The GOP's suicide pact

The Washington Post ^ | Sunday, November 29, 2009 | Kathleen Parker

[publius1]

... The so-called purity test is a 10-point checklist -- a suicide pact, really -- of alleged Republican positions...

James Bopp Jr., chief sponsor of the resolution and a committee member from Indiana, has said that "the problem is that many conservatives have lost trust in the conservative credentials of the Republican Party."

Actually, no, the problem is that many conservatives have lost faith in the ability of Republican leaders to think. The resolutions aren't so much statements of principle as dogmatic responses to complex issues that may, occasionally, require more than a Sharpie check in a little square.

It's too bad that "elite" and "nuance" have become bad words in the Republican lexicon. Elites are viewed in Republican circles as "those people" who are out of touch with "real Americans." And "nuance," the definition of which suggests a sophisticated approach to understanding (as opposed to "Because I said so, case closed") has come to be viewed as a Frenchified word Republicans successfully hung on presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004. His flip-floppery on issues became associated with nuance, a.k.a. lack of decisiveness. Ergo, a lack of leadership skills.

It was superb message manipulation, if you go for that sort of thing. But it was also pandering to America's inner simpleton....

Most of us know that decisiveness isn't always a virtue, yet those pushing the purity test seem to view nuance as an enemy of conservatism. The old elite corps of the conservative movement, men such as William F. Buckley and Russell Kirk, undoubtedly would find this attitude both dangerous and bizarre. When did thinking go out of style?...

Whatever the intent of the authors, the message is clear: Thinking people need not apply. The formerly elite party of nuanced conservatism might do well to revisit its nonideological roots.

[Bernard]

This all reads like a defense of situational ethics, which is, at its very base, a pseudo-science built using big words to explain away bad behavior. I wonder if Kathleen Parker and Maureen Dowd get together at functions to swap funny stories to amuse their cats in front of the TV trays.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

It's too bad that "elite" and "nuance" have become bad words in the Republican lexicon.

Speaks volumes about where this pathetic little harpy is coming from...

[grumpygresh]

That’s right, take advice from the experts at the comPost. Their declining circulation proves that they appear to be doing quite well at committing suicide themselves.

[William Tell 2]

Why even bother posting this junk? The woman’s a partisan idiot.

All you accomplish is making more people aware of the Washington Post and Kathleen Parker. Meanwhile conservative newspapers that need the web hits, like mine, and writers, like me, who can use the exposure, don’t get it.

My regrets for being self-serving, however, it’s awfully discouraging for me and others to see postings on here and other conservative forums from the WaPost NYT LA Times MSNBC et al.

Guess what, Limbaugh has been complaining about the liberal media for over 20 years. So has Accuracy in Media, Media Research Center and many others.

So I think everybody in the world, who is willing to listen, knows that the mainstream media is liberal. It’s not news anymore. Just like the fact that Hollywood is liberal is not news.

Yet, I would be willing to bet that most people here cannot name 10 conservative newspapers, 10 conservative novelists, 10 conservative actors or filmmakers and other artists.

I know because I started Creative Conservatives Corner on FB and very few people can name them.

Why?

Because conservatives are more obsessed with ridiculing liberals than they are listening, reading, or watching conservatives in books,newspapers, music, tv and movies.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

Did Kathleen actually read the 10 points? I was startled when I read another article attacking them at how UNcontroversial they were. To wit:

1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership

You only need to pass on 8, in recognition of Reagan’s approach “80% cooperation is good enough”.

Nothing on amnesty for illegal aliens; nothing opposing abortion, other than not funding it from the Federal government.

The very basicness of these ten renders Kathleen’s “unthinking” argument silly. I’d like to see what she objects to; what requires nuance? The 2nd amendment? DOMA?

[BallyBill]

It is more important what people are thinking, not "thinking people" Ms Parker.

Too much thinking and not enough action, that is a problem too.

[mike-zed]

Kathleen Parker is utterly disconnected from reality.

Par for the course for a compost op-ed writer.

[William Tell 2]

Is it that conservatives would rather get aggravated and hate the Washington Post, instead of being informed and encouraged by my newspaper?

I guess being aggravated is a form of entertainment - kind of like going to horror movies and being scared silly. Yet, this is why Phil Donahue was on the air for so long. Normal people used to tune in to listen to his leftwing rants.

The only way you’re going to get rid of the liberal MSM is by not patronizing it. That is until Obama takes over the entire economy and then you won’t have a choice.

So rather than read this idiotic partisan op-ed in a leftwing newspaper, read an intelligent op-ed in a rightwing newspaper or read a novel by a conservative or watch a conservative tv show or movie or listen to conservative music - this will provide you with the intellectual ammunition you need to combat the liberal spin and eventually spread conservative ideas. At least I think so.

One thing I know for certain, reading some nitwit liberal columnist in a nitwit liberal newspaper ain’t gonna do it.

[grey_whiskers]

And then -- "Thinking people need not apply."

By engaging in projection to this extent, she proves she's a liberal.

Liberals don't think: they superciliously regurgitate other people's talking points ("didn't you get the memo?") in a fatuous manner.

Cheers!

[logician2u]

That's an interesting and varied list of issues for candidates to stake their campaigns on.

However (and I'm probably being dogmatic and unsophisticated, in Kathleen Parker's view), I notice a curious omission.

Where is the Republicans' insistence that candidates and office-holders adhere to the guiding document of the United States government, the U.S. Constitution?

Or is that only a piece of paper these days?

[raybbr]

"noniodeological roots."

What could those possibly be? That has to be one of the most nonsensical phrases I have ever read. All of ones political "roots" are based in ideology - even the morons on the left know this. They stick to their roots no matter how much lying they do. It's why they are ahead now.

[RightWingConspirator]

The Republican party should take no “gifts” from the WaPo and the NYT. Both harbor malevolence for the Republican party. They knew that McVain was a loser for the 2008 election and that is why they hyped him, helping him gain votes from MSM-addicted Republican voters in the primaries.

[Navy Patriot]

"Thinking people need not apply."

No, nuanced means thinking of methods to be disingenuous, so the proper description is "liars need not apply".

Kathleen Parker commits the standard mortal sin of liberals, applying a false definition to a term used to describe an unethical unacceptable behavior.

But then what would you expect from the Compost? Certainly not disingenuous disinformation disguised as reporting.

[RightWingConspirator]

No one in his right mind should ever call either Kathleen Parker or David Brooks a conservative. They both are elitist liberals masquerading as conservatives.

[antisocial]

BTTT

[thecabal]

Parker crawls out of Lord Obama's arse to deliver this tripe? Weaksauce.

She suggests that we revisit our "noniodeological roots."

So party trumps all principles, eh Kat? Surprise, surprise, surprise!

[Dem Guard]

“And “nuance,” the definition of which suggests a sophisticated approach to understanding.”

This nuance B.S. is nothing but wishy washy relativism that has gotten our party to where it is now.

[thecabal]

Why are you so vehemently against people educating themselves on the arguments their enemies use? Staying in your conservative shell ain’t going to do a whole lot of good.

[kingu]

The nuanced approach is simply pointing out how much they plan on selling out ahead of the election. Such as: We will handle the debt, just as soon as we're out of this financial crisis.

So the answer to avoid making good on this nuance is to continually be in a financial crisis. Then you never have to worry about appeasing those who are ticked off about the pork pie.

You can not make laws based upon the exception, which is exactly what we're doing now. Everything is based upon the exception. Even illegal aliens - Oh, we only want to go out and deport the criminals. That would be every one of them. But we have to ensure fairness, so the process is long. How can it be long? Where were you born? What is your birth date? Do you have a birth certificate? Do you have proof of citizenship? Five minutes. Just go sit in that cell over there while we send for your birth certificate, or you can just be deported right now.

But we turn it into this strange months long drama, because we make laws based upon the exception. Well, what if the parents should have gotten an American birth certificate, but instead got one in Mexico? What of it? Is there a process to apply to come to the United States? Yes? Then there's your answer. Include directions to the US consulate where they can fill out the appropriate forms.

He was insane when he did that, now he's better. Congratulations, we can skip on to the penalty phase of the trial. There's no need to prove the person did it, they just admitted they did, and are claiming mitigating circumstances. Same with the Twinkee defense, the bad home defense, the my Mom was a drug abuser.. Trial's over, we're deciding punishment now.

Being compassionate in determining how to deal with a problem is acceptable, trying to twist the problem into nonexistence is a whole new problem. We have no need for nuanced positions, nor those who feel that they're the elites talking down to the people. The only way this can become a suicide pact is if we let everything we stand for, the choice we give voters, to become so marshmallow that no one is sure where we stand.

For example, see John McCain.

[AdaGray]

K. Parker (a.k.a. “I am more refined than Silly Sarah Palin), is a complete loser. She writes for others inside the Beltway in order to still be invited to the right parties. No one cares, or even knows, who she is outside her cozy circle.