Bush’s triumph conceals the great conservative crack-up

Times on Line (England) ^ | 3/19/05 | Andrew Sullivan

[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....

[Mobile Vulgus]

Yeah. This guy WISHES the conservative movement were dead before it got started!

What he sees is the same kind of backbiting and infighting that EVERY party has. But there is a difference between conservatives and liberals, granted.

Conservatives WILL often torpedo themselves and force themselves into a losing situation because of principle. Since the left really HAS no principle but winning, they band together a tad easier. So, Sullivan has a small point in his favor in his article.

But what Sullivan is not taking into account is the wide coalition of everyday Americans that are leaning more and more Republican who will be able to see past the far right ideologues. The folks will keep following their internet info sources, their talk radio and Fox news sources and stay the line IF the politicos don’t fall totally apart.

This is where we need to ship extremist righties like Pat Buchanan and his sclerotic pre WWI isolationist foolishness off to nowhere land! If we are to win we need to keep racists like Buchanan as the lone voice crying in the wilderness.

What we DO need is more conservatives elected to Congress so that they can finally get the GOP back on track to fiscal responsibility. Once we get back on that track we will be unable to lose even with guys like Buchanan out there.

[silent_jonny]

I smell something ...

[muawiyah]

Andy is of the opinion that there are vast numbers of Conservative homosexuals turning away from the Republican party.

[Free Vulcan]

Another English propaganda newspaper doing psyops.

[Mobile Vulgus]

Ha, ha. There are only about 6% of the entire population that ARE homosexual (maybe even LESS). What makes him think that only a portion of that small number is a massive number of gays leaving the Party??

[drt1]

What kind of crap faux cheerleading is this? Please dispense with your Pep Talk until you know what you are talking about.

[peyton randolph]

Andrew Sullivan's expertise is b#tt crack. Ever since Bush opposed gay marriage, Randy Andy has been writing columns using his little head to do the thinking.

[keithtoo]

Andy's thinking with his weenie again.

So snippy.

[freeangel]

"since the left has no principle but winning"

And they didn't do that very well, did they?

[sanchez810]

The conservative parties of other countries are not the equivalent of the the conservative movement in america.

[Mobile Vulgus]

I take it you are one of Buchannan's followers? If so, I pity you. He does have some good ideas, of course, but he is mostly a racist bent on isolationism. I am sure that will make some of you mad at me, but it is true none-the-less.

But, even so, I would vote Bucnanan over ANY Demosocialist!!

[Hornet19]

You are...a dolt. Love the smell of Ozone in the morning.

[Mobile Vulgus]

Sanchez, you are 100% right. Our conservative movement is a modern, progressive one, not a moribund backwards one bent on racist policy (which is why Buchanan is a loser here).

[af_vet_1981]

[Editor's note: The source document that Sullivan plagiarized]

Well, that’s the cover story. Beneath the surface, however, American patriotism is in increasing trouble. The Patriot coalition, always fragile, now depends as much on the haplessness of the Tories as on its own internal logic. On foreign and domestic policy alike the American Republic is splintering. With no obvious successor to George Washington that splintering will deepen....

[familyop]

Yeah, well, the same London paper published the following pack of neo-Nazi lies to support the decades-long British romantic affair with things Arabic.

Authors in the Frontline: Daniel Day-Lewis
Inside scarred minds
March 20, 2005
The Sunday Times Magazine
(pro-terrorist propaganda behind the link)

Those Brits can't seem to read a map to see where all the "Palestinians" are exiled from, though, or remember how their British forefathers kept Jews out of Israel while letting Muslims flood in during their "Mandate" decades. ...or even to acknowledge the fact that many of those poor "Palestinian" kids are wounded by the same "Palestinians" who feed the lies to them.

[drt1]

You have no idea what I am and who I support (Nice try on Buchanan - Not) and for that, I pity you. Why don't you simply let the people read this trash article without your pompous editorializing.

[Mobile Vulgus]

Sanchez, you are 100% right. Our conservative movement is a modern, progressive one, not a moribund backwards one bent on racist policy (which is why Buchanan is a loser here).

[byteback]

I'm so sick of the "Religous Right owns the party" line. Come to California where I'm at and take a look around. There is a coalition that is working and we see it on FR on a daily basis. There is spirited debate but in the end unless the Democrat is Zell Miller we're voting Republican.

[Mobile Vulgus]

...and we could do with less of you pointless, childish bickering that does little but waste band width. Thanks for trying to prove Sullivan right, though.

[dead]

He's not wrong about Bush's drunken sailor spending on the home front. That HAS to be reigned in and reversed.

He's nuts on the foreign policy end however. The Buchananites do not have any sizable allies in their isolationist dreams.

Spreading democracy will spread freedom which will build a more peaceful world. That is in America's interest and is a worthy goal for any conservative president. The Buchananites are wrong, which is not unusual.

[drt1]

ROTFLMAO!

[Mobile Vulgus]

I agree. the Religious are not all there is to the GOP. It is a huge mistake to think so. But, usually people who DO think that are trying to pretend that the GOP does NOT have a giant toehold in the homes of Joe SixPack and his family! It is their reflexive attempt to imagine that regular Americans are really still on their side and jsut need a "good candidate" for them to vote for.

They are completely unable to admit that it is their MESSAGE that is killing them.

[wagglebee]

The Republican coalition, always fragile,

WTF is this "coalition"? The 'Rats are a coalition of every leftist and anti-American group out there; however, the GOP is, IMHO, as united and focused as any political party in American history. It is the GOP unity that obviously has the left frightened.

[AZ_Cowboy]

First, they said there would be a crackup following the collapse of the USSR due to the fact that anti-communism was what held the movement together. Over a decade later, we're going full tilt.

Then, they said Gingrich would scare off the moderate wing and the coalition would collapse. Nearly a decade to the day of the Revolution of 1994, the party is winning at the polls as good as ever.

Now, you've got the former governor of New Jersey who shall remain nameless as well as this dunce saying variants of the same thing again. Anyone want to place bets on the validity of the assessment given the history?

EVERY party, EVERY movement, and EVERY Family has a little fighting now and then, and it usually proves harmless in the long term. Since when did healthy debates become bitter infighting? Folks have their sensitivity cranked up too much.

[sanchez810]

It is certanly not the equivalent of the Tories or the CDU.

[M Kehoe]

To: Andrew Sullivan
From: M Kehoe

Conservatism in America is ascending. Liberalism in America is declining. Ain't it cool?

Plus, there's a good chance we won't see CWII here.

Life is good.

5.56mm

[A CA Guy]

The Democrats are so much more fragmented than Republicans on every level, that we have to worry more about self sabotage then Democrats.

The only way a Democrat gets the Presidency in 2008 is if Bush blows the war, doesn't work on what he said his agenda was and if Republicans throw an unelectable candidate at the voters.

The next worry is the House and AGAIN we need the Republicans to DO what they said to get elected.
If we have to throw new candidates in open races and to challenge Democrats, FOR GOD SAKE, MAKE THEM ELECTABLE.

[dead]

I'm so sick of the "Religous Right owns the party" line.

I kinda just glossed over that part, considering the source.

The homosexual activists, like Andrew, always say "the religous right runs the party" everytime the homosexual activists get knocked back in their box a bit.

They don't realize that even the socially moderate conservatives, who have no desire to monitor anybody's bedroom activities, also have no desire to have homosexual activists teaching third graders about sexual tolerance and teaching high school kids the joys of fisting.

And we see no need to have society sanction homosexual unions as some sort of norm. It's abnormal. It's unhealthy. And if you want to do it, have a party. But don't demand our approval and praise.

[garandgal]

Our conservative movement is a modern, progressive one

Excuse me? Conservative and progressive don't belong in the same sentence, let alone in the same party.

[byteback]

They are completely unable to admit that it is their MESSAGE that is killing them.

Then why not say so? this article said the right was fractured. Basically the left is intolerant so the middle is voting with us. If the Democrats ever figure out that they should be Pro America they could take some seats.

[Congressman Billybob]

Sullivan's work is spotty. Sometimes he is right on. Sometimes he gets a burr under his saddle and wanders off into left field. This is one of those times.

The Republicans are not monolithic. They are having some debates over certain aspects of domestic and foreign policy.

On the other hand, the Democrats are squabbling over more difficult ground. They are arguing about whether they have any ideas, and if so, what those ideas might be.

The Republican dilemma is the normal one of a healthy political party. The Democratic dilemma is the one of a political party that is dying. It is not a difficult choice to make as to which one is better.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Condi Rice & Pierce Flanigan's Father's Hat"

[familyop]

"This is where we need to ship extremist righties like Pat Buchanan..."

National socialism is more lefty, and national socialism would be absolutely necessary for Buchananite/Raimondo politics to hold onto power. But it's really a non-issue, as such groups don't have enough voter numbers to even be a threat to Republican politics at all.

[Soul Seeker]

It's the same mindset that cannot understand why G.W. encourages his cabinet to bounce off each other in spirited, and yes, sometimes heated dialogue. They take that as a sign no one is control. They assume nothing can possibly come together, everything is in disarray.

IMO, it is the Left in serious trouble and I can state why. they've lost their hold on principle. Morality. They have positions they hold deeply, true, but nothing is more important than power. For power they will not just compromise but ABANDON those principles.

That is why they are on the verge of collapse. When denied power, the very thing they defied their beliefs for, they are left with nothing to fill the void.

[SteveMcKing]

Posting some cut-and-paste, because this certainly applies...


-----
Consider the 30 year cycle; it goes 10 years of conservative strength, 10 years of liberal spending of that strength (ie wasting of peace dividends), and then another 10 years of suffering under liberal socialism until people snap and say enough is enough, then re-elect conservatives.

This pattern fits perfectly going all the way back to the 1880s, at least. In keeping with it, this decade is essentially a version of the 1970s. We may have yet to elect a "President Carter" and collapse for 4 years before a decade of true conservatism takes hold. (Bush resembles Nixon in some respects, and I mean that as nothing but a positive thing.)

It's a strange factor to consider Bush as a moderate (somewhat debatable), as that could either blunt the strength of a reactionary movement against liberalism (Carter didn't just suck, he sucked ROYALLY), or perhaps it could actually enhance republican policy, with the greatest danger being our own tendency to become moderates and even 'liberal republicans' as we gain power.
-----

[sanchez810]

Concerning homosexual issues, Almost all conservative support the representative process of "rights entitlement" not the judicial fiat process which liberals favor.

[byteback]

Good point. Somehow those who think that we need to accept the Homosexual agenda don't also feel that they need to accept those with a Christian agenda. If they would be as tolerant as they want us to be then maybe they'd have a point.

[dead]

Even if the Pakistani electorate voted in a pro-Bin Laden regime, giving AQ the bomb?

If any country provides AQ nuclear materials, they are our enemy.

Their form of government is irrelevant.

[SteveMcKing]

BTW, Buchanan is a great man with sound ideas, but he has cost the right votes in a strategic sense. That's the price of being right.

Considering his pseudo-retirement, he is a non-factor and I don't see why you are bringing him up and calling him a racist.

[John Jorsett]

Sullivan has a point, only he missed one of the bigger divisions: illegal immigration. Bush is selling us out to Mexico, and a whole lot of Republicans are either too gutless or busy whoring themselves for the Hispanic vote to do anything about it. I'll back Bush for now because he's right on a lot of issues, and who else am I going to get behind anyway, Ted Kennedy? But I'm not going to automatically vote for every Republican who comes along, just because there's an 'R' by his/her name. If I'd just be electing another big-government, big spending, pro-illegal dweeb, I may as well stay home.

[little jeremiah]

Maybe 2.5% max, and that includes bisexuals.

[muawiyah]

You forgot the "." in front of that 6%. It's about .6%, or it was before AIDS got holt of 'em.

[muawiyah]

Hey, we're co-opting their word. Without it the Progressives will just be another jot in history.

[huac]

Andrew Sullivan: "If you fascist bastards don't let me get married, I'm taking my ball and going home!"

[garandgal]

Hey, we're co-opting their word. Without it the Progressives will just be another jot in history.

Actually, judging from some of the actions of our "conservative" leaders lately, I think it's far more likely that there are some progressives running around calling themselves conservative. Seems to have fooled some people, too.

[Clemenza]

If I'd just be electing another big-government, big spending, pro-illegal dweeb, I may as well stay home.--------------------------------------------

Add "anti-gun" and "pro-Gay" and you have Rudy Giuliani, the media's favorite Republican.

[Mobile Vulgus]

>>>"Excuse me? Conservative and progressive don't belong in the same sentence, let alone in the same party"

No, not true at ALL. The conservative movement in the USA has ALWAYS had a large element of the progressive in it.

A standard, European conservative is backward looking. An American one builds on tradition, sure, but has always been progressive in the way they react to liberty and freedom. A European conservative is always out to LIMIT freedom, whereas an American one is out to further it. That is a progressive outlook.

I am also using progressive in its proper context. Not in the way the socialist left has coopted it, by the way.

[garandgal]

I am also using progressive in its proper context. Not in the way the socialist left has coopted it, by the way.

You might want to rethink the use of that word. The dictionary includes a political definition under the word "progressive." You will always be misunderstood if you use the term progressive in conjunction with conservative. You may as well say "liberal republican."

[spinestein]

["Spreading democracy will spread freedom which will build a more peaceful world."
Even if the Pakistani electorate voted in a pro-Bin Laden regime, giving AQ the bomb?]

Even IF this did happen, and it could happen in any democracy, especially one in such an unstable region of the world, it's still better for the security of the world if it IS a democracy rather than a dictatorship, as any democracy is preferable to any totalitarian government, no matter what standard you use.

Why people find the need to whine over what imperfect democracies MIGHT do and conclude that you might as well live with the dictatorship is beyond my comprehension.

We need to continue to use political means to persuade (and pressure) essentially democratic countries like Pakistan and Turkey to continue to be responsible world citizens, and also leave open the option to use military force on totalitarian governments like Afghanistan and Iraq WERE, to force them to convert to democracies.