Theory Nerds!

[Rit]

thorny said:

Isn't it ironic that the very United States of America - that lofty institution which dared to wrest Tyranny itself from the hands of the few Warlords and hand it back to the People only a couple of centuries ago -- that we have come to this-? *koff*BUSH*koff*

Not really . . .not when you sit down and consider that all this administration is guilty of, is the very human foible which possessed the Old Tyrants in the first place: The adrenaline rush of POWER (and you do recall what they say about that stuff, right?)

That's why they call it "Revolution" . . . . . . What Goes Around, Comes Around . . .

*stay Tuned to the Streets . . . for the Revolution will Not be Televised...*

that was an awesome write-up.

[Thorngrub]

thanks, rit. I had entirely forgotten about that entry (and those preceding it).

Yeah . . . I need to revisit Bakunin . . . *Didja ever read that essay I linked to*?

[sisyphus]

i second that..."revolution." mmhmm.

[sisyphus]

loved this: I've somewhat forgotten exactly what point I was trying to make re: homeless people in Berkeley, but I absolutely agree that the basic dignity of human beings means that we all can contribute something meaningful to society - even those homeless people on telegraph avenue. However, I don't think all contributions can be measured in monetary terms, and I think that market prices do not always reflect the depth of a contribution (hell, sometimes they inversely reflect that depth....) It might be that I contribute a great deal to society by giving something that has no market price, and through which I therefore derive no monetary compensation. So I might still require some kind of aid or assistance, even though I'm making a meaningful contribution and "giving back" to society. Thus I don't think the only way to measure whether or not aid has empowered a person to give back to the community is by asking whether or not that person has become economically self-sufficient. So when I argue for the "moral equality" of all human beings, and simultaneously argue that some people - and not just the severely disabled - may require lifelong assistance, there is no contradiction, because I don't believe one's income, or lack thereof, in any way measures their worth as a human being, or their contributions to society.

(will catch up on this thread later tonight...enjoying...)

[Dr. Drum]

Doing my part for a sadly neglected board...

www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.wolfe.html

[kmc]

This is one of the better essays on the American conservatives that I've read in a long while.

[rockysigman]

I agree. I'm not sure I followed the reasoning behind his conclusions 100%, but for the most part that article was remarkably informative and insightful.

[Paul]

I just printed that article out. Looking forward to reading it on the Metro ride home...

[kmc]

It's a fair conclusion that people cannot lead from within an institution they disdain and often undermine.

[rockysigman]

Oh, I completely agree with that. The part that I wasn't too sure about was where the author was discussing what a new conservative movement would have to do for Americans to give conservatism another chance. The whole idea of Americans giving conservativism another chances implies that America is done with conservativism for the time being. The last several years certainly have been bad enough that Americans should be done with it, and clearly a large number of Americans are sick of it. But I'm still not convinced that we're in the midst of some sort of swing to the left or anything. Americans may be disgusted with Conservative Republicans right now, but I'm still not certain that they're going to lose power in the immediate future.

[chrisfan]

I haven't had a chance to finish reading the article yet. But I've had so many thoughts as I read it that I wanted to get some of them down. From up until section 2 ...

First, I think that Rocky is right in questioning the assumption the writer is making that conservatism is done with in America. Not only do election results not indicate that - but take a look at the issues that the Democratic party is grapling with. On the issues where they are most divided, the source of the divide is most often between those adhering to liberal ideals, and those who are saying "no no no, that won't work. We need to take the conservative position in order to win". Not only are Republcians not rejecting true conservatism (in ideals, not practice when it comes to Washington) but Democrats are trying to woo voters with it.

Next, I think that distinctions MUST be made between conservatives and Republicans, and Liberals and Democrats. They are NOT the same thing. Conservatives and Liberals hold ideals. Republicans and Democrats hold power. Conservatives are frustrated with Bush because his leadership indicates that he's conservative in name only. Is this unusual? I'd say not. The writer cites (rightfully so) examples of Bush and the Republican congress borrowing from the liberal ideals of big government to solve problems and win votes. But how is that different from when Bill Clinton turned his back on liberal ideals in areas such as welfare reform in order to retain power? Again, it's the difference between ideals and retaining power.

And because it's just an area that will always get my goat, I really have to take issue with the writer's notion that conservatives harbor a disdain of government. That's poppycock! The writer is settled on the idea that government is where you go to solve problems. Conservatives disagree. It's not that we hate government. It's that when flood waters are rising in our homes, or we're hungry and our pantries are empty, we don't think of government first as the solution. When I need money, I don't turn to my best friend for a loan. That doens't mean I hate my best friend.

[strat-0]

Well put, Chris. I must admit that I haven't even looked at the article yet. But who disdains government? Some conservatives, some liberals (though likely for different reasons). Libertarians such as me are not disdainful so much as distrustful and skeptical, and feel that it has overstepped its rightful and necessary role (while botching even that role pretty soundly).

[shin]

All of that is well and good, but it should be pointed out that Grover Norquist, one of the most influential Republican thinkers in the Beltway right now, said he wanted to shrink down the government so it can be "drowned in the bathtub".

The issue is whether or not the Norquist line of thinking is a symptom of a fraudulent wave of GOP phonies, or if it is in fact a feature of the entire ideology. I'm inclined to agree that these people don't speak for the right, but unless they're voted out, that claim won't hold water. They're yours until you kick them out.

[Dr. Drum]

I’d agree that it’s anything but a foregone conclusion that the Republican Party is about to lose power in the U.S., although the inadequacy of the Democratic Party is one of the major factors in that. Otherwise you’ve got all the hallmarks of a governing party in serious decay and with the scale of some of the failures (Iraq, Katrina, etc.) and the fragmentation of the movement (typified by the Miers debacle), it certainly has the feel of a fin de siecle for the brand of conservatism that’s been predominant for the last 30/40 years. (Or at least, a fin de siecle there, since that same variant has now successfully made the jump across the 49th parallel, subsumed our old Red Tory tradition and is on the ascendent, with no obvious obstacles in its path.)

On small governnment/the crusade for ever lower taxes, etc., I think you can split hairs about a word like "disdain" but it all adds up the same in the end.

[chrisfan]

But if you look at the state level, I'm not so sure that you can really declare that Republicans have abandoned the idea of small government conservatism.

For as much as his brother has used government programs to gain support (or lose it), Jeb Bush certainy has a CONSERVATIVE record in Florida and HAS reduced the size of government there. With very few exceptions, he has governed from the perspective that government exsists to provide order, not assistance, and has been successful at it.

In Ohio, Ken Blackwell is one of several gubanatorial candidates across the country who is getting attention for firmly running on conservative ideals. He was considered the bastard child of the state party for years, until the pansy-ass Republicans who were willing to abandon conservative ideals in exchange for power started getting in trouble. Now he's running on a platform that has better shepherding of tax policy as a core value. Friday, the man spent the day crossing the state campaigning on the idea that operation of the state's turnpike should be contracted out, and would be more cost effective. When you start getting into alternative ways to administer the basics, such as roads, that's undoubtedly sticking to conservatism.

Now I must say that it absolutely baffles me that you're attempting to talk here about fragmentation in the Republican party - and have to go back nearly a year to find an example - and one that proved to be rather minor and ironed over quickly. I think it's baffling only because the issues that are causing fragmentation in the Democratic party appear to be much larger issues,with much deeper fragmentation. We're 5 months from an election, and they're nowhere close to coming up with a national plan because they can't agree on just about anything beyond "Republicans are bad". Why aren't we looking at fragmentation where it truly exists?