Posted on 12/11/2003 7:59:11 AM PST by happykidjill
Like most Toogood Reports readers, I observed this year's battles within the conservative ranks with profound discomfort. In my mind, there are far too many real enemies out there to waste time and print fighting one another.
It seems that the world of conservatism has been split up between the "conservatives" and the "paleo-conservatives" or between the "conservatives" and the "neo-conservatives." Both sides present themselves as the bona fide article and the other side as the one in need of a prefix.
Personally, I just want to spit up this strife the same way the bleachers of Wrigley Field do the opposition´s home run balls. This qualifies as a "which side are you on boys" issue. It is my goal to conserve America's wonderful, non-living Constitution, and to forever preserve the personal and economic freedoms that embody our way of life. If you agree with me about these basic propositions, then you're on my side and the rest of your views are of secondary concern. Simply revering the spirit of the Founding Fathers puts you in the top 50 percent of the population on the Chap-o-meter.
Not only is an inter-journalist, inter-intellectual, conservative civil war fruitless, it is also detrimental to the nation as a whole. The country needs all of our efforts just to have a chance of mitigating the damage the culture war has wrought.
Our daily resistance may be the biggest obstacle to the federal pacman swallowing up fifty percent of the economy. We cannot afford to bicker amongst ourselves. The odds are too great. Obsessing over who said what about Taki, Buchanan, Frum, Lowry or any of the other public figures who make up the American right is counter-productive.
The neocon/paleocon debate is as bewildering as it is petty and misguided. Sadly, some conservatives now feel more comfortable with leftists than they do their own kind [I know of one who astonished me by saying that he regards the American Enterprise Institute as "The Death Star"]. Certainly, internal disagreements are to be expected, but they are trivial in comparison to accepting the positions advocated by the other side of the political spectrum. Socialism, cultural Marxism, white guilt, and radical feminism are eternal obstacles to advancing society. Other conflicts pale in importance when compared to them.
I propose that we abandon slurs like paleo-con and neo-con. Instead we should all evolve into "Logicons." The Logicon refuses to slash at the brethren who march alongside him because maintaining some level of public harmony is the only logical way in which we will succeed. Logicons realize that our fighting strength should not be diluted by internecine combat.
Much of the controversy currently centers around President Bush and whether or not one approves of his job performance. I've written here and elsewhere how much I personally admire him, but I also acknowledge that certain criticisms have been valid. Those who label him a big spender are correct in their assessments. He has not used his veto to curb the size of government and has developed a habit of hugging Ted Kennedy's voluminous appropriations.
While this is unfortunate, to pretend that Bush is not the best bet for advancing the country's interests is shortsighted. There are many conservatives out there who could do a better job of slashing outlays, but it is highly unlikely that any of them could get elected by our emotive and squishy electorate. On our side, George W. Bush "feels their pain" better than anyone. He brings in moderate voters the way my old Erie Dearie lures used to bag walleyes .
The problem is one of perspective. We can spend time complaining about steel tariffs or the administration´s pathetic capitulation on affirmative action last summer. Yes, I would have been greatly pleased if he disseminated a Michigan Law brief of his own after the decision entitled “O´Connor a Known Fruitcake,” but the fact is that he didn't and there´s nothing we can do about it. However, we must keep our outlook global by remembering what the alternatives are.
What would Al Gore do with affirmative action? How about Howard Dean, the neurotic would-be-king, with Al Qaeda? Makes you shudder doesn´t it? After the election, Al Sharpton would take his standup around the world as our Secretary of State and we´d hear Patricia Ireland lambasting “patriarchal textbooks” in her role as Secretary of Education.
In actuality, my examples really aren´t all that farfetched. The radical left has been carrying the Democrat Party since 2001 and, now, if the Democrats win, bills will need to be paid.
Rather than fantasize about an ideal future, conservatives need to think about how things can, and will, get devastatingly worse, should Bush lose. Be it Dean or Kerry or whatever burrito they decide to roll out of the Taqueria next summer, the fate of the country will be in jeopardy. By this time in 2006, there will be a foreign policy coward in every pot and a benefit check in the hands of every college drop out. Think France, think Germany, and then be grateful we have a president who doesn't spit after saying "tax cuts."
Besides, the Bush Presidency has produced many hidden benefits. His appointees may well be our salvation even though he backs obese budgets. In the latest issue of The New Criterion, we see that his appointments to the National Endowment of the Arts have had a wonderful effect. Under Dana Gioia, the agency is sponsoring Macbeth for military bases and has resurrected traditional Shakespeare at the national level [Shakespearean plays are now staged as in the days of old which means brothels and bath house scenes are no longer mandatory].
I don´t care if you insult him or trade in Karl Rove conspiracy theories, but, in November of 2004, this particular rightist is going to stand by George W. Bush just as the bumper sticker on my car promises. Our hopes for a better tomorrow rest in the White House on his bed. We must support him because heady days await and also because his reelection keeps the Democrat Party headless. Let´s proudly stand by our man as he loudly subsumes the popular positions of the left while promoting many of ours in the shadows though his judges, appointees, and minions.
To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Bernard at bchapafl@hotmail.com .
Nope. All or nothing. It disciminates against the poor's right to free speech. The 1st amendment protects EVERYONE's right to free speech, not just rich people.
Now go play some video games and leave the adults alone.
You are so right. It is obvious that George W. sometimes says things or professes support for things (aka Michigan U/Supreme Court affirmative action and/or the campaign finance bill) just to take the ammunition away from the freakin media and Democrats, who are often one in the same.
When you consider his leadership on the war against terror, the partial birth abortion ban, faith based initiative, tax cuts, etc, I'd say his core attitude remains strong.
These naysayers seem to demand 100 percent agreement with THEM, or they will cut and run.
To where, I have no idea.
What are you referring to with the word "it?" What discriminates against poor people's right to free speech? And, am I assuming correctly that you approve of CFR?
And, by saying that "The 1st amendment protects EVERYONE's right to free speech, not just rich people," does that mean that you believe the First Amendment places restrictions on how much money may be spent on speech, so as to make certain that everyone's speech should be equal? In the interest of fairness?
Almost everything political is a moral issue. Property rights, the right to arms, religion, abortion.
Our arguments are what the government "should" do.
Even if all we're saying is, "The government shouldn't be allowed to take away the property of the people." We're making moral judgements.
Thanks for your post.
Context is everything. I'm sorry you mistook my comment for something it is not. I'll reword it for clarity.
Anyone who votes for anyone on grounds that they are more moral than others and thinks that the government is or could ever be the arbiter or the keeper of morality is fundamentally insane.
Does that make my statement more clear?
Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.
You'll never find a perfect man, that much I admit, but you don't ignore morality. You find the best represenatitive you can.
Thanks for pointing out the typo. It was from yesterday and you are the first one to comment on it. I'm sure it was out of your love for editing.
Your OPINION is noted. And discarded.
One should vote for the politician they feel is more moral.
How about less immoral? LOL. Hogwash.
A Churchill, not a Chamberlain. A Bush, not a Gore. There is very little else to vote on in politics.
Paul Simon not the Republicans he ran against? Jimmy Carter not Gerald Ford? Moynahan not his conservative opponents? Vote for Nixon because he is the more moral?
So go off and pontificate about the falling sky and the corruption, but the only corruption I see is that in your own thought process. Good men and women have given their lives so that you might have the freedom of expression. Try using that freedom for something positive and not to give aid and comfort to the enemies within and without the country.
Of course, that interferes with your own self-importance, so you will merely pontificate more and write off those who disagree as "insane"...just like your erstwhile heroes in the failed USSR did.
With this, I see no further reason to exchange comments. You aren't worth teasing and nothing you cut and pasted from someone else is worth the bandwidth. You, in short, are a shocking bore and a waste of time and oxygen.
If you support the Libertarian Party and are against CFR, you are shooting yourself in the foot. Elections should be fair to all American including 3rd parties or no parties who don't have the unions or corporate America to back them. George Washington himself spoke out against political parties stated they were corrupt and would be bad for America.
The ACLU is pissed about CFR and that's all the more reason for me to support it because they couldn't be anymore corrupt by wanting to run their own million dollar ads to slander candidates. Not supporting CFR is a vote for corrupt politics. I could care less of the passing of CFR. It doesn't affect me personally. I will not speak out against it because I do not support corrupt Gray Davis style elections.
You have spent a lot of time with someone who you feel that way about. Must have been worth your time. Which I'm sure is worth very little in any case.
As to negativity, seldom have I seen a more negative poster. One who has absolutely NOTHING to say on the topic, but merely attacks anyone who disagrees with him. All using childish posts and insults.
You are truly a pathetic creep and a disgrace to your country as well as the uniform you claim to have worn. My experience with creeps like you is they live in a strange little bizarro world where they pretend to be what they never could be. In short, you were never in the service.
The enemies in the country are people like you.
You little kids want a flame war, and even when asked to fore go it, cannot resist. So you get what you want, return fire.
Likewise. I didn't say one should vote for the candidate who pays the most lip service to religion. I said one should vote for the most moral candidate he finds. The one he believes will protect his citizens rights, will be the most honest, etc.
Yes, that's right, many people believed Clinton was more moral than GHWB or Bob Dole.
IMO, the correct way to vote is for ideas and policies, not some idea that I can pick the most moral person and that they will then act in a moral manner. I find it patently absurd. So that's the way I vote.
You are free to vote as you choose, but your idea has no more validity than mine.
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.