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 .
They did, he was elected twice.
Your opinion is wrong. And I'm as good an arbiter of that as you are. It's a circular argument, as you can see.
So you think Nixon and Agnew were more moral than the ticket they ran against?
Dueling definitions.
You are going to have to explain that to Justices Scalia, Rhenquist, Thomas and Kennedy, who are squarely in the group you refer to as bitching and whining. You yourself apparently stand squarely with the 5 justices who support CFR, Ginsbert, Bader, O'Connor, Souter and Breyer.
You do realize, I guess, that your position is that government should indeed limit and regulate free political speech in the interest of fairness and equality. I guess, however, that you are no longer maintaining that the First Amendment specifies such a position? Or that it is up to the Courts to change our Amendments? Or that there is no danger to our freedom in them doing such.
"Not supporting CFR is a vote for corrupt politics"
Yep, just a little more government control and regulation and corruption can be defeated. OK.
"I could care less of the passing of CFR. It doesn't affect me personally"
Nope, it won't affect you personally. Unless you and some like minded citizens wish to get together and pool your resources to purchase political advertising on private broadcasting media. That, you will find, is not legal.
But feel free to purchase product advertising, which is apparently protected for the time being. And feel free to keep yourself updated during those last 2 months by the media, which is also protected, at least for now.
Now we will bear the brunt of their wrath as well as surerior intellect, not to mention their insight.
I remember all their hyperventillations over past crisis of this nature, all of which did not end in apocalyptic doom, as they so feverishly predicted.
I am more entertained by their rhetoric than anything. They only represent a fringe element that would merely equal a gnat on an Elephant's A$$ in comparison to the GOP as a whole.
The proof of that is the "HUGE" numbers of votes that Buchanan commanded during the last election (1% at best).
Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Seems pretty clear cut to me. Glad to know you have figured out that advertising, and especially political advertising aren't covered. I guess you also won't mind if Congress passes a law prohibiting us from petitioning the government through advertising, such as for instance, buying a full page ad in the WSJ or NYT.
Well, I can only say that your position is finally clear.
You may be interested to know that many of our founding fathers, including Madison, were initially against writing a Bill of Rights, fearing that Government would take the position that the citizens retained only those rights which were specified. In other words, the Amendment was left vague so as to be careful not to limit. To paint with the broadest brush.
I sure as hell hope so.
Only if it's libel.
You may be interested to know that many of our founding fathers, including Madison, were initially against writing a Bill of Rights, fearing that Government would take the position that the citizens retained only those rights which were specified.
Yes I've read the federalists papers and the 9th Amendment as well as Article I section 8 and the Necessary and Proper Clause.
So you would have voted for McGovern?
I rest my case. So much for being able to discern morality in politicions.
Amazing. Carry on. This has moved the discussion to the obtuse catagory.
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.