Posted on 03/19/2005 7:42:20 PM PST by Mobile Vulgus
It should be the best of times for American conservatism. Republican majorities in the House and Senate, a re-elected Republican president, an increasing number of Republican governors and a rightwards tilt in the judiciary. While the British Tories and German Christian Democrats flounder, America’s right seems to flourish.
Well, that’s the cover story. Beneath the surface, however, American conservatism is in increasing trouble. The Republican coalition, always fragile, now depends as much on the haplessness of the Democrats as on its own internal logic. On foreign and domestic policy alike the American right is splintering. With no obvious successor to George W Bush that splintering will deepen....
Oh Andrew, the bitter taste of defeat still plagues you. As if your crew didn't have enough plagues to deal with.
I agree that some "conservatives" are more interested in not paying taxes (or, to be fair, higher taxes) than in anything else. Such people are unworthy of the name "conservative." But Sullivan is not one of these mental midgets. He is a principled and intelligent small-government guy, interested in far more small-government issues than just taxes. Indeed, he is probably too willing to raise taxes -- one reason why he backed Kerry, or damned sure seemed to be backing him.
As for his anti-UN standpoint, I think it's mostly for the same reasons why true conservatives oppose the UN. Of course, he's not as anti-UN as some people, but he's much better than most centrists on this issue.
In the end, I'd call Andrew a centrist who has stronger principles (on both sides, but more on the conservative side) than most centrists. I would add that he deserves a lot of credit for the positions he takes, because he is in a very liberal professional and cultural environment. Being anything less than a consistent liberal in these environments takes guts, especially if you're as outspoken as Sullivan.
I can't agree that he's an effective proponent for limited government. I fault him for not realizing that the marriage issue is essentially a small government problem. The left wants to wield government power to force a new definition of marriage on society. It's actually quite draconian when you think about it from this perspective. But Sullivan doesn't understand that. He wants you and me to pay for the resulting partner benefits. That looks very close to politics of convenience to me.
Buchannan is no longer a Republican, Thank the good Lord. He set our movement back with his "cultural warfare" and isolationist nonsense. He also did all he could to get Gore elected in 2000. Remember him whinning on TV about how he didn't deserve the 3600 votes he got in some precints in Florida. Gave the Gore whores addtional ammo for trying to steal the election. I haven't given him two seconds of my time since then. He rode high for a brief moment in NH, and then fell precipitously. He hasn't forgiven the Republican Party or Dubya since. He ought to just go away.
It may be "politics of convenience" in the case of gay marriage, but on issues that hit so close to home, a great many "conservatives" can be accused of the same thing. Admittedly, standards should be higher for commentators than for regular folks. But I think Andrew is still a valuable commentator at times. It's just that he was better up until about a year ago, before Abu Ghraib and the rise of "gay marriage" to the status of a national issue.
On one minor point, I never claimed that he's "an *effective* proponent for limited government." But in general, I do think he's a *sincere* (if sometimes confused) proponent of limited government. As far as being
*effective*, Sullivan's main impact, I think, is really on foreign policy issues.
In a few hours you will be smelling the burnt explosives as the Democrats one by one detonate their suicide belts in the House of Representatives.
We need culture warriors, but Pat is sometimes too strident on these issues. My beefs with Buchanan are his isolationism and his willingness to stick it to the GOP even to the point of costing them elections. But he did support Bush in '04, which is more than can be said for, say, the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party. Pat can be accused of various political sins, but a disconnect from reality is not one of them. Whereas the genuine third-party people are simply out of the cognitive loop, in my humble opinion.
But we ignore the history of the crack-up of the British Conservative Party from the high-water mark of Thatherism through John Major's disastrous steerage through land mine strewn political field. Unless we can understand what happened there we could be on the same course.
For starters, you're awfully new to be jumping into the fray in this way, Mobile Vulgarious.
Secondly, "the haplessness of the Democrats" is a given. They are in the worst shape they've been in, in decades.
Thirdly...I'll let the Kitties decide your particular fate. :)
Conservatives were completely vanquished by the Republicans at the convention in New York. The showcase of future leaders [as well as the current GOP governors] were not conservatives. Just who does anyone think is the conservative choice for the next Presidential nomination?
Righto. Buchanan is a conservative.
He is no longer a Conservative--he is a reactionary.
Oh, nevermind. It's just Andrew Sullivan writing with his panties on his head.
While conservatives are still working things out, it is increasingly clear that liberalism is structurally flawed at its foundation. Liberals are building the Tower of Babel, I'm not going to bet on them long term.
>>>Just who does anyone think is the conservative choice for the next Presidential nomination?
Now HERE I agree with you quite a bit. Conservatives HAVE been shown how small they are in the GOP. But guess what? We ALWAYS WERE!
But, Sullivan is imagining that the Party will splinter over it. I don't see it at all. The Conservatives have been part of the GOP since Goldwater. Where ELSE can we go?
No, our goal should be to exert more influence in the GOP not running away. We need to continue fighting the good fight which means compromising on some issue with the more middle of the road Republicans. That is how the US system has ALWAYS worked and always will.
So, I ask all conservatives not to get our undies in a bunch but to keep the faith and fight on. Yes we will be frustrated once in a while, but we can also win if we stick with it.
So, we have to focus on local elections always. We need to encourage more conservatives to run in the first place. Grassroots is where we have always won our issues. Best not to forget that.
But Buchanan is an America first reactionary.
>>>For starters, you're awfully new to be jumping into the fray in this way, Mobile Vulgarious.
(…nice play on the name. I like it)
Is there someone's ring I am supposed to kiss before I am "allowed" to post here??? Anyhow, sorry, but I will not bow to threats and silly clannish chest thumping from the likes of YOU!
I present myself how I am. I make no apologies for it. An if'n ya'all don't like it, ya'all kin take a long walk offa short peir!
So far I have gotten no complaints for my opinion on this board beyond arguing on the merits of the points presented.
If you want me banned, that is your prerogative. I have nothing against anyone here and am just voicing my opinions as is everyone else.
Read on McDuff.
It's more like 1-2% of the population that is gay. Kinsey said it was 10%, but like so much of his "research" he made it up.
I find myself agreeing with Buchanan quite often these days.
Sullivan switched to Kerry in the 2004 election, didn't he? That says volumes about his attitudes on foreign policy. My criticisms of Bush essentially come from the right on foreign policy, and domestically from the perspective that Wall Street would sell grandmothers into slavery for profit if they could. Bush can't close the borders, he can't shut down trade with China, and he's clearly indebted to beltway and business insiders for his power. But he's evidently not a traitor. How could Sullivan ever have supported Kerry, who met communists in Paris, opposed SDI, and dragged America into bitter division over the Iraq war in 2003? I don't get it. Maybe I misunderstood something, but Sullivan makes it very easy to misunderstand his good intentions if there were any.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.