FREE REPUBLIC'S PRAGMATISM: HOPE AND CONSERVATISM DON'T MIX

Chronicles magazine’s December 2002 issue features a piece by Sean Scallon in its Cultural Revolutions section discussing the evolution of Free Republic, billed as "the largest conservative-oriented website in the world." Scallon heralds the closure of cyberspace as a frontier of freedom, citing as his evidence the degeneration of Free Republic into a discussion forum beset by heavy-handed moderators who compulsively censor out any posted material deemed detrimental to the GOP Establishment’s reign in conservative circles. Scallon notes that as Free Republic grew in popularity, size, and cost, "it was only natural for...site administrators to want to look good for prospective donors." The question naturally arises: why would conservatives regularly donate to a website with a Stalinesque reputation for sanitizing their members’ commentary?

Many readers of Scallon’s piece will be surprised to learn that the operation of the Free Republic website requires an estimated $240,000 in donations annually from readers. The Freepers donate that kind of money because they really are convinced and excited (read: deluded) that they are "piece of the action." They really believe that their online (and off-line) advocacy and organizing efforts are effecting political change. They like the idea that they are "part of the system" and on the side of a winning majority now that the GOP has re-taken the Senate and Bush sits in the Oval Office. To swipe a phrase from Jesse Jackson, it "keeps hope alive." And hope is the archetypal political opiate, rendering populations docile and leaving them unwilling to decisively act to change their circumstances. The Freepers feel as though they’re connected and influential, but they don’t seem to realize that this is largely an illusion. The GOP’s hierarchy already has its marching orders, independent of the input of the GOP grassroots. The GOP’s top brass merely pretends that it cares about the "regular folk" at Free Republic. The GOP is always glad to take their money and their votes, though, and is equally happy to use Free Republic as a distribution node for official party "talking points."

Some alert Freepers, however, sense that the GOP they work so hard to support is not very responsive to the conservative agenda. Many Freepers are concerned about the immigration problem in this country, for example, yet the consensus of the average posters is that they have to "wait" and not push the GOP so hard on this issue because they feel constrained by what they call "practical politics." They worry that they will be cast as "too extreme" on certain issues, so they are content to water down their positions so that they can maintain a veneer of relevance and influence—influence that they never had to begin with in the places that matter.

Free Republic’s existence is a symbol of the continuing captivity and betrayal of the conservative base of the GOP. The widespread appeasement and accommodation of the GOP’s hierarchy by these "conservatives" guarantees there never will be any decisive pro-conservative change within the party, since the party is permanently assured that its conservative base, ever fearful of the bogeyman of a Gore-style presidency, will never abandon it. In a sense, the "mainstream" conservatives are as captive an electorate as the Blacks in the Democratic Party. Just as the Blacks are under-served and taken for granted by the Democrats, so too are the conservatives jilted by the Republicans. True conservatives are kept in the basement, and are not allowed to speak at GOP national conventions anymore. Yet, these sycophantic conservatives shuffle around the plantation of "Massa GOP" hoping a bone will occasionally be thrown their way, looking as broken and pathetic as Pavlov’s famed dogs. Cries of "tax cuts" take the place of the ringing of bells for these piddling dogs. The Freepers believe they live in an era of conservative victory, but fail to grasp that the price of that victory was the gradual transmutation of conservatism itself into a variant of the same liberalism that movement had long been fighting. The day enough Freeper types realize this terrible situation, and stage a revolt against their masters, is the day conservatism has a chance again in America.

This tactic of "mainstream conservatism" supposedly "overcoming" its liberal enemy by adopting the ideological attributes of liberalism is not confined merely to internal matters of political strategy. The same attitude, essentially defeatist, emerges in the context of more important issues, including the future demographic composition of the nation itself. For example, one Freeper exclaimed that he had no problem with fifty percent of the population of the United States becoming Latino, if only the Latinos immigrated legally to the United States. In essence, that particular Freeper believes America should handle the current "immivasion" from Mexico by turning the United States into Mexico.

Sadly, that poster is not alone in his willingness to allow the GOP to import a new electorate for itself and new cheap laborers for its corporate constituency—hitting two Mexicans with one taco, so to speak. On the other hand, Free Republic’s rabidly pro-Zionist administrators would not take kindly to a poster suggesting that they had no problem with Palestinians becoming fifty percent of the Israeli population (with citizen-status). Indeed, judging from one member’s post, Freepers who plan to counter-demonstrate at future anti-war protests intend to wave Israeli flags rather than American. And I’d thought the Freepers were arguing that war against Iraq was in the name of America’s interests. Such are the quirks of Free Republic, and the priorities of the "mainstream" conservatism it represents are radically askew.

Scallon is right. Free Republic is a large institution, and as with most organs of the Establishment, it is also ideologically bankrupt. In a sense, there is an element of fraud at work as well, since Free Republic’s methodology and approach cannot possibly deliver what it promises: conservative political change. The frontier of freedom in cyberspace isn’t yet totally closed, though—Scallon could have listed additional alternative forum websites where paleoconservatives and Constitutionalists can gather and discuss the issues, such as Ether Zone (obviously) and Original Dissent. The Freepers are oblivious to the fact that they are the tail, not the dog. Their Reaganite mantra of sunny optimism they always point toward, and always out of context, functions as an effective tool of political control.

"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul Fallavollita holds an M.A. in political science from Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana. Paul is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.

Fr is not in a state of decline, and I have been around since early 98 (as beekeeper).I think it is better. Fewer disruptors and a lot more civil. I have even been able to cut back on Reynolds wrap.

The number of posts, however, has increased fourfold at least. A little more discipline on double posting is needed, but because there are so many double/triple and quadruple posts of the same article, you generally are able to see the good ones without having to go too far back.

BTW, the article the author is referring to was a letter to the editors, not an article and contained many untruths, including their being kicked off FR when they actually left on their own.

The Freepers feel as though they’re connected and influential, but they don’t seem to realize that this is largely an illusion.

Right. Which is why there is "...stuff that violates the deal in the Washington ComPost litigation". The Clintonites seemed to think that Free Republic was important enough to order two of the largest newspapers in the country to sue Free Republic and secure a sympathetic federal judge in the case (put on the bench in part by free political advertisements disguised as "news articles" in the Los Angeles Times, one of the parties to the lawsuit).

Once LAT and WP had the judgement, they allowed Democrat sites like The Smirking Chimp to continue posting full-text Los Angeles Times and Washington Post articles (one from today, 11/26/2002: Robert Scheer (LAT): 'How the politicos stole Christmas'). At the time of the lawsuit, the legality of FR's postings was in doubt. At this time, postings like the example above are clearly a violation of copyright, yet they remain unmolested.

Tell me how Free Republic isn't a political threat. :-)

Or those "Get out of Cheney's house chants?"

They sure had an effect on Gore...

The fact is, conservatism is changing, partially as a peractical matter, but also due to the fact that unlike the progressives, it is willing to reasses itself based on the results or lack of them.

The best example of this is welfare. The Left wanted to continue throwing money at the problems. The Right wanted to FIX the broken system. The Right eventually got the fixes, and they are getting some results, but they are going back to make the system fulfill its role even better and in a much more cost-effective manner.

The Right is learning the power of incrementalism and they have, for the most part, stopped letting perfect be the enemy of good enough. There is still work to be done on this in some issues, but I remain optimistic about the future of the conservative movement.

BS. Replace GOP with Bush and you may be getting there.

The problem is that most paleoconservatives(border guards, etc) are lazy asses. I don't see them at the LOCAL GOP meetings. I don't see them running for precinct delegates, etc. If they did this more instead of bitching on the net or at the auto factories, they would have more backing.

Politics starts in our backyards. It does not start in DC. It starts at the county meetings. That's where the state officials come from, and the nationals come from the state level.

Bush can completely morph into Bill Clinton, and I'll still be a GOP member. I might not vote for Bush, but I'll be a GOP member active in local races. The party is much bigger than one person.

Pauly here needs to learn how things work.

There is really only one party! The democrats admit they are for big government while the republican clones are deceptive by giving us big government on a "piece meal" basis or have we forgotten the 44,000+ new employees on the govt's (our) payroll?

How about the "Homeland Security" bueaucracy just created
by our conservative President? We now have commissar!, oops, I mean a new cabinet position. Was George Orwell's 1984 off by 20 years?

Have we forgotten the Pres. signed the CFR bill that limits free speech knowing full well it violated the 1st amendment?
Have we forgotten the government's land grabs? Have we forgotten the gov't's grab for power with the mis-named p.a.t.r.i.o.t. act which was passed by a republican congress without even reading what was in the law?

Have we forgotten the billions spent by the republican's and the watered down adoption of the democrat's social policies?

Have we forgotten the $190,000,000,000 farm bill passed and signed into law by the conservative republican President and the republican controlled congress?

I know that the loyalists of the republicrats will say it's smart politics, but, what they are admitting is that they accept duplicity as long as their guys and girls do it!

Oh, yes, they do throw us a "nugget" every now and then and they make great speeches to make us "feel good", but, bottom line, I see a pattern of government intrusion into our lives in the interest of "security".

Ask your representative why Section 802 of the p.a.t.r.i.o.t act has no expiration date while the rest of the act has a 4 year lifespan! Can you guess why that is?

One more thing, did it ever occur to anyone that we are only given the choice of voting for frick or frack by the power brokers and powerful families?

JFTR, I am not a libertarian, communist, socialist or any other name you may wish to flame me with. I am an old American who is tired and distrustful of all politicians who violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution. I do not wish to give up my liberties or freedom on the false premise/promise of big government "protecting" me, thank you. Remember what Mom & Dad told us about trusting strangers.

FReegards

Scallon heralds the closure of cyberspace as a frontier of freedom, citing as his evidence the degeneration of Free Republic into a discussion forum beset by heavy-handed moderators who compulsively censor out any posted material deemed detrimental to the GOP Establishment’s reign in conservative circles.

ROTFLMAO!!!!
Oh boy that's a good one. The writer did however forget to close his sarcasm tag.

This is ridiculous. I think the problem with the detractors is that they have delusions of grandeur, OUR grandeur. I think the majority of Freepers who donate do so because we LOVE this place! I dont care if we exercize one bit of influence over policy, I DO care that I can come here and discuss things with like-minded people, and debate things civily (hopefully) with those not so like minded.

There is plenty of anti-GOP stuff posted here, most recently, the anti Homeland Securty posts, where some of us have expressed our reservations. Goodness, there is plenty of descent here on FR, but most of it within a conservative/libertarian framework. (Evolution/Creationism, War On Drugs, Privacy, etc).

Sounds to me like this author, instead of reading FR carefully, was instead, typing this article with one hand while trying to quickly click closed the porn add pop-ups..

If your ideology is incoherent, do not blame those new to FR.

In my short time here, I have found discussion of ideology, troop movements, and a variety of other conservative concerns. I find FR informative, intriguing, humorous, and , at times, intellectually challenging. This is a problem?

Is not FREE Republic about the FREE exchange of ideas, viewpoints, anecdotes, AND conservative philosophy?

If I am mistaken, please tell me where and why.

BTW. I despise the term neo-con ( coined by Chris Mathews ), as I was raised a conservative by conservative parents whose parents were conservative. I'm sure I am not alone in this regard.

For example, one Freeper exclaimed that he had no problem with fifty percent of the population of the United States becoming Latino, if only the Latinos immigrated legally to the United States. In essence, that particular Freeper believes America should handle the current "immivasion" from Mexico by turning the United States into Mexico.

On the other hand, Free Republic’s rabidly pro-Zionist administrators would not take kindly to a poster suggesting that they had no problem with Palestinians becoming fifty percent of the Israeli population (with citizen-status).

This dumbass is as much of a anti-semite and as racist as Pat Buchanan...To hell with both of them.

This article might as well have been written by the Washington Post, as part of its 'drive a wedge into the Republican coalition' drive. We need the moderates. They need us. Without both, we are a permanent minority party. With both, we have an opportunity to drive the political center (the independents) to the right. That's what this election was really about.

As to whether FR has any effect in the real world. It's my understanding that the eight young men in Florida in 2000, who prevented the dems from diasppearing into a sealed room with tens of thousands of ballots, were FREEPERS. If the dems had gotten out of the view of cameras with those ballots, Al Gore would be president today. So as I read it, FR saved our country from four years of Al Gore.

Also, check out the FR network if you haven't already. It's in its infancy but has the potential to be a potent political force. www.freepers.org

See post #55 for an example of the neo-con debating style and consider why it might be poisonous the atmosphere compared to our fair dialogue. The origincal neo-conservative intellectuals were mostly ex-Communists and socialist who had grown disillusioned with radical welfare state leftism.

I suggest Amazon.com, author Irving Kristol, Confessions of a Neo-Conservative if you wish to learn where the term comes from.

My cause is only preservation/conservation of the culture which might be different than the desire to conserve the current power structure orchestrated centrally in DC. In that sense, we may be radically opposed in our political goals or we maybe useful allies.

It sure would be nice if Mr. Fallavollita actually attended an anti-antiwar counter protest a la what the Dee Cee Chapter puts on.

I missed all the Israeli flags at all of our events. In fact, I do not recall seeing any. Just American flags.

AFA some of the other conclusions of the article, I agree with them. "Conservatism" is not what it once was, and I now commonly refer to myself as a "Constitutionalist," not a "Conservative."

His Royal Podness

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.