For years now I’ve brayed helplessly (though with quite a bit of outside help contributing to my helplessness,, if one counts omission as an overarching narrative ploy) about “conservative” opinion leaders who aren’t driving a “conservative” agenda that isn’t by way of promoting “conservative” candidates who never were and “conservative” policies which never were and most certainly never will be.
But the political winds may be shifting as full-throated conservatives are beginning to hit back, among them the always solid Jeffrey Lord at the American Spectator, who takes to the rhetorical woodshed phony “center-rightists” (and invitees to “conservative” conferences, like MSNBC’s embarrassingly non-conservative “conservative” Joe Scarborough) of the kind promoted by the corporatist GOP establishment as a new breed of “conservative” — namely, those who aren’t but pretend to be in what can only be described as a concerted effort to re-brand mush centrism as “conservatism” while moving actual constitutionalists and classical liberals to the “extremist” fringe.
It’s a rather lengthy piece, so I’m just going to nutshell it: the battle for the heart and soul of the GOP is currently being waged between what I’ll call New Deal Republicans and constitutionalists — a loose coalition of legal conservatives, classical liberals, and libertarians — with the GOP establishment not only firmly on the side of big government (which provides career politicians perpetual power and continuous perks regardless of whether or not their party is in power; more, it also creates the very conditions, by way of pork and party collusion, for a nearly insurmountable power to incumbency, something only the TEA Party movement (and before them, the progressive New Left, who took over the Democrat party)) has shown any strides in overcoming), but actively fighting against their conservative base, oftentimes with the aid of Democrats.
This is precisely why I’ve been arguing that our supposed two party system isn’t, and why it’s imperative that principled conservatives wage a battle for those principles and against the exigent pragmatism that has been the hallmark of the GOP’s slow drift leftward.
I used to call this losing more slowly. But now more than ever I’m convinced that I was looking at the dynamic from the perspective of a free citizen bent on maintaining liberty and representative republicanism within a constitutional framework — which decidedly is not the perspective being used by GOP establishment politicians.
Because to them, surrender is a form of victory inasmuch as they’ve come to realize that both parties win as the government grows, and they themselves profit, accrue more and more power, and institutionalize a system where nearly everything a once free people do or desire must first pass through them.
And that’s quite a rush.
What they couldn’t have counted on — but have learned to use to their advantage — is the rise of online media and (to a lesser extent) political talk radio and FOX News. And while there are certainly those in both mediums who give the GOP establishment fits, it is also true that the GOP has managed to secure as their mouthpieces many of these outlets, playing on the desires of those who run them for “respectability” and legitimacy, the thrill of coming from nowhere into sudden big-time players whose work influences national policy.
Couple this with the installation into the legacy media of “conservative” voices who aren’t at all conservative but who nonetheless are promoted as representatives of the “other side” — Rubin, Brooks, Sullivan, Frum, etc. — and a villified “rightwing” newwork in FOX who tries to sell us conservatism packaged in the populism of Bill O’Reilly and the “realism” of the perpetual Bush dynasty — and what you have is a permanent ruling elite setting the parameters for the two poles of political discourse, creating a spectrum that quite intentionally moves leftism toward the center, and conservative / classical liberal first principles outside the boundaries of polite and legitimate political conversation.
We can’t let this happen.
There is a reason those in power within the GOP mainstream fight harder and more viciously against conservatives than they ever do Democrats. And that’s because the TEA Party has pulled back the Beltway veil and illuminated the corruption, collusion, and thirst for ever more power over we the people, reimagined as subjects rather than sovereigns, that is the natural end game of a national politics divorced from principle and reduced to pure pragmatism and “realism”: not surprisingly, those with power and influence fight to keep it and make their jobs solely about doing so; and they come to resent the people they represent if those people presume to tell them how to vote and what principles to defend.
On the left this is less of a problem, because their natural constituency favors ever-bigger government and a more centralized, regulated, and wealth-redistributing power structure; whereas on the right, the sale is more difficult — particularly when non party-vetted upstarts presume to bring principle into a smoothly-running crony factory, one that an exasperated Nancy Pelosi once said needed to get rid of the TEA Party types so it could get back to getting things done.
Meaning, promoting big government with the help of big government Republicans.
The question now is, do we wage all out war against the GOP, which has shown it will pull its support fro upstart principled candidates and allow Democrats to win, should they not get their way? Or do we sit down, be quite, and let those who know the nuances of DC handle our affairs for us by proxy, assuring us with every compromise of our liberties that they made the best deal available, and that we should be thanking them for their tireless efforts not to surrender entirely and all at once?
(h/t bh)
That’s a rhetorical question, right?
do we wage all out war against the GOP
Absent a couple of office holders who ostensibly run as Republicans, yet govern as libertarian-to-conservative, the party is dead to me already.
Question: how do you field dress an elephant?
Answer: the sooner we find out, the better.
Taking your a loose coalition of legal conservatives, classical liberals, and libertarians, Jeff, it seems that there aren’t many of them at Fox. John Stossel, yes, Krauthammer sometimes. The rest are all squishy establicans, pretty much (except for Napolitano, who I suspect is nuts). So for all its vaunted position as a right wing bastion, it isn’t that at all, so getting the message out is pretty difficult.
The next big huge almost insurmountable step for the masses of flyover-country conservatives to make, which the growing movement for state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws will bring to the fore:
Admit and come to grips with the fact that the federal court system has been hijacked (and has been for many many decades), is actively working against the expressed will of the founders, and has made itself utterly constitutionally illegitimate. Which means countless decisions it’s handed down in previous decades have no legal binding whatsoever upon citizens of the United States. (How far back is in contention. Brown v Board of Education? The civil war? Marbury v Madison?)
Full acknowledgement of this leads to staring into the abyss, and having it stare back into you. Where does one even go from there?
The question now is, do we wage all out war against the GOP, which has shown it will pull its support from upstart principled candidates and allow Democrats to win, should they not get their way?
I find myself a bit at sea, coming away from the Lord article. Not to say utterly confused so much, as pulled now this way, now that (and this for reasons not precisely to do with the urgent questions at hand, so far as I can see, but for others, possibly not useful to that end).
Nevertheless, it does still seem to me that our party politics has become overgrown with barnacle, coral and seaweed, while the salt is eroding the iron of the object beneath that overgrowth, obscuring the shape of the thing which fell to the bottom taking anchor so long ago, to such an extent that we cannot be certain how much longer it can do its job.
So yes, that’s the question: pull the anchor up and scrape it off, only to throw it back once made clean, or forge another to replace the old?
It sounded to me last night as though M. Levin is coming to grips with a de facto condition regarding the Republican party he would not himself prefer (and has until now resisted), but which he realizes he cannot escape. Namely, individuals in ever greater numbers are simply turning their backs on the Party to walk away. And for good reason.
So perhaps the decision on the anchor will simply emerge, rather than be determined by a momentary voice announcing a choice.
among those what remain engaged in america’s tawdry politics messianism is pervasive
it’s not attractive
Namely, individuals in ever greater numbers are simply turning their backs on the Party to walk away. And for good reason.
The evidence would be the loss of the Mittster – too many of us just wouldn’t hold our noses any more.
Who are independents now? Growing up, I used to look on them with disdain, but after seeing recent polls, independents by percentage are the least trusting of government. That’s a heartening change.
I’m also wondering who the non-voters are now, and if a significant number(but nothing like a majority, or even a plurality) of them might vote if the candidate was worth voting for.
“how do you field dress an elephant?”
How do you field dress an elephant mask on a red donkey a little bit smaller than the blue one laughing at you from across across the street?
Right now the ranks of independents have been swollen by conservatives and libertarians who’ve finally decided to give that no-good two-timing GOP the bum’s rush.
Before, people who called themselves independents were Democrats who couldn’t admit it to themselves.
By 2016 I expect a lot more of the latter — and as always they’ll be the ones the BSM dolts interview.
That’s an excellent takedown of the vice of moderation.
The voice of moderation would have tried to talk Hitler down to only killing some of the worst jews and putting the rest into rehabilitation programs.
The voice of moderation rarely looks good to history.
The one thing Lord left out was that the Era of Big Government was back on when George. W. Bush decided to push No Child Left Behind and Medicare part D.
Really, Karl Rove is prime example of the folly of mistaking the middle ground for the common ground.
Ernst Schreiber says May 1, 2013 at 12:44 pm
Karl Rove is prime example of the folly of mistaking the middle ground for the common ground.
Solomon must have had better PR people (that half-the-baby thing).
Lord is a big fan of writing incomplete sentences. It made for an annoying read.
Why you gotta hate on conversational style?
How long before we’re rid of Social Security as a matter of law, as a deliberate political choice of representative legislation?
That is, as opposed to the collapse of Social Security (together with whatever other structures or creatures of government) as a matter of fact?
About the time that they pass legislation increasing the chocolate ration from 15 grams to 10. Probably in the same omnibus Define aAl the Bad Stuff Away Act of 20xx, too.
Related: I’m interested in some feedback on this.
Feedback. Let’s start with the title. “Manifesto of Slog.” “Manifesto” is just going to get you on somebody’s watchlist. Why not call it a Creed?
All of us are already ON the watchlists.
Have you heard Creed, Ernst? They’re terrible…
If they’re not watching me, what’s the point of mooning them?
…besides, “creed” is a worship word used by bitter, clinging lifeydoodles. Six of one, etc.
That reminds me, I need more Nicene in my daily diet.
Fortified with Chalcedonian recommended Constantinopolitanisms and improved additional procession of the Holy Ghost!
Left some feedback for you McGehee
Slog’s personal assistant.
Whatever you’re calling yourself these days.
And I’ve replied. BTW for others choosing to comment on my site: if you use the email address associated with your Gravatar account, your Gravatar will be displayed.
If not, you’ll get a different nonsensical avatar each time the page reloads.
I haven’t come up with a good response yet, McGehee, but I did read it and overall I agree.
My hope is that discussion will help me flesh out the subsidiary points underlying the text.
[…] Jeff Goldstein also discusses Lord’s article and has more insights as well. […]
[…] Jeff Goldstein also discusses Lord’s article and has more insights as well. […]
[…] skinny on the possibility the IRS is overstepping its authority in enforcing ObamaCare. Congress, shmongress. The administration is its own […]