A problem that we conservatives have is that we often measure the worth and merit of a position we hold based on the reaction it elicits from our political opponents. It seems that in many cases we have allowed our worst antagonists to become the ultimate arbiters of our beliefs and actions.
This reflexive posture is the most perilous habit of our political movement.
George W. Bush: Even prior to the Iraq war one basic fact was well known in American politics: liberals disliked Bush at a fanatical level. Before they had any chance to disagree with the policies they loathed the man. What if President Bush was increasing the size of government in all areas at a rate that was faster than any of his predecessors since LBJ? They hated him. And because they hated him we had to love him. If not love, at least acquiescence, in all policies no matter how liberal, in all flaws no matter how persistent, in all blunders no matter how damaging.
Sarah Palin: The media don’t like Palin all right. Perhaps they go further, they don’t like her family as well. But can anyone seriously argue that the media’s revulsion against someone is a qualification for higher office? Anyone except Sarah Palin, of course. Can anyone contend that the media bias against Nixon was proof of the man’s virtues and his steadfast determination to implement conservative policies? How many conservatives nowadays are prepared to endorse Nixon’s price controls, school busing and wiretapping of political opponents? If some sort of victimhood status becomes an automatic green light for political advancement it will be the closest that the conservative movement has ever come to endorsing affirmative action.
Barack Obama: It’s quite troubling, to say the least, to see the cult of personality developing in some liberal quarters. And yes, the sympathetic coverage of the administration by the media is frequently obvious. But should any of that determine the conservative response to the Obama presidency? Is it not enough to oppose and criticize the President’s policies, should we go further and demean the man and the institution behind him? Have we any reason to believe that someone’s excess in praise justifies an excess in condemnation on our part? Do comments of the sort that those who voted for Obama voted for totalitarianism, dungeons and torture advance anything else other than the idea that conservatives are divorced from reality?
We might as well close the shop down and go our merry way if we are willing to follow our political opponents in an infantile tit for tat of caricatures. The liberals in the Bush years followed the path that we seem eager to pursue now, and despite all of their advantages, they might loose the greatest political opportunity in a generation that our failures generously bestowed them just because they are not ready to govern.
When the time comes, do we want to lose our chance?
8 responses so far
1 sinz54 // Jul 28, 2009 at 10:07 am
This is hardly new in American history.
Learn what the term “yellow dog Democrat” meant.
And those Democrats lived quite a while ago.
“Passion and prejudice properly aroused and directed, do about as well as principle and reason in any party contest.”
— Thomas Elder, Whig Party, 1840
2 Bulldoglover100 // Jul 28, 2009 at 1:15 pm
It has NEVER been this bad nor ugly sinz54 or if it was? and I missed it? In the day of the internet it becomes so much worse. People such as you can try all day long to excuse the present actions of people who “say” they support the party but in reality? You one of those who has allowed their anger to over ride their ability to use common sense and educate yourself as to the facts.
When we lose even more in 2010? We will have no one to blame except ourself.
Good article.
3 balconesfault // Jul 28, 2009 at 4:49 pm
“Even prior to the Iraq war one basic fact was well known in American politics: liberals disliked Bush at a fanatical level. ”
Gallup Poll – “We’d like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people — or if you have never heard of them. How about George W. Bush?” 11/26-27/01 – favorable 87%
Why is that relevant? Well, if you look at other Gallup polling near that date:
“Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?”
8/01: 82% responded any circumstances (26%) or certain circumstances (56%)
“With which one of these statements about the environment and the economy do you most agree? Protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth. OR, Economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent.”
3/4-7/02 environment 54%
3/5-7/01 environment 57%
“In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?”
10/11-14/01 53% more strict; 38% kept as now
“Do you think the Republican Party or the Democratic Party would do a better job of dealing with each of the following issues and problems? The federal budget.”
Aug. 24-26, 2001 Democratic Party 45%, Republican Party 44%
I bring these up because the liberal position in each of these cases draws significant support … and yet, we had an 87% favorability rating for George W. Bush.
In other words, if you define “liberal” as people who are in favor of abortion rights (even limited rights), pro-gun control, believe environmental protection is more important than economic growth, and believe Democrats deal with the budget better than Republicans … it is demonstrable that the vast majority of “liberals” gave Bush a favorable rating in the months after 9/11.
Fanatical dislike? I think not. And continuing to believe that is just a way of blinding yourself to all the things that Bush – who sold himself during the 2000 elections as a centrist Republican, and not at all the doctrinaire right winger he ended up being on many positions – did to turn off the American public over his 8 years in office. Which will inevitably lead to continuing to advocate positions that remind people of the things they most came to dislike about Bush’s Presidency.
4 balconesfault // Jul 28, 2009 at 5:01 pm
“Barack Obama: It’s quite troubling, to say the least, to see the cult of personality developing in some liberal quarters.”
There certainly may have been a “cult of personality” that developed leading up to his election – but if you think it’s persisting, you’re listening to right wing media far more than to left wing media. The latter have been very hard on him, attacking him for not pursuing charges against the Bush Admin on torture/detention/warrantless wiretapping … for not pushing for war crimes investigations … for not being aggressive enough on demanding a strong public option for healthcare … for defending Bush Admin claims for Executive Powers that they view as un- or extra-constitutional … for not pushing for a larger stimulus package, and for allowing tax cuts to be too large a part of the portion that was passed. In fact, Obama has probably taken more hits in the liberal media in his first 6 months in office than Bush did in his first 4 years in office from the conservative media.
5 VA Shepherd // Jul 29, 2009 at 6:46 am
Yet another Sarah Palin hit job in New Majority? A more appropriate title for this article would have been “With Friends like these (New Majority), who needs Enemies?”
6 sinz54 // Jul 29, 2009 at 9:15 am
Bulldoglover: After 9-11, mainstream liberals sided with Bush for the obvious reason that they wanted to show national solidarity. (Except, of course, the hard-core extreme Left, like Katha Pollitt, who refused to let her own daughter display an American flag.)
But you ought to take a look at what liberals were saying about Bush right after the disastrous November 2000 election recount in Florida. The vast majority of them believed that Bush stole the election. They were screaming that Congress shouldn’t even approve Bush’s Cabinet nominees, because they regarded the Bush Administration as illegitimate. I had friends who were mainstream Democrats, decent, level-headed people, who were absolutely convinced that Bush stole the election and that Gore had “really” won it.
Try digging up polls from the period December 2000 – August 2001 and see for yourself what liberals thought of Bush.
7 sinz54 // Jul 29, 2009 at 9:23 am
Balconesfault: According to the latest Gallup poll, Obama’s personality cult continues among minority voters, with an amazing 95% of black voters plus 72% of Hispanic voters giving Obama favorable job approval. (This compares with only 47% of white voters giving Obama a favorable rating.)
Obama’s personality cult also continues among young people, with 66% of those under 29 years of age giving Obama a favorable rating.
As usual, the left-wing blogosphere, composed of ultra-liberal activists who sympathize with genuine socialism and pacifism and chafe that they can’t get those here, is not representative of the Obama coalition, which is very much still holding. It’s holding due to Obama’s personal popularity with those groups. They see him as one of them, just as RedState America sees Sarah Palin as one of them.
Obama continues to be the candidate of the young, the blacks, and the Hispanics. They just adore him.
8 balconesfault // Jul 29, 2009 at 10:33 am
sinz – so if I’m understanding you correctly – any President having a majority approval rating among some specific demographic group is proof positive of a “personality cult” within that group?
I’m pretty sure you don’t want to go down that path. You want to try again? Or this could turn into a pretty silly game.
You must log in to post a comment.