Conservatism

The conservative blame game

Drew McKissick — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:22:01 -0500

It has been said that nature abhors a vacuum, but you can't prove it by the space between the ears of some in the Republican Party today, or in the conservative movement for that matter.

Take columnist Kathleen Parker for example, who in her most recent column lamented the presence of "oogedy-boogedy" religious conservatives within the Republican Party and derisively referred to them as the "low brow" crowd.

She went on to suggest that such people should just keep their faith to themselves; essentially saying they should either cease to have their values informed by their faith, or cease to cast ballots on the basis of their values. Of course, this seems rather selective, as one could just as easily ask her and others in the socially liberal camp to do the same.

Given that an AP/IPSOS poll demonstrated that 40% of the Republican coalition was comprised of evangelical conservatives, (Parker's "low brow", "oogedy boogedy" set), and, assuming she's interested in GOP electoral success, it would seem that math isn't exactly her strong suit.

One should note that the cultural views she seems to have a problem with are nothing new in this country. In fact, they've been around since before this was a country. What's new, (or newer), in American politics are the cultural liberals who demand that people (via government) actually sanction their behavior.

Keep in mind that while the GOP was busy losing the recent elections, gay marriage was rejected in three more states, (even California) - an issue that has won thirty out of thirty-one elections across America. Not exactly a national outcry for social liberalism.

By the way, Ms. Parker is the same "conservative" columnist that was celebrated by the mainstream media for her denigration of Governor Sarah Palin. The same who, just a week prior to the election, penned probably one of the most sexist columns written by a supposed "conservative" woman that I've ever seen, in which she suggested that the only reason McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate was because he had the hots for her.

Anyone this vapid no longer merits serious attention.

Then there's Mike Huckabee, who's pushing a new book that takes some real classy potshots at other members of the conservative movement, especially libertarians who happen to believe in small government and sound money. This is the same strain of American thought that Reagan once referred to as the "heart and soul" of conservativatism.

Of course Huckabee's probably the guy who's most responsible for making John McCain the Republican nominee this year, not exactly a big help to the movement.

And let's not forget those from the McCain campaign itself (OK, not exactly a bastion of conservatism) that committed some of the most blatant C.Y.A. in recent election history by trying to blame Sarah Palin for McCain's loss while the ballots were still being counted. The anonymous smears attempting to portray her as some backwoods rube where not just low class, but telling as to where this crowd was coming from to begin with.

What everyone needs to understand is that the biggest part of the GOP base is conservative all across the board, meaning in terms of social policy, economic policy, foreign policy and the size and scope of government.

Moreover, the same can be said of the American people. When you break it all down to its constituent parts, a consistent conservative approach to government, economics, taxes, foreign policy and culture is where the largest plurality of the American people are...and where the GOP needs to be.

Any one conservative group that calls for the others to be subordinated and/or assigned blame for Republican loses is not only wrong, but ignoring reality.

The blame for the GOP's current situation lies with those that have forgotten this truth. Those that went on spending binges with tax-dollars that would make drunken sailors blush; those who pushed for amnesty for illegal aliens; those who decided to subordinate social and cultural issues in elections to the point where some conservatives wondered what was in it for them anymore.

These are the people who don't deserve to be anywhere near a leadership position again.

In the end, this is all a tempest in a teapot fomented by some very small people doing the equivalent of jumping up and down and yelling "look at me!" They won't matter.

But the conservative movement will matter. It will go on, and it will grow. It will do so precisely because it's rooted and grounded in the reality of the human condition and the values upon which our country was founded.

We believe that the chief ends of government are to protect individual life, liberty and property. We believe in lower taxes, sound fiscal policy, smaller government, strong national defense and the traditional culture and values that have made the United States the greatest nation on the face of God's green Earth.

So to those who would seek to marginalize one faction of conservatives at the expense of another, let me just say that there are more of us than there are of you. Meaning there are more of us in this party who would consider ourselves "comprehensive conservatives". And we're not going anywhere.

William F. Buckley, R.I.P.

Drew McKissick — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:17:48 -0500

A truly great man died last night...

NEW YORK - William F. Buckley Jr. died at work, in his study. The Cold War had ended long before. A Republican was in the White House. The word "liberal" had been shunned like an ill-mannered guest.

At the end of his 82 years, much of it spent stoking and riding a right-wing wave as an erudite commentator and conservative herald, all of Buckley's dreams seemingly had come true.

"He founded a magazine, wrote over 50 books, influenced the course of political history, had a son, had two grandchildren and sailed across the Atlantic Ocean three times," said his son, novelist Christopher Buckley. "He really didn't leave any stone unturned."

Buckley was found dead in his study Wednesday morning in Stamford, Conn. His son noted Buckley had died "with his boots on, after a lifetime of riding pretty tall in the saddle."

I first started reading Buckley's columns when I was in high school...then started reading National Review. Later I found Firing Line on PBS and just loved to watch him jab with his opponents, but in that sort of sly, smiling fashion, with just a hint ot sarcasm..slightly leaning back, slouched in his chair. Classic and confident.

The Editors at National Review put it this way:

Our revered founder, William F. Buckley Jr., died in his study this morning.

If ever an institution were the lengthened shadow of one man, this publication is his. So we hope it will not be thought immodest for us to say that Buckley has had more of an impact on the political life of this country — and a better one — than some of our presidents. He created modern conservatism as an intellectual and then a political movement. He kept it from drifting into the fever swamps. And he gave it a wit, style, and intelligence that earned the respect and friendship even of his adversaries. (To know Buckley was to be reminded that certain people have a talent for friendship.)

He inspired and incited three generations of conservatives, and counting. He retained his intellectual and literary vitality to the end; even in his final years he was capable of the arresting formulation, the unpredictable insight. He presided over NR even in his “retirement,” which was more active than most people’s careers. It has been said that great men are rarely good men. Even more rarely are they sweet and merry, as Buckley was.

He'll be sorely missed.

***

More: The Corner - Tech President - Volokh - Wall Street Journal - Outside the Beltway - Malkin - Powerline - Ace - Sister Toldjah

The end of conservatism?

Drew McKissick — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:08:09 -0500

Good news. The media is writing the obituary for conservatism. Which HAS to mean we're due for a conservative renaissance.

Mainstream as Extreme

Drew McKissick — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:00:00 -0400

When did the mainstream in America become the right wing “extreme”? When did the memo go out (and who sent it?) to begin portraying ordinary Americans with their parent’s values as space aliens bent on world domination or subversion of the democratic process?

What is it that defines their extremism or at least justifies the application of the label? Is it that their belief system is based on the recognition of something larger than themselves? Have we reached a point in our society where anyone who believes that good and evil are real and that a just God exists or who doesn’t believe that their ancestors swung from trees is extreme?

Since this label largely appears in a political context, whose opinions or issue positions are usually branded as being extremist?

Is it someone who believes that the definition of marriage today should be the same as it was say fifty years ago? Or at a minimum, that democratically elected legislatures should make such decisions, not unelected judges?

Is it someone who believes that the Constitution should be applied to our government and society as written and originally understood by those who wrote and ratified it?

Is it someone who believes that just because a child has yet to exit from its mother’s womb it still has the right to live, (as opposed to whether or not its mother “wants” it to)?

What about people who believe that an effective government monopoly of primary and secondary education is no more desirable than having one for college education – and that the free market can do a better job of producing quality education at a more reasonable cost?

Are you extreme if you believe that the American people (via their government) have a right and a duty to defend themselves against terrorists? And that it’s OK to capture them (if you neglected to kill them) and lock them away in prison to prevent them from getting back into the terrorist game?

Is it extreme to think that there is such a thing as decency and that broadcasters should be required to avoid things like profanity and nudity, especially when children may be tuned in? Or what about believing that government schools shouldn’t be in the sex education business – much less undermining what parents try to teach their kids about the subject.

Would someone be extreme if they go to church more than once a week? Perhaps even tithe? Or if they thought children should be allowed to pray in public schools? Or that the Boy Scouts should be required to hire homosexual scout masters?

Perhaps people who prefer lower taxes are extreme – especially when they vote for politicians who work to keep them low and refuse to support those who don’t. Or what about those people who hold to the notion that the Second Amendment is still a valid part of the Constitution? Total wackos?

Are people extreme if they cling to the idea that when they buy a home it is theirs – and that it would be wrong for the government to take it away from them and give it to someone else who might pay more in taxes?

Since we can readily prove from history that these beliefs are not alien or “new”, at what point did they become “extreme”? What brought about this change in labeling? Could it have something to do with who does the labeling, (such as the press, liberals, Democrats, academic elites, the entertainment industry, etc.)? And why? Is it because their world view has changed in recent years and is somehow threatened by more dominant traditional values?

Call me crazy (or extreme) but it seems to me that the supposed “right wing extremists” have an awful lot in common with the people who founded this country. Which makes you wonder about the people who are calling them extremists, doesn’t it?