Please leave us out of your examples. We don't have anything to do with this.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
Posted on 10/11/2005 8:53:47 AM PDT by Kitten Festival
With the Harriet Miers controversy, conservatism has begun its descent into ideology. Unlike the Left, conservatism has never been an ideological movement, in the sense of possessing an overarching system of thought demanding acceptance in toto. American conservatism is based on principle, firmly-grounded, straightforward concepts: that men are lower than angels, that governs best which governs least, and that innovations must be examined under the presumption of error. Apart from these axioms, everything else was open to debate. Until today, there has never been an orthodox party line in conservatism.
The consequent flexibility and dynamism have been a major factor in the conservative resurgence. Operating from principle rather than within a structured system has enabled conservatives to remain open to consensus, to drop outmoded concepts, to react quickly to opportunities and crises. It has given us the ability to maneuver. This ability in turn has taken us from the Goldwater era, when conservatism was the punchline of a joke, to a new millennium where the problem is managing an empire.
Compare this to the Left, which has steadily lost ground during the same period. Thanks in large part to its Marxist roots, the Left has been a slave to ideological thinking. Major questions of goals, values, and policy are taken as settled. Debate and discussion are limited to trivia or tactics. Can anyone recall an example of the Left debating anything at all of import? Try to imagine any given leftist questioning an element of the progressive program. Start with abortion.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
A weak article. Constitutionalism is not an ideology, it is a process first. A liberal can be a constitutionalist.
I could not disagree more.
Social conservatives are put out front during elections but relegated to the back of the bus when it comes time to govern. We have been told 'the time is not quite right but just wait.'
We have watched as Kennedy, Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg have been appointed. We are just tired of waiting.
Social conservatives will not let Republicans treat them the way Democrats treat blacks. If Republicans can't EVER deliver, we will find somewhere else to go (or just stay home like we did in 1996).
I think what is being disputed is who is qualified to interpret the Constitution. I would expect that a document that begins with the words, "We the people" should not require a legal scholar "pre-approved" by wise men to interpret it's original intent. I would also expect that those who rise to debate should not be slimed with accusations of "drinking the purple punch" or be called simpleton "Bush-bots". But perhaps that's the sign of a party that has not stagnated... which I believe was the intent of this article.
Good points: The reaction to Miers has been unduly venemous in tone.
Bad Points: Anyone who does not support the Miers nomination is an close-minded, elitist who opposes the nomination only because Bush didn't do it their way. Principled opposition to the Miers nomination is impossible and any opposition makes you similar to a Marxist ideologue.
My Conclusion: This article proves that both sides in the Miers debate have been unduly venemous. The author does not, however, understand or care that his contribution to the venom is as rich as the opposition's.
I am a Miers-skeptic. But I agree with your statement completely. I grant the sincerity of your argument and think there's a not-unreasonable case to be made for your side of the argument.
You might consider that opponents of Miers resent being accused of being elitists who do not oppose the nomination sincerely but only because Bush didn't do it their way and want to destroy conservatism yadda yadda yadda, which is exactly what the article does.
Please leave us out of your examples. We don't have anything to do with this.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
Agreed. I am not necessarily a Miers supporter but I object to those who treat the issue as if the sky were falling and that they were somehow cheated, misled, abused, misused, etc.
And that's not what's being said. For one thing, being a justice on the SCOTUS involves more than just looking at the Constitution. There's a whole bewildering array of statutes and regulations and precedents on the meanings of terminologies used in said statutes and things of that nature. Secondly, as far as the Constitution itself is concerned, Miers' problem isn't her lack of experience or education in the law, but her lack of any sign of clear commitment to principle. She's never taken a strong public stand on any controversial matter. The closest that's come is abortion, but all we ever hear about is what everyone else says about her. Nothing about what she's said. That sort of thing is never an encouraging sign.
I would also expect that those who rise to debate should not be slimed with accusations of "drinking the purple punch" or be called simpleton "Bush-bots".
The Bushbots aren't the ones who merely support the nomination; they're the ones who throw fits at any sign of opposition to it. I've been around a lot of Miers threads, and from what I could see, those who make rational attempts to defend their pro-Miers position are for the most part responded to in a reciprocal fashion by those who disagree.
great post. it is time for some people on the right to look at issues like Social Security reform, the history of GWB with other judges, his stand for the unborn and remember that he got re-elected because he put up a fight. This article addresses many of those points and one judge does not "the court make."
I'm not "against" Miers. I don't care that she's a woman, when a man might have been nominated. I don't care that she never attended the most exclusive colleges or law schools. I don't care that she's never been a judge. I don't care that she's spent her adult life in private practice, other than a very short stint on the Dallas City Council. She has similar credentials to thousands of other lawyers which might also have been nominated, and I wouldn't automatically disqualify them, either, or be troubled by the nominee, per se.
The President can nominate whomever he wants - this is one of his major prerogatives of office. And so he did. What troubles me about this nomination (but Miers is NOT the source of what troubles me) is the fight Bush ducked.
We could be stuffing the Democrats/Liberals further into the box they are in now. We could have nominated probably 25 different people, some currently judges, some women, some women and minorities, some of the finest hearts and minds in the conservative thought, and let the Dims implode and explode over it. We could force the RINO's to come to the table. We could force the Senate to end their silly and unconstitutional filibusters over these fine nominees. We could halt "Borking" in it's tracks, once and for all.
And if the first one nominated somehow couldn't get approved, send them a second one just like the first, or even farther on the right, if possible. Do it over and over, until you get the fifth or eighth nominee seated. Who cares how long it takes, or how many nominees you go through? Every one of them makes the Libs and the RINO's look less powerful, and illustrates over and over what obstructionists they all are.
Bush ducked this entire fight. "He's weak at the polls now." "He needs to spend his political capital on something else." I don't buy any of it.
Who knows what kind of judge Miers might be? Only three or four people even THINK they know, and they might all be wrong. But I'm not upset that she's the nominee, it's the fact that this was one of the best opportunities in several decades for conservatives, and Bush ducked it.
That statement may be somewhat less on-the-mark than you think, given the many 5-4 decisions on some rather important issues that we've seen from the Rehnquist court.
Conservative is a nebulous term..
It's nearly all as a result of Marxist political practice, or perhaps more properly Leninist. It isn't so much the policies themselves but the right of an elitist party cadre to dictate them that has so enervated the Left.
That said, I do not see this as a growing phenomenon on the Right at the moment - surely most of the controversy is due to Bush's departure from what might be considered a conservative policy package with the nomination of someone who does not openly espouse it. I think the controversy is a healthy sign, actually. The shrillness and vituperation it has taken on isn't, necessarily. That is a characteristic of Leftist "debate" that both they and we could do without.
Hear Here! Well said! Well said indeed!
If the writers of the Constitution had wanted to restrict service on SCOTUS to a very narrow segment of society - those with long service on the bench at lower levels - it could have easily done so but they did not. Once again displaying their great wisdom IMHO!
That's it? Conservatism had no other components but small government, no cultural beliefs, for example?
The consequent flexibility and dynamism have been a major factor in the conservative resurgence.
What resurgence? Flexibility means caving to liberal ideas. They had neither the power nor the will to resist being forced to be "flexible", bragging about this flexibility is making a virtue out of necessity, declaring victory and getting out.
Operating from principle rather than within a structured system has enabled conservatives to remain open to consensus, to drop outmoded concepts, to react quickly to opportunities and crises. It has given us the ability to maneuver.
The ability to maneuver, there's a motto to die for, eh?
This ability in turn has taken us from the Goldwater era, when conservatism was the punchline of a joke, to a new millennium where the problem is managing an empire.
!!!
Compare this to the Left, which has steadily lost ground during the same period.
No, the Democrats have lost ground, not leftism. Here is the whole problem with this guy, he can't distinguish between the social, historical and political movement of a society on the whole and mere partisan politics. What he is preaching is Republican-Partyism not conservatism, the doctrine that the be all and end all measurement of success is determined on election night no matter how that success is achieved. This is a common problem among conservatives that is caused by powerlessness, the inability to compete against the cultural establishment which leads to saving face by declaring defeats to be victory.
Which brings us to the current uproar, and the question of why a large segment of the conservative elite is treating Harriet Miers, and beyond her the President of the United States, with the same disdain the ACLU treated Hentoff.
I'm surprised he couldn't work Hitler in there. Miers may make a good justice, who knows, the real gist of this problem is that the Republicans, who have controlled both Houses of Congress for years now (it's a resurgence, you know) feel it necessary to nominate an unknown stealth candidate out of fear of their opponents.
The danger is that conservatism the Republican Party could go the same way, losing its current dominance due to obsessions that have no meaning for the average voter.
True enough, as corrected, but they could also lose their current dominance by being so flexible that they are shapeless and lose the enthusiasm of their core supporters.
And if that were an Olympic event, we'd have a few gold medalists right here on FR.
since OConnor voted for one TEN Commandment monument and against another on the same day you make a good point. Since OConnor did not vote for Kelo then it looks like her vote is not a swing vote on ALL cases. Remember that Scalia voted to allow the flag to be burned.
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.