Skip to main content

Conservative Ideas v. Conservative Reality

The point of yesterday's article was to chew a bit on what it is to be an American conservative. I was trying to achieve a couple things there. First, I wanted any conservative readers I have to really think about what it is that fuels their political stance. Second, I wanted my liberal readers to view a discussion, albeit brief, about conservative ideas without built-in judgment or condemnation.

Now to be fair, readership of this nearly brand new blog is pretty low yet, so we didn't get a bunch of reviews and replies to my proposed outline. Tom, however, made a great comment noting that new conservatives are less concerned with class social conservatism than older conservatives are. We'll take that as a subtle, but important shift in the conservative voter base, but I will argue that at this time it is more an indicator of conservatism to come. As the movement stands, classic social conservative values are still very much at the center of most conservative minds.

I'm a liberal moderate. But when I read the ideas that govern conservative thought as I wrote them this weekend, I don't find myself outraged or frightened or incredulous. These ideas, while I don't agree with many of them, seem reasonable points of view with a great deal of room for discussion and debate not to mention overlap with what I consider to be my own liberal stance of how America might best be ordered.

Yet take a flight through the blogosphere or tune in Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or god forbid Mike Savage, or read Ann Coulter or watch Fox News and you'll get a outright declaration of war on liberals and the left. It's not criticism of ideas, it's often not even accurate or complete. Instead it's a enraged effort bordering on evangelism to portray the left at best as stupid and at worst as traitors and insurgents against America.

Why?

Consider that the Republican party has held the presidency for 12 of the last 20 years and controlled congress during at least half of Clinton's presidency, the outrage over liberal idea seems misplaced when you step back and look at where the chips have fallen in American politics. If we go back another 20 years, the picture becomes even more stark as Republicans pick up another 15 years of presidential control and the Democrats get 4. So it's hard to make the argument that the Republican party is angry over the threat of liberals or the Democrats.

So where did the venom come from? While recent years have seen the evolution of liberal pundits such as Ed Shultz, Rachel Maddow, Thom Hartman, and others, these programs are all answers to a much larger and longer standing conservative assault.

The theory I'm going to espouse is that something went very wrong with the Republican party after Ronald Reagan. A path to power was chosen that no longer tracked with the American conservative. This wasn't an accident, it was a deliberate choice and one that the party knew would be unsustainable under scrutiny. To counter this, Republican leadership prioritized emotional fervor as a way to keep voter numbers up as opposed to discussing platform substance. They sought to leverage single-issue voters and passionate demographics where voter turnout among 'believers' was artificially inflated: Religious groups, Pro-Life movements, anti-gay groups, and deeply held social conservative issues drowned out much more than surface talk about fiscal responsibility and self determination.

To ensure the loyalty of the conservative electorate, the Republican media machine began the war on the left - An outright demonization of liberals whose purpose was not so much a response to any public shift towards the left or growing sympathy for leftist ideas but rather in an attempt to crush dialogue and compromise between their own voters and a increasingly conservative Democratic party.

Starting tomorrow, I'm going to outline the evidence I see for a smoke screen being used by the Republican party to conceal it's real political position from its own conservative supporters. That smoke screen isn't working as well as Republican leadership had hoped, and the Tea Party is a product not of objection to the left, but as a growing awareness that American conservatives are now unrepresented. In addition, I will make the case that the Tea Party may be misguided, but their underlying motivation right: It's time for true American conservatives to begin fighting to take their party back.

Let me know what you think.

Comments

  1. Magnets - since I don't know how they work, I choose not to believe in them.

    Oh... and buy Gold!

    ReplyDelete
  2. A couple of points. First you talk about the "converstive media machine" I think there is as much if not more of the same from the "liberal media machine"...basically both sides are equally bad at demonizing their oppoisition (any critizism of this administration is imediatly met with cries of racisim). Second looking at who controlled the white house is a little misleading you also need to look at who controled Congress, often it is the other party. I think when we get in trouble is when one party controls both as is the case now and under George W. Bush (lets face it the repbulicans basically threw any idea of fiscal responsibility under the bus). I do agree though that the republican party has abandoned what it is suposed to stand for, but then again to extent I think the democratic party has as well. The problem as I see it is that neither party really represents anyone or anything other than getting their candidates re-elected.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good points, I would only caution against being too willing to say 'they do it too' and write off the undercurrents that we're trying to wrap our arms around. The Right absolutely did stir up a new level of pundit aggression in the last decade that the Left is only now trying to catch up with, and regardless of 'who started it' the question remains why is the fight, itself, so vitriolic?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The fight is so vitriolgic because the stakes and egos are so big. Once people get a taste of power they, in general, will do almost anything to keep or gain it. Plus it seems to be a tactic that works. The party that can put together the slickest, glossiest, campaign while simultaneously smearing their oppenent tends to win.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What a Pain: Married to a Public School Teacher

I wanted to write briefly about how hard it is to be married to a public school teacher. Particularly in recent months, with all the protests and bitter battles over benefits and state salaries, I thought I'd chime in and really let you see how much of a pain in the ass it is to have a teacher as a wife. It's hard to do my taxes at the end of the year and realize just how much of our income was spent on school supplies and specific tools for student needs that the district couldn't or wouldn't provide. It's equally hard to keep my mouth shut about it because I know she will defend those expenses to her last breath. It's hard to watch her leave every morning at 6:30am and know that if I'm lucky I'll see her at 7pm that night. Once in a while she's out by 4pm, but usually I don't see her until after dark, and there are times – frequently – that I get that call from school saying 'go ahead and eat, I won't be back until after 10.'

Why do YOU vote Republican?

With the incoming Republican controlled house in the new year, I thought I would take a shot at the party that put them there and see what my readers think. Yea, I know, surprise surprise, I'm taking a stab at the Republican party again. The way I'll structure this is a simple question posed to my hypothetical Republican reader. Why do you vote Republican? I vote Republican because I believe in small government and fiscal responsibility. Once upon a time Republicans believed these things, but those days seem long gone. No matter what you think the role of government should be, Republican administration has done nothing but increase the size and cost of government since Ronald Reagan. Conservatives tend to get lost in this truth by trying to make distinctions between military and domestic policy, the allocation of tax dollars to 'necessary' and 'unnecessary' projects and over-reach, but at the end of the day, government has ended up bigger and more expensive on R

Mosque Anyone?

So let's be clear about the New York Islamic Cultural Center including a mosque being proposed for central New York. 1.The proposed site about 2 blocks away from ground zero. 2.There is at least one Jewish synagogue and one Christian church within that distance. 3.Over 650,000 Muslims live in New York State. 4.Muslims were killed in the 911 attacks. So a foreign radical fringe group of a religion widely practiced in the United States effectively attacks and kills thousands of Americans on US soil in 2001. The emotional impact of this attack cannot be overstated, nor should the grief of those who lost loved ones be underestimated. Now New York Muslims were no more a part of the 911 attacks then New York Christians were a part of the Northern Ireland terrorist bombings of the 80's and 90's. There simply is nothing to suggest that the religion of Islam is to blame for the violence that some of its radical members inflicted on our nation. However there is an argument to be made