The hatred of professionalism. Tucker Carlson mildly suggests that conservatives need more than their feelings. That, whatever you think of the bias of the New York Times, they at least care that they spell your name correctly, and they actually do something: gather news.
He was booed and challenged by the audience of course.
Joe the Plumber was the star of the day. I haven’t confirmed this, but I was told he recently briefed a group of Republicans on his trip to Gaza. I don’t care what your foreign policy is: Joe the Plumber shouldn’t be informing it.
All day, the message I got was this: The movement enjoys being hated by its enemies, more than it cares about its own goals. It is populist, and irresponsible. A little popularizing is good, a little political theatre is good.
CPAC is just unpleasant. And it is not just the elites flattening the ambitions of the people, it is the people dumbing down their own elites. Well-adjusted people, even if they feel alienated from certain parts of American society don’t wish to be hated by society. People who want to advance some goals, want more responsibility, not less. I hate that CPAC seems to give credibility to Adorno: that conservatives have defective personalities.
57 responses so far
1 sinz54 // Feb 28, 2009 at 8:21 am
I wasn’t at CPAC, so I can’t comment on what went on there. But I have been browsing the right-wing blogs. And what I’ve noticed is a tendency to scapegoat just about everybody else for the GOP’s losses: McCain was a “RINO” and a weak candidate. The media was against the Republicans. Some of the more daring conservatives dare to point out that “Our Commander-in-Chief,” Bush, may have made a few mistakes here and there. And when all else, blame the American people: They’re ignorant and “pussified”–soft, and unwilling to tolerate being unemployed and impoverished–if that’s what it takes to preserve a free economy. What almost never comes up as an issue on these right-wing blogs is: What did we conservatives do wrong, and what can we learn from that to do better next time? Blaming others and wallowing in self-pity are convenient rationalizations for avoiding introspection and determination to change for the better. And that’s rampant within the GOP right now. And I’ll bet that’s the way it was at CPAC too. In the private sector, I’ve worked in some companies where loyalty was prized over competence; and independent creative thinking was considered disloyalty or dishonor to time-honored practices. I had to quit and go elsewhere. Nothing good ever comes from working in an organization with such attitudes. That’s why even though I am fairly conservative politically, I am a registered Independent. I won’t rejoin the GOP until it stops acting like one of those companies I had resigned from.
2 sinz54 // Feb 28, 2009 at 8:30 am
Here is some things the New York Times and Washington Post got right: First, we conservatives must admit, even through gritted teeth, that when these newspapers’ reporters were reporting from Iraq in 2005 and 2006 that the situation was deteriorating and that Bush’s “let the Iraqis stand up” strategy was failing, they were being ACCURATE. At the time, conservatives charged that this was a liberal plot to undercut support for the war. But then in January 2007, Bush addressed the nation on prime-time TV to admit that yes indeed, his previous strategy was failing, and that a new strategy was needed–just what those reporters had reported. His strategy was not the one the editorial boards of those newspapers wanted. But the *reporters* of those newspapers had accurately captured the situation in Iraq. If we conservatives hadn’t been so blinded by our loyalty to Bush and admiration for Rumsfeld, we might have been open to the possibility that new Iraq strategy was needed much sooner. If Petraeus had come on board in 2005 instead of 2007, the war would have been over sooner, and that would have had a big effect on the 2008 campaign. Now that the war is close to won, those newspapers’ reporters are accurately reporting that as well. They’re not trying to claim that the situation is deteriorating, as they claimed in 2005 and 2006. So let’s give these war correspondents some credit for getting it right. Another thing that the Washington Post got right was their reporting on the deteriorating situation in Somalia. It was in danger of being converted into another Islamist haven for al-Qaeda. They were reporting this long before Bush ever mentioned it–and much before Bush or Ethiopia ever did anything about it.
3 helios // Feb 28, 2009 at 8:37 am
cross-posted a variation of this on Frum’s Goldwater article…
The Goldwater critique of government and what the current CPAC crop consider conservatism diverged with the rise of the religious right. Look at the CPAC agenda. There’s as much time devoted to fighting “the culture war” as there is discussing specific issues like health care. Goldwater himself recognized this shift which is why he started speaking out about it more aggressively. CPAC today has almost no lineage left to Goldwater. It is now the movement of Tony Perkins.
This CPAC crowd in particular are professional grievance seekers. Based on the twitter feed I was seeing about the culture panel, the conclusion of the participants was that they weren’t speaking LOUDLY ENOUGH about culture issues. I was dumbstruck. My sincere hope is that what we’re witnessing at CPAC is not representative of where the majority of the Republican Party is psychologically. These people have managed to feel marginalized well past the time they became the controlling constituency of the Republican Party. It is time for them to grow up.
4 InTheMiddle12 // Feb 28, 2009 at 12:50 pm
sinz54: You have it exactly right. It’s time for the conservative movement to look inside, much like the liberals had to in the 90s. In politics, there’s times you’re in power and times you’re not. When you’re not, it’s the genius of the electorate telling you to go reflect on your values and come up with something better – because what you’re offering has either failed or isn’t what’s being called for.
I’ve been saying since the election that the GOP needs to be quiet, listen and learn, go inside and reconfigure. Instead they’re growing more boisterous and frankly, looking like children who refuse to learn a lesson. The Jindal response bordered on insane and Steele is not impressing me at all. He seems more like a marketing executive looking for a new message rather than a leader attempting to reconfigure a defeated party, and perhaps more important, failed policies.
5 folderol // Feb 28, 2009 at 1:13 pm
“It’s time for the conservative movement to look inside, much like the liberals had to in the 90s. In politics, there’s times you’re in power and times you’re not.”
Oh yeah? And what did they come up with? More 1932 solutions? Pre-Carter spending sprees? Give me a break.
The Jindal response was a conservative one. Perhaps those who are made uncomfortable by conservatism while paying lip service to it are those who need to do the soul-searching.
6 sinz54 // Feb 28, 2009 at 1:30 pm
folderol: In the 1990s, the Democrats, led by Paul Tsongas and Bill Clinton, endorsed a balanced budget. Those two men, and the pro-Clinton organization called the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), understood that times had changed, and that a Great Society type welfare state wouldn’t fly anymore. And as President, Bill Clinton balanced the budget and for the most part avoided massive social-welfare schemes. He signed the welfare reform measure passed by a GOP Congress, over the objection of hard-core liberals. Bill Clinton was a true pragmatist in the Dem Party. Obama is a doctrinaire liberal ideologue. So the GOP has the same issue to face: Does it want to stick with doctrinaire conservative ideologues, or does it want to put forward pragmatists who don’t swear by “Atlas Shrugged”? Will there be a “Republican Leadership Council” that eschews ideological rigidity?
7 sinz54 // Feb 28, 2009 at 1:33 pm
folderol: I’m only made uncomfortable by people who absolutely refuse to accept that they’ve done things wrong in the past and they need to do better in the future. The excuses from conservative ideologues that they lost the 2008 election only because of “the media” or because Obama was a good orator or some other excuse, doesn’t fly with me. We conservatives lost because WE screwed up the War on Terror by invading Iraq to find WMD that weren’t there. And WE screwed up the economy, while pretending that nothing was wrong with it until the economy fell off a cliff. We conservatives have to show by our actions that we won’t repeat the ideological and programmatic mistakes of the past. Otherwise we don’t deserve to win any more elections.
8 ballpoint202 // Feb 28, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Not every professional political operative or pundit is elite. Few are, actually; hence the use of the term “elite” as an ironic pejorative. Your use of the term seems devoid of irony — hmmmmm. Perhaps the rank and file are simply better at spotting posers than is pleasant for some would-be party leaders.
9 A.B. // Feb 28, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Yes, giving credence to Adorno should give anyone pause. Droll.
10 folderol // Feb 28, 2009 at 3:36 pm
sinz54: “The excuses from conservative ideologues that they lost the 2008 election only because of “the media” or because Obama was a good orator or some other excuse, doesn’t fly with me. We conservatives lost because WE screwed up the War on Terror by invading Iraq to find WMD that weren’t there. And WE screwed up the economy, while pretending that nothing was wrong with it until the economy fell off a cliff. We conservatives have to show by our actions that we won’t repeat the ideological and programmatic mistakes of the past.”
Good points; though Obama probably owes much, much more to the MSM than you would be willing to allow.
Sure, the Republicans screwed up since 1994. Royally. But I don’t think the solution is “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em”. When the Republicans win, evangelicals and other “unsavory” so-con types are considered to be instrumental in the victory, and then promptly ignored. When Republicans lose, it’s because of those so-con evangelical knuckle-draggers who are holding the party back in its march toward a much more moderate, viable, Democrat Lite stance. I think that’s absolute b.s., sorry.
11 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 4:48 pm
I just watched Rush on CPAC. Fantastic! “There is nothing stale about freedom!”. Love it!
12 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 4:54 pm
sinz. All the intelligence services around the world believed that Saddam had WMDs. So give me a break! The problem with Bush is that instead of firing Tenet for this colossal intelligence failure, he gave him Medal of Honor. He did the same thing with Brown at FEMA. By the way. As far as the economy. we were in a slow down just like we were at the end of the Clinton years. It is called the business cycle. However, a mild recession was turned into a deep recession when Paulson and Bernanke decided to panic the country so that they could get TARP approved. The deep recession will probably become a depression because Obama decided to talk about catastrophe in an effort to pass his stimulus package. The young jedi (Obama) has learned well from the master (Paulson).
13 sinz54 // Feb 28, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Chekote: The mistake was trying to launch a pre-emptive war based on limited intelligence data. During the Cold War, the U.S. rejected pre-emptive war against the Soviet bloc, in favor of riding out a Soviet attack and *then* retaliating. We did that for precisely this reason: At best, intelligence data can’t get inside an enemy dictator’s head and tell you what his personal intentions are. Thus the risks of launching a pre-emptive war based on some satellite photos and educated guesses are just too high. In 2004, George Tenet admitted that we didn’t even have good HUMINT on Saddam’s inner circle. All we had were some extrapolations from what Saddam had been doing in 1998 when he kicked the U.N. inspectors out. That is nowhere near sufficient intel to justify launching a major pre-emptive war against a nation which had not yet used WMD against us. I strongly recommend that we conservatives NEVER AGAIN recommend a pre-emptive war against any nation anywhere, at least not we are assured that we have excellent HUMINT within the enemy regime’s inner circle that can tell us just what they are planning. In short, that means no pre-emptive war against Iran for the foreseeable future. Limited surgical strikes with cruise missiles, perhaps. But all-out war, NO.
14 krove // Feb 28, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Is Rush now the leader of the GOP?
15 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Rush spoke without a teleprompter for one hour and half. Not one boring minute. That is communication skills. That’s oratorical skills. Not reading a prepared speech as Obama does. Rush has real talent. As soon as the teleprompter is gone, Obama just meanders around going from one cliche to another. During his first press conference, 15 minutes to answer one question. So many pauses that even Jon Stewart made fun of him. He is a fraud.
16 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 6:53 pm
sinz. 60%+ of the American people supported the Iraq action. Many Democrats voted for the war. The fact that people changed their mind after we found out about the WMDs is not Bush’s fault. Once there we couldn’t leave without stabilizing the situation. Besides, for over ten years we had a regime of no-fly zones that needed to be resolved. Nobody is talking about pre-emptive war now, so I don’t know what you are ranting about. All you do on these boards is criticize Republicans. The Dems don’t do anything wrong?
17 jummy // Feb 28, 2009 at 7:16 pm
tucker carlson: “reality”
audience: “booooo!”
precocious child: “(empty talk radio tropes)”
audience: “wisdom from the mouths of babes”
limbaugh: “(boilerplate)”
audience: “alahu akbar!!!!”
18 krove // Feb 28, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Rush could speak for 8 hours without a teleprompter. Problem is it would contain only 20 seconds worth of common sense. To elevate a blowhard entertainer/Comedian as the de facto spiritual leader of your party just shows the paucity of any real leaders within it’s ranks. Hate radio is driving the GOP. People like Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity and Malkin are poison to any serious debate and understanding. The longer they are the mouthpiece of the GOP the more extreme it comes across to normal people.
19 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 8:40 pm
And Olbermann is not hateful? How about Maddow? You just resent the fact that Rush can speak without a teleprompter while your hero cannot even begin a press conference without it. Have you ever seen a president start a press conference with a teleprompter? I never have. And Obama always keeps his chin up as he reads. That way he looks confident, presidential. What a fraud.
20 krove // Feb 28, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Chekote, you seem to have a hate problem of your own. Why are you so angry all the time? Olberman and Maddow are entertainers they do not talk to Democratic conferences. They don’t pretend to be a mouthpiece for the Democratic party. There is a big difference. I can only guess at the reasons for your obvious contempt for the new president.
21 krove // Feb 28, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Chekote, whats the difference between using a teleprompter and notes on a lectern or a screen on a lectern? McCain used a teleprompter and a huge television screen to aid him. Most speakers prefer a teleprompter with side screens to enable them to remain in eye contact with the audience. Is that a crime? Before Obama’s press conference he gave a speech.
22 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 9:35 pm
krove. Want to see hate? Check out Rev. Wright. That’s hate. Pure hate. And my point is that Obama is a great reader. That’s not communication skills. A great orator has a few notes and can speak off the cuff. Have you ever noticed how much Obama pauses and ummms and ahhhs we he is off teleprompter. When Bush did this, he was accused of being dumb. When Obama does it, he is throughtful.
23 Principal Chair // Feb 28, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Boo hoo…did the conservatives hurt your feewings?
24 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 9:39 pm
krove. Rush never pretended to be a mouthpiece for the Republican party. He is a conservative first and foremost.
25 krove // Feb 28, 2009 at 9:55 pm
If Rush isn’t a mouthpiece why is he speaking at the GOP conference? If Obama didn’t use a teleprompter you would accuse him of being Hitler and an Orator. You will always find something to hide your jealousy behind.
26 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 10:06 pm
krove. He was speaking at CPAC which is not a Republican organization as much as the NAACP is a Democrat organization. I will be impressed with Obama’s oratory the day I see him give a speech from a few notes and basically off the cuff. Until then, he is just a good reader. The inaugural speech was a dud. Not a memorable line. His previous speeches – except for the opening lines after the Iowa victory – were filled with over the top rhetoric. “A rightious wind behind our back”. Can you imagine if Rush had said that? Cat calls of “arrogant”, “pompous” would be streaming in the media for days. How about Obama saying that if got elected “the seas would recede”. The man is full of it.
27 Chekote // Mar 1, 2009 at 7:22 am
First of all, Rush is on the radio three hours a day not four. You are the typical person who rants against him even though you have never head his entire program. I used to dislike Rush based on what was said about him until I actually gave him a chance and started listening to what he has to say. Rush is about the founding principles of this country, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He believes that what made this country great is freedom. Not the government. He is not a family values guy. You are confusing him with Dobson, Perkins. That’s not Rush. You really need to listen to him.
28 krove // Mar 1, 2009 at 7:25 am
Rush Limbaugh spoke at CPAC, the conservatives little self-congratulatory soiree` and said this, “We love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independent. We believe that the preamble of the Constitution contains an inarguable truth, that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, freedom. And the pursuit of happiness”
Here is the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI…..index.html
Of course, the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” phrase is from the Declaration of Independence, not the preamble to the Constitution. None of the right-wing doorknobs probably knew that though.
By the way, conservatives think the Boston Tea Party was about people protesting paying high taxes. It wasnt. It was a protest against the East India Tea Company getting preferential tax treatment by the Crown. Most conservatives support tax breaks for big corporations.
29 Chekote // Mar 1, 2009 at 8:28 am
krove. And Obama said there were 57 states and America invented the automobile. Should we stop listening to him?
30 sinz54 // Mar 1, 2009 at 8:54 am
krove: Is that what your left-wing teachers taught you about the Boston Tea Party? The real grievance of the colonists was that they believed that according to British law, they could be taxed only by their own representatives–and of course their own representatives would never have given the East India Tea Company preferential treatment. The colonists believed that for the British Parliament, which had no representatives from the colonies, to levy a tax on the colonies was illegitimate. This was one situation that gave rise to the rallying cry “No taxation without representation.”
31 sinz54 // Mar 1, 2009 at 9:03 am
Chekote and Krove: The conservative movement is in serious trouble, if we have to depend on a radio commentator without ambitions to run for public office (Limbaugh) to be our spokesman. We need a spokesman who actually has some chance of being elected President. That’s why Limbaugh, no matter how good he is as a radio commentator, can never fill Goldwater’s shoes or Reagan’s shoes as the voice of the conservative movement. A radio commentator can never hope to compete effectively for the public’s attention with an incumbent President. The only ones who can are candidates for that office. Making Limbaugh our de facto spokesperson is an admission that we don’t have any potential Presidential candidates who can fill that role right now. In a poll taken at CPAC, the politician most favored to be the next Presidential candidate was Mitt Romney. Yet CPAC prefers Limbaugh over Romney as their de facto spokesperson??? What does that say about Romney???
32 ConservaRant // Mar 1, 2009 at 9:46 am
I attended CPAC from Wednesday night’s opening reception through Saturday afternoon’s appearance by Ann Coulter. As I wrote in my blog, TheConservativeSoldier.com, I did not encounter a delusional crowd of fools applauding “dumbed down” elites. Did you not hear what Bill Bennett had to say? Mark Sanford? Rick Santorum. These are passionate people, leaders. Nothing defective about them, whatsoever. Did we attend the same CPAC?
33 MSheridan // Mar 1, 2009 at 9:57 am
I only have a dog in this fight to the extent that I’d like to see a Republican opposition made up of thoughtful, principled people firmly grounded in reality, and CPAC made no discernible strides in that direction. Aside from social conservatism, Republican dogma no longer appears to be tied to traditional conservatism at all, and that is the one kind of conservatism that has the least amount of appeal to me (even though I’m about as conventional as they come in my personal life).
As for Rush Limbaugh, it seems clear to me he is trying to have it both ways; he jumps back and forth from “entertainer” to “political commentator” depending on the circumstance. I absolutely recognize that it’s quite possible to be both simultaneously–there are several commentator/entertainers on the Left. However, so far as I can call to mind, none of them use their entertainer status to excuse hateful speech (like praising James Earl Ray or looking wistfully back on slavery days) while at the same time boasting of their power as serious ideologues. You can’t have it both ways. Of course, Limbaugh wasn’t the only entertainer there–there was also Coulter and Sam Wurzelbacher (Joe the Plumber) and a very bright 13 year old. I’m sure all of them had things to say that resonated with the attendees and a smallish fraction of the electorate, but it’s a huge mistake for Republicans to think that their appeal is wider than that. The party has marginalized itself and is continuing the process. I check out this site and National Review Online and The American Conservative in the hope that serious conservatives will regain control someday. I see some promising signs, but CPAC wasn’t one of them.
34 Chekote // Mar 1, 2009 at 9:57 am
sinz. The conservative movement is in deep trouble because of people within it who constantly treat what our opposition has to say about us as a fact. While questioning what we say about ourselves. Compassionate conservatism was coined as a response to the liberal charge of us being “mean”. What is mean about asking people to live up to their potential? What is mean about wanting to protect our God given rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
35 Chekote // Mar 1, 2009 at 9:59 am
“If I had the opportunity to reboot the conservative movement, I would get rid of them–or at least relegate them to the back burner.” I disagree. We have freedom of speech. Before people embrace censorship, they should think very hard about the consequences. I am tired of the constant apologizing. Oprah is out there apologizing for gaining weight! We are a free people. We are free to offend and be offended. Long live freedom!
36 cummings01 // Mar 1, 2009 at 10:23 am
David’s analysis of the 1964 election and its consequences is quite right. Johnson’s bungling of the Vietnam War led to Nixon’s victory and Nixon’s self-destruction led to Carter and his unpopular administration. Had the Democrats nominated Terry Sanford, Reagan would never have become president. But that’s all water under the bridge. These are dangerous times that call for radical action. If Reagan were president now, he would not be a prisoner to ideology. He was a practical politician, not an ideologue. People want to know what Republicans would do to solve the problems were face. The once great Republican Party cannot be the party of white, Protestant nut cases whose only position is that it is against thought.
37 Chekote // Mar 1, 2009 at 10:53 am
cummings. Is Obama trapped in left wing ideology? I mean his solutions have been tried over and over in many countries with terrible outcomes. Check out Japan. Yet he is never accused of putting ideology first.
38 Chekote // Mar 1, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Unlike the post here, I regard this as constructive criticism of CPAC http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/was-cpac-an-epic-fail/
39 Bulldoglover100 // Mar 1, 2009 at 12:41 pm
CPAC is something wer should all be ashamed to be associated with in this political climate….When the best & brightest we can put forward is a lying non plumber named Samuel(Not Joe, he lied) and Rush “I hope we wind up in a Depression” Limbaugh? We should all be afraid.
40 Bulldoglover100 // Mar 1, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Chekote…..the same can and has been said about us using the last 8 year of Bush as an example. YOur type of arguments never work because they do not deal with all facts.
41 Izzy Weird // Mar 1, 2009 at 12:59 pm
The compromising of conservative principles is an experiment we have been conducting for about 20 years, and it has failed miserably.
Compromising conservative principles is exactly what GHW Bush did when he signed a huge tax hike and subsequently lost his bid for reelection. Compromising conservative principles is what the GOP did in 2000 when we elected the compassionate conservative GW Bush. Compromising conservative principles is what caused us to lose in 2006 when the GOP congress spent like liberals instead of conservatives. Compromising conservative principles is why we lost in 2008 when the party was stuck with a so-called Maverick candidate who had virtually no support from the conservative GOP base.
McCains earlier lack of support for Bushs tax cuts, his support for the climate change hoax, and his silly proposal of amnesty for illegal aliens made him a poor excuse for a conservative in several important areas.
The continued compromise of conservative principles is exactly what the neo-Socialist left is hoping for.
42 Alan in SF // Mar 1, 2009 at 1:23 pm
When a movement has been compromising its principles every day for eight years. it isn’t really compromising its principles — it’s pretending that it has them.
43 sinz54 // Mar 1, 2009 at 3:01 pm
chekote: The conservative movement should stop cheering on Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin. They can say whatever they want, it’s a free country. But serious sensible conservatives should not be associated with them. Ann Coulter’s wild extremism and Michelle Malkin’s–what can I call it–neo-fascism–should not be the public faces of the GOP today, any more than David Duke was. What has happened to the intellectual thought of the National Review and the American Enterprise Institute? Why are not spokepersons from these organizations being the face of our movement and of the GOP, instead of Michelle Malkin, with her know-nothing anti-Hispanic nativism?
44 sinz54 // Mar 1, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Izzy Weird: We conservatives are going to have to disabuse ourselves of a damaging myth: That the GOP lost in 2008 because the GOP base was dissatisfied. According to the exit polls, the GOP base turned out in numbers nearly as high as in 2004. But the Independent vote, now a larger voting bloc than either loyal Dems or loyal Repubs, deserted the GOP in huge numbers. That’s why the GOP lost. So the challenge for the GOP is *NOT* to appeal to hard-core conservatives like you. In the end, you’ll grit your teeth and vote against the Democrats like you always do. The challenge for the GOP is how to win back those Independent voters. And they weren’t as angered by Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” as you are. They were angered by the debacle in Iraq and the collapse of the U.S. economy on Bush’s watch, while the congressional Republicans were looking the other way on both of these issues.
45 sinz54 // Mar 1, 2009 at 3:15 pm
jdcarmine says: “The best thing to happen to us is Michael Steele and Bobby Jindal, these new conservative intellectuals of color” That can only happen if the party they represent values intellectualism. Otherwise, the GOP is more likely to nominate Sarah Palin in 2012 instead of Jindal. It is absolutely imperative that before 2012, the GOP goes all-out to attract the young and the college-educated, especially in non-Red States, so that they can have a voice in the GOP primary process. Because otherwise, the old working-class white guys from the Red States are going to nominate Sarah Palin–and the GOP will lose again.
46 krove // Mar 1, 2009 at 3:17 pm
It’s interesting to see Steele and Cantor coming under severe pressure for daring to criticise Rush Limbaugh on the Sunday shows. How long will it take for them to crawl onto his show and grovel for forgiveness. Rush has put all right thinking Conservatives in a box and they are locked in.
47 krove // Mar 1, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Sinz, I read an interesting article today not sure where that talked about the GOP losing a complete generation if things keep going the way they are. It stated that people in the 18 to 29 range will usually stay in the party they first vote for. In that case you better start working on those young people because at present if the GOP convention is any guide you are a party mainly made up of old white men. Add in the repulsion women feel for Palin and Limbaugh, the total loss of blacks and the majority of Hispanics and you have a long way to go. The demographic and generational tide is well on the Democrats beach at present and I cant see it going out any time soon. Do you agree?
48 Chekote // Mar 1, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Sinz. Why do you always fall for the MSM line. Ann Coulter is free to do whatever she does. Michelle Malkin is against illegal immigration. Are you for illegal immigration? I am not. Does that make me anti-Hispanic? What kind of nonsense is that! About half the illegal immigrants are not even Hispanic. They are visa overstayers from all over the world. Next time a liberal says Coulter is the face of your party, instead of responding defensively “No, she is not”. Just say with all the problems we have in this country and you are worried about a satirist?!
49 Chekote // Mar 1, 2009 at 4:19 pm
krove. We are not into identify politics. We we look out we see individuals, not groups. I expect young people to vote liberal. I did. The problem I see is that we lost among people making more than $200K, we lost among the investor class, we lost the suburban vote. 92% of the people pay their bills. That’s our natual constituency. The fact that they may be Hispanic, black, women or men is of seconday importance. The point is that they are the ones who make this country work.
50 dragonlady // Mar 1, 2009 at 4:43 pm
I wasn’t at CPAC, but I’ve come to the conclusion this website has nothing good to say about conservatives. Think I’m going to stick with the National Review.
51 Chekote // Mar 1, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Dragonlady. I think I may join you.
52 MSheridan // Mar 1, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Chekote, dragonlady, when you say this site has nothing good to say about conservatives, I believe you have mistaken its basic premise. There are posters here ranging from liberal through moderate to very conservative, and of course you’re likely to disagree with at least some of them, but they are not the site (and trust me, if NRO allowed reader comments on every page, you’d see the same there). I read NRO daily, and I see writers there just as critical as the most critical contributors here, but the difference is that the MAJORITY of writers for NRO appear to believe that no change is needed in the conservative movement and that it is only necessary to discredit the opposition for conservatism to flourish once again. This site was founded on a different premise: instead of (or in addition to) simply waiting for liberals to fail or convincing the public that they have already done so, it is an effort to find a conservatism that is more relevant to the populace at large. As conservatism in this country has been in a near constant state of flux since its beginning, this is not necessarily an ignoble form of surrender but could possibly be a necessary step forward. I look in on this site (although I’m far from conservative myself) because I can appreciate the value of having actual conservatives (as the term was once understood) participating in the sphere of public discourse. I do see the continuity between the past and present versions–oldstyle conservatives were also pessimists who distrusted people’s inherent evil tendencies, thought governments only exist to keep all that evil bottled up but are otherwise not that useful, and believed that the accumulated wisdom and practices of the past are not to be lightly set aside. Even though I might well disagree with all those ideas as they intersect with any specific political issue, I recognize that it is nonsensical to deny that they have their place. But they aren’t received truths–they sprang out of a body of well thought out philosophy. I would argue that the Know-Nothingism of too many modern conservatives (and no, this isn’t aimed at either of you) is far more repugnant to the general public than their actual politics. It’s far easier to deal with someone holding well-thought-out ideas based on differing assumptions who is prepared to engage in honest debate than someone with a gutful of unexamined prejudices whose mind is nailed shut. I realize that this description could just as easily apply to some liberals, but they’re not the ones dominating talk radio. The day I hear that Limbaugh has quoted Burke or Hobbes (or even, gawds help us, Russell Kirk) will be the day I have a fleeting glimmer of respect for his understanding of what actual conservatism means. If you do leave, don’t do it because you disagree with the commenters or some or even all of the writers. Leave because you think the conservative movement is perfect as is and should not change in any way.
53 Chekote // Mar 2, 2009 at 1:18 am
“it is an effort to find a conservatism that is more relevant to the populace at large” Please tell me what is irrelevant about freedom? Please tell me what is irrelevant about believing that individuals generally make better decisions for themselves and their families than government bureaucrats? What is irrelevant about believing that the American experiment is something special that should be cherished? That’s our American values have built the greatest standard of living on earth and before throwing everything out we need to stop and think. Do we really have to tinker with the sanctity of contract law just because 8% of the people can’t pay their mortgages? There is nothing irrelevant about conservative principles because they are the principles upon which this great country was built on. People voted against Bush, not against conservatism. If Frum and others want to help the cause, instead of railing against CPAC, Palin or Rush, he should point out that the reason we lost was because Bush did not govern as a conservative. It was because despite controlling both end of PA avenue, the GOP expanded government. That would be more useful instead of constantly attacking conservatives. How about a couple of threads on how disasterous Bernanke has been? A thread on Paulson who will go down as the worse Treasury Secretary? How the Paulson bailout plan has been a utter and complete failure? A thread on why the GOP did not hold to its promise to get rid of the Department of Education, HUD and Commerce? I think a discussion about the topics I listed would be more constructive.
54 MSheridan // Mar 2, 2009 at 2:02 am
There is nothing irrelevant about freedom. Coming to an common agreement on what it means is the hard part. To the extent that conservatives champion freedom as I understand it, I’m in full agreement with them. As for individuals making better decisions for themselves and their families than government bureaucrats…well, I’m not convinced conservatives can claim to stand for that in every or even most circumstances. Aside from the largish minority of libertarian conservatives, I believe the majority of the conservative movement is in line with the tradition of conservative thought on individual choices. Most oldstyle (Hobbes, Burke, Kirk) and modern conservatives tend to believe people have no natural inclination to be good and must be prevented from evil, very often think governments are not incredibly useful aside from their prime justification of defending nations from threats both external and internal (aforementioned human tendencies toward evil), and generally believe that the accumulated wisdom and practices of the past are not to be lightly set aside. I can’t claim there’s no validity whatsoever to these beliefs and I recognize there is a little wiggle room there for respect for individuals’ choices, but I hardly think it’s integral to the philosophy. As far as the theory of American exceptionalism you mentioned goes, I subscribe to it myself, aside from the canard that we’ve got the highest standard of living on earth. It doesn’t matter to me that a few European nations have higher, because I believe in America’s future and think standard of living is no certain gauge of national greatness anyway. But I don’t think that belief in American values is a conservative/liberal split either. The only difference I’ve seen regarding patriotism is that conservatives are more likely to subscribe to “My country, right or wrong” and liberals to Carl Schurz’s (19th C German-American patriot) more complete statement “My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” For this, liberals are very often accused of hating America. As for the discussion topics you suggest, they might be quite interesting to many readers. I only ask whether you think the result of said discussions will help Republicans win in the future, supposedly the point of this site. I absolutely do not doubt the sincerity of those conservatives who blame the recent Democratic wins on the failure of conservatives to govern in a fashion consistent with their principles. I simply do not see how restating those principles will help, when it wasn’t lack of clarity as to what they were that was the problem. Even if it were granted for the sake of argument that TRUE conservatives would do much better, how are they to be elected in the first place when it would seem that the electorate has largely given up on them, at least for now?
55 MSheridan // Mar 2, 2009 at 2:16 am
Please forgive the grammatical errors–”an common agreement” [shudder] and the accidental duplication of material from the previous entry (completely forgot I’d already said that–it’s late). It would be really nice if there were a preview button on this site so we could see how our posts would look before finalizing them.
56 Chekote // Mar 2, 2009 at 7:29 am
“My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” For this, liberals are very often accused of hating America”. That is not why they are accused of hating America. When Reid goes to the floor and declares that the surge has failed before it has even taken place, that is cheering for our troops to fail. John McCain was very critical of various Bush policies. Did anyone on the Right call him unpatriotic? No. Sure he was called a RINO but no one ever questioned his patriotism. There is a difference between benig critical of certain individuals or policies, and saying that America is in its essence a racist country or a force for evil in the world. Above you don’t cheer for the troops to fail because you don’t like who is in the White House. You don’t call a decorated general a traitor or liar. I think that the problem with the conservative movement in America is that the message was undermined by joining with certain religious leaders for political expediency. You cannot say that you want limited government and at the same time advocate for the government to run people’s bedrooms. You can’t argue for a limited federal government and get involved in the Schiavo situation. Let’s face it. What hurt conservatism was their leaders constantly undermining conservative principles for political expediency. What conserns me about this website is that there is very little discussion about how we regain credibility with our natural constituency and instead it focuses on how the GOP can use the federal government to solve people’s everyday problems. It seems to take what our political opposition says about us as fact and wastes its time devising policies to assuage their criticisms. I don’t believe that this course will lead to a new majority. Instead of focusing on “what’s wrong” with conservatism, we need to focus on what people who call themselves conservatives are doing wrong.
57 dragonlady // Mar 2, 2009 at 10:57 am
MSheridian: “Leave because you think the conservative movement is perfect as is and should not change in any way.” If you’ve read Chekote’s or my posts, you will see we have no problems with constructive criticism of Republicans, moderate and conservative alike, so I reject your insinuation that we are incapable of political self-examination. As far as the posters on this site, I have no problem with disagreeing civilly with well thought out arguments such as yours. There are certain posters here that just reflexively spew out ideological dribble from the blogosphere and I simply ignore them. But the posters, to an extent, are a reflection of the site and there are few conservative posters or defenders around. Im all for making the GOP back into the Big Tent party but I do not want to sacrifice its core conservative philosophy or principles. You say mouthing principles is not enough. That is true, but if the party has no underlying philosophy, its nothing more than a populist poll-chasing movement doomed to be short-lived. I am critical of the GOP because I believe they havent applied their principles in governance. They have been unimaginative in formulating conservative solutions to current problems in a manner that resonate with voters, and have failed to broaden the appeal of the party. On social issues, I can see how the strength of the ideologues have hurt voter perception which is why Ive called for forming non-theological approaches on these issues. And Ive continually said social issues should not be a litmus test. But Im tired of the base being bashed as a bunch of ignoramuses or being looked down as unsophisticated. We can navel gaze all day long, and its called for with the recent electoral loss. But I will not apologize for not wanting to move towards European style democratic socialism. So lets debate the degree of governments role in current issues (such as regulation vis a vis the marketplace, health care, etc ) and how they can empower individuals; thats what we need to be doing. Is it too much to ask the NewMajority to stop eating its own and focus on forming principled, sensible opposition to the Democrats? Conservatism to me means BOTH individual freedom and responsibility. If that is somehow outdated to you and the majority of voters, then we need to fight for it again.
You must log in to post a comment.