
And even if you're right about them not intervening in UK elections, they'd still have intervened in France, West Germany, Italy, Greece, Japan...
ucfengr wrote:
it was assumed, at least by elite opinion in the West, that assendency of Communism was historically inevitable,
So Mumon responds:
Really? Who?
It's hardly worth responding to an idiot like you, Mumon, but I couldn't let this one get by. It shows your incredible ignorance.
Here's a partial list of people who believed the Soviet Union was in its ascendancy:
George Bernard Shaw, Theodore Dreiser, H.G. Wells, FDR's Vice-President Henry Wallace, Dashiell Hammett, Lillian Hellman, I.F. Stone, John Maynard Keynes, Paul Robesen, Armand Hammer, Pete Seeger, John Kenneth Galbraith. A case can be made that Anthony Lewis, Andrew Young and even Jimmy Carter believed it, as well.
So, Mumon, you ignorant troll, have you ever heard of Walter Duranty?
jd:
I don't know if anyone told you, but the subject of the thread was whether anyone seriously thought this in 1955, when National Review was founded.
George Bernard Shaw had already been dead 5 years, and it was already rather seriously known what was going on the Eastern bloc. I'd not have referred to a guy like Shaw as an "elite opinion" holder.
Theodore Dreiser had been dead 10 years, so in 1955 it was impossible for him to have been an "elite opinion" holder either.
Dashiell Hammett? A victim of McCarthyite assualts on civil liberties? Do you really wanna go there?
Ditto for Lillian Hellman.
John Maynard Keynes??? As Wikipedia points out, Keynes said in 1931, "eynes wrote in 1931, "How can I accept the [Communist] doctrine, which sets up as its bible, above and beyond criticism, an obsolete textbook which I know not only to be scientifically erroneous but without interest or application to the modern world? How can I adopt a creed which, preferring the mud to the fish, exalts the boorish proletariat above the bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia, who with all their faults, are the quality of life and surely carry the seeds of all human achievement? Even if we need a religion, how can we find it in the turbid rubbish of the red bookshop? It is hard for an educated, decent, intelligent son of Western Europe to find his ideals here, unless he has first suffered some strange and horrid process of conversion which has changed all his values."
I could go on, but I'm surprised you left out Al Lewis, Grandpa Munster, in your Communists were going to get us rant.
Duranty was fooled, everyone knows this and knew that in 1955.
Just as elite opinion today - Joe Carter doesn't count and neither do you, sadly enough - elite opinion today knows that Reaganomics was a disaster, and Francis Fukuyama's worldview isn't Cheney's and Rumsfeld's, but rather Fukuyama's view is the same as "cheesmakers" of the EU.
The CIA has been operating illegally in the UK, evidently
From the article you cite:
"A covert programme under which confidential information about British banking transactions is passed to the CIA with the full knowledge of the government"
Sounds like the British government approved of the CIA operation.
and:
"A Home Office spokesman said the government had been given "no reason to believe the operation was unlawful", adding that it "strongly supports US efforts to target, disrupt and cut off sources of funding for terrorism". He declined to comment on the commissioner's assessment that the programme may be illegal."
So your basis for accusing the CIA of illegal acts in Great Britain is an operation conducted with the full knowledge and approval of the British government that may or may not be technically illegal. Surely you can do better than this.
And even if you're right about them not intervening in UK elections, they'd still have intervened in France, West Germany, Italy, Greece, Japan...
So what you are saying is the CIA didn't intervene in the elections of France, West Germany, etc. but would have if....what? This is weak even for you, mumon.
ucfengr:
Well, Tony Blair's is known as George W. Bush's poode for reason, you know...
So what you are saying is the CIA didn't intervene in the elections of France, West Germany, etc...
No, they did, actually, because they thought labor unions were too red. The result in Japan particular was the bloated LDP.
Oddly enough in many cases the CIA's attempts weren't enough, and that's why today those "cheesemakers" live longer than we do, and why the Japanese vacation in Hawaii more often than we do.
I don't know if anyone told you, but the subject of the thread was whether anyone seriously thought this in 1955, when National Review was founded.
This is one of your sillier comments, and you've made quite a few. Why not just say the subject was whether anyone seriously thought it at only the exact moment Buckley started typing his Publisher's note?
Dashiell Hammett? A victim of McCarthyite assualts on civil liberties? Do you really wanna go there?
Okay, I'll bite. How is Hammett's alleged "victimhood" relevant to whether or not he believed in the ultimate ascendancy of Soviet Communism over US democracy? Ditto for Hellman.
John Maynard Keynes??? As Wikipedia points out, Keynes said in 1931, "eynes wrote in 1931, "How can I accept the [Communist] doctrine,...
Whether or not he agreed with Communism is irrelevant to whether or not he believed in its ultimate ascendancy. Whitaker Chambers was one of Soviet Communism's strongest opponents, but he believed it would eventually be victorious.
ucfengr,
You're wasting your time. Even Barack Obama sings the praises of Ronald Reagan. Mumon is clearly the one standing athwart history. Instead of yelling stop, though, he's yelling that it's all a lie.
Europeans only get to live in their Fukuyamian delusion because they operate under the aegis of the United States military supremeacy. They can't even meet their commitments in the "good" war in Afghanistan.
Oddly enough in many cases the CIA's attempts weren't enough, and that's why today those "cheesemakers" live longer than we do
What?
and why the Japanese vacation in Hawaii more often than we do.
Or it could be because it is cheaper and easier to go to Miami, or Orlando, or Myrtle Beach, or San Diego, or Galveston, or any of a hundred vacation spots in CONUS. For that matter it is easier and cheaper for people in much of the US to go to Cancun or Bermuda than Hawaii. I just booked a trip to Cancun for about half the price of Hawaii and I only have to be on a plane for about 6 hours vs. 16 hours for Hawaii.
why the Japanese vacation in Hawaii more often than we do.
Just for kicks, I checked some flights and amazingly enough I can fly from Tokyo to Honolulu in just 6 hours, vs. 12+ hours from Dulles (near DC) to Honolulu, but I am sure that has nothing to do with the reason Japanese go to Hawaii more than Americans. It must be a CIA plot.
I think Joe misunderstands the purism that colors the viewpoint of conservatives. It isn't some sort of adherence to principle that motivates this purism. As see have seen, conservatism has no principles, being based solely on group identification and authoritarianism. The motivation for purism is to avoid admitting the numerous and manifest failures of conservatism. Conservatism, as currently practices, consists of concentration of power in the hands of a few and transfer of taxpayer dollars and public resources to Republican campaign contributors. This is not, obviously, a formula for increasing the general prosperity, and the failures of conservative policies are too manifest to deny, and the practice of conservatism harms most of its adherents. For example, most conservatives in America live in states that cultivate an uneducated, compliant, low wage work force, and the conservative citizens of these states are seriously harmed by illegal immigration. But it is in the interest of Republican campaign contributors to have a steady flow of illegal immigrants so that wages can be depressed. The loose enforcement of U.S. immigration laws that allows illegal workers in but constantly threatens them with deportation isn't a deviation from conservatism, it is a manifestation of it.
But the conservative avoids laying blame where it belongs - on conservatism itself. Instead, he ascribes the failures to an insufficiently pure practice of conservatism. When the failure of the Bush administration was less apparent than it is now, conservatives celebrated him as one of their own. Now that his failure is apparent, conservatives run from him, denying that he is a conservative. But of course his failures flow directly from conservative policies, the same policies that conservatives celebrated for the first 5 years or so of his administration.
I think that the remedy for conservatism is to admit that conservative policies are failures. It doesn't matter why conservative policies fail, whether conservatism is inherently unsound or whether it is simply too brittle to practice with sufficient rigor to avoid failure. The point is that conservative policies do fail.
Conservatives should simply abandon conservatism, which brings poor results, and work to get conservatives out of office and get liberals in office, so that they can adopt liberal policies which, while perhaps imperfect, bring better results than the degradation and squalor caused by conservative policies.
Once again, Ucfengr, your patience is admirable. How you can tolerate a fool like Mumon is beyond me. He's not stupid, just another useful idiot. I wish you wouldn't encourage him.
Despite that, the execrable Mike Toreno shows up and proves that even Mumon isn't the bottom of the barrel.
Mike Toreno has a wickedly funny sense of humor! He writes: "Conservatives should simply abandon conservatism, which brings poor results, and work to get conservatives out of office and get liberals in office, so that they can adopt liberal policies which, while perhaps imperfect, bring better results than the degradation and squalor caused by conservative policies."
Hah! That's a knee-slapper, ROTFLMAO!
Hey Mike, take a look at how liberals behave:
http://www.zombietime.com/berkeley_marines_2-12-2008/
Such typical liberal behavior can be explained by reading "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness".
This article can be found at:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LyleHRossiterJrMD/2006/12/04/the_liberal_mind_the_psychological_causes_of_political_madness
So "No thanks!" to your suggestion that conservatives should work to get liberal policies instituted.
Mike Toreno writes: "Conservatives should simply abandon conservatism, which brings poor results, and work to get conservatives out of office and get liberals in office, so that they can adopt liberal policies which, while perhaps imperfect, bring better results than the degradation and squalor caused by conservative policies."
Ha! That's a funny one. Hey Mike, take a look at typical liberal behavior, and you'll see why conservatives can't support liberalism:
http://www.zombietime.com/berkeley_marines_2-12-2008/
Such typical liberal behavior can be explained by reading "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness".
This article can be found at:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LyleHRossiterJrMD/2006/12/04/the_liberal_mind_the_psychological_causes_of_political_madness
posted on 02.13.2008 4:20 PM
Truth, what the Clownhall columnist is saying is, essentially "people who are not like me are crazy". This is not persuasive, coming from someone who can't get a job at a moneymaking enterprise, but has to subsist on wingnut welfare. In addition, if conservatism worked, wouldn't he simply point to instances where it worked? But there are no such instances, so he has to fill the space in other ways.
I seek to look at objective facts to explain why conservatism is a failure. What's the most conservative state, Alabama maybe? How does Alabama stack up against the more liberal states in terms of:
Infant mortality
Illiteracy
Poverty
Divorce
Out of wedlock births
Spouse abuse
Child abuse
Smoking
Alcoholism
Obesity
?
Haven't Alabama's conservative policies led to statistics in those respects (and many others) that indicate a much less desirable state of affairs than prevails in more liberal states? In fact, don't Alabamians, and residents of other conservative states, tend to get a lot more federal money spent in their states than they "pay" in federal taxes, while residents of liberal states pay significantly more in federal taxes than the federal expenditures in their states. Can't we really say that conservatives basically depend on federal handouts paid for by the taxes generated by the superior initiative and industry of liberals?
oclarki:
Maybe I shouldn't tell you that what Obama said wasn't praise of Reagan, that was Hillary's characterization of it. Maybe I should...
Europeans only get to live in their Fukuyamian delusion because they operate under the aegis of the United States military supremeacy. They can't even meet their commitments in the "good" war in Afghanistan.
Heh. Yeah. Right. We can't meet our commitments in the "good" war in Afghanistan because, you know, of the other one. The bad one.
ucfengr:
I doubt Keynes believed the Commies would triumph; and what I've demonstrated was that he thought instead it was a flawed system.
Why not just say the subject was whether anyone seriously thought it at only the exact moment Buckley started typing his Publisher's note?
Look, that was after riots in Poznan; it was after the coup in Prague, it was after the Soviet war atrocities were known.
Yeah, there were a few intellectuals who were somewhat dense about all this (Sartre is the example you really want - see, I'm not all evil, I'm helping you), but they were regularly critiqued, lampooned, and derided in the mainstream media, and had little influence in the world of geopolitical strategies of capitalism v. Communism, unless somehow Jean-Paul Belmondo movies were a sublte way to corrupt the morals of upstanding Americans so that Communism would triumph.
... 12+ hours from Dulles (near DC) to Honolulu...
There's something seriously wrong there. It takes about 13 hours to go from NY to Tokyo....
I don't take issue with your number (we on the left coast do have an advantage or two). But that's just seriously wrong.
But I'll say this: Hawaii is cheap to Japanese.
Whatever it takes you to get there, it's not cheap even for Hawaiians.
ucfengr:
I forgot one:
How is Hammett's alleged "victimhood" relevant to whether or not he believed in the ultimate ascendancy of Soviet Communism over US democracy? Ditto for Hellman.
Well, if my civil liberties are being trashed by those in charge, I'm not going to be a cheerleader for that system's triumph, now will I? OK, maybe if my name is Fyodor Dostoyevsky I'd be, but then again there's Solzhenitsyn.
Regardless, their degree of being an "elite opinion" holder would only be enhanced by maltreatment by authorities, and that'd be true whether you're talking about Lenin, Hellman, Hammett, or Jesus or Gandhi or Solzhenitsyn.
I mean,
Mumon, I don't care to engage much of what you say, but I have to respond to this:
This is absurd. Obama's statements were clearly positive. What he said:What should be glaringly obvious is that Obama was making an implicit connection - the '60s and '70s, like the '90s, were times when things were just getting way out of hand in the government, and the country needed a charismatic agent (Reagan in the '80s, and you can guess who he means for the present era) to bring forth a new movement that abandoned the previous paradigms (hence his mention of Bill Clinton - see what he did there?). Of course it was praise, and a number of sectors - both conservative and liberal - reported on it, to varying degrees of approval and disapproval. It wasn't just Clinton (and Edwards, I might add).
Toreno:
It's incredibly likely that 1) you're confusing correlation with causation and 2) you're assuming that Alabama's policies are overwhelmingly conservative. (I suspect #2 would also be a fair objection for a number of other states you have in mind.) You're welcome to provide evidence for #2, but I doubt you can avoid committing the fallacy in #1.I seek to look at objective facts to explain why conservatism is a failure. What's the most conservative state, Alabama maybe? How does Alabama stack up against the more liberal states in terms of:
Infant mortality
I don't know that it is fair to do a state by state comparison. If we look at an electoral map you find that most areas are fairly conservative, while a few areas, mostly located around large cities, are liberal. A better comparison might be to compare Alabama to some large liberal cities. According to a 2005 United Health study, Alabama has a infant mortality rate of 8.5 per 1000 live births. Now this puts it 44th among the states, which is ahead of Maryland, a pretty liberal state (Kerry by 13% in 2004), but if you compare Alabama to San Francisco (Kerry by 68%!), San Francisco has an infant mortality rate of 11.8 per 1000. Wow, that's a lot worse than Alabama. Maybe that's just an anamoly, let's look at Los Angeles (Kerry by 28%). Wow, L.A. has an infant mortality rate of 13.8. That's even worse than San Francisco (data from San Francisco Chronicle, 3 Oct 2004). Maybe it's just a California thing, let's look at some east coast cities. Let's look at Baltimore City (Kerry by 65%!); Charm City (Baltimore for you non-Marylanders) has an infant mortality rate of 13. Dang, I guess we can see why Maryland is doing so poorly. How about Chicago (Kerry by 40%). Chicago has an infant mortality rate of 8.6 per thousand, which is right where Alabama is. Hmm, what does this tell us about liberals and conservatives and infant mortality? Probably that political affiliation doesn't have to much impact on infant mortality rates.
I suspect I would find similar results if I compare rates of literacy, poverty, etc. There are some things I am confused about though; for example how is obesity a liberal/conservative issue. Isn't it more dependent on genetics than political affiliation. What about smoking or alcoholism? How are they related to political affiliation? Ted Kennedy has quite the reputation as both a liberal and someone who likes his booze, while John Ashcroft and Mike Huckabee are conservatives who are quite the teetotalers.
Well, if my civil liberties are being trashed by those in charge, I'm not going to be a cheerleader for that system's triumph, now will I? OK, maybe if my name is Fyodor Dostoyevsky I'd be, but then again there's Solzhenitsyn.
You are assuming that Hammett, et. al. only became in favor of the Soviet system after their "civil liberties" were "trashed"; where is your evidence for that assumption? Let's be honest, Hammett, et. al. were advocating for the replacement of our democratic system with a totalitarian system where there are no civil liberties. It's hard to work up a lot of sympathy for people like that.
ucfenger, I think your argument would carry more weight if the infant mortality rate in San Francisco really were 11.5, rather than (as of 2001) 3.8. Maybe you come from a state whose conservative policies lead to a high level of illiteracy?
The point hasn't got anything to do with a correlation between political affiliation and various undesirable results, it has to do with the failure of conservative policies to lead to an industrious, moral, and healthy population. Thus the relevance of the higher rates of obesity in states where conservative policies prevail.
"Christian" Cynic, confusing correlation with causation? Are you suggesting that the policies of a government don't have anything to do with the state of health, industriousness, accomplishment, and moral conduct of its citizens? The conservative policies of Alabama either caused, or failed to remedy, or both, the degraded state of its citizens. Are you really suggesting that the policies of Alabama, including educational policies, have no relation to the high levels of illiteracy among citizens of Alabama?
And your suggestion that the policies of Alabama aren't particularly conservative illustrates the point I was making, which is that conservatives never admit that conservatism has failed. If conservative policies fail (as they always do) the response of the conservative is to claim that the policies weren't "really" conservative after all.
Wow, scare quotes twice in less than a week? This is actually starting to amuse me. Maybe I should change my Netmoniker just for kicks.
Okay then, "Mike" "Toreno":
No, I'm suggesting that to look solely at governmental policies as causes of geographical problems is to miss part of the whole picture.First, you haven't exactly established what I challenged you on in my last thread: Show how Alabama's policies are (on the whole) primarily conservative. (There's a second part to that challenge; see below.) For my second point, see my previous point.
1. I've never said I am a conservative.
2. I never said the policies of Alabama aren't particularly conservative; rather, I put the burden of proof appropriately on you to demonstrate how the policies of Alabama (or any particular state you happen to be railing against because you think it's too conservative) are conservative.
3. You haven't demonstrated how conservative policies fail (at least not any more so than liberal policies).
See, what I'd like is for you to say something like, "Alabama's policy on Issue X, which is Y, is conservative, and it has demonstrably failed by what we can see from its effects on Z." That involves picking an issue, telling us what the specific policy is on the issue, and demonstrating exactly what detrimental effect it has had and why. Coming up with some of these particulars would be much more helpful in arguing your case if you're going to assert that you want evidence on the matter. On the other hand, if you just want to paint in broad strokes, then I'm happy to put on my best skeptic face and ask you to put your money where your mouth is.
ucfenger, I think your argument would carry more weight if the infant mortality rate in San Francisco really were 11.5, rather than (as of 2001) 3.8.
There is a City of San Francisco and a county of San Francisco in California. Perhaps that is where some of the confusion comes from. The source for my data is a San Francisco Chronicle article "Too Young to Die" (http://www.sfgate.com/n/s/p/2004/infantmortality/), which shows a by zip code breakdown of infant mortality rates in California.
The point hasn't got anything to do with a correlation between political affiliation and various undesirable results, it has to do with the failure of conservative policies to lead to an industrious, moral, and healthy population. Thus the relevance of the higher rates of obesity in states where conservative policies prevail.
Again, if obesity has a large genetic component, which it does, what is the relevance of either conservative or liberal policies to it?
Au contraire, it was the lack of civil rights and democracy in the United States that led Hammett to do what he did:
Hammett was president of the Civil Rights Congress of New York. As Wikipedia explains, " In 1946, a bail fund was created by the CRC "to be used at the discretion of three trustees to gain the release of defendants arrested for political reasons," and among those trustees was Hammett. The Civil Rights Congress did stuff like denounce lynchings. Which, of course wasn't what conservatism was all about. At all. In fact, conservatism's utter silence on civil rights issues (not to mention collusion with racists in the South as part of the "Southern Strategy) is enough to discredit this anti-American, undemocratic movement.
The Civil Rights Congress was designated as a Communist front group because the government said it was "subversive" to the government because its motives were said to encourage "disloyalty" to the government.
Think about that for a millisecond, will you? Shouldn't it be the other way around?
Oh, yeah, that's Communist.
Yes, indeed Communists tried to infiltrate organizations and took advantage of the flaws of American society.
But those on the side of witch-hunts were themselves in league with the Communists in that - like the "terrorists" of today - they are in a symbiotic relationship with their reputed "enemies."
Real patriots marched in Selma and went on Freedom rides.
Buckley was an over-indulged putz.
See, what I'd like is for you to say something like, "Alabama's policy on Issue X, which is Y, is conservative, and it has demonstrably failed by what we can see from its effects on Z."
I agree that this would be interesting. It's really not enough to say Alabama is conservative and has failed in these areas, while, say Massachusetts is liberal and has succeeded. You really have to identify the specific policies that Alabama has enacted, show why they are conservative, and demonstrate how they have contributed to or caused the failure of 'x'.
ucfengr
In other words, what the founders of modern American conservatism where trying to stop was the progression of Communism. In the 1950's, it was assumed, at least by elite opinion in the West, that assendency of Communism was historically inevitable, and why not? Soviet Russia controlled Eastern Europe and had made substantial inroads into Western Europe. China had fallen to Communism as had North Korea, and we had just barely saved South Korea from falling. Also, let's be honest, Communism's promise of equality held a lot of appeal to a US in the middle of the Civil Rights struggle.
You overestimate communism's appeal in the 1950's. The era of good feeling between allies had long gone at that point and the most notable anti-communists were hardly conservatives and would hardly have gotten any praise from NR (Eisenhower, Truman, Marshal, even Nixon).
But you reinforced my point. Communism set itself against conservatism from the start by its idea that all old traditions and ways of doing things could be overturned almost instantly in the interests of doing things 'better'.
Your idea that Conservatism skeptical about one's own knowledge is false, what it is skeptical of is the wisdom of these "energetic social innovators" with their "grand designs", who think that they are better able to advance society than millions of ordinary people acting in their own self interest. That really hasn't changed.
I suggest you read Burke's reflections on the French Revolution. Conservatives didn't argue that it was impossible to know anything or that it was necessary to simply cling to the past regardless of all other considerations. Reactionary might be a better term for that POV.
That's why conservatives can't afford to take an election cycle or two off. Somebody's still got to be "yelling Stop!" to liberal dreams of nationalized health care, restrictions on free speech, restriction on energy use, etc
ahhh ucfengr finally gets off the Bush bandwagon! Welcome to Club Reality! Please check your coat at the door, two drink min. please.
ucfengr :
I'd say slavery & segregation had much to do with it, as well as conservatives' utter silence on the issue.
As I said right above your comment, "Real patriots marched in Selma and went on Freedom rides."
And conservatives were - and still are - MIA.
Mike
I believe that Boonton's example was conservatives who claim to want a less-powerful federal government, but who also try to use the power of the federal governnment to make their conservative agenda happen.
Thank you for your comment! Joe is a prime example. He talks about subsidary and the idea of 'co-equal spheres of authority' but he doesn't really believe it. Let one of those spheres deviate from the conservative line and Joe will be the first to jump in and demand it be 'corrected' by the Federal gov't. This nonsense is not quite unlike the old USSR where everyone had the 'freedom' to join the communist party.
ucfengr
Whether or not he agreed with Communism is irrelevant to whether or not he believed in its ultimate ascendancy. Whitaker Chambers was one of Soviet Communism's strongest opponents, but he believed it would eventually be victorious.
Actually he didn't. He advocated a 'middle way' between classical capitalism and communism/socialism. Please show us some evidence that he thought his battle was hopeless.
Also, you should note that many anti-communists believed communism would eventually be victorious. Schumpeter, for example, believed capitalism was doomed but felt that was a bad thing.
What about smoking or alcoholism? How are they related to political affiliation? Ted Kennedy has quite the reputation as both a liberal and someone who likes his booze, while John Ashcroft and Mike Huckabee are conservatives who are quite the teetotalers.
I believe they never got a taste for booze because Bush drank all the good stuff at the fraternity before they could ever get it. Don't worry, though. Republicans have had many successes of late raising gay kids, racking up points at the best brothels in Louisanna (anything to help the economy there after Katrina), corrupting the Justice Dept, facilitating perjury and taking bribes.
jd
Once again, Ucfengr, your patience is admirable. How you can tolerate a fool like Mumon is beyond me. He's not stupid, just another useful idiot. I wish you wouldn't encourage him.
I'd worry more about providing encouragement to the useless idiots that populate this blog.
Speaking of which::
Mumon,
Well, if my civil liberties are being trashed by those in charge, I'm not going to be a cheerleader for that system's triumph, now will I? OK, maybe if my name is Fyodor Dostoyevsky I'd be, but then again there's Solzhenitsyn.
I wasn't sure who Hammett was so I looked him up on wikipedia. He was the writer who invented Sam Spade and wrote 'hard boiled' detective novels and short stories. Who the hell is ucfengr to pass him off as an 'elite opinion maker'? Perhaps ucfengr would like to tell us next that Ed Wood was also an elite opinion maker and thank God the NR was founded because without them Wood would have gotten Congress to pass a law forcing men to wear cashmere sweaters every day!
Christian Cynic
What should be glaringly obvious is that Obama was making an implicit connection - the '60s and '70s, like the '90s, were times when things were just getting way out of hand in the government, and the country needed a charismatic agent (Reagan in the '80s, and you can guess who he means for the present era) to bring forth a new movement that abandoned the previous paradigms (hence his mention of Bill Clinton - see what he did there?).
One of the most interesting comparisons I've heard is between the 60's and 70's but with the roles reversed. In the late 60's the Republicans achieved a long term majority because of white distaste for the Civil Rights movement and the unpopularity of the Vietnam War which Democrats 'got us into". The roles seem to be on the verge of reversing themselves with the Democrats achieving a majority again due to the unpopularity of the Iraq war (which Bush got us into and like Johnson, most of his parties nominees can't seem to distance themselves from (except Ron Paul)) and distaste over his policies in general.
Boonton:
It was jd who first suggested that Hammett was an "elite opinion" maker. Hammett had a political side, as did Paul Robeson (who was also a profoundly talented performer, unlike ...Ron Silver? Chuck Norris? Bruce Willis? )
What was interesting to me, about ucfengr's red-baiting was about what Hammet's involvement really was: his in the CRC. This involvment was, ultimately a civil rights and civil liberties issue, which in Orwellian fashion ucfengr calls "advocating for the replacement of our democratic system."
The fact is conservatism was always diametrically opposed to civil liberties, and as far as civil rights go, conservatism was eager to exploit divisions based on race and was silent on the horrors of segregation.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: conservatism was always and is still a greater threat to our liberty than Communism ever was.
Historically, more Americans have suffered privation and injustice because of conservatism than because of Communism.
Just this week Nino Scalia said he didn't have a problem with torture.
Sick.
ahhh ucfengr finally gets off the Bush bandwagon!
I jumped off the bandwagon about the time of Medicare Part D. I have always supported him on the war, but even there I always thought he made a big mistake by not pushing for a larger military in the wake of 9/11.
I wasn't sure who Hammett was so I looked him up on wikipedia. He was the writer who invented Sam Spade and wrote 'hard boiled' detective novels and short stories. Who the hell is ucfengr to pass him off as an 'elite opinion maker'?
That was jd, not me. I knew Hammett wrote the Maltese Falcon, but was only vaguely aware of his political leanings. Honestly I always confuse him with the guy who writes the Philip Marlowe novels.
Actually he didn't. He advocated a 'middle way' between classical capitalism and communism/socialism. Please show us some evidence that he thought his battle was hopeless.
Here is a quote from Chambers:
I know that I am leaving the winning side for the losing side, but it is better to die on the losing side than to live under Communism.
--Statement before the House Un-American Activities Committee, August 3, 1948
With respect to "conservative" values, there is an excellent Index of Freedom which rates almost all countries of the world in many categories and subcategories. With Freedom from gov't being one of the key Conservative values for economics, this is a reasonably well correlated set of rankings. Those more Free on economic issues tend to have higher economic growth.
It's too bad Huck isn't pushing for much more budget and spending transparency and use of the internet to track the money the Fed gov't gets. Gov't accountability is a huge conservative + liberal issue.
In 2004, when Pew asked voters in exit polls about the main reasons they voted for the guy they voted for, here are rough numbers for Bush:
Iraq/WoT ~ 22 mil,
Tax cuts/ economy ~8.5 mil,
Morals/ Values ~ 29 mil
The "three legs" of post-Reagan conservatism are not equal. Mitt's advantage on economy is least important.
Most of the above near-highjacking of this thread is junk. But I did see a picture of Mitt's father, George Romney, pushing for integration and being opposed by the anti-integration folk. And I thought, "George, marching in spirit (in a car) with MLK against racism".
Look up the 1964 vote on the Civil Rights Act -- the Reps were overwhelming for it. (Altho Barry Goldwater, with reservations like Patrick Henry's about the Constitution, rightly feared excessive Fed power.)
The Feds need to be more active ... in regulating against the States, and the Counties, and the City goverments from doing too many anti-Freedom things.
To reduce the size of gov't, start with a FREEZE (not a "cut") on all Fed agencies. That's a good neo-Lib position.
ucfengr:
Your Chambers quote reminds me of this famous bit from Catch-22:
Tom Grey:
It's about time that canard about "Repubs supported the Civil Rights act" was put to bed.
Those Repubs that supported it - like Jacob Javits - were liberal Republicans.
Those who became Repubs, such as Strom Thurmond, definitely opposed it.
Conservatives?
Hah. Here (http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_10_09_atrios_archive.html#112891421516030965) is what they thought about Civil Rights:
Clearly conservatism was on the side of the the segregationists.
ucfengr
Here is a quote from Chambers:
Errr thanks but I was asking you to present evidence to support your assertion that Keynes believed communism was going to win. Instead you presented evidence that believing communism was destined to win was actually a conservative belief!
I jumped off the bandwagon about the time of Medicare Part D
That's nice but grow up. It's really implausible to hear someone argue with a straight face that the GOP cannot even afford to lose one election because otherwise there will be massive increases in gov't involvement in healthcare when...well...it was GOP majorities that put in a massive increase. And it's nice that you "got off the bandwagon" but I have to wonder why you would have gotten on to begin with. Bush campaigned on Medicare Part D after all! It's actually one of the few places where you can't say he was overly dishonest. (BTW, didn't you call Bush an "amazingly honest" president a while back? We might have to call a meeting to discuss your qualifications to join the Reality Club).
jmk
It was jd who first suggested that Hammett was an "elite opinion" maker. Hammett had a political side, as did Paul Robeson (who was also a profoundly talented performer, unlike ...Ron Silver? Chuck Norris? Bruce Willis? )
Fair enough, it was jd. So who the hell is jd to pass Hammett off as an "elite opinion maker"? Does everyone who joins a political group of any type suddenly become an "elite opinion maker"? Whose opinions did Hammett make besides his own?
Words do tend to mean things from time to time. An opinon maker is someone who makes opinions. Hence I would expect at a min. he would be someone who is viewed by others as having important insights to offer. Being "elite" would mean mean all the more. Yet this is the cartoon history that we get from conservatives these days. A pulp fiction writer may or may not have adopted radical views, hence National Review saved the world from his threat to take over the country. This reminds me of Mitt's last message which could be boiled down to "vote for the Republican guy or terrorists will kill you!", which more or less sums up best thinking conservative intellectuals have to offer us these days.
Errr thanks but I was asking you to present evidence to support your assertion that Keynes believed communism was going to win. Instead you presented evidence that believing communism was destined to win was actually a conservative belief!
The wording in your post looked like you were asking for evidence for Chambers, not Keynes, so that is how I responded. I don't know what Keynes thought about the inevitability of communism, what I was pointing out was that it was possible to disagree with communism and still think it would ultimately win.
That's nice but grow up. It's really implausible to hear someone argue with a straight face that the GOP cannot even afford to lose one election because otherwise there will be massive increases in gov't involvement in healthcare when...well...it was GOP majorities that put in a massive increase.
I didn't say that the GOP couldn't afford to lose an election, I said that conservatives couldn't afford to sit out an election.
BTW, didn't you call Bush an "amazingly honest" president a while back?
That's sounds like something I might of said. What's your evidence that he isn't? Before you answer there is one thing you should remember, there is a difference between being wrong and lying.
ucfengr,
Actually the usual suspect, jd, started the thing on Keynes as well as Dashiell Hammett. In both he demonstrates the ability to name drop (or probably cut and paste) but less to actually know what he is talking about.
I'm not letting you off the hook on Bush. Why would Medicare D cause you to jump off the bandwagon when he essentially campaigned on it? Were you thinking that he was just telling lies to get elected and then got mad when he actually kept his word on some things? If that's the case your "amazingly honest" assertion looks pretty suspect. If that's not the case then you're showing yourself to be a pretty irrational judge of things political.
Boonton, just for clarity (even though you didn't imply such), I don't necessarily think Obama's rhetoric was helpful or even close to being accurate. It was, however, the way he meant it to sound: Reagan came at a time when the country needed change, and he brought it. Like Reagan, I (Obama) will bring you change as I have said I would.
On the other hand, you might have a point. I really don't see the Repubs winning many elections this year for that reason: people are just really pissed off at them because of Bush. But it will be interesting to watch, nonetheless.
Why would Medicare D cause you to jump off the bandwagon when he essentially campaigned on it? Were you thinking that he was just telling lies to get elected and then got mad when he actually kept his word on some things?
What Bush actually promised was to "set it [Medicare] on firm financial ground and make prescription drugs available and affordable for every senior who needs them,". So, while he did make prescription drugs available, it was not part of an overall effort to put Medicare on "firm financial ground". In fact it is probably safe to say that Medicare Part D has put Medicare on shakier ground than it was before the benefit was added.
If that's the case your "amazingly honest" assertion looks pretty suspect.
If I recall, my "amazingly honest" comment was in response to his alleged lies regarding Iraq and WMDs. Specifically, a dishonest man would have made sure that WMDs regardless of whether they were there or not. So know it's your turn; where did he lie in that regard vs. where was he wrong?
ucfengr, the city and county of San Francisco encompass the same populated area, so whatever confusion exists stems from:
(a) your inability to read
(b) the dishonesty that causes you to jump on anything you can find that you believe supports your viewpoint, even if the so-called support does not withstand scrutiny.
The fact is that Alabama has a relatively high rate of infant mortality, while San Francisco has a very low rate of infant mortality.
Also, obesity comes from eating too much. The presence or absence of government polices that promoted healthy eating habits, including policies that foster a well educated, productive, prosperous population, with the income needed to make healthy food choices, go a long way toward explaining why residents of Alabama are, on average, so much fatter than residents of San Francisco.
"Christian" cynic, one important government policy found in Alabama is the orientation of labor and educational policies toward fostering a "competitive" work force - that is, an uneducated, compliant, low wage work force. This is a conservative policy directed toward concentrating power in those who already have it, rather than allowing for distribution of power.
These policies lead to higher rates of illiteracy, lower worker productivity, and, of course, lower wages. Lower wages lead, of course, to higher rates of poverty. The stresses associated with lower incomes help contribute to greater difficulty in maintaining stable families, thereby leading to higher rates of divorce. Lower incomes lead to a narrower range of food choices, thereby making healthy eating more difficult. Lower incomes also lead to an orientation toward foods with higher calorie content per unit cost, giving rise to higher levels of obesity.
And anyway, you know all that. I could go on and on and on, but I won't. The reason I won't is that your demand for detailed chains of causation, together with a demand for proof that the policies of one of the most conservative states in America are in fact conservative, is a dishonest attempt to put up a smoke screen to obscure the obvious reality.
SOMETHING caused Alabama's degraded condition. Government policies affect every area of life, and Alabama is one of the most conservative states in America with some of the most conservative policies. If conservatism isn't what caused Alabama's degradation, what DID cause it?
According to http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm
the most democratic countries in the world, in order, are listed below. I'd love to hear the self-proclaimed conservatives identify which of these qualify as true beacons of conservatism.
1. Finland
2. Denmark
3. Sweden
4. New Zealand
5. Switzerland
6. Netherlands
7. Norway
8. Canada
9. United Kingdom (tie)
9. Australia (tie)
11. Germany
12. Austria (tie)
13. Belgium (tie)
14. Ireland
15. United States
16. France
Since Joe is using the analogy of emergency health care, it is worth noting that of the 16 countries listed above, only one does not guarantee full health coverage to all of its citizens.
I am begining to think the divisiveness that exists in our country between conservatives and liberals-has been created and nurtured by the corporate elites through the media and other institutions to keep the masses from working together for real democracy.
For instance take the media coverage of the Berkley military recruiting center. We are supposed to be shocked at those unpatriotic left-wing moonbats. As it was Berkley, it wasn't to hard to find some truly far out offensive signs, but lost in all this is the fact that military recruiters are often misleading to young people who are looking for money for college or disperately need a way out of poverty. They are being taken advantage of and used as cannon fodder. If you think the war is wrong, as the majority of Americans now do, there is absolutely nothing wrong or unamerican with saying you don't want this in your community.
ucfengr, the city and county of San Francisco encompass the same populated area, so whatever confusion exists stems from:
Bubba, I provided a source for my data; if you want to be useful show me why the source is wrong or how I have misinterpreted the data. If you just want to show that you are the biggest asshole around, you can stop now; mission accomplished.
The fact is that Alabama has a relatively high rate of infant mortality, while San Francisco has a very low rate of infant mortality.
If you look at the data, the best you can really say is that some portions of Alabama have a high infant mortality rate and some portions have a low one, and the same can be said for San Francisco.
Also, obesity comes from eating too much.
True, but it is a lot more complicated than that. There is also a significant genetic component and there are cultural components as well. More to follow.
The fact is that Alabama has a relatively high rate of infant mortality, while San Francisco has a very low rate of infant mortality.
The dirty little secret about infant mortality and all the other pathologies you mention is that geography is less a predictor than race. If you are black, you have a much higher chance of succumbing to the various pathologies MT mentioned than if you are white or Asian or even Hispanic. Looking at demographic maps of Alabama (source: http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/contemporarymaps/alabama/demographics/index.html)
what you find is that the highest infant mortality rates are in areas that are the most black. The areas with the highest infant mortality rates also track pretty well with the areas of the fewest married couples. Now, what is different about San Francisco and Alabama? Well MT asserts, without providing evidence, that Alabama is more conservative than San Francisco. This may well be true, but with no evidence it is hard to confirm, but one thing that can be confirmed is that Alabama has a larger percentage of blacks