Connelly: Right Win Razing Repubs

15 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  Lizard_People on November 07 at 8:29 a.m.

  Why is it okay to call conservatives “tea baggers”? Everyone knows that that is slang for a sex act.

• 

  BigMac on November 07 at 8:48 a.m.

  You know, as soon as I see the term “tea baggers,” I tune him right out. He’s not going to win any arguments by calling names.

• 

  Arch_Druid on November 07 at 9:04 a.m.

  Actually, there is nothing “conservative” about the TEAbaggers at all. Not when they ultimately do more damage to the GOP than they can possibly do to the Dems themselves. See Froma Harrop.

• 

  Lizard_People on November 07 at 9:06 a.m.

  As far as your original question goes, it behooves you first to understand the different factions within the far right. There is the alternative right (antiwar, antigovernment, socially conservative, with or without libertarian leanings), and then there is the mainstream populist right (pro-war/armed forces, pro-government when it is Bush, antigovernment now it is Obama, usually religiously motivated to be pro-zionist/ anti-muslim)

  Most of the intellectual advancements have been in the literature of the alternative right (paleo-cons)- The American Conservative magazine, Takimag, Chronicles magazine. The populist right (neo-cons) is more interested in talk radio and Joe the Plumber type stuff. 24, Fox News.

  These two groups have lately been coalescing, now that they suddenly have anti-government in common (re: Michelle Bachmann’s invite to Ron Paul), and they generally all are against immigration, and socially conservative (e.g. pro-life), and being anti-war is easier for the populist right to ignore.

  Incidentally, antiwar conservatives have been abandoned by their once antiwar liberal allies. Even Code Pink is for the occupation of Afghanistan now that it is Obama’s baby. Don’t feel too bad for us, we knew it would happen.

  At any rate, if the populist right takes the easy way out, continues to celebrate its shocking banality exemplified by Palin and Joe the Plumber, and never re-examines what Andrew Bacevich calls “the myth of American Exceptionalism”, then they will destroy much more than the Republican Party. They will destroy Reason itself by destroying any chance Western Civilization has in reversing its descent into an angry, chirping mob.

  On the other hand, if the populist right chooses to face the difficult re-examination process, learns a thing or to about real conservative thought and philosophy (it didn’t start with Limbaugh!), start taking intellectual direction from the alternative right they once derided, then our culture (whats left of it) can be saved.

  Can Edmund Burke compete with Jack Bauer*? Sadly, no. My money’s on the destruction of civilization.

  *that’s not just a trite comparison. Think about it. Edmund Burke is considered the originator of modern conservative thought. He wrote about the evils of the French Revolution and the danger posed by a regime dedicated to exporting their democratic revolution and overthrowing the existing governments around the globe, replacing them with populist governments. Jack Bauer is a fictional character beloved of the populist right for helping to “make the world safe for democracy”. The populist right(neo-cons) are neo-Jacobins.

• 

  Arch_Druid on November 07 at 9:31 a.m.

  Lizard_People, I don’t disagree with the main intent of your post. However, right wing can be viewed in only one way. What is this country? What are its institutions? What is of value? What is an ideological principle? If a limited gvt is to be desired then it can not be abandoned in a state of hypocrisy the moment “my side” is in power.

  There is a difference between pro-life and anti-abortion. Precisely, LP; the former is moral and the latter is seeking political advantage by exploiting a sad situation. Most often, anti-abortionists seek to exploit a situation they find abhorrent to further gvt advancement and a place within gvt itself on grounds that the U.S. Constitution does not favor ref Article 6.

  And when “conservative” becomes an umbrella for ideologies in flux that reach the point of becoming extreme and dangerously so; to define a way of thinking that has mostly abandoned core principles, values, institutions and an understanding of the nature of what this country is—then the label itself has lost all honorable meaning. After all, LP, it doesn’t matter in what direction you walk as you walk along the edge of a cliff. If you teeter too far over you still fall off the same cliff and hit the same ground just as hard that is hundreds of feet below.

  That is why conservatism can only be defined in one way: all things in moderation. Without that caution, conservatism becomes abandoned for dangerous radicalism.

• 

  Lizard_People on November 07 at 9:36 a.m.

  Using your cliff analogy, extremism in running away from the cliff is no vice.

  By the way, I thought you might get a kick out of this, AD: http://www.takimag.com/sniperstower/article/grand_new_pagan/

• 

  Arch_Druid on November 07 at 9:43 a.m.

  Geeze, LP, and here I would have thought that looking to one’s own personal safety would have been the very underpinnings of conservatism.

• 

  Lizard_People on November 07 at 9:55 a.m.

  No, that’s a liberal thing.

• 

  spokelooneh on November 07 at 10:11 a.m.

  Good analysis of the paleo-cons vs. the neocons, LP.
  ––––––––––––––-

  By the numbers:

  “… Poll respondents are evenly divided when asked whether they have confidence in Obama to make the right decisions for the country’s future, but just 19 percent express confidence in the Republicans in Congress to do so. Even among Republicans, only 40 percent express confidence in the GOP congressional leadership to make good choices.

  Only 20 percent of adults identify themselves as Republicans, little changed in recent months, but still the lowest single number in Post-ABC polls since 1983. Political independents continue to make up the largest group, at 42 percent of respondents; 33 percent call themselves Democrats. … ”

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009101902502

• 

  ShoshoneConservative on November 07 at 10:21 a.m.

  For my take on the topic, see here: http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/hbo/2009/nov/07/anderson-teabagger/#comments

  The “good old days” of Hoover, Lodge, Sr., Taft, Welker, McCarthy, (early) Nixon, and (early) Goldwater? Go back even further: Heyburn, Gooding, and McKinley?

  If he likes the GOP of the ‘70’s, that’s fine, but he shouldn’t make it sound like this is a new phenomenon, and use a sophomoric sexual term (“tea-bagger”) to try and demean his opponents.

• 

  Arch_Druid on November 07 at 10:37 a.m.

  LP, yes I looked at your link and did think it was a good one. However, do remember what I said about the underpinnings of conservative as first moderation in all things. IE, conservatives will first think, make plans and not move on impulse. That is why they will not get too close to the cliff IN THE FIRST PLACE because they already know the dangers of falling over.

  To confuse this conservatism with “liberalism” is a major gut busting LOL! Because people have so redefined the label so many times that they no longer understand its original meaning.

  And where they no longer understand the original meaning, they will also be the first people to go over the cliff.

  I recall years ago with the first years of PBS. There was a cartoon about the dude who watched a guy with blinders blah, blah, blah to a crowd then stomping his feet and shaking his hands above his head. In turn, the crowd also wearing blinders blah, blah, blahed in turn, stomped their feet and shook their own hands above their heads. Then the “leader” took them to a cliff and they all went over it together. Except for one the fellow who did not wear blinders, who did not shout blah, blah, blah, who did not stomp his feet, or shake his hands above his head. Yes, he did follow the others to the cliff but did not choose to go over the cliff himself. And afterwards, walked away from it. 20 years after such a cartoon was aired, the dude I described would have been touted as a conservative. How about that.

• 

  Lizard_People on November 07 at 10:46 a.m.

  Here’s a way better column in the American Conservative on the same topic:

  http://amconmag.com/article/2009/dec/01/00008/

  Here’s a fun excerpt: “many conservative bestsellers aren’t purchased to be read so much as to be owned. In the bully’s game that talk-radio conservatism has become, if you can’t keep Barack Obama out of the Oval Office, there’s at least some satisfaction in forcing the New York Times to put Obamanation at the top of its list. Besides, stocking up on conservative kitsch yields a rush of inclusion, like wearing the jersey of a favorite football team. Being on the Right is no longer a lonely struggle standing athwart history; it can be more like standing in a stadium doing the wave.”

  that’s a bad thing. Destroying the party by thinking ‘winning’ is more important than ‘understanding’.

• 

  hmoffsuite on November 07 at 11:01 a.m.

  This thread is a good read. Thanks for your contributions.

• 

  Arch_Druid on November 07 at 11:30 a.m.

  Now that was a very good post Lizard_People. That is one area where American Conservative and I can have a complete agreement.

• 

  hhuseland on November 07 at 6:27 p.m.

  Both the radical right and the radical left are on a suicide watch. Of course, neither extreme thinks of themselves as extremists. I have seen multiple examples during this last election cycles of people that I consider extreme trowing rocks at others while just as guilty themsleves. Where has objectivity gone. … Or was it ever there.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic