First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Conservatives seem to be backsliding from winning to fighting and now they’re at the part where they get laughed at.
DarkSyde over at Kos has a post chiding the conservatives for having been made the fool by George W. Bush. He opens with:
Yes, my conservative friends, George Bush has sold you down the river. Now, you’re finally starting to suspect that it was never about abortion or limiting government or even national security. Those were just useful emotional distractions held by the left hand so that the right one could deftly rip-off the Federal Treasury and enact measures preventing We the People from interfering with the heist.
He goes on to predict that, by looking the other way on illegal immigration and by granting amnesty, the ranks of the Democratic Party will swell. He concludes:
Here’s the best part of all: While the GOP has gerrymandered themselves into a political strait jacket, most of us on this side of the aisle are OK with some version of the Bush-Kennedy amnesty plan. It’s realistic and moral. But the icing on the cake is that it will hasten the inevitable day when the Republican Party is a permanent minority due to the fastest growing segment of our population becoming eligible to vote for democrats. Although I must admit we never, ever foresaw George Bush as the midwife of progressive ascendancy and the executioner of neo-conservatism. Hasta la vista republicanistas!
My tendency is to think he presumes too much by assuming that immigrants will necessarily be primarily Democrats, but if conservatives are citing the German model of moving the Jews with approval when discussing what might be possible in ridding the U.S. of illegal immigrants.
World Net Daily– [Bush] lied when he said: “Massive deportation of the people here is unrealistic – it’s just not going to work.” Not only will it work, but one can easily estimate how long it would take. If it took the Germans less than four years to rid themselves of 6 million Jews, many of whom spoke German and were fully integrated into German society, it couldn’t possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don’t speak English and are not integrated into American society.
In order to increase its attractiveness to immigrants who become voters, Republicans are going to have to square the circle and reconcile the racist contingent of their base with the more practical elements and with the sensibilities of immigrants-turned-voters.
Of course, Democrats have their work cut out for them too trying to reconcile the disparate elements of their base in a way that is principled and easily understood. I suggest basic populism, but that won’t necessarily sit well with the big-donors Beltway Democrats have come to know and love. But I digress.
OH MY GOD….somebody actually is using the Holocaust as an example of how easy it is to get rid of people? Call me naive, but I had not thought of ethnic cleansing as a strategy that would be considered in the 21st Century United States.
Doug,
This quote from Daily KOS is very interesting to me: “Although I must admit we never, ever foresaw George Bush as the midwife of progressive ascendancy and the executioner of neo-conservatism.â€
I don’t think those at Daily KOS understand neo-conservatives. Most of those who I know who are NEO-conservatives support amnesty. I also think Democrats have underestimated what Bush has done for “progressive ascendancy.†Bush has nationalized education, saved many entitlement programs that were scheduled to be cut or eliminated, implemented the first prescription drug plan (even if it does operate in a strange way) and has always been a supporter of amnesty for illegal immigrants.
I think Bush’s neo-conservative foreign policy, Bush’s support for the religious-right, and even the Democrat desire to get back into power, have blinded those on the left from seeing how mainstream or even liberal Bush and other NEO-conservatives are on certain issues.
Doug,
For clarification, I meant first “senior” prescription drug plan.
I think the damage Bush has done to neo-conservatism has been through the War in Iraq. Whatever merits their foreign policy ideas may have had, the poor execution in planning the Iraq invasion and occupation has discredited neocon foreign policy for the next generation.
As for the rest of it, I think the problem is that the Bush administration simply isn’t very conservative. They have promoted a bigger and more active federal government and have been fiscally reckless. Of course, my idea of conservatism probably stems from having been raised in what I guess would be termed a “paleoconservative” family, favoring a more or less isolationist foreign policy and believing that cash on the barrelhead was sound advice for both personal and government spending. Essentially I was raised believing, as “Silent Cal” once said, “The chief business of the American people is business.”
The prescription drug plan wasn’t born of any “liberalism” on Bush’s part. It was a transparent political move to take the social security/medicare issues off the table for the 2004 election and garner him a few senior votes while providing a windfall to insurance companies and drug manufacturers at the same time. All the while just putting the charge on the national credit card. It was the classic political move masquerading as a policy move.
The distinction drawn between neo-conservatives (e.g. Wolfowitz) and “paleoconservative” is highly material here. Bush ran in a way to appeal to traditional conservatives, not neo-conservatives (which strikes me as a bit of an oxymoron anyway). During the 2000 campaign Bush repeatedly attacked the Clinton administration for overstretching the military and engaging in nation building (typical neocon goals), but in office has pursued outlines of the old Clinton strategy with a vengence and with far less competence. And I say this as one who was bothered by the old saw that Clinton thought he could solve the problems of the world over pizza in the course an all night bull session. At least Bush hasn’t messed up our relations with India.
I often wondered how Bush became the conservative candidate in the 2000. Before the 2000 primary election, Bush was the moderate Republican candidate. My guess, and this is only a guess, is that John McCain caused Bush to be the conservative candidate. When McCain challenged Bush, the media reported very favorably on McCain as an outsider and as a moderate. Even though McCain is more conservative than Bush (especially when it comes to spending) McCain went along with these labels for obvious reasons. Moderate Republicans switched from arguing how great Bush was to how radical he was. And when liberals and moderates started to support McCain, the conservatives (including the paleoconservatives) rallied behind Bush.
There are not very many paleoconservatives left, at least when discussing foreign policy. Ironically, the neo-conservative foreign policy of nation building in Iraq is looked at as the extreme right position by most Democrats. However, the paleoconservatives who argue against the war are also labeled as part of the extreme right. The same is true on spending policy. Bush is part of the extreme right, yet he supports more spending and a bigger national government. Yet paleoconservatives who argue against the social programs are also in the extreme right.
This leaves me very confused as to who is actually a part of the extreme right and who is not. Is Bush the extreme right? I can’t tell you; I don’t think anyone really knows.
I think what it tells us is that “left” and “right” (and “conservative” and “liberal” for that matter) are no longer terribly useful labels.
I think Bush became the Republican nominee by running a classic hard nosed campaign, including: savaging McCain in the South Carolina primary using push polling; a huge advantage in money and in contacts with the Party machine; and calling in every political debt owed the Bush family.
Any chance of McCain in 08?
I’ve been wrong before . . . well, o.k., always; but I’d say that McCain will never be fully accepted by the Christian Right and he has pretty much burned his “straight shooter” credibility with moderate Democrats. I voted for McCain in the ’00 primary and would have voted for him over Gore in the general election. (My politics were a little different then, and I didn’t know as much about Gore or McCain). So, I’m gonna say that McCain is a longshot in ’08.
The present ‘conservatives’ have redefined terms to reflect the righteousness of their agenda.. I would say today’s ‘conservatism’ includes a religious basis because fundamentalism is part of their agenda.Whether its ‘paleo’or ‘dominionism’etc is an academic discussion(meaning you have to have a historical reference ) .Liberalism has been redefined as ‘something bad’ and includes ‘food stamp cheating’ ‘school busing’,and’abortion on demand’,and ‘family values’ ( which actually means ‘anti-gay’) No wonder no one can discuss anything.We have no common language,if language means using the same glossary.