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....
Every one of these people on the left who are nattering about the precariousness of the Republican Party and how it's going to implode (apparently because of the instability of winning elections so often) would sell their mothers into slavery for a chance to trade places with those on the right.
This author believes less of his own story than I do, and I don't believe a word of it.
Yeah, both of them!
These poor people are beginning to scare me .. or should I be ROTFLOL!! Pitiful!
"I smell something"
Yes, it's the beautiful smell of liberal panic... a mixture of failure, hypocrisy, canabalism, and closet racism.
Better check your feet :-)
America is in trouble, and the RNC wraps a flimsy flag around its sold-out, unpatriotic core. Who'll dare to point out that the Emperor has no real clothes? Who will dare to demand that the RNC live up to the real duties of leadership?
The opportunities for real change slip further away each time the RNC does nothing when something absolutely needs to be done on these issues. Why are we supplying arms to Egypt and Saudi Arabia at a time like this? Something stinks in Washington, and it's a bipartisan odor. As VDH says, America was founded by rural people. Wall Street and the Beltway insiders don't really care about that. Can the RNC do more than manipulate them for its short term gains? There's a lot more to rural America than NASCAR and hunting rights.
And there's a lot more at stake than the RNC has been willing to concede. Being "right" is ineffectual if it doesn't solve problems. And not all of the problems we have were created by the left, as much as the RNC and some of the FR faithful would have us believe. We've done it to ourselves for cheap trinkets here and a quick profit there.
Conservatism is in trouble, but for reasons that go deeper than Sullivan's biased, shallow, confused analysis provides. Statist liberalism is also in trouble. So is classical liberalism. So is Islamic radicalism. So what else is new?
The only time to really shake things up and really examine problems in the party is now, between elections, but he's definitely not offering any real help. If his 2-3 pet agendas aren't represented, he could care less.
6%? I suspect that number may include the yet-to-be recruited Chicken-hawks and those still rotting in their lonely graves. Yes, they are leaving the party in record numbers, but that's only as their excessive depravity causes their life-expectancy to continually drop.
OTOH, there are a greater number of younger "children" who are being decieved into the practice believing it makes them more socially "attractive" during high school. I've been hearing more about this (while cringing.) Sad as it may be there could be potential to support the number, at least temporarily, as most children have a tendancy to grow up.
I'd give Andrew a little more credit than that, but I would agree that 1) his vehemence about gay "marriage" badly distorts his perspective; and 2) that on social issues generally, he's on the side of the left. This seriously undermines whatever "conservative" credentials he has, and therefore lessens the value (and impact) of his advice.
I agree that a serious examination, even a "shakeup," is needed among the GOP and conservatives, and I agree that the time is now.
Yep, yep, and yep. He does care about winning the war on terror because like any intelligent and observant westerner realizes, they'll come for him if we lose. I don't give him much credit for that alone. He also likes to keep his taxes low so he can spend more money on his personal pursuits. I don't give him much credit for that, either. Low taxes are good for so much more than that, such as encouraging families to thrive. I'm not sure the notion of "family" is of much importance to him at all.
It seems to me that selfishness affects Andrew's writings to this extent -- it makes him blow gay "marriage" and the GOP's opposition to it way out of proportion. But I also believe that he sincerely thinks gay "marriage" is not only OK for society as a whole, but good for it, as well as for gays.
I think Andrew cares a lot about society, but doesn't understand all that's necessary to keep it together. It seems to me that he is a sincere economic conservative who doesn't fully understand how incapable the Democrats are of fiscal responsibility (since their spending instincts are even worse than the Republicans'). On national security, I'd give him credit for a lot of seriousness and a fair amount of willingness to go to war. But like most moderates and liberals, he shrinks too easily from the ugly side of war. He has been freaking out for months about Abu Ghraib and the like, which are unfortunate and need to be corrected, but in the end are minor sideshows. Sullivan's lack of perspective here is enough to cast serious doubt on his judgement. But I think his solidarity with the West, and his rejection of pacifism and UN-ism are quite real.
I hadn't been reading enough of Sullivan's writing to know that he was anti-UN. His advocacy for destroying marriage as we know it occluded my ability to see his decent side. That's good to know that he doesn't like the UN, although I don't know exactly what he doesn't like about it. But again, I'm skeptical of the "conservative" who just doesn't like to pay taxes. I know a few aging boomers who are as liberal as the day is long, but resent paying taxes associated with young people's public costs such as education. In other words, let corporations pay taxes, but don't ask me for money for the kids. Yeah, that's real conservative... NOT.
Dead wrong. The Times is a true-blue conservative paper owned by Rupert Murdoch.
Welcome to FR. Your analysis is off as bad as Sullivans'.
I saw this guy, AS, for the first time in months when I was surfing and came upon him on the Tim Russert gab fest last night. What's happened to him? AS looks like he's gained both a beard and about fifty pounds since the last time I saw him. . . It seems to have affected his ability to reason.
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.