American conservatism--at least as embraced by the GOP and its fellow travelers is vapid, intellectually and morally bankrupt and dedicated not to ideas or solving society's problems but on gain and keeping power and the financial rewards that go with it.
17
And Mitch McConnell just tapped Joni Ernst to give the Republican response to the State of the Union speech. This is a woman who supports nullification, has called for the impeachment of the president who "has become a dictator", thinks that there were WMD in Iraq, wants to abolish the minimum wage, and thinks the UN Agenda 21 is trying to shut down American golf courses and force farmers off their land Oh-kaaaaay....
32
well, it would help if conservatives believed in science or physics, or economics or sociology, etc. and it would help if they were consistent: ACA, tax policy, unnecessary wars, bank bailouts... all GOP policy, straight down the line. But the Republicans opposed them all. who could vote for such a squishy party?
14
The Wikipedia entry for the Ethics and Public Policy Center provides some context for this piece:
Lefever said upon founding the institute that "a small ethically oriented center" should "respond directly to ideological critics who insist the corporation is fundamentally unjust."[13] The EPPC's website states that they have been politically committed to "defending the great Western ethical imperatives" on issues such as "the Cold War, the war on terror, the role of religion in public life, and battles over the nature of the family."
Lefever said upon founding the institute that "a small ethically oriented center" should "respond directly to ideological critics who insist the corporation is fundamentally unjust."[13] The EPPC's website states that they have been politically committed to "defending the great Western ethical imperatives" on issues such as "the Cold War, the war on terror, the role of religion in public life, and battles over the nature of the family."
4
As a student of human nature, I guess I lean toward a conservative world view as defined here, in that I recognize that humans are imperfect, and their weaknesses cannot be eliminated by decree.
I also see the value of taking "delight in the achievements and blessings we have." The trouble is that, in the last 50-100 years, so-called "conservatives" have taken delight in racial discrimination, unnecessary and idiotic wars, and the wholesale destruction of our environment. I oppose that mindset. Because in this respect I am opposing people who call themselves "conservatives," that is supposed to make me a "liberal." But I really just oppose idiocy and injustice.
I also see the value of taking "delight in the achievements and blessings we have." The trouble is that, in the last 50-100 years, so-called "conservatives" have taken delight in racial discrimination, unnecessary and idiotic wars, and the wholesale destruction of our environment. I oppose that mindset. Because in this respect I am opposing people who call themselves "conservatives," that is supposed to make me a "liberal." But I really just oppose idiocy and injustice.
42
To summarize: Conservatism is: rooted in human experience; has a high regard for empiricism; anti-utopian, understanding life’s imperfections and the limitations of politics; marked by prudence, compromise, liberty and justice; and “conservatives should make their case with an urgency balanced by practical wisdom, equanimity and a sense of proportion. Their passion should also be balanced by gratitude.” Finally, conservatism is marked by enjoyment - finding delight in the achievements and blessings we have - magnanimity, winsomeness, and grace.
How does this differ from the liberal mindset? It doesn’t. The only thing that differs is the lens through which one reads these attributes: individualism vs collectivism. The last 2 attributes are the luxury of the privileged ‘haves’. Those who look upon the world with the smug attitude “got mine.” This attitude (a matter of the heart, really) is antithetical to Christianity, to which so many conservative Republicans claim they adhere. Love of self focuses inward. The Bible exhorts people to focus outward, and serve God and others in love.
Years ago conservatism meant traditional values and caution in the face of change. Now, conservatism means selfish individualism, and that does not make for a sustainable social compact.
Wehner needs to leave the bubble of his Center’s ivory tower; hit the streets, factories, and neighborhoods; and connect with people in the real world. Conservatives need to open their hearts.
How does this differ from the liberal mindset? It doesn’t. The only thing that differs is the lens through which one reads these attributes: individualism vs collectivism. The last 2 attributes are the luxury of the privileged ‘haves’. Those who look upon the world with the smug attitude “got mine.” This attitude (a matter of the heart, really) is antithetical to Christianity, to which so many conservative Republicans claim they adhere. Love of self focuses inward. The Bible exhorts people to focus outward, and serve God and others in love.
Years ago conservatism meant traditional values and caution in the face of change. Now, conservatism means selfish individualism, and that does not make for a sustainable social compact.
Wehner needs to leave the bubble of his Center’s ivory tower; hit the streets, factories, and neighborhoods; and connect with people in the real world. Conservatives need to open their hearts.
21
that was Edmund Burke, Rockefeller, and to some extent Buckley. Now, well, not so much.
2
The winsome conservative! He smiles while taking an ax to our Social Security.
15
I have a better rule of thumb; when ideology conflicts with reality accept reality and modify the ideology. Modern 'conservatives' prefer to hold on to their ideology no matter what the facts are. Until that changes they wont be getting my vote.
23
Until the Republican Party disentangles from the closed circuit media loop of Fox News, conservative talk radio (Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, etc.) and websites (Drudge Report, WorldNetDaily, etc.), their politicians will remain prisoners of ideological "purity", as defined by this media, and the hyperbolic confrontation -- which makes for such great entertainment and sells lots of advertising.
The real conflict as I see it, is between what closet-moderate GOP politicians know to be the truth versus what they're forced to acknowledge to keep this media monster from devouring them by ginning up their viewers (aka the GOP voter base).
The real conflict as I see it, is between what closet-moderate GOP politicians know to be the truth versus what they're forced to acknowledge to keep this media monster from devouring them by ginning up their viewers (aka the GOP voter base).
12
The writer casts conservatism as joyful realism, standing against adventurist dreams. It is so far from reality I don't know where to begin... Should "high regard for things empirical" not include appreciating science? Is it prudent to risk climate change? Would prudence not require lots of empirical evidence before invading a country?
Mr. Wehner, in spite of your principles, you have become a day-dreamer. Do you really believe your party's embrace of dogma is just a matter of disposition?
Mr. Wehner, in spite of your principles, you have become a day-dreamer. Do you really believe your party's embrace of dogma is just a matter of disposition?
16
The GOP is not a party that advocates racism. Nor is this a trait that anyone can honestly pin on conservatives. But the GOP has a real problem. Whenever someone who does espouse racist ideas runs for public office rather than advocating from a third party, they flock to the GOP. Conservative who embrace enduring principles have to ask themselves why?
When a federal judge appointed by the GOP feels free to circulate racist emails conservative have to ask how did this happen. When the tea party wing creates images of the president as a cannibal with a bone in his nose or as a monkey--images drawn from the dark days of Jim Crow conservatives must wonder how this mind set keeps finding its way into their ranks.
These are but a few of the long list of examples of virulent racism that have accompanied the last six years of our public life. One can only imagine what views are shared in private.
I wish that Mr. Wehner and his fellow conservatives would ask these questions. More so, I wish they would come up with sensible answers. We would all be better of if they did.
When a federal judge appointed by the GOP feels free to circulate racist emails conservative have to ask how did this happen. When the tea party wing creates images of the president as a cannibal with a bone in his nose or as a monkey--images drawn from the dark days of Jim Crow conservatives must wonder how this mind set keeps finding its way into their ranks.
These are but a few of the long list of examples of virulent racism that have accompanied the last six years of our public life. One can only imagine what views are shared in private.
I wish that Mr. Wehner and his fellow conservatives would ask these questions. More so, I wish they would come up with sensible answers. We would all be better of if they did.
13
The ludicrousness of Mr Wehner's arguments is almost beyond comprehension. While on one hand condemning the apocalyptic tone of his colleagues he goes on to say "Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president". Really...and this isn't apocalyptic?
Let's look at this "damage": a recovered auto industry, , lowest unemployment levels in 8 years, hundreds of thousands of jobs created, and millions of people with access to health insurance, a stabilized housing market, a recovered financial market, and economic recovery for millions. We could use more damage like this.
And explain a 'market based safety net'? Seems to simply be code for privatization of social security, food assistance, unemployment, and other benefits. So ask yourself who would benefit from this approach?
If this is conservatism I think most people would not subscribe to it.
Let's look at this "damage": a recovered auto industry, , lowest unemployment levels in 8 years, hundreds of thousands of jobs created, and millions of people with access to health insurance, a stabilized housing market, a recovered financial market, and economic recovery for millions. We could use more damage like this.
And explain a 'market based safety net'? Seems to simply be code for privatization of social security, food assistance, unemployment, and other benefits. So ask yourself who would benefit from this approach?
If this is conservatism I think most people would not subscribe to it.
35
The conservative disposition has been best summarized by Leonard Cohen: "The poor stay poor, the rich get rich / That's how it goes / Everybody knows..."
8
The Old Grey Lady is sly in publishing this public relations piece. It exposes the ever-present vacuity and ongoing mendacity of today's Republican party. These attributes are further highlighted by readers pointing out its many flaws and falsehoods with thoughtful, logical and erudite comments.
18
The godfather and sainted founder of modern conservatism, William F. Buckley, Jr. famously stated, unequivocally, in the first issue of “National Review” (1955) that his conservative mandate was to stand “athwart history, yelling Stop.”
To borrow from a great teacher, "All else is detail."
To borrow from a great teacher, "All else is detail."
2
i prefer Walter Benjamin's account of one's relationship to history. Michael Corleone's and Joyce's too, should it come to that.
1
"Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president ..."
Mr. Conservative -- do you really not recall the manifold disasters of the Iraq war and the financial crisis and the ushering in of toxic polarization???? What Bush and Cheney and the Neo-cons did to America in serious cost and loss has never been seen before in America.
Obama came into office in their wake. He hasn't been so up to the challenges, but there are few who would be. And, to make matters worse, he's had to deal with a republican opposition which puts sugar in the gas tank.
At least Obama's approach has been to not do stupid stuff. That gets an A relative to the abject F's that came before.
Mr. Conservative -- do you really not recall the manifold disasters of the Iraq war and the financial crisis and the ushering in of toxic polarization???? What Bush and Cheney and the Neo-cons did to America in serious cost and loss has never been seen before in America.
Obama came into office in their wake. He hasn't been so up to the challenges, but there are few who would be. And, to make matters worse, he's had to deal with a republican opposition which puts sugar in the gas tank.
At least Obama's approach has been to not do stupid stuff. That gets an A relative to the abject F's that came before.
33
An interesting, albeit, essay full of euphemisms and lacking specifics. Often the rhetoric that cloaks darker intent. The posit given of what "conservatism" is sounds charitable at best, deceptive to what philosophy drives the movement today. In a person and philosophy: Ayn Rand. Her atheistic approach to society could be en-capsuled in her own guiding tenets: hatred of altruism and love of greed driven capitalism unfettered by regulations that keep the philosophy from cruel, Robber Baron excess. Paul Ryan, who has said Ran's philosophy is at the heart of his thinking, exemplifies what they means in our nation. No safety net, be it free lunches for poor children or food stamps that feed otherwise starving victims of outsourcing. Such draconian driven legislation would reduce the nation to a country full of beggars and the growing huge divide between the haves and the have not s would exponentially rise to even more 3rd world proportions. Anyone with a modicum of historical knowledge knows when a nation eats its middle class and throws that sector of society into poverty, it is ripe for revolution. Sadly we are approaching that fearful end.
10
I agree with Mr. Wehner that there is nothing about Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, etc that is conservative. They are not conservatives, they are nihilists. That said, the so-called real conservatives made something of a Faustian bargain with these nihilists. To now say that true conservatives are being unfairly tarred by these populist weirdos is trying to have it both ways. It's like the guy who murders his parents, and then throws himself on the mercy of the court on the grounds that he's an orphan.
11
We may need to start this conversation with a new dictionary. I certainly don't recognize the definition of terms used in this article.
5
"What often masquerades as conservatism these days is really populsm." Hardly.
What masquerades as conservatism these days is simply good old reactionary response to a world that is different from what some would like. And their desired world looks a lot like the economic and social oppression of the 1870-1930 period of U.S. history.
"Conservatism is rooted in human experience." No, conservatism is rooted in the experience of a few who refuse to see the usefulness (utility?) of providing many and varied means of access to better lives to the mass of people. Its consistent message is "no," regardless of the benefit accruing to the greater number of people. In fact, one might say that "protectionsim" - of certain economic and social standing - is the root of conservatism.
I am retired, and grew up in the 50s and 60s, establishing my family in the 70s-90s. I cannot think of a single federal or state initiative which improved my life and those of many others that came from conservatives. The possible exception is the interstate highway system, but whiie Eisenhower gets the credit, I can remember conservative legislators whining about the costs and overruns.
I'm sorry, Mr. Wehner. You may be a conservative, but you are not the conservatives I have watched all of my adult life who have and are desperately trying to turn the clock back to a time we are well - thankfully - past.
What masquerades as conservatism these days is simply good old reactionary response to a world that is different from what some would like. And their desired world looks a lot like the economic and social oppression of the 1870-1930 period of U.S. history.
"Conservatism is rooted in human experience." No, conservatism is rooted in the experience of a few who refuse to see the usefulness (utility?) of providing many and varied means of access to better lives to the mass of people. Its consistent message is "no," regardless of the benefit accruing to the greater number of people. In fact, one might say that "protectionsim" - of certain economic and social standing - is the root of conservatism.
I am retired, and grew up in the 50s and 60s, establishing my family in the 70s-90s. I cannot think of a single federal or state initiative which improved my life and those of many others that came from conservatives. The possible exception is the interstate highway system, but whiie Eisenhower gets the credit, I can remember conservative legislators whining about the costs and overruns.
I'm sorry, Mr. Wehner. You may be a conservative, but you are not the conservatives I have watched all of my adult life who have and are desperately trying to turn the clock back to a time we are well - thankfully - past.
26
This is hogwash that I couldn't stomach long enough to finish reading. This guy paints conservatism as all sweetness and light when in fact the conservatives only care about the bottom line and the welfare of their rich patrons. Maybe he is talking about the conservatives of some other era but certainly not this one.
18
I do attempt to read op-eds like Mr. Wehner's with a mind open to understanding his point of view. While I was disconcerted--as so many were-- by the nonsensical phrase "market-friendly" safety net, I trudged on through to the end. I took time to reflect on what I read. And my conclusion is that for all Mr. Wehner's smooth language and forays into finding some common ground with his opponents, he has essentially said to NYT readers: Ignore the bluster, look beyond the insults, don't worry about proposed laws, we who are conservative may be expressing our message poorly, but it is a wonderful message of hope and future glory for the US and all its citizens.
Mr. Wehner, the conservative message may be more strident today than yesterday, but it is the same message of exclusion for all but the currently wealthy and powerful-- and those who can be fooled into believing they are.
Mr. Wehner, the conservative message may be more strident today than yesterday, but it is the same message of exclusion for all but the currently wealthy and powerful-- and those who can be fooled into believing they are.
9
What is a "market friendly safety net"?
10
no safety net at all.
10
Mr Wehner's thoughtful-sounding musings are torpedoed by the all-too-common "conservative" mantra asserting he "damage inficted on the country by the president" but without naming, or even hinting at, what "damage" is meant. I suppose a case can be made that a spectacularly do-nothing congress (including voting on hundreds of administrative and judicial appointments) is actually all Obama's fault, though on the evidence, "giving congress what it wants" wouldn't work any better. (A number of ideas once very popular with Republicans became the target for insults and sneers the moment Mr Obama declared his support for them. Starting with the ACA.)
I note that a number of comments in this thread have no difficulty tallying off the horrid misadventures of Mr Obama's predecessor. Surely it shouldn't take many words to be explicit about Mr Obama's damage-inflicting failures.
And where in this discussion is any comment on the fact that indices of social distress (alcoholism, divorce, abortion, pornography, etc.) are significantly higher in red states than in blue ones. I'm not sure that squares well with Ms Himmelfarb's take on conservatism.
I note that a number of comments in this thread have no difficulty tallying off the horrid misadventures of Mr Obama's predecessor. Surely it shouldn't take many words to be explicit about Mr Obama's damage-inflicting failures.
And where in this discussion is any comment on the fact that indices of social distress (alcoholism, divorce, abortion, pornography, etc.) are significantly higher in red states than in blue ones. I'm not sure that squares well with Ms Himmelfarb's take on conservatism.
11
What pray tell is a "market-friendly [social] safety net?" Google doesn't find any exposition by this name. Is this just another made-up buzzword of nothingness?
Or is it something worse, a euphemism like "the final solution?"
I tire of conservatives who speak in empty buzzwords, propose budgets which either don't even add up, or if they do depend on magical extreme economies to be made in the future by unspecified cuts.
There is nothing "conservative" about any of this -- it is just plain old self-delusion and bamboozlement.
Or is it something worse, a euphemism like "the final solution?"
I tire of conservatives who speak in empty buzzwords, propose budgets which either don't even add up, or if they do depend on magical extreme economies to be made in the future by unspecified cuts.
There is nothing "conservative" about any of this -- it is just plain old self-delusion and bamboozlement.
14
Peter Wehner writes: "Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president but don’t share this doom-laden view are labeled by some on the right as cowardly and unprincipled."
So after thirty-plus years of extreme language and stoking hatred for immediate political gain, some conservatives are queasy about what their base--essential to winning elections--might have in petto?
Let me offer a little conservative folk wisdom: People who lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas.
So after thirty-plus years of extreme language and stoking hatred for immediate political gain, some conservatives are queasy about what their base--essential to winning elections--might have in petto?
Let me offer a little conservative folk wisdom: People who lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas.
9
I doubt whether the ideas and programs espoused by Saint Ronald would be accepted by the yahoos who now seem to run the Republican party.
2
With respect, Peter Webner has set himself an impossible task in his struggle to make Republicans look more acceptable to ethical voters.
They make obvious their greed and contempt for those outside their own high financial status with every political action they take. People are not stupid.
Wehner's sentence "This doesn't mean that conservatives shouldn't fight passionately for liberty and justice"--as if they ever would or have.
It's word abuse to imply otherwise. Semanticist Neil Postman says " If you change the names of things, you change the way people will regard them, and that is as bad as changing the nature of the thing (Republicanism) itself."
Why don't those members who disagree with Republican practices call themselves Progressive Republicans and wipe the slate clean.
They make obvious their greed and contempt for those outside their own high financial status with every political action they take. People are not stupid.
Wehner's sentence "This doesn't mean that conservatives shouldn't fight passionately for liberty and justice"--as if they ever would or have.
It's word abuse to imply otherwise. Semanticist Neil Postman says " If you change the names of things, you change the way people will regard them, and that is as bad as changing the nature of the thing (Republicanism) itself."
Why don't those members who disagree with Republican practices call themselves Progressive Republicans and wipe the slate clean.
Nice, thoughtful, and even tempered statement thay is near my constructive inependant view.
One slippery point was inserted with out context.
The welfare programs arose due to the failure osmarket place safety nets.
So where we really differ is that I firmly believe that capitalusm (the linchpin of cosevaivsm) needs to be harnessed by democracy. We do not have sensible restant on capitalism.
One slippery point was inserted with out context.
The welfare programs arose due to the failure osmarket place safety nets.
So where we really differ is that I firmly believe that capitalusm (the linchpin of cosevaivsm) needs to be harnessed by democracy. We do not have sensible restant on capitalism.
1
To anyone who read the author's definition of conservatism, it's obvious that true conservatism is pretty much the opposite of what the Republicans have been pedaling.
The best description of what the Republicans have to offer is "class warfare".
The best description of what the Republicans have to offer is "class warfare".
7
The author's institution the Center for Ethics and Policy is identified as a neoconservative organization by search engines. Therefore his opinions on what "conservatism" is should reference this background, Leo Strauss and all.
1
Not one word about a just system that holds sacred the concepts of respect self and others, kindness towards each, and fairness for each and every person.
4
"Authentic conservatism has a high regard for things empirical, for facts that can lead us to better apprehend the truth."
It seems there are few "authentic" conservatives operating in today's political environment; if they're present at all, they're carefully closeted. "Things empirical"? "Facts"? Perhaps nothing better defines today's Republican party, and more damages our politics, than that party's aversion to facts and empiricism.
Today you simply cannot be a Republican and admit that anthropogenic climate change is real, despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that it is. Science in general has very rough going in Republican politics. And it's not just science: Half of all Republicans STILL think Obama wasn't born in the U.S., or that he's a Muslim. The examples are endless. Republicans live in a reality of their own making.
Perhaps things would be a lot better if authentic conservatives were actually present and operating in our politics. They are at best an endangered species.
It seems there are few "authentic" conservatives operating in today's political environment; if they're present at all, they're carefully closeted. "Things empirical"? "Facts"? Perhaps nothing better defines today's Republican party, and more damages our politics, than that party's aversion to facts and empiricism.
Today you simply cannot be a Republican and admit that anthropogenic climate change is real, despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that it is. Science in general has very rough going in Republican politics. And it's not just science: Half of all Republicans STILL think Obama wasn't born in the U.S., or that he's a Muslim. The examples are endless. Republicans live in a reality of their own making.
Perhaps things would be a lot better if authentic conservatives were actually present and operating in our politics. They are at best an endangered species.
4
Yes, just like the empirical biblical fact that the earth is 6,000 years old.
2
Do you mean the 'market friendly safety net' oil companies, most big corporations, and everyone making millions get?
7
Except for being too willing to compromise with the GOP, I fail to see how President Obama has damaged the country. The ACA resembles what Nixon, Dole and Mitt proposed or enacted, yet Obama is vilified by the GOP. Despite its flaws, the landmark healthcare reform was decades overdue.
When Wehner talks of the "welfare state," is he referring to subsidies for Big Oil, Big Agra and Big Pharma? Republicans whine about "those people" getting a small amount of assistance from Food Stamps or unemployment insurance, while voting against any and all jobs bills. When was the last time there was no bipartisan support for infrastructure investment? Isn't it fiscally conservative to undertake the massive infrastructure/public works projects now, with interest rates at an all time low?
President Obama was reelected, in part, on a promise to raise income tax rates on those making over $250,000 a year. He compromised and raised that to $400k. Where are those closed tax loopholes the GOP promised to back?
The fact is that the "Know-Nothings" who are so angry with Boehner still don't care that shutting down the government is not conservatism of any stripe. It is radicalism. The GOP began to grow radical as it caved to the "religious" right. Now it has grown dangerous, as it denies facts in the name of pleasing its masters: those who would destroy the environment for the sake of profit, gut the Clean Air and Water Act, and gut the Voting Rights Act. The GOP is not conservative; it is radical.
When Wehner talks of the "welfare state," is he referring to subsidies for Big Oil, Big Agra and Big Pharma? Republicans whine about "those people" getting a small amount of assistance from Food Stamps or unemployment insurance, while voting against any and all jobs bills. When was the last time there was no bipartisan support for infrastructure investment? Isn't it fiscally conservative to undertake the massive infrastructure/public works projects now, with interest rates at an all time low?
President Obama was reelected, in part, on a promise to raise income tax rates on those making over $250,000 a year. He compromised and raised that to $400k. Where are those closed tax loopholes the GOP promised to back?
The fact is that the "Know-Nothings" who are so angry with Boehner still don't care that shutting down the government is not conservatism of any stripe. It is radicalism. The GOP began to grow radical as it caved to the "religious" right. Now it has grown dangerous, as it denies facts in the name of pleasing its masters: those who would destroy the environment for the sake of profit, gut the Clean Air and Water Act, and gut the Voting Rights Act. The GOP is not conservative; it is radical.
10
Well, put MHW. One small correction: Obama's proposal for income tax rates was simply to let the tax rates return to where they had been in 2001, before the so-called Bush tax cuts, as the law proposed by Bush and approved by a Republican Congress had written it. In other words, Obama proposed letting the Republican law stand as it had been written by Republicans. For this, Obama was labeled "divisive," "dictatorial," and, strangely enough, "socialist," by Republicans, many of whom had written the law. The expiration date was written into the law so it could be passed by reconciliation, or the Byrd Rule. Recall that Rs howled that passing the ACA by the same method amounted to tyranny.
A side note: I say so-called tax cuts, because a tax cut that reduces revenue below the amount that government needs to operate is, in the opinion of Milton Friedman, merely a tax deferral.
A side note: I say so-called tax cuts, because a tax cut that reduces revenue below the amount that government needs to operate is, in the opinion of Milton Friedman, merely a tax deferral.
4
Serious damage has been done to our nation over the past several decades, but Mr. Wehner seems to be willfully blind to the sources and causes of said damage. His favored party has arguably been the most cynical and dishonest party to the mess, but both major parties have simply abandoned the notions of fairness, the rule of law, and fiscal responsibility. To put a happy face on the picture is further proof that Mr. Wehner is among the most cynical and dishonest of all who are responsible.
1
After reading this bizarre essay on the "nature" of conservatism, I've learned conservatives base there ideas on observing human nature and projecting a sunny disposition. What a crock. There was not ne single policy/program example of how Mr. Wehner's conservatives would govern, and only a single swipe at President Obama for good measure. The modern conservative amalgam consists of a variety of interest groups (homophobes, gun nuts, religious fanatics, Objectivists) who object to a coherent set of progressive policies and ideals promoted by the Democratic Party, and funded by a cabal of plutocrats hell bent on hanging onto wealth and power. The odd reality is President Obama has governed as a centrist who has embraced a combination of liberal and conservative positions to solve the mess he inherited. According to Mr. Wehner, that is as it should be. Too bad he lacks the courage or insight to realize it.
9
Reactionaries and Libertarians. He faced an uprising by reactionaries and Libertarians. These people are far from conservatives, far Right, so far right they are at totalitarianism nee corporatism. Please can we get our terminologies correct. People keep voting these people in because they think they are conservatives. It is time to take their masks off.
3
People who are conservative are in support of the status quo and opposed to attempts to rectify existing injustices for fear that the changes will lead to new injustices while eliminating the advantages which they enjoy. People who want to return to times long past and perceived as better than the current status quo are reactionaries. The Ben Carson and Ted Cruz variety of conservatives are reactionaries who oppose the way the United States has developed since some point in the distant past, that seems to be anywhere from the 1950's back to the 1790's -- its not clear. The do not represent the Republican Party prior to Ronald Reagan's version of conservatism, and save for Reagan's rhetoric even he would be too liberal for them. Even Barry Goldwater had more sense of being part of the whole country than any of these people do, and he might very well be considered a lefty in their eyes. At some point, if the Republican Party wishes to participate in national governance in a serious way, they are going to have to ignore those who are unwilling to join in.
3
In modern American political parlance, "conservative" describes an ideological disposition that say that individual liberty is paramount, and that the legitimate functions of government are minimal. Mr. Wehner is playing a silly game of "gotcha" based on the fact that "conservative" has another meaning that goes more toward one's temperament and attitude towards process. Who cares? His definition of "conservative" is not what most self-described political conservatives mean by the term. And his article is therefore irrelevant.
4
Note to the Editor:
In the sentence "...What often masquerades as conservatism these days is really populism.....", the word "populism" was inadvertently substituted for "plutocracy". Please edit.
Also, in the sentence: "Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president...", the word "previous" was inadvertently omitted just before the word "president". Please edit.
Thank you.
In the sentence "...What often masquerades as conservatism these days is really populism.....", the word "populism" was inadvertently substituted for "plutocracy". Please edit.
Also, in the sentence: "Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president...", the word "previous" was inadvertently omitted just before the word "president". Please edit.
Thank you.
21
Total bunk !
3
Forget Gertrude Himmelfarb, the author should bother to read (or to cite) Richard Hofstadter whose books in the 1950s analyzed the strong strain of anti-intellectualism and the paranoid style at the heart of much of American "conservative" politics. Conservatives have long left Burke in the dust!
But there is one high-profile politician who is deeply committed to exactly the temperament and approach that Wehner calls for: Barack Obama. An incrementalist concerned with compromise and shared values who speaks carefully and optimistically. Wehner is too intellectually and morally confused to see what is before his eyes.
But there is one high-profile politician who is deeply committed to exactly the temperament and approach that Wehner calls for: Barack Obama. An incrementalist concerned with compromise and shared values who speaks carefully and optimistically. Wehner is too intellectually and morally confused to see what is before his eyes.
17
Today's so-called "conservatives" are actually radicals. There is nothing conservative about opposing policies to protect the environment. There is nothing conservative about chest-thumping foreign policy and invading a sovereign nation on false pretenses. There is also nothing conservative about giving out huge tax cuts after we finally got our fiscal house in order during the Clinton era, especially not when new wars and spending programs were not paid for. There is nothing conservative about radical brinkmanship and there is nothing conservative about market fundamentalism. Reckless capitalism - as opposed to sane, sound, responsible capitalism - is not just folly; it's the antithesis of conservatism.
The people who call themselves conservatives are just Republicans. And the Republican Party is a conduit for policies that tend to exploit the many for the benefit of the few, hardly a conservative concept.
The people who call themselves conservatives are just Republicans. And the Republican Party is a conduit for policies that tend to exploit the many for the benefit of the few, hardly a conservative concept.
15
"[Conservatism] isn’t a rigid ideology, it leaves itself open to self-examination and self-correction. Authentic conservatism has a high regard for things empirical, for facts that can lead us to better apprehend the truth."
How can you write this? It's laughable. Climate change, the value of clean air and water, trickle down economics, the impact of public spending on the economy, the concept that a small increase in taxes will destroy the economy, that the XL pipeline is about jobs, depending on teaching only abstinence, anti-evolution... the conservative positions on these things is unwavering, even in the face of a wealth of contradictory facts.
How can you write this? It's laughable. Climate change, the value of clean air and water, trickle down economics, the impact of public spending on the economy, the concept that a small increase in taxes will destroy the economy, that the XL pipeline is about jobs, depending on teaching only abstinence, anti-evolution... the conservative positions on these things is unwavering, even in the face of a wealth of contradictory facts.
14
"...the damage inflicted on the country by the president..." Which president is he talking about? The current president under whom a depression was averted, the stock market is rising to heights yet unseen, unemployment is falling back to 2007 levels, and job growth is nearly at late '90s levels? Or the former president who took us into two wars with no exit strategy and presided over the biggest economic crisis since the great depression? I'm not sure which universe Mr. Wehner lives in, but it is sure not the reality-based one the rest of us are inhabiting. Is everything perfect under President Obama? Certainly not. For one thing, real growth in wages would be most welcome by all except perhaps by the Koch Brothers and Walton family. But I would much rather be living in this universe with this president than the one that inhabits Mr. Wehner's mind.
18
Now wait a minute. I have struggled to understand the term "conservative" for some time. It's easy to throw that around but what does it mean? I read an article that said that Conservative's and Liberal's brains work differently, on MRI scanning. Clearly we live in a world in which "Liberal" thinking has influenced our culture. We have: Free Speech, Religious Tolerance, Public Schools, Post office, Universal Suffrage, Civil rights, and a Middle Class (because of Unions), because of "liberal" ideas. Pushing the envelope on any and all cultural and societal issues seem "liberal" to me. So, Conservatives are cheerful, prudent, flexible, anti-utopian truth seekers that hate Obama and want to keep the status quo and enjoy with a lovely disposition.
Frankly, today's conservatives don't know who they are. I understand fiscal conservatives, they say: we can't afford that! I understand some social conservatives who say: men shouldn't marry men. I also understand racial conservatives who don't like black, Mexican or Asian people in their neighborhoods (or as president). And I understand class conservatives who believe, like Ayn Rand that there are exceptional people who should get special treatment.
If Conservatism has a place it is to modulate the Utopian, Idealistic and Progressive ideas of the Liberals and make them work better. Or come up with their own. Wait, then they'd be liberal.
Frankly, today's conservatives don't know who they are. I understand fiscal conservatives, they say: we can't afford that! I understand some social conservatives who say: men shouldn't marry men. I also understand racial conservatives who don't like black, Mexican or Asian people in their neighborhoods (or as president). And I understand class conservatives who believe, like Ayn Rand that there are exceptional people who should get special treatment.
If Conservatism has a place it is to modulate the Utopian, Idealistic and Progressive ideas of the Liberals and make them work better. Or come up with their own. Wait, then they'd be liberal.
3
Wait, Ted Cruz isn't winsome?
3
I have read some rubbish before, but this one takes the cake. A few gems from this op-ed include:
"The damage inflicted by this President on the country", like:
Highest corporate profits ever.
No more pre-existing condition as a excuse to be denied health insurance.
Unemployment at 5.6%.
Gasoline below $2.00 per gallon.
3 million jobs created in the past year.
No more young Americans dying in the middle east.
"Appreciating the complexity of human society", like making it harder fro African-Americans to vote.
"High regards for facts that can lead to the truth, like denying global warming.
"Cardinal virtue for prudence", like going to war in Iraq for no reason whatsoever and ignoring the consequences.
"Market-friendly safety net', like relying on one's parents for a loan to go to school instead of Pell Grants.
Mr. Wehner forgot one: Not knowing the meaning of shame.
"The damage inflicted by this President on the country", like:
Highest corporate profits ever.
No more pre-existing condition as a excuse to be denied health insurance.
Unemployment at 5.6%.
Gasoline below $2.00 per gallon.
3 million jobs created in the past year.
No more young Americans dying in the middle east.
"Appreciating the complexity of human society", like making it harder fro African-Americans to vote.
"High regards for facts that can lead to the truth, like denying global warming.
"Cardinal virtue for prudence", like going to war in Iraq for no reason whatsoever and ignoring the consequences.
"Market-friendly safety net', like relying on one's parents for a loan to go to school instead of Pell Grants.
Mr. Wehner forgot one: Not knowing the meaning of shame.
18
Oh please.
How on the Editorial Board gave this writer the green light to publish the statement "Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president..." without stipulating that he needed to layout what precisely he believes the "damage" being "inflicted on the country by the president."
To make such a claim--without at least providing some specifics--is nothing short of scurrilous.
Particularly coming from a man who was part of the previous administration--which left this country mired in war and wreaked by economic misery and collapse.
Reading that section--and the writer's CV--I am reminded of Joseph Welch's rejoinder to Senator McCarthy: "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
Especially since I think--reading the entire piece--that one could fairly suspect that he was laying out what he believes is the case for Jeb Bush.
Given that he found employment within the administrations of the two Bushes who have occupied the White House--perhaps he's thinking third time will be, as the saying goes, that charm.
How on the Editorial Board gave this writer the green light to publish the statement "Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president..." without stipulating that he needed to layout what precisely he believes the "damage" being "inflicted on the country by the president."
To make such a claim--without at least providing some specifics--is nothing short of scurrilous.
Particularly coming from a man who was part of the previous administration--which left this country mired in war and wreaked by economic misery and collapse.
Reading that section--and the writer's CV--I am reminded of Joseph Welch's rejoinder to Senator McCarthy: "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
Especially since I think--reading the entire piece--that one could fairly suspect that he was laying out what he believes is the case for Jeb Bush.
Given that he found employment within the administrations of the two Bushes who have occupied the White House--perhaps he's thinking third time will be, as the saying goes, that charm.
10
Conservatism today is profoundly anti-Conservative. We need real conservatives to point out the un-intended consequences of well intentioned Gov't action. To insert cost benefit analysis where it is necessary. To point out the beauty of the Yankee tradition of 'if it ain't broke don't fix it. Today the TEA movement seems like merely a bad attitude. Angry, especially with one's fellow citizen with whom one disagrees. The idea of political opponents as enemies instead of the 'loyal opposition'. An Apocalyptic view coupled coupled with millenialism ( not the generation). I find them not fulfilling the job conservative must do. Their desire to undo the 20th century as far as Social relations go ignores the fact we tried it their way and it produced the Populists and the Progressives, even in the watered down versions of TR Roosevelt and Wilson. Eventually people realize that Private Power and Property can be oppressive as well as government power can be. Remember, The Dark Ages were a private affair. The government ( Rome) retreated. A Baron with vassals is not really a public figure. He owned what he controls. Even you.
It's a weakness in the American body politic that fuzziness is simply not allowed. There is no room for compromise. Keystone XL is either an environmental catastrophe or a jobs blessing, with nothing in between. Abortion is either a fundamental right or murder, with nothing in between. What this makes for is a type of permanent warfare where each side continuously prosecutes lost battles.
A more mature discourse allows for compromises and deals: you might not get everything you want but you can live with it. Sometimes you might have to hold your nose and get it done. That's real life in all its complexity. Imagine Keystone passing but with a ton of environmental safeguards. Or not passing but with tax credits for an acceptable alternative like a refinery up north. Never perfect, but doable, and most importantly, something that can be done and moved on from.
A more mature discourse allows for compromises and deals: you might not get everything you want but you can live with it. Sometimes you might have to hold your nose and get it done. That's real life in all its complexity. Imagine Keystone passing but with a ton of environmental safeguards. Or not passing but with tax credits for an acceptable alternative like a refinery up north. Never perfect, but doable, and most importantly, something that can be done and moved on from.
the refinery up north already exists. It will be closed down if the Keystone Pipeline is built. How many jobs will be lost when that refinery closes?
2
Yes, I saw the 'damage inflicted by the President' that has everyone here so upset, but I think Wehner thought he needed to say, "I'm one too". I appreciate his reference to gratitude; the hard righters I know tend to be miserable and lack any sense of gratitude. Hard to be around them.
1
"Authentic conservatism has a high regard for things empirical, for facts that can lead us to better apprehend the truth."
I can't think of a less truthful description of today's conservatives. They constantly get 3 to 5 pinochios or pants on fire grades on the statements they make to the public. Fox News is responsible for broadcasting most of the conservative lies believed by Americans today.
Remember "Death Panels", Austerity measures improving the economy, Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Obama's birth certificate, Climate change denial, just to name a few examples of Conservatives high regard for all things empirical.
I can't think of a less truthful description of today's conservatives. They constantly get 3 to 5 pinochios or pants on fire grades on the statements they make to the public. Fox News is responsible for broadcasting most of the conservative lies believed by Americans today.
Remember "Death Panels", Austerity measures improving the economy, Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Obama's birth certificate, Climate change denial, just to name a few examples of Conservatives high regard for all things empirical.
11
You had me with this until "market friendly safety net," which presumably means learning to live with the friendly power of the one percent. That's not prudence, nor decent.
4
Spoken like a man with plenty of disposable income! Thoughtful conservatism has traditionally had an important role as a counterpoint to progressive liberalism, there's no doubt. But what we see from Republican politics today is as similar to that as chalk is to cheese. Try explaining to the American middle and working classes just exactly how conservative economic policy will help them pay their bills and afford them a brighter disposition as they face the challenges of educating their children and retiring with security.
3
While mostly reasonable, Mr. Wehner is also self serving by claiming moderation and tolerance for the conservative cause. What is implied by this then is that the other party is not moderate or tolerant.
When the Republicans allow increasingly fringe candidates who subscribe to values that are anathema to the party's core principles stand as Republican candidates, their party will be associated by the views espoused by these same candidates.
The Republican leadership needs courage to tell Tea Party candidates to broadly subscribe to views of mainstream Republicans or resign and fight in an election as independent or third party candidates. However this will never happen as control of Congress is what each party is after.
Until then the so called moderate Republicans can whinge but nothing will change.
When the Republicans allow increasingly fringe candidates who subscribe to values that are anathema to the party's core principles stand as Republican candidates, their party will be associated by the views espoused by these same candidates.
The Republican leadership needs courage to tell Tea Party candidates to broadly subscribe to views of mainstream Republicans or resign and fight in an election as independent or third party candidates. However this will never happen as control of Congress is what each party is after.
Until then the so called moderate Republicans can whinge but nothing will change.
1
Some how Americans have got themselves in a position where the median family income is $55k, an astonishingly low amount of money with which to have decent life. With this value we have consigned ourselves to having a robust safety net whether we want one or not.
One party recognizes this simple fact, another denies it.
One party recognizes this simple fact, another denies it.
3
I once supported a so-called conservative movement - then I woke up when I had to grab my family and run from our ancestral home:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/opinion/drilling-in-britain.html
We lost everything and had to start over in the bluest state in America. No party is liberal enough to stop the people in power who lie, cheat and steal and call it conservatism. The New York Times may find enjoyment in distracting us from the ravages of monopolistic policy making and have the sensibilities to shill for investment bankers down the block and those who are merging interests into monopolies that are upending whole communities of working families. I am just an American worker and business owner and I am under attack. Please call homeland security . . . oh yeah, they're tasked to protect Sony, CBS and Comcast. Sorry . . . no more government protection for me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/opinion/drilling-in-britain.html
We lost everything and had to start over in the bluest state in America. No party is liberal enough to stop the people in power who lie, cheat and steal and call it conservatism. The New York Times may find enjoyment in distracting us from the ravages of monopolistic policy making and have the sensibilities to shill for investment bankers down the block and those who are merging interests into monopolies that are upending whole communities of working families. I am just an American worker and business owner and I am under attack. Please call homeland security . . . oh yeah, they're tasked to protect Sony, CBS and Comcast. Sorry . . . no more government protection for me.
4
If the author and GOP'er leaders had spent more time publicly denouncing the ' winger brigade ', and making sure there was no room in the GOP'er tent for their ilk, it would be easier to consider there might be credible conservative positions.
As it is, conservatives have turned over their party to extreme elements.
And there's no damage that's been inflicted on the country by POTUS.
As it is, conservatives have turned over their party to extreme elements.
And there's no damage that's been inflicted on the country by POTUS.
14
I've long maintained that most of the current crop of "conservatives" don't even know why they should be able to spell Burke, much less spell it correctly. Perhaps not that many liberals could spell Locke, but a much higher proportion of liberals are in tune with the basic philosophical foundations for what they believe than are those who currently call themselves "conservative".
3
The same goes for conservative Christians who claim to read the Bible literally but know nothing about the core teachings of the faith. During the Sequester, I recall reading an op-ed piece in another publication from some Southern Representative claiming to be a Christian who was arguing, with a straight face, that Jesus would object to feeding poor people. He even quoted the old saw about "giving a man a fish vs. teaching him to fish for himself" apparently believing it originated in Scripture. (Never mind the parable of the fish and loaves....) How such an piece of complete idiocy got past the editors is another question.
5
Mr. Wehner's description of the "sensibilities and temperament" of conservatives sounds an awful lot like Barack Obama.
12
Is the New York Times going to invite Mr. Wehner to respond to some of these comments? Perhaps send over a reporter for a substantive interview? Or will his op-ed be allowed to go unchallenged, like so many talking points?
10
If, conservative policy is meant to foster enjoyment, then why make a living at the expense of others. I think that is the polar difference between new conservatives like Cruz and guys like Goldwater or Reagan. Their new sensibilities and temperament cannot accept paying for the things they take for granted. They are anti-tax, anti-government and angry at anyone who reminds them of real world issues. The nasty I won't pay attitude and their love affair with unfettered corporate power has made us the laughing stock of the civilized world. Worse, America has never truly had a true left wing to oppose conservative momentum. That's why governance has become a backdoor proposition. Conservative forces got the supreme court to rule it was legal for energy companies to meet behind closed door with government officials to set our national energy policy. Since then it is legal for anyone with a few dollars and the ear of a corrupt official to simply get around the wishes of the people and grab things they want right out of the hands of all of us and no one can be held accountable. It will take a constitutional amendment or the express will of the congress, and the president to change this nasty conservative nightmare. Good luck that. Conservatives are playing monopoly with our treasury and citizens are losing. What are they conserving? Anyone with job knows that modern conservatives treat workers like skeet.
6
These ersatz conservatives are really freeloaders.
1
So Mr. Wehner, true conservatism is, to quote Shakespeare... "To look the flower and be the serpent under it."
9
I am a liberal because I am frugal. It is cheaper to support someone's early childhood development than to support that someone's stay in prison. It is cheaper to educate a young child than to support that person when older and unable to contribute to society. It is cheaper to help someone stay healthy than to try to cure their diseases.
America's greatness has always been the tension and release between Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian ideals.
I haven't seen a true conservative in the republican party for many decades.
America's greatness has always been the tension and release between Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian ideals.
I haven't seen a true conservative in the republican party for many decades.
21
Peter Wehner: "Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president." I could not agree more. I, too, am deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on this country by President George W. Bush and his cohorts. Well said, Mr. Wehner!
11
Thanks for a well-written essay. I am a conservative, but I am not the jerk so many liberals peg me as. I find that most conservatives want the same things liberals want. We live in the same world, endure the same problems, want the same fresh air, and have the same hopes and dreams for our children. We just disagree about how to get there. Both sides have validity, but you can't get there through polarized parties. Too often liberals think they are meeting conservatives more than half way, when what they are really providing is only lip service. Too often conservatives think liberals' ideas are not realistic and aren't willing to waste money chasing what they perceive to be wasteful spending. To have a true middle ground, you need people running things who love compromise and respect that each viewpoint has validity. America is heading for disaster if it remains polarized. Our politics have turned us all into Shias and Sunnis, Muslims who hate each other. How can we stay together as a great country when we each hate the other half of the population for the silliest of reasons.
3
For the most part, I totally agree with you. There is something inherently sad about using the Liberal vs. Conservative labeling, though. NO ONE is all Liberal, NOR is anyone all Conservative. EVERYONE is liberal in some matters and conservative in others. Congress apparently has lost all sense of what it means to be American, when compromise turns into a dirty word. Good ideas for governing are not Republican ideas, or Democrat ideas, or Liberal ideas, or Conservative ideas. Good ideas are those that work best for the most people, not just the base voters. Sure with our "leaders" would remember that and do the job they are supposed to do, instead of acting like a bunch of Elementary School children arguing over who's ball it is on the playground.
We too can fail to denounce the people on our side who do not play fair.
Unfortunately, "magnanimity, winsomeness and grace" don't make for good TV. I do not blame the media for all ills by any means, but when image-based media (TV and online) look for sound and images that will entice the viewer, they prefer confrontation, grandstanding, and bluster. Often those shouting about "tyranny" or "going off a cliff" drown out those speaking in more measured, pragmatic terms not because they are saying anything more important, or more intelligent, but because they are louder and TV and online visual media like volumn. Media does the country a disservice when they choose sound bites over substance---a huge disservice. It creates a country of people shouting past each other rather than speaking to each other.
4
Traditionally, America never had a true liberal party. Liberals cannot exist without accepting socialist action. Ask any woman or racial minority and they might agree. We flirted with Robert Kennedy, but we got Nixon instead. If you are a white male with a job or an inheritance you probably think a conservative is some who needs to protect everything from the hordes. - whoever they might be today . . .
Enjoyment, sensibilities and temperament doesn't explain the assault on our property rights, our lost jobs and the recent ruination of our medical system. The first act of the new conservative congress was to back derivatives with our federal tax dollars and to overturn an election where 72% of the people favored an issue. That's not conservative action or anything Reagan or Goldwater would want for our future. The new conservative looks and acts more like an American communist than a conservative aka China on toast.
Enjoyment, sensibilities and temperament doesn't explain the assault on our property rights, our lost jobs and the recent ruination of our medical system. The first act of the new conservative congress was to back derivatives with our federal tax dollars and to overturn an election where 72% of the people favored an issue. That's not conservative action or anything Reagan or Goldwater would want for our future. The new conservative looks and acts more like an American communist than a conservative aka China on toast.
6
When Wehner says he is "deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president," I honestly have no idea what he's talking about.
8
"Fairly or not, there are some widespread negative impressions of the Republican Party: opposed to change, too extreme and inflexible, unwilling to compromise." Oh it's fair, and by the way, what is a market-friendly safety net? My money is on a Wallenda tightrope walk across the Grand Canyon type GOP safety net, we need more details.
2
Mr. Wehner has just defined me as a conservative. Which is fine with me, as I have always maintained that I have governed my life by principles and values that are 'conservative' in the generic sense of the word.
But by the contemporary standards of US politics, I am a Liberal, because I simply cannot stomach the views espoused by the many 'conservatives' who reject science, hype their religious notions and insist the rest of us adopt them, support wars that cannot be justified or financially supported, denigrate knowledge and education, vilify any and all with different views,....this list goes on and on.
The fact is that there is no Conservative movement or political party anymore in the US. The Republican Party has been hijacked by right-wing paranoid nincompoops who disdain facts, logic, and reason. Conservatives of my youth - like Eisenhower, Dirkson, and even Nixon - are rare in any position of leadership. The only balance against those who call themselves "conservatives" today (and their extensive media machines) is to support Democrats.
The oft-discussed political polarization of today's politics is not Republican vs Democrat, or right vs. left, or conservative vs. liberal, but crazy vs. reasonable. In such a situation, meaningful and productive political discourse is impossible. The solution is therefore not a stronger liberal establishment, but a regrowth of a true conservative movement that is able to redefine the right wing back to its true origins.
But by the contemporary standards of US politics, I am a Liberal, because I simply cannot stomach the views espoused by the many 'conservatives' who reject science, hype their religious notions and insist the rest of us adopt them, support wars that cannot be justified or financially supported, denigrate knowledge and education, vilify any and all with different views,....this list goes on and on.
The fact is that there is no Conservative movement or political party anymore in the US. The Republican Party has been hijacked by right-wing paranoid nincompoops who disdain facts, logic, and reason. Conservatives of my youth - like Eisenhower, Dirkson, and even Nixon - are rare in any position of leadership. The only balance against those who call themselves "conservatives" today (and their extensive media machines) is to support Democrats.
The oft-discussed political polarization of today's politics is not Republican vs Democrat, or right vs. left, or conservative vs. liberal, but crazy vs. reasonable. In such a situation, meaningful and productive political discourse is impossible. The solution is therefore not a stronger liberal establishment, but a regrowth of a true conservative movement that is able to redefine the right wing back to its true origins.
7
Mark Myles,
Thank you for saying what I once thought when I supported a so-called conservative movement - then I woke up when I had to grab my family and run from my ancestral home:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/opinion/drilling-in-britain.html
We lost everything and had to start over in the bluest state in America. No party is liberal enough to stop the people in power who lie, cheat and steal and call it conservatism. The New York Times may find enjoyment in distracting us from the ravages of monopolistic policy making and have the sensibilities to shill for the investment bankers down the block. I am an American worker and business owner and I am under attack. Please call homeland security . . . oh yeah, they work for Sony, CBS and Comcast. Sorry . . .
Thank you for saying what I once thought when I supported a so-called conservative movement - then I woke up when I had to grab my family and run from my ancestral home:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/opinion/drilling-in-britain.html
We lost everything and had to start over in the bluest state in America. No party is liberal enough to stop the people in power who lie, cheat and steal and call it conservatism. The New York Times may find enjoyment in distracting us from the ravages of monopolistic policy making and have the sensibilities to shill for the investment bankers down the block. I am an American worker and business owner and I am under attack. Please call homeland security . . . oh yeah, they work for Sony, CBS and Comcast. Sorry . . .
1
Richard Nixon was a radical. Nobody else in US national politics has ever suggested a guaranteed minimum income, or "negative income tax", as he did.
Nixon's weakness was the paranoia he shared with today's dyslexo-conservatives. I cannot imagine why he bothered to instruct his "plumbers" to burglarize the DNC headquarters in the Watergate complex. Did he fear the pollsters were deceiving him that he would win the election in a blowout?
Nixon's weakness was the paranoia he shared with today's dyslexo-conservatives. I cannot imagine why he bothered to instruct his "plumbers" to burglarize the DNC headquarters in the Watergate complex. Did he fear the pollsters were deceiving him that he would win the election in a blowout?
1
'Market-friendly safety net'? Say what? 'High regard for things empirical, for facts that can lead us to better apprehend the truth.' Say what? Good grief: From evolution to climate science to the embrace of 'free market' fantasy, to trickle down economics, modern conservatism as practiced in the US is resolutely anti-empirical. The author's assertion is a good example.
13
It would have been helpful if Mr. Wehner defined exactly what he meant by "a market-friendly safety net" and how such a thing would work in practice.
5
So conservatism is not just what happens when you become a grumpy old man?
4
Mr Wehner, your op ed piece couldn't be a more perfect example of how "conservatives" refuse to deal with reality when it does not fit their ideological bent. The label Conservative has been hijacked by the radical right and the whole country has swung towards it. I laugh out of my chair when I read a "conservative" calling President Obama radical left. Ha ha. What delusion and outright distortion. He's about as radical as Dwight Essenhower.
11
That's Eisenhower. Sorry.
Yes, eureka, that's the ticket! Find a Republican candidate to fit into the formulaic "winsomeness" mold. Might'n it be Mitt talking cheerfully in the hustings about how easy it is to send money to a Caribbean account? Or how about Chris Christie chortling about a funny little political payback? Gosh, it'd be keen to be in the thrall of Ted Cruz waxing euphorically about shutting down the government. Sarah Palin smiling and winking at just me...well, that'd just be too much. Is this what it's all about for you, Mr. Wehner, nothing about the content of the message but the comportment of the messenger? Not what you say, but how you say it?
3
"What often masquerades as conservatism these days is really populism."
No, it's really demagoguery in the historical sense of Joe McCarthy, George Wallace and Rush Limbaugh and now Fox News, Ted Cruz, Ann Coulter nameless House Tea Party members etc. etc.
No, it's really demagoguery in the historical sense of Joe McCarthy, George Wallace and Rush Limbaugh and now Fox News, Ted Cruz, Ann Coulter nameless House Tea Party members etc. etc.
15
Although I think the premise of the column, that conservatism is essentially an attempt to preserve what currently works, is accurate (so most Republicans today are radicals, not conservatives), the comparison of Nixon and Reagan is inaccurate.
"Think of the difference in attitude between the resentfulness of Richard Nixon and the sunny optimism of Ronald Reagan. One had an enemies list while the other told his aides, “Remember, we have no enemies, only opponents.”
As Reagan's insistence on invoking the scary image of a "welfare queen" (even after he knew his example was false), as well as his launching his presidential campaign in Philadelphia Miss (where the 3 civil rights workers were murdered in 1964) at the Neshoba County Fair (with a topic of "states rights") showed he was willing to demonize his opponents as much as Nixon, he just did it with a smile instead of a scowl.
"Think of the difference in attitude between the resentfulness of Richard Nixon and the sunny optimism of Ronald Reagan. One had an enemies list while the other told his aides, “Remember, we have no enemies, only opponents.”
As Reagan's insistence on invoking the scary image of a "welfare queen" (even after he knew his example was false), as well as his launching his presidential campaign in Philadelphia Miss (where the 3 civil rights workers were murdered in 1964) at the Neshoba County Fair (with a topic of "states rights") showed he was willing to demonize his opponents as much as Nixon, he just did it with a smile instead of a scowl.
8
" Today’s Republicans, for example, should advance a policy agenda that systematically transforms welfare-state programs into a market-friendly safety net."
Translation . . all benefits should accrue to the upper 1%
Translation . . all benefits should accrue to the upper 1%
4
"damage inflicted on this country". Clearly this writer is a child, because only a child could forget the damage inflicted on this country by GWB and blame the mess on Obama. While not perfect, he was handed a losing hand and through his leadership, is still very much in the game. The "damage" is from the obstructionist congress.
7
Er, I beg to differ. Two Sundays ago I heard authoritative commentary on Fox Sunday News that said the economic recovery, the record stock market highs and low unemployment were a direct result of Republicans not letting Obama get his way.
Does anyone find it curious that this statement, "gain its largest majority since the Truman administration," refers to the Truman administration (1945-1953). That's not correct. The last time the Republicans had a House majority this large was during the Hoover administration (1929-1933), which they lost after the 1929 stock market crash. Lipstick on a pig doesn't make it a prettier pig.
2
I would like to see another contribution from Peter Wehner after he has read and understood all of the Readers' Picks responses to his column today. Sadly, we will never know if he was moved to make any concessions to the articulate counter-arguments by NYT readers. Only then will we know what kind of intellectual he purports to be.
7
"The conservative tends to find delight in the achievements and blessings we have."
Were that only so! Your average right-winger is suffused with envy and anger. Every third grader learns that he or she can grow up to be rich or an astronaut or president, and most third graders grow up to live paycheck-to-paycheck lives of quiet desperation. It is human nature not to say "well, I am just a below-average achiever and my lot in life is to struggle and scrape by." It is human nature to cast blame elsewhere. Note the targets of right-wing anger.
Were that only so! Your average right-winger is suffused with envy and anger. Every third grader learns that he or she can grow up to be rich or an astronaut or president, and most third graders grow up to live paycheck-to-paycheck lives of quiet desperation. It is human nature not to say "well, I am just a below-average achiever and my lot in life is to struggle and scrape by." It is human nature to cast blame elsewhere. Note the targets of right-wing anger.
I think the news media and many elected officials are too obsessed with labeling everyone as "conservative," "liberal," "moderate," "centrist," etc. Thus, Senator Elizabeth Warren is often dismissed as some crazy left wing radical, when the essence of her policy advocacy is fairness, hardly a radical left wing ideology.
What we need, especially in our government officials, is less focus on sticking to ideological "principles" and more focus on taking actions that are best for the country, wherever the news media may place the actions on the political spectrum.
Many members of Congress who label themselves as "conservative" are merely disruptive.
What we need, especially in our government officials, is less focus on sticking to ideological "principles" and more focus on taking actions that are best for the country, wherever the news media may place the actions on the political spectrum.
Many members of Congress who label themselves as "conservative" are merely disruptive.
1
"Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president..."
Too bad, you were making good sense until this part --
Too bad, you were making good sense until this part --
6
The columnist is peddling a cynical fairy tale. For all practical purposes, there is no moderation in the modern GOP. It has become so ideologically inbred that most of its members express its worst recessive traits.
3
Conservatives are narcissistic,hoggish folk living in a fantasy land. Their world is made up of shoulds and the end justifying the means. Mr. Wehner lives in his dreams.
3
To mention the term comprise to a modern day conservative is to be labeled a liberal. Our modern day Republicans are trying to appease a vocal minority within their party..the Tea Party. If Republicans want to broaden their political base they going to have embrace the one thing their afraid of..change. Have a message of hope and sunny optimism without the negativity and racial undertones that muddies their messaging. Currently Repbulicans or conservatives are being percieved as anti-(fill in the blank) on public policy and cultural issues. The same axiom in nature applies in politics: Adapt or Die.
1
I have been trying to think of a single Republican senator or representative who has exhibited "magnanimity, winsomeness and grace" over the past six years, but can't come up with a name to attach to just one of these qualities—let alone all three.
Is anyone else having better luck?
Is anyone else having better luck?
7
"Conservatism, for starters, is rooted in human experience. It appreciates the complexity of human society. It believes in a givenness to human nature and in enduring principles, yet it has the capacity to apply those principles to changing circumstances. And because it isn’t a rigid ideology, it leaves itself open to self-examination and self-correction. Authentic conservatism has a high regard for things empirical, for facts that can lead us to better apprehend the truth."
This paragraph seems to describe our duly elected (twice) president, Barack Obama, far better than it does any Republican who has been in the national news recently. I agree that President Obama is more conservative than a very few of the firebrands in the Democratic party, though he's less conservative than a large number of do-nothing Democrats who wouldn't even fight for his positions in the last election.
I think a number of Republicans fail to recognize his very conservative "disposition" because they can't see past his skin color. Doubters of this statement need look no further than the Republican Congressional voting record for the last six years and compare it to the Republican voting records for any other U.S. Congress in history. Lockstep "NO" voting says more about the current Republican party than any campaign speech or editorial can possibly say.
This paragraph seems to describe our duly elected (twice) president, Barack Obama, far better than it does any Republican who has been in the national news recently. I agree that President Obama is more conservative than a very few of the firebrands in the Democratic party, though he's less conservative than a large number of do-nothing Democrats who wouldn't even fight for his positions in the last election.
I think a number of Republicans fail to recognize his very conservative "disposition" because they can't see past his skin color. Doubters of this statement need look no further than the Republican Congressional voting record for the last six years and compare it to the Republican voting records for any other U.S. Congress in history. Lockstep "NO" voting says more about the current Republican party than any campaign speech or editorial can possibly say.
6
All of which is by way of saying that we don't have a conservative party in the United States in any historically understood meaning of the term. Both of our parties are utopian-driven offshoots of classical liberalism. These days, the Republicans are the more radical of the two, wanting to sweep away the edifice of the New Deal and the Great Society. The Democrats are more classically conservative, in the sense that they are content to tinker around the edges of existing arrangements. The ACA is a good example of this mindset.
2
They are conservatives in name only because they need/live off the government more than the liberals do. The Social Security and Medicare consuming Tea Partiers keep telling us that they want less government. Sure. They want less government for someone else. Show me a "conservative" legislator who has introduced legislation to reduce redundant military spending in their own district. Ted Cruz's new sub-committee will oversee NASA, let's see him consolidate NASA's real estate footprint (and costs) by moving Houston Space center, the Stennis Space Center (Mississippi), and Huntsville to the empty buildings at the Kennedy Space Center. Let's see Senator's Paul and McConnell reduce Kentucky's draw from the federal government. Their state receives $1.60 from the feds for every $1.00 they send in taxes. The problem isn't one of conservatism, it is one of delusion and hypocrisy.
7
What gets me most about conservatives is their claim to how religious and Christian they are yet everything they stand for is exactly in contradiction with the teachings of Jesus.
10
As others have pointed out, your description of Conservatism as having "a high regard for things empirical" is astounding. It is astounding first that you dare say such a thing as a Republican, second that you think any other Republican will "go" for that and thirdly that it will shortly transform some of them into critical thinkers, Humanists or rational persons.
The most ignorant of Republicans have been made Chairpersons on science/engineering committees in the senate and house and empirical thinking should cause them all to rush to their desks to propose legislation supporting solutions to climate change, our most critical world problem, to say nothing of overpopulation, unsustainable resource exploitation, strain on ecological carrying capacity, lack of meaningful energy policies and economic stratification of societies into elites and the "masses."
Let us watch the words of Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, etc. in the next year for "empirical" statements in regard to to these issues that will "change everything" as in "This Changes Everything" by Naomi Klein.
Yes and I will also watch Hillary, Jim Webb and hopefully Elizabeth Warren in regard to thoughtful statements.
The human condition is truly in a historic turning point and critical thinking must come soon.
The most ignorant of Republicans have been made Chairpersons on science/engineering committees in the senate and house and empirical thinking should cause them all to rush to their desks to propose legislation supporting solutions to climate change, our most critical world problem, to say nothing of overpopulation, unsustainable resource exploitation, strain on ecological carrying capacity, lack of meaningful energy policies and economic stratification of societies into elites and the "masses."
Let us watch the words of Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, etc. in the next year for "empirical" statements in regard to to these issues that will "change everything" as in "This Changes Everything" by Naomi Klein.
Yes and I will also watch Hillary, Jim Webb and hopefully Elizabeth Warren in regard to thoughtful statements.
The human condition is truly in a historic turning point and critical thinking must come soon.
4
So let me see. to be a member of the Republican party you must follow our doctrine completely. Stop thinking for yourself. Speak only the party line and never give the democrats any credit. Sounds to me a lot like the Republicans are modeling their party after the Communists.
4
Most people, in my experience, do not come to a political position from consideration of political philosophy but adopt the philosophy that fits their situation. Justification of an existing order, "enjoying what is" available to oneself and one's family, defending and revering institutions that serve one's interests are quite understandable responses for the well-off and privileged. No doubt, making reference to human nature, the order of things, and even God's will soothes any pangs of discomfort for the wealthy when seeing people who have less. That Tea Party types -- like some Populists, the Know-Nothings, white supremacists, and other working people who were misled by "their betters" -- do not conform to the genteel, William F. Buckley, Gertrude H. (and Bill Kristol)-language and vision is not surprising. They demonstrate more clearly than Establishment "conservatives" the brutal self-interest, narrow-mindedness, rigidity, and fear that is the foundation of the contemporary right-wing of American politics.
2
Conservatism as practiced by many today seems dogmatic and traffics in black and white dualism, both of which are unhelpful for the rapidly changing, increasingly diverse world around us.
2
"Today’s Republicans, for example, should advance a policy agenda that systematically transforms welfare-state programs into a market-friendly safety net."
In other words, privatize Social Security and Medicare so that my patrons, wealthy contributors to the Ethics and Public Policy Center, can loot them. Mr. Wehner while in the George W. Bush administration, probably worked on the Bush initiative to privatize Social Security; this before becoming a propagandist for a right-wing think tank.
"The conservative disposition was 'enjoyment.' Unlike those who are “always lusting after something that is not,” the conservative tends to find delight in the achievements and blessings we have."
Nonsense. Mr. Wehner's wealthy patrons spend billions in their lust to obtain an even greater portion of American income and wealth. They fund professional propagandists like himself.
A true conservative would work to preserve the Founding ideals: "...that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness;" and "We the people;" and "to form a more perfect Union;" and "promote the general Welfare."
Rather, Mr. Wehner would replace "all" and "we" with "me and my wealthy patrons;" and render the be general Welfare clause modue in deference to enumerated powers.
7
After reading through this elegant little philosophical effort, I am left with one request for Mr. Wehner: please provide some specific policy ideas for an "agenda that systematically transforms welfare-state programs into a market-friendly safety net." Without concrete recommendations, this piece is nothing more than an attempt to airbrush angry with disfunction with pseudo intellectualism.
9
Wehner gives a very revealing look at the problem with conservatism. While the "old" Republican Party of a generation ago was conservative in pushing for prudent spending, generally balanced budgets, and slow change for social issues with a bias in favor of old norms, he demonstrates that "inside" the new GOP they have become completely disconnected from reality.
The conservative disposition to which he refers as "enjoyment," is probably accurate. It is the enjoyment of the wealthy of all things they have wrung from the system including preferential treatment of elites and pushing the bill off on the middle and lower classes. Why not enjoy this fraud? A market-based safety net sounds perfect to them (if such a thing even exists) - let people reap what they sow. They are too far removed from reality to understand that the information available to the poor is different from themselves or that many can not afford the front-end costs associated with tax benefit schemes.
"True" conservatives would not be starving government of revenue to force change in spending priorities, because they are too concerned with budget deficits. They understand that the budget deficit is caused by high military spending benefitting the military-industrial complex and their rich owners along with the unconscionable Bush tax cuts that have created an ongoing structural deficit.
The conservative disposition to which he refers as "enjoyment," is probably accurate. It is the enjoyment of the wealthy of all things they have wrung from the system including preferential treatment of elites and pushing the bill off on the middle and lower classes. Why not enjoy this fraud? A market-based safety net sounds perfect to them (if such a thing even exists) - let people reap what they sow. They are too far removed from reality to understand that the information available to the poor is different from themselves or that many can not afford the front-end costs associated with tax benefit schemes.
"True" conservatives would not be starving government of revenue to force change in spending priorities, because they are too concerned with budget deficits. They understand that the budget deficit is caused by high military spending benefitting the military-industrial complex and their rich owners along with the unconscionable Bush tax cuts that have created an ongoing structural deficit.
Considering the state of the economy when President Obama took office, I'm not clear on what "damage" has been inflicted?
5
I believe Wehner's column accurately reflects true conservative ideology. The problem is that it's a classical ideology, no longer practicable given the tangible realities of the world around us, and which writers like Wehner describe with a weird romantic quality. With pseudo-Copland horn music in the background. It's very nice in a vacuum, but there's an imperative for a different kind of praxis right now. The best illustration of my comment is right here—
he writes, "And because it isn’t a rigid ideology, it leaves itself open to self-examination and self-correction. Authentic conservatism has a high regard for things empirical, for facts that can lead us to better apprehend the truth."
Mmmmhmmm. Okay Wehner, you mean like climate change? See what I mean by classical? Romantic? Vacuum?
he writes, "And because it isn’t a rigid ideology, it leaves itself open to self-examination and self-correction. Authentic conservatism has a high regard for things empirical, for facts that can lead us to better apprehend the truth."
Mmmmhmmm. Okay Wehner, you mean like climate change? See what I mean by classical? Romantic? Vacuum?
Could someone provide an example(s) of a currently operating "market-friendly safety net"? Does this thing exist? Or is the phrase just another bit of ideological red meat?
6
The good news is that 'conservatives'' are in a death spiral with a brand that has been permanently tarnished....the bad news is as it descends it will take the rest of us with them.
1
Ah yes, that "death spiral" that has taken them to complete control of Congress and the majority of governorships and state governments over the last four years
You write the truth about the Republican take-over. Here's more truth: It started with Lee Atwater and Nixon's Southern Strategy to whip up hatred for the Civil Rights Act. It continued with the realization by many that they would radicalize vulnerable people who otherwise might have allowed themselves to be educated by reason and empirical evidence, not led by the nose by demagogues. The demagogues are winning and the Republicans will win the White House in 2016 using the same tactics of divisiveness that underlies their campaign strategies. The GOP will 'win' and you will 'win' and the country will fail. Feel good about that? Hey - you're going to win, man. Smile.
We live in an era of unusual political polarization, but the polarization isn't simply between the parties, there are also splits within (almost all) of us. Who amongst us lives with integrity, who believes we are on the right track as individuals and that the choices we are making as an individual are in the best long term interest of ourselves, our descendants our community and our planet. Who hasn't seen the unsure passionately justify their actions as right and true and just, and deride those that would take another path. For many of us don't our beliefs become our faith and our faith lead us to our one true god. Don't we often gather around others of our "faith" and proclaim our righteousness, and deride those of other faiths. Don't our churches always divide as the truly devote split off from those less pure. Doesn't the folly of the winner of this silly game eventually reveal the folly of their "faith" when their beliefs dominate all others... Or maybe not, maybe my team has all the answers...Time will tell.
1
While it's commendable that Mr. Wehner is trying to make "true conservatives" appear more reasonable than they are, his argument is full of factual errors and semantic slight-of-hand.
He states: "Authentic conservatism has a high regard for things empirical, for facts that can lead us to better apprehend the truth." What about the conservative refusal to accept that global warming is occurring? And doesn't "conserve" mean (Merriam-Webster) "to avoid wasteful use of... natural resources"?
He quotes Reagan as saying: “Remember, we have no enemies, only opponents.” However, Reagan also said "As for the enemies of freedom, those who are potential adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is the highest aspiration of the American people." Our "potential adversaries" are our "enemies?"
"...the damage inflicted on the country by the president ...." Aren't you using the same exact hyperbole that you're decrying? And aren't you being just as disingenuous by making an inflammatory statement, simply because you don't agree with the policies that he has enacted?
"...there are some widespread negative impressions of the Republican Party: opposed to change." Isn't the meaning of the word conserve "to maintain (a quantity) constant during a process of... evolutionary change"?
Even if you relabel conservatism as a "disposition," it is a political philosophy that opposes change. It doesn't matter whether you espouse it in a strident versus a measured tone; it is what it is.
He states: "Authentic conservatism has a high regard for things empirical, for facts that can lead us to better apprehend the truth." What about the conservative refusal to accept that global warming is occurring? And doesn't "conserve" mean (Merriam-Webster) "to avoid wasteful use of... natural resources"?
He quotes Reagan as saying: “Remember, we have no enemies, only opponents.” However, Reagan also said "As for the enemies of freedom, those who are potential adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is the highest aspiration of the American people." Our "potential adversaries" are our "enemies?"
"...the damage inflicted on the country by the president ...." Aren't you using the same exact hyperbole that you're decrying? And aren't you being just as disingenuous by making an inflammatory statement, simply because you don't agree with the policies that he has enacted?
"...there are some widespread negative impressions of the Republican Party: opposed to change." Isn't the meaning of the word conserve "to maintain (a quantity) constant during a process of... evolutionary change"?
Even if you relabel conservatism as a "disposition," it is a political philosophy that opposes change. It doesn't matter whether you espouse it in a strident versus a measured tone; it is what it is.
2
I used to think of myself as a radical left-winger, but the left/right dichotomy has come to make less sense to me. I think it is rather extreme to say Obama is a Hitler but I feel I have more in common with that kind of extremism than with liberals who make excuses for him. I see that democracy is dead and so are our Constitutional Rights. It is true that I am still allowed to speak this way but that is because of inertia and not because of the law. If the time comes that the government feels threatened by this kind of speech it will use its new laws to stop it.
The distinction that seems relevant now is populism vs authoritarianism, the power of the people against the power of the ruling class. By this point the left/right distinction is mainly a sham antagonism that is used to keep the people divided.
The distinction that seems relevant now is populism vs authoritarianism, the power of the people against the power of the ruling class. By this point the left/right distinction is mainly a sham antagonism that is used to keep the people divided.
"Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president..."
Um, what? You mean the stock market hovering at 18,000? The unemployment rate at 5.6? How about a story in today's Times that, for the first time in a decade, anxiety over medical bills is declining among Americans, a direct result of the ACA, which has also led to a large decrease in the uninsured? How about the killing bin Laden, public enemy #1 for masterminding the worst terror attack in our history (that happened, of course, under Pres. Obama's Republican predecessor). As the did the financial meltdown that we are finally digging out of.
Mr. Wehner, if you are trying to present yourself as some sort of common sense conservative who accepts reality, unlike some of the more strident members of your party, it's not working.
Um, what? You mean the stock market hovering at 18,000? The unemployment rate at 5.6? How about a story in today's Times that, for the first time in a decade, anxiety over medical bills is declining among Americans, a direct result of the ACA, which has also led to a large decrease in the uninsured? How about the killing bin Laden, public enemy #1 for masterminding the worst terror attack in our history (that happened, of course, under Pres. Obama's Republican predecessor). As the did the financial meltdown that we are finally digging out of.
Mr. Wehner, if you are trying to present yourself as some sort of common sense conservative who accepts reality, unlike some of the more strident members of your party, it's not working.
9
Mr. Wehner,despite his insistence that he's not, sounds like the very same revisionists who dominate the current (tea)Republican Party.
He holds an unshakeable belief that "free markets" are the only salvation of humanity and despite the overwhelming evidence the current President is an agent of economic degradation.
As one who actually believes in the value of conservative beliefs and greatly misses their presence in out national discourse. This article gives me no hope of it's return any time soon.
He holds an unshakeable belief that "free markets" are the only salvation of humanity and despite the overwhelming evidence the current President is an agent of economic degradation.
As one who actually believes in the value of conservative beliefs and greatly misses their presence in out national discourse. This article gives me no hope of it's return any time soon.
1
When the word "conservative" is used these days I really have no idea of what it is supposed to mean. In his famous Cooper Union address in 1860 Abraham Lincoln asked: "What is conservatism? Is it not the old and tried as against the new and untried?"
Even though most pundits speak of Republicans as "conservatives" they are, in reality, radical.
Following the Great Depression and WW II the Gross Federal Debt amounted to 118.9% of GDP. The Truman reduced it to 69.5%; Eisenhower to 53.4%; Kennedy/Johnson to 37.2%; Nixon/Ford to 34.8%; and, Carter to 31.7% of GDP.
The introduction of "supply side" tax cuts primarily lowering tax rates on the wealthy by Ronald Reagan in 1981(and the Bush II-Cheney administration resulted in eight consecutive years of budget deficits increasing the Gross Federal Debt from 31.8% of GDP to 51.5%
George Washington was sworn in on April 30, 1789 and Ronald Reagan on January 20, 1981. In the intervening 192 years No president of ANY political party pursued such a fiscal policy. It was and is the most radical fiscal policy in American history. It is NOT "conservative".
Bush I had four more years of deficits which increased the Debt to 64.0%. Clinton raised taxes, had unemployment down to 3.8% without inflation, had balanced budgets, and, reduced the Gross Federal Debt form 64.0% to 54.6%
Bush II-Cheney had "supply side" tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 with eight more years of deficits which raise the Debt to 82.4%
And the radicalism continues.
Even though most pundits speak of Republicans as "conservatives" they are, in reality, radical.
Following the Great Depression and WW II the Gross Federal Debt amounted to 118.9% of GDP. The Truman reduced it to 69.5%; Eisenhower to 53.4%; Kennedy/Johnson to 37.2%; Nixon/Ford to 34.8%; and, Carter to 31.7% of GDP.
The introduction of "supply side" tax cuts primarily lowering tax rates on the wealthy by Ronald Reagan in 1981(and the Bush II-Cheney administration resulted in eight consecutive years of budget deficits increasing the Gross Federal Debt from 31.8% of GDP to 51.5%
George Washington was sworn in on April 30, 1789 and Ronald Reagan on January 20, 1981. In the intervening 192 years No president of ANY political party pursued such a fiscal policy. It was and is the most radical fiscal policy in American history. It is NOT "conservative".
Bush I had four more years of deficits which increased the Debt to 64.0%. Clinton raised taxes, had unemployment down to 3.8% without inflation, had balanced budgets, and, reduced the Gross Federal Debt form 64.0% to 54.6%
Bush II-Cheney had "supply side" tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 with eight more years of deficits which raise the Debt to 82.4%
And the radicalism continues.
9
Mr. Wehner's explanation of conservatism is missing the part about mindless fealty to ideas that have never worked in practice.
5
Isn't market-based, when describing social safety-net programs, just a euphemism for profit-generating?
5
Mr. Wehner,
Look throughout history and you'll see that it's always been the conservatives of the time who were against the very movements that lead to a better life for more people, particularly the downtrodden. From freedom of speech to freedom of religion (and FROM religion), it's always been the conservatives of the time who were against it.
Relatively more recently, it's been the conservatives who were against everything from mini-skirts and rock-n-roll to, oh, manumission, universal suffrage, paid sick leave, the eight-hour day, public education, public health care, paid maternity and paternity leave, consumer protection, environmental protection, gays, you name it...even the fight against Hitler!
Mr. Wehner, I don't know where you get your definition of conservatism from but it is clear that the facts contradict your claims.
Liberals and progressives are not perfect, but it's ALWAYS been the liberals and progressives who've had to drag conservatives -- kickin' and screamin' -- into the future.
Look throughout history and you'll see that it's always been the conservatives of the time who were against the very movements that lead to a better life for more people, particularly the downtrodden. From freedom of speech to freedom of religion (and FROM religion), it's always been the conservatives of the time who were against it.
Relatively more recently, it's been the conservatives who were against everything from mini-skirts and rock-n-roll to, oh, manumission, universal suffrage, paid sick leave, the eight-hour day, public education, public health care, paid maternity and paternity leave, consumer protection, environmental protection, gays, you name it...even the fight against Hitler!
Mr. Wehner, I don't know where you get your definition of conservatism from but it is clear that the facts contradict your claims.
Liberals and progressives are not perfect, but it's ALWAYS been the liberals and progressives who've had to drag conservatives -- kickin' and screamin' -- into the future.
5
And some of us who are middle of the road believe that people like Cruz and his ilk should be thrown in prison for treasonous behavior.
3
"[T]the damage inflicted on the country by the president..."? That's still the same kind of extreme language the author is supposedly criticizing.
And of course the "damage" left by the previous president--from Iraq to Afghanistan to mysterious torture cells to New Orleans to the federal budget and the economy--was on a scale that will never, ever be topped by Mr. Obama.
And of course the "damage" left by the previous president--from Iraq to Afghanistan to mysterious torture cells to New Orleans to the federal budget and the economy--was on a scale that will never, ever be topped by Mr. Obama.
4
I disagree that conservatism is not an ideology. The idea that conservatism is based in human nature, or in nature itself, is a pure speculation. In the last analysis, A concept like this, as applied to politics, is simply another ideology. Its advantage is that it makes the foundation of conservatism seem to extend, logical step by step, to the Deity itself. Perhaps conservatism is more like a theology.
Peter Wehner's column is consistent with the New York Times's recent editorial page opinion by Republicans. It has nothing to say about the destructive -- even nihilistic -- positions of Republicans now in the Congress and provides nothing but vague, inconsequential blather in a pathetic attempt to put Republicans in a good light.
"Conservatism, for starters, is rooted in human experience. It appreciates the complexity of human society. It believes in a givenness to human nature and in enduring principles, yet it has the capacity to apply those principles to changing circumstances."
This is manifestly untrue and utterly inconsistent with Republican positions on critical social issues since the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt.
I have only one suggestion for Mr. Wehner: wake up!
"Conservatism, for starters, is rooted in human experience. It appreciates the complexity of human society. It believes in a givenness to human nature and in enduring principles, yet it has the capacity to apply those principles to changing circumstances."
This is manifestly untrue and utterly inconsistent with Republican positions on critical social issues since the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt.
I have only one suggestion for Mr. Wehner: wake up!
5
Every conservative I know personally are opposed to any program that helps anyone less fortunate than they are. They're even cheap tippers.
3
A major reason I shy away from the Republican party is that it seems to be the party of pessimism, while the Democrats, inconsistent and contradictory as they can be, seem to be the party of optimism. Sometimes it seems as if certain conservatives actually enjoy gloom-and-doom and maybe, in their darkest moments, actually want an apocalypse. Isn't that nihilism?
2
I should have liked the author to enumerate the damage he feels has been inflicted on the nation by our President. Bringing the economy back from the very brink of chaos and collapse? Reigning in health care costs while getting health insurance to almost ten-million people? Keeping the Bush-era rate cuts for the huge majority of taxpayers? Unemployment under 6% even while gov't shrinks, robust growth, a doubled Dow? And bin Laden clings to death in the Indian Ocean. If these calamities had attended Presidents McCain or Romney, they'd be clearing space for their faces on Mt. Rushmore.
6
Sunny disposition or not, Reagan will be judged harshly by history for starting this country on a path to ruin that continues to this day. Turning this country over to corporations will be Reagan's legacy and it will be marked as the place things went wrong.
6
The history of conservatism in the United States has demonstrated, time and again, that the "movement" cannot ever hope to align itself with democratic ideals, since those ideals are antithetical to conservative ideology (or ideologies). Conservatism's support of nativist movements, as with the Know-Nothing Party in the 1850s, explicitly attempted to fight immigration, echoes of today's hostility towards anyone deemed "foreign." Its "duty" to protect "traditions" that have value for the few monied enough or biased enough to enjoy the privileges that conservatism asserts as a God-given birthright, and all others be damned. Conservatism is consistently threatened by social change, and uses authority and the rule of law interpreted strictly to enforce its values, especially when the rule of law was unethical. undemocratic, and harmful, as with Jim Crow. We see echoes of same today with the restriction of voting rights. What Mr. Wehner demonstrates so clearly (perhaps echoing all the hand-wringing about Mitt Romney's purpoted entree into the 2016 Presidential campaign) is also conservatism's propensity to eat one's own--as in, "A real conservative would believe 'x'" The combination of arrogance, entitlement, anger, and fear that typifies so much conservative rhetoric poisons the body politic and has no place in a society that aspires to democratic ideals.
1
These conservative constituents and elected officials who serve them like Ted Cruz are basically the same people who supported William Jennings Bryant, populist, anti-modernist, parochial, opposed to the way of life driven by cities and modern technologies. They are an agrarian people who want to live in towns where everyone knows each other, they do not want to be part of a great modern nation state. When Nixon adopted his Southern strategy to welcome conservative Democrats into the Republican party, he gave Reagan the constituency he needed to become President and they have assured Republicans of electoral victories consistently. The cost is a faction in government which truly wants the U.S. to revert to the way it was in the 1790's, just with all the modern conveniences but without all the irksome modern institutions which make those conveniences possible.
Is the problem within the Republican Party merely a question of tone? Certainly, old school conservatives were often more restrained, I can’t imagine William F. Buckley indulging in, or even tolerating, the kind of hysterical, self-serving and disingenuous diatribes that are common today, but the problem is deeper and more destructive for the country; and most Republican politicians have been complicit, reaping the benefits while they watched.
By corrupt and cynical use of the sentimental myths of America democracy they distract, or disgust, the public while they proceed with their goal of making America less democratic.
As it is increasingly clear that the party may no longer be able to control and benefit from this behavior, the appeal of saying that the extreme elements in the party aren’t true conservatives is obvious. Whatever label is used, these conservatives are willing to undermine our institutions by lying to the public and corrupting the democratic process in order to impose their views on the country.
The author’s concern seems to be that stridency and the “negative impressions” of the party it creates make accomplishing this more difficult. More temperate debate would be preferable but a “market-friendly safety net”, as nice as that sounds, is not a safety net, it is a business opportunity for corporations.
He is right that the narrow-minded, mean-spirited character of conservative rhetoric reveals the character of the speakers and the values of the party today. But rather than trying to find candidates who are more adept at civility, I think it would be more helpful if the party concentrated on finding people who could represent all Americans, uphold our democratic principles and respect the government which makes our society possible.
By corrupt and cynical use of the sentimental myths of America democracy they distract, or disgust, the public while they proceed with their goal of making America less democratic.
As it is increasingly clear that the party may no longer be able to control and benefit from this behavior, the appeal of saying that the extreme elements in the party aren’t true conservatives is obvious. Whatever label is used, these conservatives are willing to undermine our institutions by lying to the public and corrupting the democratic process in order to impose their views on the country.
The author’s concern seems to be that stridency and the “negative impressions” of the party it creates make accomplishing this more difficult. More temperate debate would be preferable but a “market-friendly safety net”, as nice as that sounds, is not a safety net, it is a business opportunity for corporations.
He is right that the narrow-minded, mean-spirited character of conservative rhetoric reveals the character of the speakers and the values of the party today. But rather than trying to find candidates who are more adept at civility, I think it would be more helpful if the party concentrated on finding people who could represent all Americans, uphold our democratic principles and respect the government which makes our society possible.
Wehner's flowery article on what conservatism should be is far from the truth of what it really is, as evidenced by the last 30 years of Republican control of government. Yes, Ronald Reagan had a friendly smile and an engaging personality, but he did more than any other U.S. president to transfer wealth from the middle class to the one percent, to wit giving the biggest tax cut to the richest in the country and denying workers' ability to deal with big business through their unions. And he did it all with a smile. But let's look at what these ensuing decades have shown us: The Republican party (the party of big business) is now in the back pocket of big business. The ideology of the party is now to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, including the middle class is the loss column. The Republicans have finally openly brought big money in to play in politics. They have the audacity to say that big money is not corrupting their political aims.
Mr. Wehner, in my view, is not describing the current Republican party in his description of conservatism. One commentor was right when he said that Mr. Wehner is trying to put lipstick on a pig when he tries to equate the politics of this Republican party with true conservatism, which is above all else, humane.
Mr. Wehner, in my view, is not describing the current Republican party in his description of conservatism. One commentor was right when he said that Mr. Wehner is trying to put lipstick on a pig when he tries to equate the politics of this Republican party with true conservatism, which is above all else, humane.
3
What "damage has been inflicted on this country" by Obama? He is a very centrist president with the mild-manners you extol. Part of the existential problem that any GOP shill has for reasonable, centrist democrats like me is that these spokespeople cannot name one specific policy, and their counter-solution to the problem, that they so dramatically decry.
4
Give Obama a break. It's not easy being the only moderate Republican still standing in DC.
1
"Magnanimity, winsomeness and grace aren’t antithetical to conservatism. They are an essential part of it."
And what color is the sky in your world? Talk about putting lipstick on a pig. This author is holding true to conservative values as he expresses opinion as if it were fact.
And what color is the sky in your world? Talk about putting lipstick on a pig. This author is holding true to conservative values as he expresses opinion as if it were fact.
1
A major mistake in this fine article is the misuse of the word "populism". These Republicans are to be more correctly named " fundamentalists". They display the same kind of mindset in politics that fundamentalists do in religion. They are really " fundamentalist politicians" and are a real danger to democracy . They reject the central word for democratic politics, namely "compromise". They feel that they are always right. They actually have an " infallibility complex". We need to replace ALL of them by way of election !!
3
You wish to replace ALL conservatives because they will not compromise? That seems to be a ludicrous defect in logic but a hilarious hint as to who suffers from "infallibility complex".
Just as an exercise, take the paragraph beginning "Conservatism, for starters, is rooted in human experience..." Substitute the word "liberalism" everywhere you see the word "conservatism" and you get something equally "truthy" and just as meaningless.
Interesting, too, that in the next line, the author states that conservatism "understand(s) ...the limitations of politics." Funny, conservatives playing politics with the welfare of others are always saying they're all about the limitations of government, not politics. Perhaps the author is just trying to put a magnanimous, winsome face on what conservatives have been saying all along.
Interesting, too, that in the next line, the author states that conservatism "understand(s) ...the limitations of politics." Funny, conservatives playing politics with the welfare of others are always saying they're all about the limitations of government, not politics. Perhaps the author is just trying to put a magnanimous, winsome face on what conservatives have been saying all along.
Once again, conservatives being kind to themselves. I suggest if this ideology is truly open to self-examination, it would trace the empirical evidence to conclude conservatism is much more sympatico with authoritarian regimes - the Inquisition, Fascism, Shariaists - than it is platform of impassioned fighters for liberty and justice.
Besides - to apply a bit of conservative pragmatism - any pursuit of liberty and justice may cause unintended consequences by dripping over unto some of the undeserving 47%. Who could possibly think that would be acceptable to conservatives?
Besides - to apply a bit of conservative pragmatism - any pursuit of liberty and justice may cause unintended consequences by dripping over unto some of the undeserving 47%. Who could possibly think that would be acceptable to conservatives?
3
According to the writer, conservatives believe in "the givenness of human nature." He maintains that conservatives are not "utopians". He then calls for "a policy agenda that systematically transforms welfare-state programs into a market-friendly safety net."
Well, a hallmark of "conservatism" as practiced in America since the decades following the Civil War is, in fact, utopianism -- an irrational belief in the infallibility of the market. A "given" of human nature is greed. Another given is the fact that wealth concentrates without intervention by outside institutions. This is where the American brand of conservatism falls utterly apart. And it is something the sainted Adam Smith was aware of and cautioned against.
The writer is giving "populism" a bad name when he ascribes it to his party's extremists. Those people are not populists. They are nihilists.
Well, a hallmark of "conservatism" as practiced in America since the decades following the Civil War is, in fact, utopianism -- an irrational belief in the infallibility of the market. A "given" of human nature is greed. Another given is the fact that wealth concentrates without intervention by outside institutions. This is where the American brand of conservatism falls utterly apart. And it is something the sainted Adam Smith was aware of and cautioned against.
The writer is giving "populism" a bad name when he ascribes it to his party's extremists. Those people are not populists. They are nihilists.
5
Ronald Reagan "sunny optimism"??? I guess this guy forgot about his obsessive paranoia about communists. He even went behind his fellow actors backs while head of the Screen Actors Guild and alleged to McCarthy some were communists.
2
"Unlike those who are “always lusting after something that is not,” the conservative tends to find delight in the achievements and blessings we have." This is a very funny way to describe what I've often noted as the "conservative" abhorrence of all things new and different.
1
the left has been apocalyptic for a long time, on climate change among other things. indeed, everyone's been in an apocalyptic mood since 1982. but sadly for those who are begging for an armageddon to confirm their political prepossessions, history just keeps ticking by and we just keep muddling through in our typical screwed-up way.
1
The writer presents little evidence to support this premise: "deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president" on two points -- How is this 'deep concern' evidenced (other than feckless handwringing) and, What exactly is this 'damage' that he's talking about?
By any actual rational analysis the nation has emerged from a global economic crisis with notable strength and without the even a whiff of the 'damage' predicted by conservatives (so-called) that began even before the President's inauguration in 2009.
We were promised runaway inflation, no job growth, terror attacks on the US mainland, higher motor fuel prices, widespread social unrest and on and on.
None of these 'conservative' (so-called) predictions have come remotely true. The factual analysis is that each of the problems has EASED SIGNIFICANTLY during the Obama administration.
In any rational place (other than US national politics) prognosticators who are always wrong lose credibility and disappear from the scene.
The issue isn't whether Obama deserves credit for this improving environment -- the issue is that those who predicted that it would never come while he was president were flatly wrong and should fail to have any credibility with the American people.
By any actual rational analysis the nation has emerged from a global economic crisis with notable strength and without the even a whiff of the 'damage' predicted by conservatives (so-called) that began even before the President's inauguration in 2009.
We were promised runaway inflation, no job growth, terror attacks on the US mainland, higher motor fuel prices, widespread social unrest and on and on.
None of these 'conservative' (so-called) predictions have come remotely true. The factual analysis is that each of the problems has EASED SIGNIFICANTLY during the Obama administration.
In any rational place (other than US national politics) prognosticators who are always wrong lose credibility and disappear from the scene.
The issue isn't whether Obama deserves credit for this improving environment -- the issue is that those who predicted that it would never come while he was president were flatly wrong and should fail to have any credibility with the American people.
3
Wehner does a good job of explaining why
a) today's Republicans are mostly not conservative at all;
b) today's Democratic center really is conservative; and
c) I left the Republican Party twenty-five years ago and began voting for centrist Democrats.
a) today's Republicans are mostly not conservative at all;
b) today's Democratic center really is conservative; and
c) I left the Republican Party twenty-five years ago and began voting for centrist Democrats.
7
'Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president but don’t share this doom-laden view are labeled by some on the right as cowardly and unprincipled'
All the 'Magnaminity, winsomeness and grace' do not make this statement true!
All the 'Magnaminity, winsomeness and grace' do not make this statement true!
3
"This doesn’t mean that conservatives shouldn’t fight passionately for liberty and justice. Today’s Republicans, for example, should advance a policy agenda that systematically transforms welfare-state programs into a market-friendly safety net."
In 1989, Stuart Butler of the conservative Heritage Foundation proposed a health care policy based upon the individual mandate. Republicans supported this approach as a market oriented solution to then"free rider" problem. When Obama proposes this very same approach it was quickly tagged by Republicans as "Obamacare," a step on the road to serfdom.
Apparently, obstructionism and obfuscation have trumped conservative principles.
In 1989, Stuart Butler of the conservative Heritage Foundation proposed a health care policy based upon the individual mandate. Republicans supported this approach as a market oriented solution to then"free rider" problem. When Obama proposes this very same approach it was quickly tagged by Republicans as "Obamacare," a step on the road to serfdom.
Apparently, obstructionism and obfuscation have trumped conservative principles.
150
"Today’s Republicans, for example, should advance a policy agenda that systematically transforms welfare-state programs into a market-friendly safety net."
Mr. Wehner -- save it for your true-believing think-tank customers. That one line is proof that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Mr. Wehner -- save it for your true-believing think-tank customers. That one line is proof that you have no idea what you're talking about.
3
Prediction: At some point in the future Peter Wehner will be trampled into the ground by the Ben Carsons, the Sen. Ted Cruzes, and the Mark Levins and the rest of the angry, hateful mob this trio (and many others) whip into a state of frenzy. The Tea Party is lead by firebrands who radicalize people who otherwise would not join a destructive force, but - because of their life circumstances - will join a mob to seek sweet vengeance, no matter what the consequences. I call them The Vulnerables. They are driven by those two primitive emotions, fear and anger. And there are many, many more of them than there are of 'us.' I hope I am not around when Mr. Wehner is stomped by the human wave of pitchfork-weilding 'Republicans.'
1
Sir, there is nothing you wrote in this OpEd that would make me want to vote for you or your party.
It seems to me that you will still receive the votes from people that always vote for your party, but no new voters seem to be heading your way. Eventually your voter pool will dry up.
We are no longer 1950’s America with people chanting ‘I am proud to be an American, where at least I know am free…’; we’re a country of people who can choose on their own, a country that loves peace, financial stability and a chance to make it in life. When we hear your party spit venom about, it turns off new voters. Why would anyone with any sense vote for a fire a brimstone party that seems to be stuck in 1950?
If you truly love America, start offering a new vision for America, one that does not require new voters to buy a bible, a gun, look angry, and sound racists.
In marketing, appearances become facts. If you want to market your brand to new voters, you need to work on your image, because right now it is not appealing.
It seems to me that you will still receive the votes from people that always vote for your party, but no new voters seem to be heading your way. Eventually your voter pool will dry up.
We are no longer 1950’s America with people chanting ‘I am proud to be an American, where at least I know am free…’; we’re a country of people who can choose on their own, a country that loves peace, financial stability and a chance to make it in life. When we hear your party spit venom about, it turns off new voters. Why would anyone with any sense vote for a fire a brimstone party that seems to be stuck in 1950?
If you truly love America, start offering a new vision for America, one that does not require new voters to buy a bible, a gun, look angry, and sound racists.
In marketing, appearances become facts. If you want to market your brand to new voters, you need to work on your image, because right now it is not appealing.
1
My fellow commenters, please forgive this longish quote from Mr. Wehner's op-ed piece:
"Conservatism, for starters, is rooted in human experience. It appreciates the complexity of human society. It believes in a givenness to human nature and in enduring principles, yet it has the capacity to apply those principles to changing circumstances. And because it isn’t a rigid ideology, it leaves itself open to self-examination and self-correction. Authentic conservatism has a high regard for things empirical, for facts that can lead us to better apprehend the truth"
These words, which like many conservative statements in the media, seem double-tongued and makes one wonder how the author could not see how any reasonable progressive thinker, who holds life and humanity above political principals, could not have written them.
"Conservatism, for starters, is rooted in human experience. It appreciates the complexity of human society. It believes in a givenness to human nature and in enduring principles, yet it has the capacity to apply those principles to changing circumstances. And because it isn’t a rigid ideology, it leaves itself open to self-examination and self-correction. Authentic conservatism has a high regard for things empirical, for facts that can lead us to better apprehend the truth"
These words, which like many conservative statements in the media, seem double-tongued and makes one wonder how the author could not see how any reasonable progressive thinker, who holds life and humanity above political principals, could not have written them.
1
This whole debate over whether or not Republicans can 'reign in' the radicals is years too late: the Republican Party IS the party of the extremists.
They've won - they have money, momentum and their own media behind them. The decision to adopt the Southern Strategy, the deliberate cultivation of the politics of division - this has set up a dynamic process where the party can only keep going farther to the right. There is no room for compromise or tolerance any more. Ideological fervor is more important than facts; beliefs dictate policy, not reason.
Look to the states. Everywhere Republicans are in full control, the radical agenda is going full speed ahead. The war on women, the war on voting, the war on the middle class - you can see it being waged in Republican state legislatures, courts, and governorships. Tax cuts for the rich, service cuts for everyone else, privatization of the public for private gain, the public pays for market failures - and the race to the bottom accelerates. By any measure, life in red states is getting harder and meaner, in a cycle that feeds back on itself as the victims are made scapegoats for the failures of those imposing their beliefs on them.
The one element of moderation they embrace is feigning its appearance; behind the mask is a brutal, Hobbesian agenda.
They've won - they have money, momentum and their own media behind them. The decision to adopt the Southern Strategy, the deliberate cultivation of the politics of division - this has set up a dynamic process where the party can only keep going farther to the right. There is no room for compromise or tolerance any more. Ideological fervor is more important than facts; beliefs dictate policy, not reason.
Look to the states. Everywhere Republicans are in full control, the radical agenda is going full speed ahead. The war on women, the war on voting, the war on the middle class - you can see it being waged in Republican state legislatures, courts, and governorships. Tax cuts for the rich, service cuts for everyone else, privatization of the public for private gain, the public pays for market failures - and the race to the bottom accelerates. By any measure, life in red states is getting harder and meaner, in a cycle that feeds back on itself as the victims are made scapegoats for the failures of those imposing their beliefs on them.
The one element of moderation they embrace is feigning its appearance; behind the mask is a brutal, Hobbesian agenda.
1
Today's conservatives have certainly mastered the art of political vocabulary, the triumph of rhetoric over meaning. When conservatives talk about "liberty" and "freedom," they are not talking about person-based rights, but property-based, wealth-based and power-based rights. The right to engage in unlimited political spending is "liberty," for instance. A "right to work" law does not create an entitlement to a job; it entitles employers to crush labor unions.
When conservatives talk about "justice," they are not talking about equal treatment of people, but about unfavorable treatment of immigrants, gay people and the 47 percent, and favorable treatment of banks, hedge funds, and carbon fuel producers.
Conservatives used to talk about "opportunity," and at least some conservatives used to be concerned that opportunities aren't available to all Americans.
But I certainly agree with Mr. Wehner about one thing: conservatism is very much about disposition. Today's conservatives are by and large angry and resentful, and also very frightened - frightened that the traditional white, male, Christian, heterosexual and European-descended dominance of American society, politics and power is coming to an end.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
When conservatives talk about "justice," they are not talking about equal treatment of people, but about unfavorable treatment of immigrants, gay people and the 47 percent, and favorable treatment of banks, hedge funds, and carbon fuel producers.
Conservatives used to talk about "opportunity," and at least some conservatives used to be concerned that opportunities aren't available to all Americans.
But I certainly agree with Mr. Wehner about one thing: conservatism is very much about disposition. Today's conservatives are by and large angry and resentful, and also very frightened - frightened that the traditional white, male, Christian, heterosexual and European-descended dominance of American society, politics and power is coming to an end.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
4
At one time, slavery was an "achievement and blessing" we had. So was Jim Crow. And women being imprisoned simply for holding signs on street corners saying they, too, wanted to vote. And child labor. And the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory. And the Great Depression. And the greatest wealth inequality the world has ever seen. Oops. We still have that one.
Imagining a better world and working toward it is the gift liberal democrats have given this country again and again and again and again. Holding on to the old ways, the status quo, that benefits only a few while making the promise of mobility to everyone while simultaneously working to make it less and less possible for them has always been the conservative way. Yes, "to conserve," to keep what has already been gained rather than stretch towards our fullest potential.
Put me among those who "always lust after something that is not." For, after all, isn't that how we got the lightbulb? The end of polio and whooping cough?
The conservative's inability to reconcile their own cognitive dissonance by doing the hard work of considering the inconsistencies inherent to that world view never ceases to amaze me, and this piece is, unfortunately, another example of that inability.
Imagining a better world and working toward it is the gift liberal democrats have given this country again and again and again and again. Holding on to the old ways, the status quo, that benefits only a few while making the promise of mobility to everyone while simultaneously working to make it less and less possible for them has always been the conservative way. Yes, "to conserve," to keep what has already been gained rather than stretch towards our fullest potential.
Put me among those who "always lust after something that is not." For, after all, isn't that how we got the lightbulb? The end of polio and whooping cough?
The conservative's inability to reconcile their own cognitive dissonance by doing the hard work of considering the inconsistencies inherent to that world view never ceases to amaze me, and this piece is, unfortunately, another example of that inability.
4
Where to begin. Mr. Wehner, what animates your party is the politics of racial resentment not so-called conservative principles, whatever those are. Where was this pragmatic, prudential, anti-utopian vision on display when George Bush decided to invade Iraq? Where is the trust of empirical data in the debate on climate change or health care? Where is this passionate fight for liberty and justice when it comes to voting rights or policing in minority communities or in allowing women to make their own health care choices? Nowhere. And the more you keep your current company all the while protesting about their destructive tendencies the more deluded and frankly ridiculous you sound.
3
"Today’s Republicans, for example, should advance a policy agenda that systematically transforms welfare-state programs into a market-friendly safety net."
The reason we went from a non-existent social safety net to the much better one today is called the Great Depression. Such market friendly thinking would lead us right back there and syphon money from SS, where 98 to 99 cents of every dollar goes to benefits, into the hands of Wall Street.
The reason we went from a non-existent social safety net to the much better one today is called the Great Depression. Such market friendly thinking would lead us right back there and syphon money from SS, where 98 to 99 cents of every dollar goes to benefits, into the hands of Wall Street.
4
By all accounts I should be a conservative. I am married to the same woman for 22 years. I attend Catholic mass weekly. I have a profession and i work two additional jobs. I practice moderation and prudence in my own life. Yet, I reject the social absolutism of the "Right". I do not have confidence in the markets to provide a "just social net". I am suspicious of Manifest Destiny. Despite it not being in my own personal best interest I continue to vote Democrat and will so until the "Conservative" movement becomes more than obstructionist.
2
"Magnaminity, winsomeness and grace." Boehner. McConnell. Liebermann et al. Cue hysterical laughter. Though I suppose at a stretch Lyndsey Graham might be described as winsome in low light. This column is truly laughable - David Brooks with an infusion of archness, Jane Austen style, but without one iota of the substance, and certainly none of the insight. I would have more respect if the author had said it in one line: "Can we cut out the whole clown car ride and support Jon Huntsman or Buddy Roemer this time." Then he might have my ear.
1
This article is utterly nonsensical. Which planet is the author living on where conservatives have high regard for empirical fact? Is he referring to conservatives on planet Earth who don't believe in climate science, evolution, genetic research or any other area of science that might offend their religious beliefs?
5
"Conservatism, for starters, is rooted in human experience. It appreciates the complexity of human society. It believes in a givenness to human nature and in enduring principles, yet it has the capacity to apply those principles to changing circumstances. And because it isn’t a rigid ideology, it leaves itself open to self-examination and self-correction. Authentic conservatism has a high regard for things empirical, for facts that can lead us to better apprehend the truth."
I'm pretty sure you've lost that battle.
Now, I don't mean that "true" conservatism is the opposite of that or anything, but, if there's a statement about what conservatism currently is not, your statement is it. They've stolen your mantel and, apparently, all you can do in retort is call them names, i.e. they aren't "authentic". Well, essentially you are challenging the kings of name-calling to a name-calling contest, so you're not getting your name back any time soon.
I'm pretty sure you've lost that battle.
Now, I don't mean that "true" conservatism is the opposite of that or anything, but, if there's a statement about what conservatism currently is not, your statement is it. They've stolen your mantel and, apparently, all you can do in retort is call them names, i.e. they aren't "authentic". Well, essentially you are challenging the kings of name-calling to a name-calling contest, so you're not getting your name back any time soon.
57
"Unlike those who are “always lusting after something that is not,” the conservative tends to find delight in the achievements and blessings we have."
Such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and public education--all things so called "conservatives" are trying to destroy. True conservatives value social stability, continuity of of institutions and slow evolutions that do not damage human lives, such as a war of mere conquest and empire, as happened in Iraq.
Those who call themselves "conservatives" these days are radicals in disguise who seek to hasten a catastrophic destruction of our country. These "conservatives" need to read some history--the French Revolution is a good place to start--any civilization that promotes and encourages extreme wealth disparity between a tiny ruling elite and the rest of the population ends up in violent revolution. That's hardly "conservative".
Such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and public education--all things so called "conservatives" are trying to destroy. True conservatives value social stability, continuity of of institutions and slow evolutions that do not damage human lives, such as a war of mere conquest and empire, as happened in Iraq.
Those who call themselves "conservatives" these days are radicals in disguise who seek to hasten a catastrophic destruction of our country. These "conservatives" need to read some history--the French Revolution is a good place to start--any civilization that promotes and encourages extreme wealth disparity between a tiny ruling elite and the rest of the population ends up in violent revolution. That's hardly "conservative".
3
And here is the thing and the difference...I also want to enjoy the things I have. The problem is I worry - a lot - about those that don't have enough for which I don't blame (most of) them. That limits my enjoyment of my own life.
2
Can you kindly cite a date/time when one or more conservatives in this country conducted a "self examination and self correction". Someone should be able to easily find the date/time because it rarely - if ever - happens!
2
A phantasmagoric romp that bears no resemblance to the Republican horde on Capitol Hill.
The notion that, “What often masquerades as conservatism these days is really populism.” flies in the face of who the GOP actually serves.
The notion that, “What often masquerades as conservatism these days is really populism.” flies in the face of who the GOP actually serves.
2
Being a European liberal (as opposed to the American cliche), I think I have missed something here.
Dow at 18,000
Unemployment in the mid 5%'s
Dollar stronger against other currencies
Companies beginning to bring jobs to America
Finally winding down from 2 hugely costly and useless wars
Why would conservatives NOT support Obama?
Dow at 18,000
Unemployment in the mid 5%'s
Dollar stronger against other currencies
Companies beginning to bring jobs to America
Finally winding down from 2 hugely costly and useless wars
Why would conservatives NOT support Obama?
3
"...market-friendly safety net."
There is no such thing. The market exists only to maximize profit, not to ensure that any one particular person enjoys the basic necessities of life, not to mention even the fruits of their own labor.
A rational conservative may be less obnoxious than the banshees on the far right, but lets not assume his / her governing principles would be any less harmful to the average American.
There is no such thing. The market exists only to maximize profit, not to ensure that any one particular person enjoys the basic necessities of life, not to mention even the fruits of their own labor.
A rational conservative may be less obnoxious than the banshees on the far right, but lets not assume his / her governing principles would be any less harmful to the average American.
8
"What often masquerades as conservatism these days" isn't "populism", it is really radicalism. Stop trying to put lipstick on a pig - you aren't fooling anyone.
5
This piece is far too intellectual in the way it describes the US political Conservatism of today. Contrary to the author's assertions, conservative pols today thrive on and cater to an anti-intellectual and aging voting block that is entertained, by gestures that sooth their base emotions. Ironically, supporters of conservatism want to be insignificant compared with an elite governing class. They want to be reassured by this governing body with displays of violence and vindictiveness toward those who would disagree with it or those who would seek to let it evolve.
5
I wish what Peter has to say was broadly true. He doesn't sound like any conservative politician I have been exposed to. I grew up in the segregated South and the conservative ideology that ruled the South now rules the country. There is nothing empirical, anti-utopian, wise or understanding in that ideology. It is based on fear and infused with hateful rhetoric. It is apocalyptic. It is intentionally destructive. And, it is successful. We just had a national election where 36% voted. What is really going on is that the business wing of the Republican Party is figuring out how to accommodate the radical right, in all its diversity, and use that ideology to win elections and to run the country. Goldwater was unsuccessful. Reagan, hand picked by California businessmen, was successful and brought every element of the radical right into the government, politics and, probably most importantly, the judiciary. As a result, the money interests captured all the growth in income and wealth in the past 45 years and the radical right got constitutional protection for guns.
9
The single most important empirical fact facing humanity today is 400ppm, the average annual concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Since 10% or more of CO2 we emit today will still be warming the atmosphere more than 1,000 years from now--five times longer than modern democracy--I would be eternally grateful if conservatives, Republicans, Tea Party members or whatever they wanted to call themselves had "a high regard for things empirical, for facts".
Actually, forget "high regard," I'd even settle for "grudging respect."
Actually, forget "high regard," I'd even settle for "grudging respect."
6
Today's conservative philosophy can be traced back to the early 20th century Texas oil magnate William Frank Buckley Sr. Mr Buckley believed that government should operate at the aegis of the rich and powerful.
Mr Buckley's children were instrumental in the success of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Mr Buckley's son William F. Buckley Jr is the intellectual and moral godfather of today's conservative movement and former Conservative US senator from New York James Buckley is a principle architect of today's Citizens United.
Mr Buckley and his children were supporters and admirers of Spain's Francisco Franco. General Franco's government was very conservative but we in the western democracies normally call Franco's government by a different name.
Mr Buckley's children were instrumental in the success of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Mr Buckley's son William F. Buckley Jr is the intellectual and moral godfather of today's conservative movement and former Conservative US senator from New York James Buckley is a principle architect of today's Citizens United.
Mr Buckley and his children were supporters and admirers of Spain's Francisco Franco. General Franco's government was very conservative but we in the western democracies normally call Franco's government by a different name.
8
I was paying attention until I got to the "damage inflicted by the president" part. While it is nice to see the delusional Republican Party has at least one pundit who can structure an argument, they are still all crazy. Obama is at best a centrist republican, he is not a Democrat.
If you continue to get your way with the country inequality will grow and the world's current terrorism epidemic will look like a head cold. It is time people woke up and realized it is not about religion, it is about inequality, greed and that bedrock principal of the right- I got mine, tough luck for you.
If you continue to get your way with the country inequality will grow and the world's current terrorism epidemic will look like a head cold. It is time people woke up and realized it is not about religion, it is about inequality, greed and that bedrock principal of the right- I got mine, tough luck for you.
6
"Authentic conservatism has a high regard for things empirical, for facts that can lead us to better apprehend the truth." Does Mr. Wehner have tongue in cheek? He's talking about trickle-down economics, right? And denial of human-caused global warming? And I love his phrase "market-friendly safety net." If President Bush II had succeeded in privatizing Social Security, where would many retired people be today? We'd be seeing old ladies sweeping the streets as they did in the old Soviet Union. I must ask, does this author's pair of glasses have a rosy tint, perhaps? If he is looking for moderate or even reasonable Republicans, there aren't any around these days.
9
Okay, We'll concede that you're not a bomb-thrower, but it is also clear that you don't care for empirical data. Some of us remember the policies that brought on the Great Recession, a multi-trillion dollar war in Iraq, how that war has morphed into a global threat to all humanity, a planet in peril due to scientific ignorance, and an international decline in the respect we once maintained., to name but a few.
So sure, bring it on. Finish the job you'd like to continue. Turn our coveted nation into the failed experiment of enlightenment you wish for.
So sure, bring it on. Finish the job you'd like to continue. Turn our coveted nation into the failed experiment of enlightenment you wish for.
7
You say you are "deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president".
You did mean George Bush and his vice president, Dick Cheney, yes?
Because as far as I can see, Obama's presidency saved us from going over that "cliff" Ted Cruz rants about, and that near-miss was caused by Republican's getting us into a war under false pretenses, their intransigence and their corporate shilling, to name just a few.
You did mean George Bush and his vice president, Dick Cheney, yes?
Because as far as I can see, Obama's presidency saved us from going over that "cliff" Ted Cruz rants about, and that near-miss was caused by Republican's getting us into a war under false pretenses, their intransigence and their corporate shilling, to name just a few.
8
Dude,
can you explain what 'damage' this president has done? You can't be serious to suggest that this administration caused more damage to the country than the last? Maybe you should use the mathematics and the history to get the facts straight?
Also, let me suggest that perhaps it is not just opposition to change, inflexibility and unwillingness to compromise, but your kind of misrepresentation or misunderstanding of reality that leads to 'negative impressions' of your party.
Also, perhaps instead of waxing about how magnificent the Consitution is and making that waxing a sole reason for being, you should look at the reality on the g
can you explain what 'damage' this president has done? You can't be serious to suggest that this administration caused more damage to the country than the last? Maybe you should use the mathematics and the history to get the facts straight?
Also, let me suggest that perhaps it is not just opposition to change, inflexibility and unwillingness to compromise, but your kind of misrepresentation or misunderstanding of reality that leads to 'negative impressions' of your party.
Also, perhaps instead of waxing about how magnificent the Consitution is and making that waxing a sole reason for being, you should look at the reality on the g
4
"Today’s Republicans should advance a policy agenda that systematically transforms welfare-state programs into a market-friendly safety net." And I suppose the GOP thinks that the ACA is a welfare state program and that the country's insurance corporations, pharmaceutical corporations, hospital corporations are run by the government and not market friendly. Think again. And I suppose that "market-friendly" means the Wall Street and bank folks who took down the economy of the world deserved to be allowed to do it again with the taxpayers rewarding their criminality with their funding to pay for those crimes - see GOP passed bill in HOuse this past week. Is Peter Wehner aware of what happens in the real world?
7
The Republican Party is more uniformly conservative than ever.
---------------------------
What does "conservative" mean?
When Reagan entered the White House, America was the largest creditor nation in the world. When Reagan left eight years later, America was the largest creditor nation in the world.
Then this...
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Vice President Dick Cheney to Paul O’Neil, secretary of treasury, in Dec., 2002.
O’Neil was fired because he raised objection to new round of tax cuts.
Repeat....what does "conservative" mean to Republicans?
George H.W. Bush has been the best Republican president since Ike. He called it all "Voodoo Economics" in the 1980 debate. He was right then and is right now.
---------------------------
What does "conservative" mean?
When Reagan entered the White House, America was the largest creditor nation in the world. When Reagan left eight years later, America was the largest creditor nation in the world.
Then this...
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Vice President Dick Cheney to Paul O’Neil, secretary of treasury, in Dec., 2002.
O’Neil was fired because he raised objection to new round of tax cuts.
Repeat....what does "conservative" mean to Republicans?
George H.W. Bush has been the best Republican president since Ike. He called it all "Voodoo Economics" in the 1980 debate. He was right then and is right now.
72
I still wish Gerald Ford had been given a second term; maybe not an Ike, but better than Reagan.
Bill Clinton was the best and most successful republican president of the 20th Century.
2
For years now I have disagreed with calling far-right ideologues "conservatives." Those rigid far-right types pining to shut down the government whenever they can manage it and toss out every middle -class protection from social security and health care laws to minimum wage rules are more allied to an American brand of ISIS than to traditional THINKING conservatives such as James Kilpatrick or William Buckley. Why doesn't the media describe these politicians as what they are....radicals?
2
This article clearly states that 2016 presidential election candidate should be Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney. Others' are fringe.
I agree with that.
Unfortunately, republican party has also mistakes but their #1 mistakes last 8 years is senseless opposition. That ain't help In American mind to heal their feelings toward s Republican party.
Now they have senate , they must run this nation effectively to show They are viable contender for White House.
Since 2001, Republican party become troubling. Hope they will reverse that course
I agree with that.
Unfortunately, republican party has also mistakes but their #1 mistakes last 8 years is senseless opposition. That ain't help In American mind to heal their feelings toward s Republican party.
Now they have senate , they must run this nation effectively to show They are viable contender for White House.
Since 2001, Republican party become troubling. Hope they will reverse that course
What passes for conservatism these days is not populism; it's stupidity fueled by stubbornness and rooted in willful ignorance.
Real conservatism is really very simple: a sharp focus on efficient governance at the service of the free enterprise system, the rule of law, and a strong stance on defending the nation. There's nothing controversial about that.
The difference between this view and a liberal view resides in the approach one takes when looking to solve problems: conservatives look to minimize government involvement while liberals are more inclined to give government a role in the implementation. Conservatives are more cautious than liberals when it comes to the role human nature plays in our decision making process and, as a result, conservatives assign more weight to personal responsibility and self control than liberals do. Again, there's nothing wrong with that.
Today's conservatives are fanatics who see politics as a team sport. They support "their team" without even knowing why in many cases. Add to that their fundamentalist views on religion and you have a nice herd of sheep who will do whatever Fox News tells them to do without even considering the consequences. That's just plain stupid.
Real conservatism is really very simple: a sharp focus on efficient governance at the service of the free enterprise system, the rule of law, and a strong stance on defending the nation. There's nothing controversial about that.
The difference between this view and a liberal view resides in the approach one takes when looking to solve problems: conservatives look to minimize government involvement while liberals are more inclined to give government a role in the implementation. Conservatives are more cautious than liberals when it comes to the role human nature plays in our decision making process and, as a result, conservatives assign more weight to personal responsibility and self control than liberals do. Again, there's nothing wrong with that.
Today's conservatives are fanatics who see politics as a team sport. They support "their team" without even knowing why in many cases. Add to that their fundamentalist views on religion and you have a nice herd of sheep who will do whatever Fox News tells them to do without even considering the consequences. That's just plain stupid.
5
If the Republicans are really worried about the USA becoming “very much like Nazi Germany,” fiddling while we “we go off the cliff to oblivion.” and “endorsing tyranny,” they have only to look into the mirror to see where the problem lies!
6
Exactly. Read about the rise of Nazism in the 30's and it is frighteningly similar to the far right today.
Honest, open minded conservatives would be a welcome additionto the national debate. Maybe someone like the author describes should run for public office because there sure is a dearth of them now.
2
"Conservatism, for starters, is rooted in human experience. It appreciates the complexity of human society. "
"... the key word to describe the conservative disposition was “enjoyment.”
This is a joke, right? Since when is God, guns, and gays, and transferring wealth to the top "about human experience" and "enjoyment"? About the human experience and enjoyment of the 0.01%, maybe.
"... the key word to describe the conservative disposition was “enjoyment.”
This is a joke, right? Since when is God, guns, and gays, and transferring wealth to the top "about human experience" and "enjoyment"? About the human experience and enjoyment of the 0.01%, maybe.
3
The US economy has never been better, thanks to Obama. Don't you remember who got you into the big economic recession that was well under way before Obama set foot in the White House????
3
Ah, civility; a point of order. It never hurts to occasionally discuss that rarely used tool in our tool-belts. What is it used for again?
2
"Conservatives in name only?"
Yes that is exactly what they are. 'You are what you eat,' and you are what you say you are. The best type of definition for these folks is an operational definition. You are, the way you behave.
Yes that is exactly what they are. 'You are what you eat,' and you are what you say you are. The best type of definition for these folks is an operational definition. You are, the way you behave.
4
The current conservative ideology that demands members hew to a particular idea is what troubles me. They do not allow independent thought among their members for fear of being not conservative enough. Any group that demands rigid adherence to a party's platform is ultimately doomed. How can anyone want to belong to a party that doesn't allow it's members to think for themselves is beyond my comprehension.
2
It does seem that day in and day out that much of what is fundamentally debated by readers here in the NYT pages is the difference between the market value and the humanity of people.
By definition, the republicans were folks who believed in representative democracy and a nation of laws, not men—indeed legal protections for minorities. Abraham Lincoln could teach a lesson on forming “a more perfect Union,” “establishing Justice,” and securing “the Blessings of Liberty” to contemporary “Republicans.”
The upshot of the column seems to be that true conservatives, aka Republicans, understand the mechanics of hardball politics, but smile while stabbing you in the back. George W. Bush is a regular, good-old boy but stomped all over our institutions. The actor from Bedtime for Bonzo, Ronald Reagan, somehow reduced “promoting the general Welfare” mentioned in the constitution to “trickle-down economics,” deregulating business, and treating ketchup as a vegetable.
It does seem to me the true difference between conservatives and liberals is over how they value the human populace.
By definition, the republicans were folks who believed in representative democracy and a nation of laws, not men—indeed legal protections for minorities. Abraham Lincoln could teach a lesson on forming “a more perfect Union,” “establishing Justice,” and securing “the Blessings of Liberty” to contemporary “Republicans.”
The upshot of the column seems to be that true conservatives, aka Republicans, understand the mechanics of hardball politics, but smile while stabbing you in the back. George W. Bush is a regular, good-old boy but stomped all over our institutions. The actor from Bedtime for Bonzo, Ronald Reagan, somehow reduced “promoting the general Welfare” mentioned in the constitution to “trickle-down economics,” deregulating business, and treating ketchup as a vegetable.
It does seem to me the true difference between conservatives and liberals is over how they value the human populace.
142
Don't forget selling arms to Iran to fund goon squads in Nicaragua, blaming trees for air pollution, and spinning old movie scenes as events that happened in real life.
1
ah, now i understand. it was the folksy, friendly demeanor of george w. bush that made him such a great leader. if only today's conservatives could deliver proposals for social security cuts, gratuitous wars, and complete deregulation of industry in such a friendly, grinning way all would be well.
150
Mr. Wehner's column is a breath of fresh air. However I find the word 'populist' inadequate to describe some of the denizens of today's Republican party.
Terms that come to mind for various segments are:
Radical reactionaries
Government-hating anarchists
Christian jihadists
Dan Kravitz
Terms that come to mind for various segments are:
Radical reactionaries
Government-hating anarchists
Christian jihadists
Dan Kravitz
2
It's incomprehensible to me that Mr. Wehner could write a column on this topic without once mentioning the effect of money on politics. Waving dollars in front of the average Congressman has the same effect as a red flag before the bull: Ethics? What ethics? Both parties suffer from this, for sure, but the GOP has led the charge (pun intended) with Citizen's United &tc. in ensuring ethics takes a back seat to monied interests.
2
Magnanimity, winsomeness and grace? These may have been an essential part of conservatism at some point in the idealized past. Today's conservative leaders, as personified by talk radio hosts, are paranoid, hysterical and angry. And the listeners of talk radio (i.e., the right wing base) are never going to vote for someone who shows magnanimity toward the left. Listen to the Dennis Prager show sometime. According to him, the left destroys everything it touches and President Obama is the worst president in American history without a close second. And as far as I can tell, despite these absurd declarations, he is highly respected by everyone on the right. I appreciate Mr. Wehner's attempt to reign in the temperament of his fellow conservatives, but I just don't see it happening anytime soon.
3
Amusing attempt to reinvent the FOP. You have the followers you deserve, Republiicans. Not so easy to lie away or silence your base constituency.
1
Contrary to the author's characterization of current U.S. conservative rhetoric and policies as "populist", I believe a better description might be "fascist", "revanchist", "race baiting", "disingenuous", "deliberate distractions" or just plain "irrational".
2
True; a lot of these non-pragmatic tea partiers sound like the campus radicals of the 1960s and 70s that I grew up around. Very irresponsible and not very smart.
1
Mr. Wehner, let me hold your halo while you and yours systematically destroy this once great country in service to the 1%.
3
Recently saw the HBO doc on NIXON in his own words. The visceral fear of Nixon at the time was brought home with chilling effect in his words. The pure gut fear is evident in the land fostered by the "conservative' firebrands invigorated by the contract with America success of 20 years ago. I dare any empirical review of the statistical "well being' of the nation since 1994.
Remember another firebrand Malcolm X preferred Goldwater, a wolf with bared teeth to the fox LBJ....no happy face 100 pts of light hogwash for me....show the teeth.
Remember another firebrand Malcolm X preferred Goldwater, a wolf with bared teeth to the fox LBJ....no happy face 100 pts of light hogwash for me....show the teeth.
"Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president..." I assume you are referring to George W. Bush, and not President Barack Obama.
6
Here's another good rule for politics: If you're absolutely sure you're always right, you're probably wrong. Kudos to this writer for having a better vision of conservatism which, unfortunately, has no relation to today's Republican Party.
1
Mr. Wehner seems to imagine that he is still living in the age of Burke or Chesterton, individuals who arguably hoped to "conserve" something more than their own privilege. Chesterton said, "Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up." The spirit of the modern American conservative movement is about as antithetical to this worldview as can be conceived, because it is so deeply rooted in anger. What do you think Burke or Chesterton would have thought of Sarah Palin? Or Sean Hannity? Or Michele Bachmann? Or Ted Cruz? Or Rush Limbaugh? Or Steve King and Joe Arpaio? Or Dick Cheney?
5
The title is apt, but misleading.
Many years ago, I realized that the word "conservative" as used in a political context, had nothing to do with conserving anything.
In the U.S., "conservatism" is a code word for protecting the interests of the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. It is basically an antipopulist philosophy without any compassion.
(I am completely in support of elitism if it means giving power and attention to smart and wise people who want to make our nation a better place for all.)
Compassionat conservatism is an oxymoron that is solely used as a marketing term to encourage nonwealthy voters to act against their own best interests.
I agree with Mr Wehner's advice in one regard; if you are going to be a villain, you are more likely to succeed in your villainy by acting like a nice person, even though you are not.
Many years ago, I realized that the word "conservative" as used in a political context, had nothing to do with conserving anything.
In the U.S., "conservatism" is a code word for protecting the interests of the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. It is basically an antipopulist philosophy without any compassion.
(I am completely in support of elitism if it means giving power and attention to smart and wise people who want to make our nation a better place for all.)
Compassionat conservatism is an oxymoron that is solely used as a marketing term to encourage nonwealthy voters to act against their own best interests.
I agree with Mr Wehner's advice in one regard; if you are going to be a villain, you are more likely to succeed in your villainy by acting like a nice person, even though you are not.
6
I stopped reading this when I saw this sentence.
"Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president...."
Is this writer for real? My first question to him is "just come out of your coma when Bush left office?"
I have no use for any conservatives. They all live in some kind of alternate universe. They're ridiculous beyond belief. This writer proves it.
"Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president...."
Is this writer for real? My first question to him is "just come out of your coma when Bush left office?"
I have no use for any conservatives. They all live in some kind of alternate universe. They're ridiculous beyond belief. This writer proves it.
15
The Republican Party and its apologists, such as this writer, have lost all credibility. They have no credibility whatsoever remaining. There is not a shred of rational thinking or logic among them. None of them are worthy of an audience nor an ounce of respect from decent human beings. I cannot listen any more to these retrogrades! Please shut them off!!!
To condemn the "striden rhetoric" of some "conservatives" while summarily condemning the record of a sitting president whom much of the country largely admires? Wehner may be be "deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president," but to most moderates that sounds so "extreme and inflexible" as to be irrational, informed not by "facts" or by "magnanimity, winsomeness and grace" but by resentment. At the very least, it is highly "polarizing."
5
This sort of apologist essay could easily mislead the reader into thinking that the split in the GOP is merely a matter of expression. Unfortunately, the real issue is avoided, though implicit in the fear of Obama. The GOP extremists have institutionalized racism at the heart of the party. It is the tragedy of the GOP and, unless it is purged. the destruction of the USA.
7
"Fairly or not, there are some widespread negative impressions of the Republican Party: opposed to change, too extreme and inflexible, unwilling to compromise. "
That would be "fairly" ... yep, "fairly" seems to fit ...
That would be "fairly" ... yep, "fairly" seems to fit ...
15
You lie!
6
Ben Carson has ZERO idea what Nazi Germany was about. His lack of education and utter respect to the victims of that regime is not befitting a member of congress.
8
Isn't it amazing that such an educated person could be so twisted?
Oh, by all means, let's adopt a "market friendly safety net"—good for the market, if not necessarily for those falling—to save the country from the unspecified "damaged" caused by the current president.
This writer already has the "tone" thing down pat.
This writer already has the "tone" thing down pat.
9
We an only be grateful that Bush and his gang of fools did not get away with making SS a "market-friendly safety net," prior to the implosion of the market in 2008. Many americans lost their home values and their 401K values, but at least they still had their SS.
1
I just don't understand what damage Obama has done. Expanding insurance coverage to millions of Americans? Capturing bin Laden? Improving pay equity? Keeping immigrant families together? What a dangerous president!
17
Expanding coverage to some by punishing those that pay. Still with Ovomitcare there are tens of millions that choose not to get insurance. Millions of people had policies cancelled. Their costs have risen not fallen. Who wants to pay higher costs for a high deductible policy? Why have insurance? This bill has been a disaster. Obama didn't capture Bin Laden. He assassinated him. Its better to kill terrorists than splash a little water in their face for intelligence? This immigration executive action is unconstitutional and illegal. It will hurt us financially and cost jobs.
The trouble with conservatives is that they are divorced from reality. Here are some facts conservative don't seem to know.
They deny that the rest of the industrialized world gets better health care results at 40% of the cost per person by minimizing the use of private insurance and running their program through the government.
They deny the failure of low tax rates on the Rich in the 1920's and the 2000's which led to great economic inequality which in turn led to vast amount of financial speculation and then to disaster.
They deny the success of high tax rates on the Rich in the 1946-1973 period and try to say that devastation in Europe was responsible. How did that cause CEO's to decide to pay their workers better and to take much less for themselves?
They don't admit that every period of more than 3 years of balanced budgets was followed by a depression and every depression was preceded by such a period.
They claim our corporations pay higher taxes than the rest of the world in spite of figures that show our ratio of corporate taxes actually paid to GDP is the lowest among developed nations.
They claim that the US is the land of equality and opportunity when our equality (no matter how you measure it) and mobility is at the bottom.
They say the more guns we have the safer we are when the number of gun deaths per 100,000 in the US is way above that of other wealthy developed countries.
They deny that the rest of the industrialized world gets better health care results at 40% of the cost per person by minimizing the use of private insurance and running their program through the government.
They deny the failure of low tax rates on the Rich in the 1920's and the 2000's which led to great economic inequality which in turn led to vast amount of financial speculation and then to disaster.
They deny the success of high tax rates on the Rich in the 1946-1973 period and try to say that devastation in Europe was responsible. How did that cause CEO's to decide to pay their workers better and to take much less for themselves?
They don't admit that every period of more than 3 years of balanced budgets was followed by a depression and every depression was preceded by such a period.
They claim our corporations pay higher taxes than the rest of the world in spite of figures that show our ratio of corporate taxes actually paid to GDP is the lowest among developed nations.
They claim that the US is the land of equality and opportunity when our equality (no matter how you measure it) and mobility is at the bottom.
They say the more guns we have the safer we are when the number of gun deaths per 100,000 in the US is way above that of other wealthy developed countries.
17
The measured, rational and constructive tone of this commentary is obliterated by the following opinionated, irrational and destructive aside.
"Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president but don't share his doom-laden view…"
No human being is perfect and even one elected to the presidency is necessarily human. Consequently, flaws can be found in the actions of even the greatest of presidents: Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt.
But there is absolutely no justification at this time in history for judgments about "the damage inflicted on the country by the president." That is a judgment that is purely in the eye of the beholder. And the beholder, being a self-identified conservative and think-tank strategist, sees only through a glass very darkly.
There is also no justification for the judgment that the President has a "doom- laden view", whatever that is. The evidence suggests to me that the president actually has an optimistic and uplifting view of human life and its possibilities and that his governmental initiatives have consistently reflected such a view.
The judgments cited by Mr Wehner as fact are, in fact, nothing more than subtly expressed political daggers.
The record suggests they are totally false.
"Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president but don't share his doom-laden view…"
No human being is perfect and even one elected to the presidency is necessarily human. Consequently, flaws can be found in the actions of even the greatest of presidents: Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt.
But there is absolutely no justification at this time in history for judgments about "the damage inflicted on the country by the president." That is a judgment that is purely in the eye of the beholder. And the beholder, being a self-identified conservative and think-tank strategist, sees only through a glass very darkly.
There is also no justification for the judgment that the President has a "doom- laden view", whatever that is. The evidence suggests to me that the president actually has an optimistic and uplifting view of human life and its possibilities and that his governmental initiatives have consistently reflected such a view.
The judgments cited by Mr Wehner as fact are, in fact, nothing more than subtly expressed political daggers.
The record suggests they are totally false.
21
The modern day conservative disposition is preternaturally dyspeptic.
Nixon dour, Reagan lite, Cheney bile, Bush whatever are all spigots from the same poisoned barrel of corporate owned swill.
Watching the moon bat wing battle the embittered wing is the one bright spot of the inmates taking over the asylum. One can simply hope they keep the damage generally contained within their own house until 2016.
Nixon dour, Reagan lite, Cheney bile, Bush whatever are all spigots from the same poisoned barrel of corporate owned swill.
Watching the moon bat wing battle the embittered wing is the one bright spot of the inmates taking over the asylum. One can simply hope they keep the damage generally contained within their own house until 2016.
6
Everything privatized, that's the Republican ideal. How many millions of people would have lost their entire pension in 2009 if social security had been privatized?
Would Republicans have bailed them out, as the banks were bailed out? Certainly not.
Would Republicans have bailed them out, as the banks were bailed out? Certainly not.
20
Privatized = profitized.
"Conservatism is famously anti-utopian, understanding life’s imperfections and the limitations of politics."
Oh, please.
There is NO country in the world, either today or in history, that Conservatives can point to and say, "This is what a real world example of a conservative government looks like."
Without a concrete example, no criticism or deep examination is possible, and all theory works perfectly.
How much more Utopian can one possibly get?
Oh, please.
There is NO country in the world, either today or in history, that Conservatives can point to and say, "This is what a real world example of a conservative government looks like."
Without a concrete example, no criticism or deep examination is possible, and all theory works perfectly.
How much more Utopian can one possibly get?
15
The far right is very utopian. Give them all the money and power and that will be utopia. It's what they work for, it drives every decision, it must be right.
The problems with conservatism go beyond populism. Demand for blind obedience to the conservative establishment is a problem as well. The contemporary conservative point-of-view is controlled largely by media such as Talk Radio and Fox News and think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Heritage Foundation. If you call yourself "conservative" yet dare to question the opinions put forth by these institutions, you pay a price, as David Frum found out a few years ago when he was fired from AEI for criticizing Republicans on healthcare.
So orthodoxy rules. He or she who challenges that orthodoxy is exiled.
Yet I have to say that this kind of orthodoxy has emerged in contemporary liberalism as well. If you don't have a check in every box on the liberal position list, you're an outcast. Pro gay marriage, check. Pro equal pay for equal work, check. Pro minimum wage hike, check. Abortion, no check. What - no check? You're against a woman's right to choose? Off the island you go.
So orthodoxy rules. He or she who challenges that orthodoxy is exiled.
Yet I have to say that this kind of orthodoxy has emerged in contemporary liberalism as well. If you don't have a check in every box on the liberal position list, you're an outcast. Pro gay marriage, check. Pro equal pay for equal work, check. Pro minimum wage hike, check. Abortion, no check. What - no check? You're against a woman's right to choose? Off the island you go.
4
Sounds like you are an outcast. Fairness and common sense will never be "orthodoxy." One again, offending those with a regressive point of view is not illegal. Bye, bye.
The author has no idea what a conservative is, nor do the angry, frightened, ignorant political extremists that claim to be conservatives, but who are in reality right wing political, religious and social radicals that find security under the ever shrinking G.O.P. tent.
9
Exactly. And historians will judge the MSM as complicit in the right wing reactionary coup of our country by their continued use of the word "conservative" to describe the nut-bags, rather than calling them what they are: reactionary, right wing and radical.
2
"Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president ..."
Would that damage include saving the economy from sliding into Depression (against rigid "conservative" opposition)? Saving the American car industry (against rigid "conservative" opposition)? Providing access to the healthcare system for 10 million Americans (against scorched-earth "conservative" opposition)? Killing Osama bin Laden? Reducing deficits at the fastest rate in a half a century? Expanding basic human rights to gay people? Trying to address climate change and immigration reform (against rigid "conservative" opposition)?
Some record of damage. In contrast, let's look at the benefits bestowed by the previous, Republican administration, shall we? Turning President Clinton's surplus into a deficit overnight. Tripling the country's debt. Creating the largest government organ in US history (Homeland Security). Ignoring warnings about 9/11. Invading the wrong country at a cost of tens of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. Spying illegally on Americans. Staining the country's reputation by torturing captives. Insulting our allies to their faces. And, as a parting gift, running the economy over a cliff into the Great Recession.
I wonder which party seems to do a better job of running things ...
Would that damage include saving the economy from sliding into Depression (against rigid "conservative" opposition)? Saving the American car industry (against rigid "conservative" opposition)? Providing access to the healthcare system for 10 million Americans (against scorched-earth "conservative" opposition)? Killing Osama bin Laden? Reducing deficits at the fastest rate in a half a century? Expanding basic human rights to gay people? Trying to address climate change and immigration reform (against rigid "conservative" opposition)?
Some record of damage. In contrast, let's look at the benefits bestowed by the previous, Republican administration, shall we? Turning President Clinton's surplus into a deficit overnight. Tripling the country's debt. Creating the largest government organ in US history (Homeland Security). Ignoring warnings about 9/11. Invading the wrong country at a cost of tens of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. Spying illegally on Americans. Staining the country's reputation by torturing captives. Insulting our allies to their faces. And, as a parting gift, running the economy over a cliff into the Great Recession.
I wonder which party seems to do a better job of running things ...
30
What hooey. It was only when conservatives cast off the 50 years of Buckley-ism that imposed reasonableness and civility on the movement that they began to win electorally, starting with the so called Gingrich revolution in 1994.
And they've never looked back. In 2013 Democrats were measuring the drapes in Congress believing the government shutdown would return control of that chamber to them. One year later they were routed for a second time and lost the senate as Republicans made inroads into more traditionally blue areas like the north east.
The idea that "enjoyment" describes conservatives is laughable. They are naturally mean spirited, so paranoid they think someone is always trying to take away what they have, from their property to their guns to their way of life to their religious freedom to their country. How many times do you hear so called mainstream republicans say "we want OUR country back," or "It's OUR turn"?
Conservatives suckle at the teat of government as much, if not more, than liberals, yet their "empiricism" somehow fails to let them see this.
Conservatism is a cancer on the national psyche and a dark cloud on its soul and should be dispatched the same way we've done so in the past with other extremist ideologies.
And they've never looked back. In 2013 Democrats were measuring the drapes in Congress believing the government shutdown would return control of that chamber to them. One year later they were routed for a second time and lost the senate as Republicans made inroads into more traditionally blue areas like the north east.
The idea that "enjoyment" describes conservatives is laughable. They are naturally mean spirited, so paranoid they think someone is always trying to take away what they have, from their property to their guns to their way of life to their religious freedom to their country. How many times do you hear so called mainstream republicans say "we want OUR country back," or "It's OUR turn"?
Conservatives suckle at the teat of government as much, if not more, than liberals, yet their "empiricism" somehow fails to let them see this.
Conservatism is a cancer on the national psyche and a dark cloud on its soul and should be dispatched the same way we've done so in the past with other extremist ideologies.
16
This is all well and good, but it is telling you mention an essay from 1976. Unfortunately, that was a long lost age of reason for Conservatism - no Norquest Pledge or Heritage Score to define your "thinking".
8
All that's missing is a reference to that welcoming "big tent" conservatives liked to pretend they once had. Now that big tent has devolved into a tattered old umbrella--and NO--you can't share the umbrella. I don't care how hard it is raining, or that you helped buy the umbrella in the first place--it's MINE.
11
After reading this I still have no idea what "Conservativism" is. Besides the required reference to the free market, I don't know what electing a Conservative you approve of would to to help the country.
Actions speak louder than words, and if Congress' actions over the past few years are any indication of the future, I want none of it.
Actions speak louder than words, and if Congress' actions over the past few years are any indication of the future, I want none of it.
15
I'm not certain that "there is room" for populist tea-partiers in the GOP. I believe they need their own party.
2
"Republicans, for example, should advance a policy agenda that systematically transforms welfare-state programs into a market-friendly safety net".
Despite what Mr Wehner says in his article it is precisely the disproven "trickle down" economic belief that defines conservatives....that is " conservative dogma always trumps reality". They do not as he purports have any regard for " things empirical" when it trumps their core beliefs and endangers their relationship with their core constituents, business, the rich, Wall street. Thus no matter how many times they see that lack of government oversight can bring an economy to its knees or that giving tax breaks to the rich do not result in increased well-being of the middle class they will ignore it. They are not prudent, self-reflective and do not fight for justice as the author contends.
Despite what Mr Wehner says in his article it is precisely the disproven "trickle down" economic belief that defines conservatives....that is " conservative dogma always trumps reality". They do not as he purports have any regard for " things empirical" when it trumps their core beliefs and endangers their relationship with their core constituents, business, the rich, Wall street. Thus no matter how many times they see that lack of government oversight can bring an economy to its knees or that giving tax breaks to the rich do not result in increased well-being of the middle class they will ignore it. They are not prudent, self-reflective and do not fight for justice as the author contends.
11
The author speaks only to conservatives, and makes no attempt to reach out to liberals. Otherwise, why not at least briefly describe "the damage inflicted on the country by the president"? I am a liberal, but I take seriously serious conservative arguments. Before I take Mr. Wehner seriously, I need to hear something that explains this comment.
As to the quotation from the "marvelous" 1976 Gertrude Himmelfarb essay, well, I'm not the least moved by hearing the conservative disposition defined as "enjoyment" that isn't "always lusting after something that is not." That's a very fine euphemism for what liberals like me call the "I've got mine" disposition.
As to the quotation from the "marvelous" 1976 Gertrude Himmelfarb essay, well, I'm not the least moved by hearing the conservative disposition defined as "enjoyment" that isn't "always lusting after something that is not." That's a very fine euphemism for what liberals like me call the "I've got mine" disposition.
16
I didn't immediately recognize this as a humorous effort, but began to laugh after every tongue-in-cheek "point". Damage inflicted? Economy healing despite obstructionism. Bemoan calls for greater brinkmanship after bringing government to a standstill. A high regard for facts? Don't tell Jim Inhofe or he'll throw his climate change denying book at you. The author has roots in human experience, but unfortunately those roots are old, white and wealthy.
17
"The author has roots in human experience, but unfortunately those roots are old, white and wealthy." You forgot "male" too! Enough of the simpleton "old white male" is responsible for all the country's ills. Such categorizations are asinine.
Most of the folks who have had the worst of it economically in this country are white.
Most of the folks who have had the worst of it economically in this country are white.
"Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president"
I don't get, what damage? What rights did you have prior to his becoming President that you didn't have before? He has deported more illegal immigrants than any predecessor, and the economy has realized job growth just about every month he has been in office (Wall St. posting record profits). One could make a very good argument that the President is actually center right in his governance and yet even supposed "reasonable" conservatives think him the most liberal president we ever had. Reagan was more liberal than he is, oh yeah and Reagan worked with the democrats in congress to get things done.
I don't get, what damage? What rights did you have prior to his becoming President that you didn't have before? He has deported more illegal immigrants than any predecessor, and the economy has realized job growth just about every month he has been in office (Wall St. posting record profits). One could make a very good argument that the President is actually center right in his governance and yet even supposed "reasonable" conservatives think him the most liberal president we ever had. Reagan was more liberal than he is, oh yeah and Reagan worked with the democrats in congress to get things done.
7
Surely ...'the conservative tends to find delight'...is a printing error.
1
So exactly who is a "conservative in name only"? I'm confused.
While this piece does a great job painting a portrait of conservatism that is not reactionary or "populist", I'm left wondering what actual person in congress fits this portrait. If someone does, I can't think of recent behavior that would support the claim. If none, than how relevant can the portrait be?
While this piece does a great job painting a portrait of conservatism that is not reactionary or "populist", I'm left wondering what actual person in congress fits this portrait. If someone does, I can't think of recent behavior that would support the claim. If none, than how relevant can the portrait be?
3
I believe constitutional conservatives like myself believe in a Federal government with a small domestic and would call other big government Republicans "Establishment Republicans".
I accept the division of power between Federal and State governments that James Madison provides in Federalist 45:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
Over the years, the constitution has been reinterpreted in areas like General Welfare spending and the commerce clause, enabling a much larger Federal government then I believe the original intent allows.
The Federalist papers, by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay, were published in NY before the constitution was ratified to explain its meaning. I believe it should be consulted for original intent when the wording of the constitution allows multiple interpretations. Congress, and the courts seems to have ignored some of the intended limits on the Federal government.
John
I accept the division of power between Federal and State governments that James Madison provides in Federalist 45:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
Over the years, the constitution has been reinterpreted in areas like General Welfare spending and the commerce clause, enabling a much larger Federal government then I believe the original intent allows.
The Federalist papers, by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay, were published in NY before the constitution was ratified to explain its meaning. I believe it should be consulted for original intent when the wording of the constitution allows multiple interpretations. Congress, and the courts seems to have ignored some of the intended limits on the Federal government.
John
1
The beauty (and occasional problem) with the Constitution is that even the framers were not sure what this new experiment meant or would lead to. Madison had his mind changed a number of times as did Jefferson and all of them. Many today think they know exactly what the founders were thinking when they compromised, compromised, compromised to get to next day in our new experiment of limited power of and by "the people".
John: "The Federalist papers, by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay, were published in NY before the constitution was ratified to explain its meaning."
The Federalist Papers were political advertising published to persuade state legislators and other power-holders to support the proposed constitution. As well-written as they are, they are no less biased political rhetoric than is Mr. Wehner's column here.
The Federalist Papers were political advertising published to persuade state legislators and other power-holders to support the proposed constitution. As well-written as they are, they are no less biased political rhetoric than is Mr. Wehner's column here.
William Starr, John F.
While some points may be arguable, I don't see how the division of power given by Federalism can be. Why would a group of autonomous states have agreed to a constitution that would greatly diminish their domestic power?
One would expect the original intent in terms of fiscal size of the Federal and State governments would be closest to what we had when the constitution was ratified, and the large growth in the Federal government relative to the state that has occurred only over the last 100 years is a deviation.
With the Judges that rule on the boundary between state and Federal power selected by the Federal Government, and the Senators who must pass all laws and confirm the judges, no longer appointed by the states, it is no surprise to me that State Power has diminished even where the constitution has remained unchanged.
John
While some points may be arguable, I don't see how the division of power given by Federalism can be. Why would a group of autonomous states have agreed to a constitution that would greatly diminish their domestic power?
One would expect the original intent in terms of fiscal size of the Federal and State governments would be closest to what we had when the constitution was ratified, and the large growth in the Federal government relative to the state that has occurred only over the last 100 years is a deviation.
With the Judges that rule on the boundary between state and Federal power selected by the Federal Government, and the Senators who must pass all laws and confirm the judges, no longer appointed by the states, it is no surprise to me that State Power has diminished even where the constitution has remained unchanged.
John
Mr. Wehner states:"Voters rightly base their judgments on more than how politicians check the boxes on policy positions. What also matters is the cast of mind of public officials, their sensibilities and temperament." Please tell that to the Republication voters that removed the likes of Richard Lugar and Robert Bennett etc. from office.
3
The author wants a "market-friendly safety net." I want a people-friendly market that keeps people out of the safety net.
9
"Authentic conservatism has a high regard for things empirical, for facts that can lead us to better apprehend the truth."
Like global warming and guns? If so, why aren't "authentic conservatives" speaking out and opposing the far right-wing rhetoric of their brethren? Why have they let the GOP be hijacked by demagogues?
Also, if this were actually true, none of them would be religious.
The author needs to remove his blinders.
Like global warming and guns? If so, why aren't "authentic conservatives" speaking out and opposing the far right-wing rhetoric of their brethren? Why have they let the GOP be hijacked by demagogues?
Also, if this were actually true, none of them would be religious.
The author needs to remove his blinders.
10
I shudder at channeling Sarah Palin, but I can't resist.
This column just smears bright red lipstick on a pig.
This column just smears bright red lipstick on a pig.
9
"Enjoyment" is not the first word that comes to mind when thinking of conservatives. I wonder if those who depend on "welfare state programs" find enjoyment in the notion that those programs should be market based and would prefer to allow conservatives to delight in their achievements and the blessings we have.
A better word would be denial of reality and an unwillingness to truly understand or empathize with those who are different or are poor.
They should try to compromise though and show some of that prudence you speak of.
A better word would be denial of reality and an unwillingness to truly understand or empathize with those who are different or are poor.
They should try to compromise though and show some of that prudence you speak of.
3
I guess I would be classified as independent: I have voted for both parties in the past. With the passing of time, I have admitted to myself that I made poor choices at times. I have now aligned myself with the democrats because time and history have made evident the glaring moral and ethical failures of the conservative movement as presently constructed.
The conservative movement should begin by issuing an apology to the United States and to the world for the failures of the Cheney/ Bush era. Then it should support an complete investigation of the Investment Banking industry and hold accountable those who caused great suffering to common, hardworking citizens. It should support science and make plain that religious belief is personal and not the basis for reasonable governance.
And you should never again utter or write the words "market friendly" as a basis for policy. The greed and unethical behavior of the "markets" have led us to this place.
The conservative movement should begin by issuing an apology to the United States and to the world for the failures of the Cheney/ Bush era. Then it should support an complete investigation of the Investment Banking industry and hold accountable those who caused great suffering to common, hardworking citizens. It should support science and make plain that religious belief is personal and not the basis for reasonable governance.
And you should never again utter or write the words "market friendly" as a basis for policy. The greed and unethical behavior of the "markets" have led us to this place.
31
Welcome Bill. Please try and convert more ordinary Americans to your point of view. That so many people support the GOP in spite of the reality of what they have done and who they are for, that they blindly continue to support them with their voice and their votes-- is a tragedy and a mystery. BUT-- I think the dems should take on your prescription as a way to have a winning message. Why don't they? Because they are all feeding at the trough of those who do not want to be exposed in the ways that you wisely suggest.
"Authentic conservatism has a high regard for things empirical, for facts that can lead us to better apprehend the truth." So, according to Peter Wehner, practically every Republican member of Congress, as well as most Republican governors and state legislators. not to speak of local Republican officials, are not "authentic conservatives". Glad to learn this "fact". How empirical is almost total opposition to the well (and empirically) established reality of global warming? What explains Republican devotion to voodoo economics (so named by perhaps one of the last "authentic conservatives")? Is it authentic conservatism to give Wall Street and the big banks everything they demand, seeking to undo the modest reforms of Dodd-Frank which will enable the banksters to resume stealing from Americans, authentic conservatives or not? Whether Wehner intended it or not, he has given us a definition of "authentic conservatism" that excludes practically the entire Grand Old Tea Party. Well done.
10
"...some widespread negative impressions of the Republican Party: opposed to change, too extreme and inflexible, unwilling to compromise."
My negative impressions of the Republican Party are hardly as nebulous: willfully ignorant, racist, sexist and devoted to enriching their donors on the backs of working Americans. Also, in the case of the GOP's "religious" base, intolerant, bigoted, and incapable of distinguishing between reality and fantasy.
My negative impressions of the Republican Party are hardly as nebulous: willfully ignorant, racist, sexist and devoted to enriching their donors on the backs of working Americans. Also, in the case of the GOP's "religious" base, intolerant, bigoted, and incapable of distinguishing between reality and fantasy.
11
The take-no-prisoners divide within American politics is unhealthy and unnecessary. Progressivism and conservatism are the yin/yang of human society. Progressives set future goals, conservatives set the pace.
Our devolution into a two-party system has left angry, vocal extremists on both sides with far greater influence than is merited while the quieter voices of moderation and compromise are shouted down as traitorous fools.
In our large, diverse nation, all major legislation must emanate from the political center and it is increasingly difficult to find representatives of that center in our government.
Our devolution into a two-party system has left angry, vocal extremists on both sides with far greater influence than is merited while the quieter voices of moderation and compromise are shouted down as traitorous fools.
In our large, diverse nation, all major legislation must emanate from the political center and it is increasingly difficult to find representatives of that center in our government.
1
So why on earth made the American voters their choice to embrace a Peoples Assembly ruled by the Red? And why are there always too many citizens on the couches during the elections?
You don't need very many words to describe the real agenda and philosophy of republicans: "I've got mine, too bad about you." Just keep that in mind, and everything they say makes sense. Sometimes it also helps to add "too bad about your kind."
12
While I think he means well, in tone, Mr. Wehner appears to arrogate to himself and his fellow conservatives the qualities of magnanimity, winsomeness and grace. I don't see it that way--those are human traits shared by many people, regardless of their ideological orientation. The root cause of conservative hostility to those who don't share their views is not just angry populism--it is also the sense of moral superiority that Mr. Wehner exudes. There is much to admire in a conservative approach in public and private life--but a scolding, censorious demeanor is not one of them. To put it as bluntly as possible, it is not that long a step from feeling better than someone else, to telling them you are better than they are, to punishing them for the behavior you don't approve. That is just not a basis for the compromises that Mr. Wehner seems to support.
3
You lost me when you wrote "the damage inflicted on this country by the President"...what hogwash. What damage would that be sir considering where we were in 2008-2009? Unbeleivable revisionism. Get real.
20
Since he doesn't name the president in that sentence, I'm taking it to mean George W. Bush.
1
If only any of this were true. Any of it.
10
Politics often resembles religion, which seems especially true in a country of long history of democracy. (Politics is more like trade in an immature country.) I wonder if history is repeating itself; political parties become religious sects.
1
"Authentic conservatism has a high regard for things empirical, for facts that can lead us to better apprehend the truth."
So people who reject the empirical sciences are not authentic conservatives? The general conception of the conservative base is that it consists of evangelicals, creationists, climate science deniers, ecology ignorers, jingoists, and anti-keynesian wealth concentrating plutocrats. Are these people not authentic conservatives? Can Mr. Wehner provide some empirical evidence regarding the identity of authentic conservatives?
So people who reject the empirical sciences are not authentic conservatives? The general conception of the conservative base is that it consists of evangelicals, creationists, climate science deniers, ecology ignorers, jingoists, and anti-keynesian wealth concentrating plutocrats. Are these people not authentic conservatives? Can Mr. Wehner provide some empirical evidence regarding the identity of authentic conservatives?
15
Please look at the paragraph that begins with, "Conservatism, for starters, is rooted in human experience." I challenge the moderator of the first Republican Presidential Debate to read this paragraph to the assemblage of candidates and ask them to raise their hand if they agree with this. My bet is that not one single hand will move skyward.
11
I almost thought I was reading David Brooks here. While I disagree with most of your characterizations of conservative and liberal principles--the virtue of one versus the ineffectiveness of the other--I do see a marketing principle at work here.
Of course sunny, optimistic attitudes about whatever policy one is pushing makes for better advertising. Nobody likes a churl, nobody likes a whiner.
I understand the far right's instinct to scream about fighting, in a "populist" mode.
But your use of populism is wrong, because the conservative philosophies driving our current Congress have absolutely nothing to do with populism. Populism is a philosophy that sticks up for the little guy. Populism seeks to break down the gap between rich and poor. Populism isn't anti-government per se--it's pro-middle class and the poor. Populism today is what your conservatives might call socialism, but I call the Elizabeth Warren view of justice: stop giving the privileged more privileges and level the paying field.
A Ted Cruz -- he who's sitting pretty with a wife who has a fancy job at one of the biggest Wall Street banks--isn't a populist. He's an anti-government flame thrower who enjoys screaming fire in a crowded Congressional movie theater.
That's not populism. That's a form of rabid anarchy that belies any sense of the conservative 'prudence" and a sense of the limits of politics as you describe them.
Of course sunny, optimistic attitudes about whatever policy one is pushing makes for better advertising. Nobody likes a churl, nobody likes a whiner.
I understand the far right's instinct to scream about fighting, in a "populist" mode.
But your use of populism is wrong, because the conservative philosophies driving our current Congress have absolutely nothing to do with populism. Populism is a philosophy that sticks up for the little guy. Populism seeks to break down the gap between rich and poor. Populism isn't anti-government per se--it's pro-middle class and the poor. Populism today is what your conservatives might call socialism, but I call the Elizabeth Warren view of justice: stop giving the privileged more privileges and level the paying field.
A Ted Cruz -- he who's sitting pretty with a wife who has a fancy job at one of the biggest Wall Street banks--isn't a populist. He's an anti-government flame thrower who enjoys screaming fire in a crowded Congressional movie theater.
That's not populism. That's a form of rabid anarchy that belies any sense of the conservative 'prudence" and a sense of the limits of politics as you describe them.
33
"Today’s Republicans, for example, should advance a policy agenda that systematically transforms welfare-state programs into a market-friendly safety net"
Hmmmm. Maybe the GOP should propose making health insurance available to the uninsured through a market-friendly safety net. We could set up insurance "Market Places" online where people shop around for various insurance plans-- convenient, competitive, affordable. Capitalism at work!
Hey-- I know! Let's pass an "Affordable Care Act" and get the ball rolling!
Oh.
Oops.
Sorry.
Hmmmm. Maybe the GOP should propose making health insurance available to the uninsured through a market-friendly safety net. We could set up insurance "Market Places" online where people shop around for various insurance plans-- convenient, competitive, affordable. Capitalism at work!
Hey-- I know! Let's pass an "Affordable Care Act" and get the ball rolling!
Oh.
Oops.
Sorry.
12
tyr·an·ny
ˈtirənē/
noun
noun: tyranny; plural noun: tyrannies
cruel and oppressive government or rule.
"people who survive war and escape tyranny"
synonyms: despotism, absolute power, autocracy, dictatorship, totalitarianism, Fascism; More
oppression, repression, subjugation, enslavement;
authoritarianism, bullying, severity, cruelty, brutality, ruthlessness
"they will not soon forget his brutal tyranny"
a nation under cruel and oppressive government.
cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.
"she resented his rages and his tyranny
It seems it is the GOP that is tyrannical
ˈtirənē/
noun
noun: tyranny; plural noun: tyrannies
cruel and oppressive government or rule.
"people who survive war and escape tyranny"
synonyms: despotism, absolute power, autocracy, dictatorship, totalitarianism, Fascism; More
oppression, repression, subjugation, enslavement;
authoritarianism, bullying, severity, cruelty, brutality, ruthlessness
"they will not soon forget his brutal tyranny"
a nation under cruel and oppressive government.
cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.
"she resented his rages and his tyranny
It seems it is the GOP that is tyrannical
2
This column reads like an open letter to Jeb Bush: hire me, please, so I can help elect you President.
8
So the POTUS has done great damage to the country, and Wehner is OK with all the sewer-level invective directed at Obama, invective that not only damages the national discourse but rots the brains of its practitioners? And that's "enjoyment?" It sure figures!
3
I've never heard of Gertrude Himmelfarb or her theory that conservatives are the party of 'enjoyment,' which quite frankly, sounds like a joke. Most conservatives I know are angry, petty and slightly to moderately to majorly unhinged. What I am familiar with is the famous "Paranoid Style in American Politics' written by historian Richard Hoefstatter in a 'marvelous essay' in 1964 and which is presciently clairvoyant in a description that fits today's 'conservatives' to a T.
Even you, Mr. Wehner, are not exempt from this paranoia with your throwaway comment: "even we conservatives who are concerned about the damage inflicted on our country by the president" as if Mr. Obama has personally set out to damage the US. Your argument is flawed because your outlook is hysterical. Your whole party is out of step with reality and marching in the wrong direction--no matter the big electoral win two months ago when Democrats received 20 million more votes than Republicans. Democrats are in reality the new conservatives and Republicans radicals. And we're still cleaning up the mess you Republicans left even before all this Tea Party nonsense.
Even you, Mr. Wehner, are not exempt from this paranoia with your throwaway comment: "even we conservatives who are concerned about the damage inflicted on our country by the president" as if Mr. Obama has personally set out to damage the US. Your argument is flawed because your outlook is hysterical. Your whole party is out of step with reality and marching in the wrong direction--no matter the big electoral win two months ago when Democrats received 20 million more votes than Republicans. Democrats are in reality the new conservatives and Republicans radicals. And we're still cleaning up the mess you Republicans left even before all this Tea Party nonsense.
8
Mr. Wehner makes the same mistake as pretty much all of the media in confusing conservatism with what it has become today: reactionary.
3
Another field of flaming strawmen. But that is what happens when you choose to lash out at your peers in an enemy publication. After all, you do dance with who brung you.
That said, this is still remarkably dishonest. If the author simply refuses to address the real issues, he should save his breath.
That said, this is still remarkably dishonest. If the author simply refuses to address the real issues, he should save his breath.
1
Anyone who can only dance with who brung 'em shouldn't be involved in politics in a democratic country and may be missing the point of democracy.
"conventional, sober, modest, plain, unobtrusive, restrained, subtle, low-key, demure, unshowy, unflashy; informal square, straight." This would be the definition of conservative I favor. Peter Wehhner and tribe are not these. They are instead regressive: to retrogress, relapse, lapse, backslide, slip back; deteriorate, decline, worsen, degenerate, get worse; informal go downhill. Sadly those who call themselves conservative still believe that the lipstick of lies makes them acceptable.
2
According to Mr. Wehner's analysis, Barack Obama is the best president the American people could have elected, twice. His disposition, his temperament, and policies were judged by the voters to be worthy of their trust. Particularly in the aftermath of the failures (actual or perceived) of his predecessor. George W. Bush began his first term under the cloud of Florida's voter fraud. Only to be followed by the firestorm of 9/11. And because we were engaged in two wars, his disposition, his temperament, and policies were deemed worthy enough by voters who reelected him, and by some Democrats in Congress who debated and voted for his policies. Yet at the end of his tenure he delivered a country in financial ruin, engaged in two wars, civically demoralized, and demonized internationally for its excessive militaristic hubris. So let's apply to GOP candidates the test of disposition and temperament to their putative conservative policies and who and what do we get? Good luck.
8
Bullying and strong philosophical convictions seem increasingly to go together now.
Conservatives should work to "transform welfare-state programs into a market-friendly safety net." Do you not understand how the market works? Money goes into things that make more money, and away from things that don't generate a profit. In unbridled capitalism, if it doesn't pay, it doesn't happen. Even if large numbers of people starve or get sick because medicine is too expensive, even if the air gets so polluted that asthma rates triple, even if the water is undrinkable due to contamination from toxic waste. This is why the government — aka the voice of the people (at least up until recently) — must regulate and limit the forces of the market.
"Market-friendly safety net" is an oxymoron.
"Market-friendly safety net" is an oxymoron.
36
Peter, an excellent observation about the "market".
Edmund Burke, the last conservative to even approach Peter Wehner's Utopian vision of conservatism, died before the Irish potato famine (killed or) forced the migration of entrepreneurial strivers out of a perfectly functioning "free market". Grains and other staples were grown in abundance in Ireland at the time of the Famine and exported out of the country through the frictionless perfection of free market economics. The idea of a social safety net outside of the "free market" was viewed at the time with scorn. The application of free market principles in place of a social safety net was in large part responsible for the magnitude of the tragedy that unfolded in Famine plagued Ireland.... Work houses do not work! As the case of 19th century Ireland shows, a social safety net cobbled out of free market principles is utterly ineffective and damaging in the end to a functioning balanced market.
Edmund Burke, the last conservative to even approach Peter Wehner's Utopian vision of conservatism, died before the Irish potato famine (killed or) forced the migration of entrepreneurial strivers out of a perfectly functioning "free market". Grains and other staples were grown in abundance in Ireland at the time of the Famine and exported out of the country through the frictionless perfection of free market economics. The idea of a social safety net outside of the "free market" was viewed at the time with scorn. The application of free market principles in place of a social safety net was in large part responsible for the magnitude of the tragedy that unfolded in Famine plagued Ireland.... Work houses do not work! As the case of 19th century Ireland shows, a social safety net cobbled out of free market principles is utterly ineffective and damaging in the end to a functioning balanced market.
88
@Perren Reilley: I'm afraid you missed something about the Irish potato famine. England forbade the importation of "corn" (grain) into Ireland to counteract the famine. That wasn't "free marketing". I'm no fan of the "free market", which is merely a theoretical construct that never exists, but it wasn't the story of the potato famine.
@Thomas: I'm not sure that's accurate. The Corn Laws were repealed in 1846, ending tariffs on imported grain. When the potatoes failed, poor Irish sold what they had, e.g. livestock, and then borrowed money to buy grain. The British refused to stop exports of grain from Ireland as it was the property of British landlords (largely absentee), and in the name of laissez-faire and the "natural, immutable laws" of economics, allowed food to leave the country. Through the famine, Ireland was a net exporter of food.
5
"Unlike those who are “always lusting after something that is not,” the conservative tends to find delight in the achievements and blessings we have."
Doesn't sound very entrepreneurial to me. Or the rags-to-riches American Dream of the self-made man. Isn't that what conservatives love?! Never mind the American economy would fall apart if we did not "lust" after things. What about striving for advancements in science, technology and social equality. Or the desire to go to college. Ok, maybe those ones make sense....
Doesn't sound very entrepreneurial to me. Or the rags-to-riches American Dream of the self-made man. Isn't that what conservatives love?! Never mind the American economy would fall apart if we did not "lust" after things. What about striving for advancements in science, technology and social equality. Or the desire to go to college. Ok, maybe those ones make sense....
5
"market-friendly safety net" = Profit from peoples suffering.
We have seen how well Market Friendly schools and prisons have worked out.
"understanding life’s imperfections and the limitations of politics" = Satisfaction of the status quo and a failure to endeavor towards a "More Perfect Union".
We have seen how well Market Friendly schools and prisons have worked out.
"understanding life’s imperfections and the limitations of politics" = Satisfaction of the status quo and a failure to endeavor towards a "More Perfect Union".
8
Private interests powerful enough to sell you every public service you need will be strong enough to make you spend everything you have.
1
Conservatism is "famously anti-utopian?" Not in the way you describe it.
3
Pure poppycock.
As usual: 'the damage the President has done', without any references, unless one accepts as true your nonsensical inference about welfare. The welfare state we live in is a corporate welfare state: preserving handouts to farmers while cutting food stamps to people who are starving.
Then you blurt out the usual propaganda jingoism about 'liberty' and'
'justice' 1) as though these desires are unique to Republicans and 2) without any effort to explain how Democrats, or the sitting President, have compromised or taken those values away.
Most laughable is your reference to conservatives embracing facts. You would not have thought to even raise the issue unless you felt that the accepted wisdom of he American public is the exact opposite. And for ample and good reasons.
I hope the lunatics in your party have a voice. A loud voice. It can only hasten the Party's demise. You know that. That is your concern and the only reason behind this essay.
As usual: 'the damage the President has done', without any references, unless one accepts as true your nonsensical inference about welfare. The welfare state we live in is a corporate welfare state: preserving handouts to farmers while cutting food stamps to people who are starving.
Then you blurt out the usual propaganda jingoism about 'liberty' and'
'justice' 1) as though these desires are unique to Republicans and 2) without any effort to explain how Democrats, or the sitting President, have compromised or taken those values away.
Most laughable is your reference to conservatives embracing facts. You would not have thought to even raise the issue unless you felt that the accepted wisdom of he American public is the exact opposite. And for ample and good reasons.
I hope the lunatics in your party have a voice. A loud voice. It can only hasten the Party's demise. You know that. That is your concern and the only reason behind this essay.
15
See, this is what you get when you cull one conservative out of the herd and make him talk for himself. It's a steady stream of "it's not me, it's the other guy" disassociation from the Republican base when you ask him, one-on-one, to explain some of his party's more questionable stances. One conservative, alone, separated from his echo chamber, likes to think of himself as sophisticated, discerning, calm as a rocking chair on a front porch in autumn, as willing to "tsk tsk" the inflammatory rhetoric pumping from the nether regions of the AM dial. But reintroduce him back into the herd and within minutes he'll be screaming "Socialism!" with the rest of his rabid crowd.
11
"In a marvelous 1976 essay, the historian Gertrude Himmelfarb contended that the key word to describe the conservative disposition was 'enjoyment.' Unlike those who are 'always lusting after something that is not,' the conservative tends to find delight in the achievements and blessings we have."
In other words, as long as conservatives themselves are well off, they remain heedless of and uninvested in the needs of the society around them. Narcissism writ large. Mr. Wehner, you are not telling us anything we did not know already.
In other words, as long as conservatives themselves are well off, they remain heedless of and uninvested in the needs of the society around them. Narcissism writ large. Mr. Wehner, you are not telling us anything we did not know already.
22
What is the conservative view of carried interest?
6
A fascinating essay, which inadvertently displays a misunderstanding of conservative ideology.
Look at the three paragraphs beginning "Conservatism, for starters, is rooted in human experience." There is no empirical support for any of the contentions in these three paragraphs. My observations suggest instead that "Conservatism, for starters, is rooted in tax cuts. For any condition - war or peace, prosperity or depression, deficit or surplus - the solution is tax cuts."
In fact, what Peter Wehner describes in these three paragraphs is not conservatism but a lack of ideology. This is why I consider myself non-ideological, adhering to neither conservative nor liberal ideology. I invite Peter Wehner, and each of you reading this, to join me.
Look at the three paragraphs beginning "Conservatism, for starters, is rooted in human experience." There is no empirical support for any of the contentions in these three paragraphs. My observations suggest instead that "Conservatism, for starters, is rooted in tax cuts. For any condition - war or peace, prosperity or depression, deficit or surplus - the solution is tax cuts."
In fact, what Peter Wehner describes in these three paragraphs is not conservatism but a lack of ideology. This is why I consider myself non-ideological, adhering to neither conservative nor liberal ideology. I invite Peter Wehner, and each of you reading this, to join me.
7
Perhaps its time to stop using the term "conservative" when referring to the republican party. Instead their ideology of neoliberalism should be used to describe the republican party today. I believe if we called them by the correct title they would have much less support. And i think they understand this.
2
Republicans do not want government to work. They've perfected the technique developed by Reagan of underfunding the most essential programs, then complaining that government can't do anything right, and slashing the funding even more. Republicans, and the corporations that fund them, want to roll back government protections on food, automobiles, labor, health care, consumer safety of all types, banking regulation, and any type of aid for the disadvantaged. Republicans simply want to maximize profits for their patrons. It's a falsehood to believe that they have America's best interest at heart.
24
'...Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president...'
What does that even mean? What damage?
What does that even mean? What damage?
16
What damage? Isn't it obvious! A soaring stock market, low interest rates and inflation. The opposite of what Republicans, like the author of this diatribe, predicted at the beginning of the Obama administration. And now low interest rates are used as a weapon against the President, when 5 years ago these same Republicans were lamenting the potential loss of the "business friendly" low interest rate environment due to the administrations "inflationary" policies. Facts are stubborn things, and reality has a liberal bias.
"Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president..." As usual from a 'conservative', make a statement of opinion as if it were a fact, without even a hint of supporting arguments or data. We should take all he says as true, just because he said it.
16
"Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president but don’t share this doom-laden view are labeled by some on the right as cowardly and unprincipled."
Mr. Wehner, your rhetoric, "the damage inflicted on the country by the president", is as bad or worse than the Ted Cruz's in your party. Obama is the enemy to you, as well. I don't know, I look around and I don't see the the "damage' you ambiguously, yet stridently, refer to. If anything, the damage to the country has been caused by Republican obstructionism, that is based in making a black man's presidency, a failure; truth be told. Mr. Wehner, if you represent the best of conservatives, I'm afraid the country is better off without any of you.
Mr. Wehner, your rhetoric, "the damage inflicted on the country by the president", is as bad or worse than the Ted Cruz's in your party. Obama is the enemy to you, as well. I don't know, I look around and I don't see the the "damage' you ambiguously, yet stridently, refer to. If anything, the damage to the country has been caused by Republican obstructionism, that is based in making a black man's presidency, a failure; truth be told. Mr. Wehner, if you represent the best of conservatives, I'm afraid the country is better off without any of you.
36
Saying that conservatism isn't really "like that" is like saying that you've been "experimenting" with pot for the past 35 years. By this point, the results are in.
233
"market-based" safety net? Like when Mitt suggested FEMA should be privatized?
How would that work? Cities, or citizens, pay a country-club-style fee to be a member of FEMA?
Can't afford that extra monthly expense?
Too bad when the next string of super-tornadoes, 8.0 earthquakes, hurricanes and rising sea levels all destroy your home, workplace, and town.
I am a big fan of American Red Cross, but seriously doubt they can provide relief for all citizens.
So please, Mr. Senior Fellow of Ethics, explain how your plans to "privatize" everything works for the 80% of US who actually do pay taxes.
How would that work? Cities, or citizens, pay a country-club-style fee to be a member of FEMA?
Can't afford that extra monthly expense?
Too bad when the next string of super-tornadoes, 8.0 earthquakes, hurricanes and rising sea levels all destroy your home, workplace, and town.
I am a big fan of American Red Cross, but seriously doubt they can provide relief for all citizens.
So please, Mr. Senior Fellow of Ethics, explain how your plans to "privatize" everything works for the 80% of US who actually do pay taxes.
9
"Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president..." Please list all of the damage that you are so deeply concerned about, Mr. Wehner, What dangerous and despicable things has President Obama done to our country these past six years?
10
"Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president..."
That's the dog whistle in case you didn't hear it. Everything else is just cover.
That's the dog whistle in case you didn't hear it. Everything else is just cover.
12
What's really so unusual about the strident rhetoric and brinkmanship present within communitities, states, and our nation? Reading the journalism from 250 years ago you find lots of crazy, angry people venting their spleens. These angry people were populists, too. The big difference is the power of modern media. Today, it's a varied, self-selecting, echo-chamber filled with feedback that amplifies differences (because differences and conflic sells). These amplifed differences are not just in what we think (that's bad enough) but also in what we "know" - both facts and their interpretation are "manipulated" by the data we are allowed or choose to see. I see no solution but education - alas that, too, is becoming polarized.
5
Todays conservatives are deeply resentful and suspicious Calvinists on steroids. Conservatives harbor a deeply pessimistic view of the poor and the unfortunate and a ridiculously optimistic and favorable view of the rich.
Like its Calvinist ancestors, American conservatism sees the poor and the destitute as the damned, as those not blessed, as people of sin wallowing in immorality and stealing from hard working tax payers. In fact, for Conservatives, every program the government sets up to help them is riddled with fraud.
They see the rich as favored and blessed and in their avarice, they are convinced that wealth as a sign of intelligence and good character and those who possess it, possess it because of their superior character, and because Fortune has deservedly smiled upon them.
American conservatives so worship wealth that the theft from tax payers and the corruption of rich business people is ignored and swept under the rug.
But perhaps the worst thing about today's Conservatives is that their extreme individualism tears at the fabric of society and sets up a government of us against them. Conservatives are so ideological that like the religious fanatics of old, us against them is all they see.
Like its Calvinist ancestors, American conservatism sees the poor and the destitute as the damned, as those not blessed, as people of sin wallowing in immorality and stealing from hard working tax payers. In fact, for Conservatives, every program the government sets up to help them is riddled with fraud.
They see the rich as favored and blessed and in their avarice, they are convinced that wealth as a sign of intelligence and good character and those who possess it, possess it because of their superior character, and because Fortune has deservedly smiled upon them.
American conservatives so worship wealth that the theft from tax payers and the corruption of rich business people is ignored and swept under the rug.
But perhaps the worst thing about today's Conservatives is that their extreme individualism tears at the fabric of society and sets up a government of us against them. Conservatives are so ideological that like the religious fanatics of old, us against them is all they see.
21
I would argue that the democrats are the ones engaged in "populism" with voices like Sen. Warren and Sen Sanders ( technically independent but caucuses with democrats) taking center stage. Yes, within the GOP there is a variety of opinion and vigorous discussions. House Leader Bonhner could display more leadership ( but so could President Obama) but those republicans who don't agree with him should refrain from accusing him of being a sellout or faux-conservative. Politics is that art of compromise, and in reality the GOP has done a lot of that over the last few years, although the left loving media and democratic politicians won't give them any credit. The variety of opinions in the GOP may run from A to H, but compared to the democrats where they run from A to B, thats not bad. Aside from having the media on its side to provide cover for misquotes and bad steps, the democrats are by and large in line with one program, more government, higher taxes, more social programs to increase dependency on government etc. Sadly, both sides are largely funded by narrow special interests and their votes reflect that influence.
1
Please enumerate the compromises the Republicans have made since Mr. Obama was elected President. I'm waiting. All I'm hearing is peepers.
6
You can't white wash it. Conservatives today remind me of the "establishment" from Dead Poets Society. They can't handle change and must destroy it at all costs, running back to the relative comfort of the known rather than embracing the fear of the new and unknown. Conservatives eat the same 4 recipes over and over, drink the same wines, and visit the same vacation spots year after year. They create false flags and straw men and rail against them, all the while ignoring reality. "President Obama has done great damage to the country!", they cry, totally ignoring the financial damage by two unfunded wars and a financial collapse instigated by their own and their own policies. "President Obama is giving away OUR money!", they cry, when all he wants to do is further the education of the nation by making community college available to all, claiming that this is somehow bad while unfunded and unjustified wars are somehow good. "President Obama will make us weak!", they cry, as if we need to get involved in more wars in the name of peace. Kansas voters are so afraid of gay marriage they re-elected the folks who put them on a crash course to complete and total financial disaster. The state may be broke, but hey, they kept "traditional marriage" alive and well. I'm not sure what conservatism is anymore: all I see these days is fear and hate.
26
Mr. Wehner must be motivated by recent calls for moderate Muslims to renounce terrorism to make an analogous oblation.
3
The first, of what will be many, subliminal pleas for Jeb.
10
"Today’s Republicans, for example, should advance a policy agenda that systematically transforms welfare-state programs into a market-friendly safety net." Right, because nothing says 'conservative' like dismantling highly-effective programs that have been in place for 80 years -- for purely ideological reasons.
25
"Conservative" has become a marketing term, nothing more at this juncture. I almost wish the word would disappear; it means nothing. I am "consevative", so I hate unions. I am "conservative", so I dislike immigration. I am "conservative", so I can regulate social issues. I am "conservative", so I won't spend on libraries, but I will spend on fighter jets.
I wish the word would disappear from the political lexicon.
BTW, can change a few words in the above for the word "liberal", which I also view similarly.
I wish the word would disappear from the political lexicon.
BTW, can change a few words in the above for the word "liberal", which I also view similarly.
2
When are you "conservatives" going to stop pretending you "won" the Senate in November? A 40+ year financial coup by your ALEC/Koch brothers/Wall Street/radical religious right/nra/major media corporate conglomerate is now on target to try to destroy everything WE have built since you nearly destroyed the world with your greedy actions that caused the Great Depression. Yes, the illustrious John Boehner really knows how to spread the conglomerate money around to support the right stooges to further your agenda. However, WE are not going to let you destroy OUR country any further. Think Paris last Sunday.
25
I would be very interested to know the specific ways in which President Obama has "inflicted damage" upon this country, as posited by Mr. Wehner. It certainly isn't the stock market or real estate market which tanked under Mr. Bush; it certainly isn't the unemployment rate - now at its lowest in years and hiring its highest in 13 years; internationally? - bin Laden taken out under President Obama's watch; our international standing higher, at least judged by my travels and many friends overseas; the President has the unenviable task of trying to disentangle the US from a war that Bush, Cheney and company never should have started in Iraq; and trying to end the long Afghan war. Health care - since the ACA's inception more people than ever have access to health care, the dreaded impact on hiring never occurred, and for the first time there is less financial insecurity for Americans who have medical problems. Hmm - I will take such damage any time over the 8 years we watched President Bush under Mr. Cheney's tutelage do real damage to our economy and our international standing.
200
I second this opinion, and also point to the abuse that the President had to endure during his tenure. Being characterized as a radical Islamic fundamentalist, a liar, a foreigner, and his family as being immoral and outside the social mainstream, stinks like the locker room after the ball game. He has maintained the dignity and clear headedness dictated by his office. He has the kept the government running while those who oppose him have used their attack against him to disguise their attempts to minimalize government. No, he is not perfect. But he has executed the office faithfully.
When Wehner cited "damage inflicted on the country by the president," he didn't mention a specific name. Surely he must have been referring to George W. Bush.
Our most recent Republican president lied us into a multi-trillion-dollar war in Iraq that killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Waged with stunning incompetence by his administration, the war in Afghanistan became the longest in U.S. history. On his watch, many of us lost a huge percentage of the equity in our homes. Bush tanked the economy in general, replaced a budget surplus with a huge deficit and replaced a low unemployment rate with a sky-high one.
Despite constant obstructionism from the Republicans in Congress and in the media, Barack Obama has steadily been repairing the damage.
If Wehner is so concerned about the behavior of his party, he should start by setting an example himself. Knock off the false smears on our current President, Pete, and maybe someone will listen to you.
Our most recent Republican president lied us into a multi-trillion-dollar war in Iraq that killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Waged with stunning incompetence by his administration, the war in Afghanistan became the longest in U.S. history. On his watch, many of us lost a huge percentage of the equity in our homes. Bush tanked the economy in general, replaced a budget surplus with a huge deficit and replaced a low unemployment rate with a sky-high one.
Despite constant obstructionism from the Republicans in Congress and in the media, Barack Obama has steadily been repairing the damage.
If Wehner is so concerned about the behavior of his party, he should start by setting an example himself. Knock off the false smears on our current President, Pete, and maybe someone will listen to you.
Agreed. Furthermore, the one-percenters and one-tenth-of-one-percenters have made a killing -- and whether Mr Wehner admits it or not, making the wealthy wealthier has been foundational tenet of US conservatism at least since (the last) Gilded Age.
IN addition to a rational description of the 'damage' Obama has done in Mr Wehner's eyes, I'd like an explanation for what he thinks a 'market-friendly safety net' is. Most policies labelled as such have just been bottom-to-top wealth transfer policies.
IN addition to a rational description of the 'damage' Obama has done in Mr Wehner's eyes, I'd like an explanation for what he thinks a 'market-friendly safety net' is. Most policies labelled as such have just been bottom-to-top wealth transfer policies.
"Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president..."
DOW 18,000.
3rd quarter GDP growth of 5%.
Grudging economic recovery in the face of recession elsewhere else in the advanced industrial world.
And if conservative radicals like yourself hadn't attempt to sabotage our recovery at virtually every turn, we be doing ever better.
Peter, as far as we're concerned, you're all inmates in the same asylum, with the only difference being that some you need to be in a rubber room and while others don't.
DOW 18,000.
3rd quarter GDP growth of 5%.
Grudging economic recovery in the face of recession elsewhere else in the advanced industrial world.
And if conservative radicals like yourself hadn't attempt to sabotage our recovery at virtually every turn, we be doing ever better.
Peter, as far as we're concerned, you're all inmates in the same asylum, with the only difference being that some you need to be in a rubber room and while others don't.
162
Don't over look that conservatives also have high regard for things empirical as facts lead them to better apprehend the truth.
GDP growth for the year will be a lot less than 5% and the DOW is not necessarily a reflection of the economy of main street. The US economy traditionally does better than Europe because it is less of a progressive welfare state. The last 8 years during which left wing of the Democrat party has controlled the US government have been economically sub par by historical standards.
Wes - your post is a perfect example of double speak. A bull stock market is bad and 5% economic growth doesn't mean anything. 8 years of democratic control? Seriously - you realize Bush/Cheney were president as late a Jan '09 - SIX years ago.
Mathew - don't forget unemployment dropping from 10.5% to 5.8% but of course, I'm sure Wes will explain to us how bad that is.
Mathew - don't forget unemployment dropping from 10.5% to 5.8% but of course, I'm sure Wes will explain to us how bad that is.
1
This writer's view of conservatism bears no resemblance to the platform or policies of the GOP. I am a liberal and his description of a reliance on facts and empirical evidence as consevative fits me. I am personally very careful with money and have worked since I was 14 and I believe that US governments from the federal level to school boards have left too many people behind. If only the GOP was like this writer's description. It's not and this writer is trying to snow someone.
67
As a conservative I believe the government should conduct it's business like you conduct your personal life. Why is it that so many self described liberals are prudent with their own life and money but do not support or require the same behavior from their government?
"Authentic conservatism has a high regard for things empirical, for facts that can lead us to better apprehend the truth."
Then please explain why "conservatives" in today's politics are so totally *UNWILLING* to consider factual arguments, and actually tend to make the "facts" up to suit their predispositions.
Please try to explain why "Tea Party conservatives" often take the position that there is no compromise at all, and suggestion that one should compromise is unacceptable.
Take, for example, that bastion of conservative thought, Fox News. There are days when Fox is a fact-free zone. But conservatives lap it up. Some conservatives listen to nothing else.
You write well, but your words mean very little, because they do not comport with reality.
Then please explain why "conservatives" in today's politics are so totally *UNWILLING* to consider factual arguments, and actually tend to make the "facts" up to suit their predispositions.
Please try to explain why "Tea Party conservatives" often take the position that there is no compromise at all, and suggestion that one should compromise is unacceptable.
Take, for example, that bastion of conservative thought, Fox News. There are days when Fox is a fact-free zone. But conservatives lap it up. Some conservatives listen to nothing else.
You write well, but your words mean very little, because they do not comport with reality.
41
Part of the problem is that he's trying to sell to the wrong audience. Unfortunately I don't think there's a right one, since were he to posit his thoughts to people inside the GOP power structure (i.e., their "role models"), they wouldn't heed, believe, or give credence to it any more than actual thinking people *out*side the party do.
I am wondering whether Mr. Wehner is deliberately obfuscating in this palliative. He simply has to be smarter than this, and not believe a word of what he is writing.
Since I have been paying attention to American politics, I have seen Jesse Helms, and Dick Armey (whistling Dixie in the elevator with Mosley-Brown), the rise of right wing hate mongering (Fox, Limbaugh), incredibly vacuous candidates aspiring for national office (Paling, Bachman, and someone who said she was a witch, or not one). So upset were republicans at everything Bill Clinton represented (a new generation, meritocracy, poor daddy, egalitarianism) that they went after him in what is only describable as a lynching. The coziness with big banks, the open hatred for government, the unmitigated desire to ensure that their constituents (and financiers) feed unabashedly, unapologetically at the government teat (subsidies, tax breaks for big monied interests) while deinstitutionalizing mental health facilities, and getting the population to hate welfare queens.
So why do Republicans win despite a morally corrupt agenda, and with officers that are a lot closer to totalitarian dictators who brook no dissent, tar everything they don't like as anti-American and seditious? Because we as an electorate are stupid, uninformed, and worse yet, ready to hate those more unfortunate than we are, and willing to worship those who are rich (because, you see, any minute now, we are about to become them).
Kalidan
Since I have been paying attention to American politics, I have seen Jesse Helms, and Dick Armey (whistling Dixie in the elevator with Mosley-Brown), the rise of right wing hate mongering (Fox, Limbaugh), incredibly vacuous candidates aspiring for national office (Paling, Bachman, and someone who said she was a witch, or not one). So upset were republicans at everything Bill Clinton represented (a new generation, meritocracy, poor daddy, egalitarianism) that they went after him in what is only describable as a lynching. The coziness with big banks, the open hatred for government, the unmitigated desire to ensure that their constituents (and financiers) feed unabashedly, unapologetically at the government teat (subsidies, tax breaks for big monied interests) while deinstitutionalizing mental health facilities, and getting the population to hate welfare queens.
So why do Republicans win despite a morally corrupt agenda, and with officers that are a lot closer to totalitarian dictators who brook no dissent, tar everything they don't like as anti-American and seditious? Because we as an electorate are stupid, uninformed, and worse yet, ready to hate those more unfortunate than we are, and willing to worship those who are rich (because, you see, any minute now, we are about to become them).
Kalidan
49
"Today’s Republicans, for example, should advance a policy agenda that systematically transforms welfare-state programs into a market-friendly safety net."
What the ...? Market-friendly safety net? Why in God's green earth would a safety net need to be market-friendly? I suppose Mr. Wehner and his friends only want to help the needy if they can make a profit from it.
Well done, conservatives.
What the ...? Market-friendly safety net? Why in God's green earth would a safety net need to be market-friendly? I suppose Mr. Wehner and his friends only want to help the needy if they can make a profit from it.
Well done, conservatives.
67
"Market-friendly safety net" = Charles Dickens
If Peter Wehner had even spent 20 minutes on some of the more heavily visited conservative sites, such as Newsmax or Townhall, he would not have written this article. He would not be thinking about words like "enjoyment"---he would be struggling with words like "anger," "hate," "treason," and "fear," and he would stop wondering if the "widespread negative impressions about the Republican Party" were fair or not.
33
I agree, generally, that Mr. Wehner would likely attempt to characterize sites such as Newsmax and Townhall as outside of his professed view (however quaint) of proper conservatism. But I doubt that he'd recognize them for what they are: the primary source for sound bites and oversimplified (and often unabashedly deceptive) arguments in support of political and social extremism.
Today's man-on-the-street conservative (i.e., reactionary) rarely speaks out until he's received "the word" from such sites, to say nothing of the execrable Fox News.
Today's man-on-the-street conservative (i.e., reactionary) rarely speaks out until he's received "the word" from such sites, to say nothing of the execrable Fox News.
1
"Today’s Republicans, for example, should advance a policy agenda that systematically transforms welfare-state programs into a market-friendly safety net."
Republicans never met a public trust they didn't want to squeeze every last dime of profit from. They speak of the "welfare state" when, in fact, it is corporate welfare that bankrupts us far more than the social trust. Whether it is public pensions or Social Security, Republicans want it privatized. They demonize the government as inept at handling anything while ignoring the incredible corruption and ineptitude in the private sector. They deride Democrats for "tax and spend" policies while running up the tab on their own watch, mostly on the 1%'s interests. Beware of Republicans bearing promises...you are about to lose your shirt.
Republicans never met a public trust they didn't want to squeeze every last dime of profit from. They speak of the "welfare state" when, in fact, it is corporate welfare that bankrupts us far more than the social trust. Whether it is public pensions or Social Security, Republicans want it privatized. They demonize the government as inept at handling anything while ignoring the incredible corruption and ineptitude in the private sector. They deride Democrats for "tax and spend" policies while running up the tab on their own watch, mostly on the 1%'s interests. Beware of Republicans bearing promises...you are about to lose your shirt.
75
Thanks, Frank, for putting into words what I can't seem to do this morning, particularly before I have had any coffee. As far as the Democratic "tax and spend" policy, for quite some time now I have referred to the Republican policy as "cut taxes and spend like a drunken sailor." As far as the "sunny optimism of Ronald Reagan" goes, whenever I think of St. Ronnie I think of "We begin bombing in five minutes."
The philosophy of many on the elft is that conservatives attack "down". They attack the poor and disabled, or people that are unable to defend themselves. Liberals attack 'up', or people on the same level or above who can defend themselves. This perfectly reflects the ideology of both groups.
21
So, conservatives, don't attack "down" and you won't open yourself to criticism. That might work.
What you neglect to say is that those promoting extreme policies and behavior aren't conservative, they're extremists, radicals--populist radicals holding and expressing views that often have little or no basis in reality. In addition, like the members of most cults, they try to enforce a rigid ideology, even when the ideas they're enforcing are clearly at odds with empirically verifiable truth.
27
The Republican Party's problem is not that it is too conservative. It on average is now incompetent. That's because so many of its new members are unskilled in governance and don't seem to know anything about real problem solving and believe they can say and do anything because that is what they do at home.
This approach has been solidified by Mitch McConnell for 6 years. The result is that the GOP has no bench. Its Congressional caucus is simply out of training and the country suffers. This is indisputable.
A great deal of this is due to Rupert Murdoch, who himself is an immigrant, Jim DeMint at the Heritage Foundation, and Roger Ailes who runs what some call a propaganda shop on FOX.
Listen to the words out of the GOP lexicon and its spokespersons. They spew arguments that sound intellectual but under close scrutiny simply have no merit. That is a GOP trademark.
This approach has been solidified by Mitch McConnell for 6 years. The result is that the GOP has no bench. Its Congressional caucus is simply out of training and the country suffers. This is indisputable.
A great deal of this is due to Rupert Murdoch, who himself is an immigrant, Jim DeMint at the Heritage Foundation, and Roger Ailes who runs what some call a propaganda shop on FOX.
Listen to the words out of the GOP lexicon and its spokespersons. They spew arguments that sound intellectual but under close scrutiny simply have no merit. That is a GOP trademark.
51
Don't decry the advent of the Tea Party, or the ultra left-wing of the Democratic party as exemplified by Liz Warren. Both parties extremes are needed to propose new ideas and keep the political pots boiling. Otherwise they become sclerotic.
Sometimes an extreme group will rise organically - as did the Tea Party - and as a reaction to an overreaching government. Sure it will have its firebrands such as Mark Levin. But the left has similar craziness in the hyperbolic, red-face Chris Mathews and the snarky Rachel Maddow (oh - their ratings stink). All are either interesting to listen to, or nauseating depending on one's political view.
So if the common strategy by Conservatives is to adopt a take-no-prisoners stance, how is that not understandable in reaction to a Harry Reid ruled senate; and not also understandable to an administration which believes adhering to the Constitution is a quaint concept? The Tea Party is all about populism - an antithesis to a president who regularly visits Manhattan to collect millions from the biggest big-shots.
The Tea Party may have some far-out beliefs but at least they are true to them.
Sometimes an extreme group will rise organically - as did the Tea Party - and as a reaction to an overreaching government. Sure it will have its firebrands such as Mark Levin. But the left has similar craziness in the hyperbolic, red-face Chris Mathews and the snarky Rachel Maddow (oh - their ratings stink). All are either interesting to listen to, or nauseating depending on one's political view.
So if the common strategy by Conservatives is to adopt a take-no-prisoners stance, how is that not understandable in reaction to a Harry Reid ruled senate; and not also understandable to an administration which believes adhering to the Constitution is a quaint concept? The Tea Party is all about populism - an antithesis to a president who regularly visits Manhattan to collect millions from the biggest big-shots.
The Tea Party may have some far-out beliefs but at least they are true to them.
2
the tea party is not true to its beliefs. if you believe in personal liberty above all else, you will not try to prevent women from obtaining legal abortions, or gay people frogerring married.
1
If you believe the Tea Party is organic, I have a bridge I want to sell you. Follow the (big) money. Look at who pays for the buses for these Confederate-flag-toting visitors to the Capitol. Koch. And who pays to make Fox Lies and Distortions available on every TV.
1
The myth of the Tea Party as "organic" grass-roots political movement was exposed in a the peer-reviewed journal Tobacco Control:
"Conclusions: Rather than being a purely grassroots movement that spontaneously developed in 2009, the Tea Party has developed over time, in part through decades of work by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests. It is important for tobacco control advocates in the USA and internationally, to anticipate and counter Tea Party opposition to tobacco control policies and ensure that policymakers, the media and the public understand the longstanding connection between the tobacco industry, the Tea Party and its associated organisations."
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/02/07/tobaccocontrol-20...
"Conclusions: Rather than being a purely grassroots movement that spontaneously developed in 2009, the Tea Party has developed over time, in part through decades of work by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests. It is important for tobacco control advocates in the USA and internationally, to anticipate and counter Tea Party opposition to tobacco control policies and ensure that policymakers, the media and the public understand the longstanding connection between the tobacco industry, the Tea Party and its associated organisations."
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/02/07/tobaccocontrol-20...
1
Werner is full of it. He is a pseudo-Conservwtive who trashes true conservatives. He is a Boehner supporter, as wel as the Chamber of Cronyism.
You, like Boehner yesterday, are fooling no one.
You, like Boehner yesterday, are fooling no one.
11
I think this gent writes pretty good, pretty good fiction. He really is talking about a progressives not "conservatives". A conservative is one who believes in status quo and compromise when the bottom line is in jeopardy. Think of the 3/5th's solution to get the Southern States to go along with the Constitution. "Hey, don't mess with my profit on rum, even at the cost of human suffering. We have to be conservative and preserve the union." My opinion only.
14
Pandering to Fox News, the Koch brothers and TransCanada hardly qualifies as populism. I would gladly return to the Republican Party if this anti-utopian, humanist conservatism existed.
44
I was amazed at Mitt Romney's amazement that Chinese workers were living in dormitories next to their workplace with up to 12 living in a single room. This was one of Romney's primary examples of why American CEOs should off-shore their work to China. Mitt Romney's Bain Capital and all the CEOs who bought into it are responsible for the decline of the American workforce. Each of us are buyers and can affect the bottom line wherever you buy. Buy local food, support local arts, buy American products whenever possible.
65
I just heard the lead designer of the new electric Chevy Bolt interviewed on the radio yesterday, the car was designed in Korea. We saved the auto industry with taxpayer money so they can outsource engineering jobs to Korea? If I could I'd buy a horse.
Nice sentiment, but today's 'conservatives' mostly take the line of "My way or the Highway", "No Compromise", and "He who yells the loudest is right".
Hell of a way to run a government.
Hell of a way to run a government.
97
As an outsider, I struggle to understand why Obama is demonised. He seems cautious, thoughtful and determined to take the US in a sensible direction. He is conservative and liberal at the same time. History will be much kinder and he will be missed once he is gone.
690
Your question can be answered with one simple word; race.
4
I won't miss him. I thought I was electing a Democrat, he is a Republican. Sanders, Warren or maybe even Webb, those seem to be Democrats. Obama, nope.
1
He is demonized because he is a Democrat and beginning, most obviously, with Bill Clinton, the dominant conservative media have made being a Democrat not a policy difference, but pure unadulterated evil. They lie with impunity with scant pushback from other media or Democrats, for that matter. He is demonized because he is African-American which is glaringly obvious and vociferously denied.
This absurd column, which suggests a sunny disposition is all that's needed to proceed with the devastating policies of George W. Bush on steroids, pays lip service, but does not detail, the damage inflicted on the country by the president. Do tell Mr. Werner, I'm all ears.
This absurd column, which suggests a sunny disposition is all that's needed to proceed with the devastating policies of George W. Bush on steroids, pays lip service, but does not detail, the damage inflicted on the country by the president. Do tell Mr. Werner, I'm all ears.
2
I long to read an op-ed piece entitled "Liberals in Name Only."
Shakespeare said it best:
"What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet."
Shakespeare said it best:
"What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet."
This is a thoughtful attempt to redefine conservatism as a more circumspect and active conversation partner in the dialog about how to keep America moving forward. I would welcome the wholesale replacement of Republican party with this measured, pragmatic outlook.
However, it also highlights what I find ultimately unpersuasive about all forms of conservatism: an uncritical and triumphalist nostalgia that claims that "if we can just get back to the roots of things we would be where we belong." The idea that we can define a "pure" conservatism that would lead us back to the truth is just another version of this.
Ultimately, conservatism is the wrong frame of reference for trying to understand a world that is changing as rapidly as ours. What passed as "common sense" for the previous generation is not going to work for the problems we face today.
However, it also highlights what I find ultimately unpersuasive about all forms of conservatism: an uncritical and triumphalist nostalgia that claims that "if we can just get back to the roots of things we would be where we belong." The idea that we can define a "pure" conservatism that would lead us back to the truth is just another version of this.
Ultimately, conservatism is the wrong frame of reference for trying to understand a world that is changing as rapidly as ours. What passed as "common sense" for the previous generation is not going to work for the problems we face today.
28
For a guy who claims to be "anti-utopian" this is about as nonsensical a utopian view of what so called real conservatives are or for that matter even what the off the wall brand of conservatives he complains about are.
And, by the way, just what are those terrible things the President has inflicted on the country? Saving the economy from a rightwing meltdown? Ending a two trillion dollar war based on a lie that did more to inflame Muslim extremism then anything in the 21st century? Providing Healthcare for millions of people (based on a concept developed and first implemented by the rightwing? Boy oh boy, what horrible things the President has done.
Lets be clear, the Republican Party is now the "scorched earth party". This isn't a question of differences in disposition, when both parts believe government is the problem and are doing their best to destroy it.
And, by the way, just what are those terrible things the President has inflicted on the country? Saving the economy from a rightwing meltdown? Ending a two trillion dollar war based on a lie that did more to inflame Muslim extremism then anything in the 21st century? Providing Healthcare for millions of people (based on a concept developed and first implemented by the rightwing? Boy oh boy, what horrible things the President has done.
Lets be clear, the Republican Party is now the "scorched earth party". This isn't a question of differences in disposition, when both parts believe government is the problem and are doing their best to destroy it.
73
Thanks. Yes, the republican party seems to define itself by the meme that you capture in this: "both parts believe government is the problem."
To be precise, the term is "self-government" - at least in the US, this is our form of government. It is the only thing guaranteed by the Constitution.
We govern ourselves - we cannot be the problem.
Abraham Lincoln would probably be amused but also saddened by what has become of the party that believed in our form of government.
To be precise, the term is "self-government" - at least in the US, this is our form of government. It is the only thing guaranteed by the Constitution.
We govern ourselves - we cannot be the problem.
Abraham Lincoln would probably be amused but also saddened by what has become of the party that believed in our form of government.
"Authentic conservatism has a high regard for things empirical, for facts that can lead us to better apprehend the truth." Since when did Peter Wehner join the reality-based community?
22
No idea. Like Kristol, Mr. Wehner is a classic neocon, too young actually, to have a true appreciation of what "real conservatism" actually is. When the necons start bemoaning the inflammatory actions & speech of the new radicals who are doing exactly the same as they themselves did, you know that the stellar irony of the situation must surely be lost on them.
"Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president but don’t share this doom-laden view are labeled by some on the right as cowardly and unprincipled."
The damage inflicted on this country by the POTUS? You mean POTUS Bush, because the current POTUS has endeavored quite smartly to extricate us from economic collapse. I simply cannot understand what you people mean when you talk about the "damage inflicted upon this country". I have some advice for the op ed contributor. Before YOU go off the apocalyptic deep end yourself, why don't YOU tell us just how this POTUS has "damaged" the country.
The damage inflicted on this country by the POTUS? You mean POTUS Bush, because the current POTUS has endeavored quite smartly to extricate us from economic collapse. I simply cannot understand what you people mean when you talk about the "damage inflicted upon this country". I have some advice for the op ed contributor. Before YOU go off the apocalyptic deep end yourself, why don't YOU tell us just how this POTUS has "damaged" the country.
66
"Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president."
Remove the last two words of the above sentence and replace it with "our own angry, self-serving, egotistical, egocentric, mean, nasty, and uncompromising party."
You now have a meaningless article which follows. Or a gigsntic disjointed argument. Or an editorial which should simply be discarded.
Remove the last two words of the above sentence and replace it with "our own angry, self-serving, egotistical, egocentric, mean, nasty, and uncompromising party."
You now have a meaningless article which follows. Or a gigsntic disjointed argument. Or an editorial which should simply be discarded.
32
Or they are just angry clowns all trying to drive the clown car at top speed at the same time.
10
Divided government, divided political parties, it stops anything from happening on the legislative front, and that is a good thing. We have enough 'government', from either party. So, party labels foster a do nothing government. I am happy.
"Authentic conservatism has a high regard for things empirical, for facts that can lead us to better apprehend the truth."
Really? From a group, many members of which, would fit right into the Flat Earth Society. You lost me right there...
Really? From a group, many members of which, would fit right into the Flat Earth Society. You lost me right there...
16
Conservativism is a philosophy, and what this op-ed struggles against current reality to suggest, is a more "philosophical" attitude or disposition will be more effective in selling its message. The op-ed fails miserably at spelling out that message, but regardless, temperamental moderation is a good thing no matter one's beliefs or convictions. However, the apocalyptic view put forth by the Carsons and Cruzes is not just a facade or a mask, it is, in the words of another infamous "populist," lipstick on a pig. Today's conservatives, I would suggest, possess neither the temperament, the disposition, nor the philosophical principles of conservativism, which is the belief that tinkering and meddling one's way toward progress may be less effective than allowing an invisible hand to move things forward (in today's parlance, the Almighty free market).
Today's conservatives are big time meddlers who pretend, regardless of disposition or temperament, that they haven't tinkered around with policy to make it more favorable to a certain segment of society and see any attempts to level that playing field as tools of the "welfare-state" or the work of activist judges or Marxism. The free market hasn't been free for a very long time, and no change in temperament is going to convince anyone that we should all "find delight in the achievements and blessings we have." Just try telling that to the have-nots.
Today's conservatives are big time meddlers who pretend, regardless of disposition or temperament, that they haven't tinkered around with policy to make it more favorable to a certain segment of society and see any attempts to level that playing field as tools of the "welfare-state" or the work of activist judges or Marxism. The free market hasn't been free for a very long time, and no change in temperament is going to convince anyone that we should all "find delight in the achievements and blessings we have." Just try telling that to the have-nots.
13
The comments here are another example of the pack mentality that is polarizing the country. Is it possible that the President has damaged the country? Not if a conservative says so. Folks, ask for specifics. I bet there would be agreement on some items.
No specifics were offered. Only a blanket statement that the President has damaged the country.
How exactly has the current president damaged the country?
And the comments are a "pack mentality"? How? Because they say very similar things and cite tangible, verifiable facts? That's called consistency.
And the comments are a "pack mentality"? How? Because they say very similar things and cite tangible, verifiable facts? That's called consistency.
1
"Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president but don’t share this doom-laden view are labeled by some on the right as cowardly and unprincipled."
This is so tiresome. Please cite one example of how President Obama has "damaged" the country. Just one.
This is so tiresome. Please cite one example of how President Obama has "damaged" the country. Just one.
16
the fact that the writer takes this as a given refutes his entire argument about conservative fact-informed thinking
1
If conservatives are so concerned about people who depend on the government why aren't they railing against the home-mortgage deduction, which benefits mainly the wealthy (helping them buy larger houses than otherwise) and puts people at the bottom into pricier homes than they can really afford.
And if the key characteristic of a conservative is a sunny disposition then what's Chris Christie?
And if the key characteristic of a conservative is a sunny disposition then what's Chris Christie?
5
"Mean-spirited" is a better definition of today's Republican Party, as well as "servants to moneyed interests." BTW, what is a "market-friendly safety net?"
42
"Mean-spirited" is not a logical argument. It is Liberal drivel. We are supposed to have freedom in this country. If there is a very conservative wing of the RNC then so be it. Why don't do look at their platform fully before you throw stones.
You many not hate what you see.
You many not hate what you see.
Market friendly? Not a safety net. Oxymoron!
"self serving" as well.
They are the party of the exclusive and the group who knows they are better than others not by luck but because GOD is on their side meaning they are the chosen people and they deserve more than everyone else.
"Mean spirited" sums that up just fine.
They are the party of the exclusive and the group who knows they are better than others not by luck but because GOD is on their side meaning they are the chosen people and they deserve more than everyone else.
"Mean spirited" sums that up just fine.
Mr. Wehner asserts that, “Conservatism is famously anti-Utopian, understanding life's imperfections and the limitations of politics.” As soothing and reasonable as this sounds, it obscures a reality in which Conservative attitudes and dispositions are as kindly as a Komodo Dragon. Their world is a jungle, populated by corrupt creatures with bad intentions. The first rule in their dark and angry place is, all too often, “Do unto others before they do it to you.”
14
In the immortal words of Tennessee Williams, I have been around the block a time or two. Or perhaps TS Eliot about how words bend and break. The essence is whether national power should be concentrated in a centralized bureaucracy, or whether democracy is better served by decisions made at a local or state level. Witness the dispute over the legalization of marijuana. Is this "conservative" or "liberal"? Shadow boxing. Boehner is of no importance, if one gets the perspective right.
Good God! Have I become John Calhoun?
Good God! Have I become John Calhoun?
1
"....advance a policy agenda that systematically transforms welfare-state programs into a market-friendly safety net."
The 'market' is a federally supported casino game. The hypocrisy of conservatives is exposed every time they talk about this mythical 'free market.'
The 'market' is a federally supported casino game. The hypocrisy of conservatives is exposed every time they talk about this mythical 'free market.'
17
Uh, Obama is more conservative in tone and behavior than the tea party, they've done things in Congress that neither party has in my lifetime. Extreme comes to mind.....
8
"Today’s Republicans, for example, should advance a policy agenda that systematically transforms welfare-state programs into a market-friendly safety net".
I.e. something like Victorian England. If you can't hack it, die.
"Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president but don’t share this doom-laden view are labeled by some on the right as cowardly and unprincipled."
The author does not anywhere give an example of how the president has damaged the country. Probably because he can't come up with one.
"Authentic conservatism has a high regard for things empirical, for facts that can lead us to better apprehend the truth."
Um, no. The opposite is true. Scientific studies suggest that conservatives have strong emotional responses, especially to disgusting images, i.e. they tend to be more governed by emotion than rationality. Also they tend to not believe science and actively avoid becoming involved in science.
"And because it isn’t a rigid ideology, it leaves itself open to self-examination and self-correction. " You have got to be kidding me...
I.e. something like Victorian England. If you can't hack it, die.
"Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president but don’t share this doom-laden view are labeled by some on the right as cowardly and unprincipled."
The author does not anywhere give an example of how the president has damaged the country. Probably because he can't come up with one.
"Authentic conservatism has a high regard for things empirical, for facts that can lead us to better apprehend the truth."
Um, no. The opposite is true. Scientific studies suggest that conservatives have strong emotional responses, especially to disgusting images, i.e. they tend to be more governed by emotion than rationality. Also they tend to not believe science and actively avoid becoming involved in science.
"And because it isn’t a rigid ideology, it leaves itself open to self-examination and self-correction. " You have got to be kidding me...
54
Not to mention that all the "empirical" evidence suggests that climate change is real and man made, so much for that thought.
Conservatives? Too kind a term. These modern far-right Republicans are nihilists.
11
Conservatism "is rooted in human experience"?? You mean like Ted Cruz? Mike Huckabee?? Rand Paul?? LOL. Conservatism is based on lies like "dynamic scoring" and hatred, and the 1%, and Boehner and McConnell?? The GOP is the Party that lies, almost always!
10
"Not every conservative is stupid, but most stupid people are conservative."
What populists like Cruz, Gohmert and Bachmann are playing with are the quintessentially decent traits in people who were raised not to question belief structures. Invoking family, God, patriotism captures conservative brains even if these memes represent a semantic inversion that should be transparent to anyone with a college degree.
What populists like Cruz, Gohmert and Bachmann are playing with are the quintessentially decent traits in people who were raised not to question belief structures. Invoking family, God, patriotism captures conservative brains even if these memes represent a semantic inversion that should be transparent to anyone with a college degree.
30
A "market-friendly safety net" means the ability to profit more directly from helping the poor. Dismantling public education means profiting more directly from education our children. Opposing universal health care means profiting more directly from saving the sick and dying.
And all of this will be done in the name of morality and "enduring principles."
It is really quite disgusting.
And all of this will be done in the name of morality and "enduring principles."
It is really quite disgusting.
64
Profit is at the heart of our economy; that's not likely to change. The issue for your list is all about profiting at taxpayer's expense. As another recent article pointed out, most hospitals are now more firmly in the black thanks to the ACA, even those that are nominally non-profit. And that's a program the GOP is against!
My bet is they will keep ObamaCare, but change it to improve profits for healthcare-related financial contributors (like medical device manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies). At least nobody seems to be talking about "privatizing" Social Security at present, which was yet another way to take a government program and figure out how to make money on it at the expense of those the program was intended to help. Sadly, in a Congress where such benefits will likely be shrinking, it will add insult to injury for the GOP to make it easier for their backers to skim more profits from the funds remaining in these tax funded programs.
My bet is they will keep ObamaCare, but change it to improve profits for healthcare-related financial contributors (like medical device manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies). At least nobody seems to be talking about "privatizing" Social Security at present, which was yet another way to take a government program and figure out how to make money on it at the expense of those the program was intended to help. Sadly, in a Congress where such benefits will likely be shrinking, it will add insult to injury for the GOP to make it easier for their backers to skim more profits from the funds remaining in these tax funded programs.
1
I think most liberals would agree with almost all your principles, especially moderation and a market friendly safety net. We all live in a liberal democracy and study liberal arts in college. We had Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats in the 50s and 60s until some populist Democrats became too extreme and scared the Conservatives into uniting and obstruction.
Now we have radical Tea Party populists who want dogmatism, idealism, and a safety net only for themselves.
The Constitution was written to have limits on government, people, parties, and institutions. Minorities have rights to vote, equal opportunity, religion, enjoyment, justice, and compromise.
Obama is not a socialist but a black liberal who is more moderate in temperament and ideas than most Democrats and Republicans and is disliked/hated because he is better than the radicals.
Now we have radical Tea Party populists who want dogmatism, idealism, and a safety net only for themselves.
The Constitution was written to have limits on government, people, parties, and institutions. Minorities have rights to vote, equal opportunity, religion, enjoyment, justice, and compromise.
Obama is not a socialist but a black liberal who is more moderate in temperament and ideas than most Democrats and Republicans and is disliked/hated because he is better than the radicals.
12
NO ONE has been more moderate, prudent and level-headed than
President Obama in this catastrophic time.
The greatest flaw of Republican partisans seems to be that they believe
themselves to be 'the whole cloth and not just a part of it.'
President Obama in this catastrophic time.
The greatest flaw of Republican partisans seems to be that they believe
themselves to be 'the whole cloth and not just a part of it.'
51
"A market friendly safety net" has to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Unless he's referring to the privatized prison system where you can get thee meals and a cot. Let's discuss first the predatory market of capitalism that makes a living fleecing the poor. Rent to own, Cash advance, parking tickets that turn into unmanageable fees that become bench warrants, bank fees to open an account, EBT cards with bank fees, predatory mortgages, usury interest rates, lottery, diploma mills, wage theft...shall I go on?
60
As an actual Tea Party member with a Ph.D. -- not important to me but apparently an urgent issue for the insecure here -- I'm astonished by the ignorance about the actual position of the Tea Party regarding corporate capitalism, profiteering, and so on.
The Tea Party has mounted a more incisive and effective opposition to cronyism than Occupy ever achieved. That is why they are hated by the Party elite. You can whinge all day about populism but their populism is actually more consistent and less indebted to big business interests than anything I saw on the largely degraded and radicalized Left.
It's one thing to play partisan politics with the facts, but this degree of willful misrepresentation is just extraordinary. Perhaps it's envy. The Tea Party is achieving something Occupy never had the courage or the organizational chops to do: speak for working Americans and articulate a vision of good lives and a vision of resistance to government power. Occupy degenerated into a narcissistic morass of incoherent demands backed quietly by big money: TEA did the opposite, growing into a real grassroots that actually challenges the powers that be.
The Tea Party has mounted a more incisive and effective opposition to cronyism than Occupy ever achieved. That is why they are hated by the Party elite. You can whinge all day about populism but their populism is actually more consistent and less indebted to big business interests than anything I saw on the largely degraded and radicalized Left.
It's one thing to play partisan politics with the facts, but this degree of willful misrepresentation is just extraordinary. Perhaps it's envy. The Tea Party is achieving something Occupy never had the courage or the organizational chops to do: speak for working Americans and articulate a vision of good lives and a vision of resistance to government power. Occupy degenerated into a narcissistic morass of incoherent demands backed quietly by big money: TEA did the opposite, growing into a real grassroots that actually challenges the powers that be.
12
I would take the Tea Party's challenge to "Crony Capitalism" more seriously but for their record in Congress these past four years. Why, in the early weeks of this session alone, we have proposals to gut the Dodd-Frank reforms and allow big banks to play around with speculative financial gimmickry again, and of course, the perennial favorite of the crony capitalist crowd, the approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline to benefit the oil and gas giants whose Gulf Coast refineries would benefit from it. All big donors, not just for "Republicans," but for "Tea Party Republicans." In practice, the Tea Party "populists" don't seem to have a problem with crony capitalism, so long as it helps "their" friends and supports "their" causes.
20
But why do so many in the Tea Party sound a bit hmmmm...looney ? They do have passion and commitment but they seem to go off on some fear of everything path.
5
Conservatism is ... open to self examination and self correction? The dictionary disagrees.
20
'systematically transforms welfare-state programs into a market-friendly safety net.'
That's sort of like transforming a chicken coop into a fox-friendly cage. A fish tank into a cat-friendly water dish. A tree into an axe-friendly source of warmth. The author talks about moderation and compromise. Few things could be more radical than unleashing 'free' market forces on the poorest Americans. Guess who skims off the brokerage fees? If you think social workers are budget-minded now, wait 'til they're employed by Wackenhut or Monsanto or GE.
Using rabid ideologues seemingly suffering from medieval ergot poisoning to make the so-called moderate conservatives seem reasonable is simply a new label for an old bottle of wine so fermented it's not fit for a salad.
That's sort of like transforming a chicken coop into a fox-friendly cage. A fish tank into a cat-friendly water dish. A tree into an axe-friendly source of warmth. The author talks about moderation and compromise. Few things could be more radical than unleashing 'free' market forces on the poorest Americans. Guess who skims off the brokerage fees? If you think social workers are budget-minded now, wait 'til they're employed by Wackenhut or Monsanto or GE.
Using rabid ideologues seemingly suffering from medieval ergot poisoning to make the so-called moderate conservatives seem reasonable is simply a new label for an old bottle of wine so fermented it's not fit for a salad.
28
Believing in enduring principles is not an exclusive conservative feature. But believing that deficits and the so-called national debt are ruinous is a core conservative understanding of the world. It also infects many on the left unfortunately. There is ample proof of how inane those notions are, but time and data will close out those notions.
There is also a misunderstanding of Nixon and Reagan. To judge them on their nice-guyness obscures their real place in history--especially Nixon’s. Richard Nixon was to the left of every president since his resignation. He believed in big government and had he not been weighed down by the Vietnam War, might have transformed the GOP into something much different than today's party.
There is also a misunderstanding of Nixon and Reagan. To judge them on their nice-guyness obscures their real place in history--especially Nixon’s. Richard Nixon was to the left of every president since his resignation. He believed in big government and had he not been weighed down by the Vietnam War, might have transformed the GOP into something much different than today's party.
6
Which, if any, Republican plans do anything for average Americans?
How many Republican programs can anyone name that are designed to "provide for the general welfare" in the last thirty years?
The Republican Party is not a political party at all. It is a business. Their main goal is more money for themselves and their friends. It seems pretty obvious that they see being elected to office as nothing more than a business opportunity.
Once you understand this, everything they do makes perfect sense.
How many Republican programs can anyone name that are designed to "provide for the general welfare" in the last thirty years?
The Republican Party is not a political party at all. It is a business. Their main goal is more money for themselves and their friends. It seems pretty obvious that they see being elected to office as nothing more than a business opportunity.
Once you understand this, everything they do makes perfect sense.
38
Exactly right. And what infuriates the current batch of GOP politicians is Obama's reaching for commonsense solutions he can execute through his office, without Congress. Major strides in education, immigration and busting the cable monopolies--what's not to like? And why can't the GOP come up with a single initiative to benefit the nation?
1
Yeah, the strict constructionist on the Constitution selectively choose to forget "provide for the general welfare". By the way, the military is the biggest government employer. Big government? Only when it benefits your cronies. Government is not a for-profit business.
The type of conservatism that this writer espouses no longer exists within the Republican party. Current Republicans insist that tax cuts pay for themselves or increase revenue when the deficits created by Ronald Reagan, George W Bush and Sam Bownback offer ample evidence to the contrary. Current Republicans insist that supply side economics benefits everyone even though, again, all evidence points to the contrary. When Ronald Reagan took office the top 1% controlled 7% of all wealth in the country and the United States saw the gap between rich and poor shrink EVERY SINGLE YEAR FROM THE GREAT DEPRESSION UNTIL 1979. When Ronald Reagan left office the top 1% controlled 23% of all wealth and the gap between rich and poor reversed and quickly widened.
Current Republicans don't believe in well established climate or evolutionary science or in math. During the 1979 primaries George HW Bush called Ronald Reagan's tax plans voodoo economics and predicted that they would lead to huge budget deficits. George HW Bush was right but current Republicans believe that Ronald Reagan was.
To see what a joke American conservatism has become look at what happened when Sarah Palin went to England--conservatives there were completely aghast that she thought she was one of them. Then there's Ted Cruz who has two ivy league degrees but pretends to be an idiot to appeal to the Republican base. Today conservatism in America appeals to the least educated and the most easily manipulated.
Current Republicans don't believe in well established climate or evolutionary science or in math. During the 1979 primaries George HW Bush called Ronald Reagan's tax plans voodoo economics and predicted that they would lead to huge budget deficits. George HW Bush was right but current Republicans believe that Ronald Reagan was.
To see what a joke American conservatism has become look at what happened when Sarah Palin went to England--conservatives there were completely aghast that she thought she was one of them. Then there's Ted Cruz who has two ivy league degrees but pretends to be an idiot to appeal to the Republican base. Today conservatism in America appeals to the least educated and the most easily manipulated.
17
"Unlike those who are “always lusting after something that is not,” the conservative tends to find delight in the achievements and blessings we have."
From the aristocratic fox hunters trampling a farmer's crop in the old world, to the millionaires in the US Congress out to debase our social safety nets, won after many a bloodied head, the conservative has a peculiar idea of "blessings."
From the aristocratic fox hunters trampling a farmer's crop in the old world, to the millionaires in the US Congress out to debase our social safety nets, won after many a bloodied head, the conservative has a peculiar idea of "blessings."
6
There was a statement made in this article something about how some of us conservatives are upset about the damage Obama has done to the country. I hardly think ending two wars and ushering in our first national health insurance is damaging the country. I'm reminded of a quote from a putative conservative which is a statement about the Republican party: "There has been a lot of progress in the last 75 years, and we've been against all of it."
35
I can't believe I made it through the whole thing.
I need to treat myself to a spoonful of real sugar after consuming so much saccharine writing.
I need to treat myself to a spoonful of real sugar after consuming so much saccharine writing.
6
It is not that Tea Party and the other more conservative factions of the Republican party don't believe in compromise. It is that they don't believe in compromise done simply because Boehner wants to improve his political standing, by cutting quick 1-1 deals with the President.
They want compromise after a hard fight that involves the conservative wing. And it is their right to push for it. They were elected by their district just a Boehner was. They were elected, by and large, to push a much more free-market, less distributive agenda.
If Mr. Boehner wants to ignore them and cut deals with the President and the Democrats, he should feel the heat and the revolt. That is proper.
They want compromise after a hard fight that involves the conservative wing. And it is their right to push for it. They were elected by their district just a Boehner was. They were elected, by and large, to push a much more free-market, less distributive agenda.
If Mr. Boehner wants to ignore them and cut deals with the President and the Democrats, he should feel the heat and the revolt. That is proper.
3
A knee-jerk opposition to anything Obama proposes is not the same as actually governing.
1
"Fairly or not, there are some widespread negative impressions of the Republican Party". It is very fair because they earned those negative impressions.
14
I am sure that Mr. Wehner as a conservative attempting to moderate the tone of his Republican Party will have about as much influence as a moderate Islamist in Saudi Arabia where reformers are jailed or beaten.
Anyone in the current Republican Party who does not see a Democrat as an enemy becomes part of the enemy camp. Do Democrats see Republicans that way? Hopefully not. but when Republicans see everyone as the enemy who do not agree with them as the enemy and are willing to destroy our government to prove the point then they are more a threat to our country than responsible representatives.
Anyone in the current Republican Party who does not see a Democrat as an enemy becomes part of the enemy camp. Do Democrats see Republicans that way? Hopefully not. but when Republicans see everyone as the enemy who do not agree with them as the enemy and are willing to destroy our government to prove the point then they are more a threat to our country than responsible representatives.
13
They represents the views of their constituents. The primary folks they represent are 5-10% of the population, but they are the extreme of the extreme right. We should focus on why these people: (1) given their small number can steer our national policy, and (2) what makes them so hateful, self-righteous, and enemy of the people.
The 2014 elections had the lowest turnout.
The 2014 elections had the lowest turnout.
Give the author credit. In his effort to define conservatism, he ably described how to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
10
A conservative is someone who is willing to let you die for his beliefs, and has lots of reasons why it's your own fault.
40
Wow, that's exactly how I would describe liberals, and they actually succeed at it. Funny how that works. Fortunately I'm an independent sort and stay weary of both extremes (and extremists).
The author spends some time laying out what conservatism is; but nothing about its supposed opponent in the Republican party, populism. Populism, like communism, is one of those words that can mean anything, but mainly means, "Someone who appeals for support to the masses instead of the elite." He needs to explain why he equates populism with extremism.
And if a "market-friendly safety net" was actually friendly to the people it was supposed to catch, we'd have one by now. Unless he means vouchers. I'm glad that the conservative finds delight in the blessings that he has; would he be amenable to sharing those delights with those who have very few blessings under the unequal system we have?
And if a "market-friendly safety net" was actually friendly to the people it was supposed to catch, we'd have one by now. Unless he means vouchers. I'm glad that the conservative finds delight in the blessings that he has; would he be amenable to sharing those delights with those who have very few blessings under the unequal system we have?
7
I wish the writer had spelled out the "damage" done by President Obama.
Could he please enumerate all the positive developments the previous president made.
And I would say that the president has a very sunny disposition despite the comparisons to Hitler hurled at him.
No matter the differences in disposition between Nixon and Reagan both inflicted great harm on this country. One with a scowl and the other with a practiced grin.
And what is liberty to conservatives? In my state there is noisy group that wants to have the liberty to wear guns in public and strike down all gun regulations.
Could he please enumerate all the positive developments the previous president made.
And I would say that the president has a very sunny disposition despite the comparisons to Hitler hurled at him.
No matter the differences in disposition between Nixon and Reagan both inflicted great harm on this country. One with a scowl and the other with a practiced grin.
And what is liberty to conservatives? In my state there is noisy group that wants to have the liberty to wear guns in public and strike down all gun regulations.
22
Ah yes, Texas. Texas, when and how did you lose your way?
In spite of the unexamined assumptions in the piece - "deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president" - the writer makes some good points about the excesses that many GOP operatives indulge in. However, what he doesn't do is question whether these excesses mean that the GOP has completely lost its mooring to reality, that it no longer has viable policies or even an accurate view of reality itself. Moreover, he doesn't offer any concrete remedies or proposals, but instead just makes vague philosophical points.
I think the TeaParty-dominated GOP has not just painted itself into a corner, but has dug itself in on the edge of a cliff. It can no longer distinguish reality from its own rhetoric - its followers BELIEVE what its leaders say. This is no way to politic or govern. It is a utopian crusade that will end in disaster for the country and the world.
I think the TeaParty-dominated GOP has not just painted itself into a corner, but has dug itself in on the edge of a cliff. It can no longer distinguish reality from its own rhetoric - its followers BELIEVE what its leaders say. This is no way to politic or govern. It is a utopian crusade that will end in disaster for the country and the world.
14
Haven't seen much "self-examination and self-correction" by conservatives that has been welcomed by the Republican party. A few, like Frum, have been drummed out of the "big tent." For the most part, the Republican party and its conservatives support and defend the existing distribution of wealth and power, and systems that protect that distribution for the sake of the "liberty" (i.e., property) of a few. I have never seen the party or many of its public intellectuals question those ideas, only to advance the argument that if it has been good for a few, then it's gotta be good for all lest justice claims disturb the natural order of things. Humans are too frail and fallible to be trusted with their own agency.
As the country continues its decline for the sake of the 19th century, how has that been working for the rest of us?
As the country continues its decline for the sake of the 19th century, how has that been working for the rest of us?
6
"Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president..."
Mr. Wehner fails to tell us in what ways President Obama inflicted damage to the country, but I can give him a little help here.
In whatever ways Obama may have damaged the country, coming into office he had a lot of help from George Bush who started two unnecessary wars and oversaw the collapse of Wall Street and the economy, and turned both problems over to Obama. In addition, Bush did nothing about immigration or climate change, two serious failures of omission, and two other failures of conservatism.
Indeed, George Bush represented the triumph of conservatism over prudence and common sense.
Mr. Wehner fails to tell us in what ways President Obama inflicted damage to the country, but I can give him a little help here.
In whatever ways Obama may have damaged the country, coming into office he had a lot of help from George Bush who started two unnecessary wars and oversaw the collapse of Wall Street and the economy, and turned both problems over to Obama. In addition, Bush did nothing about immigration or climate change, two serious failures of omission, and two other failures of conservatism.
Indeed, George Bush represented the triumph of conservatism over prudence and common sense.
18
Gulp! Where to begin? "Magnificent history of our constitution" oh stop. Surely a "true" conservative would admit that any history of anything is mixed. This constitution underwrote slavery and let the slave holders have their cake and count their slaves as 3/5ths of a man. This constitution makes it easy to block things, an absolute tar pit to advance things. Maybe there is not much better out there but if you want to ~conserve the earth from the market of hydrocarbons~then this constitution keeps you awake. "Sunny optimism of (saint) Reagan" oh pleaseee. Sunny Ron withheld funds constitutionally funded by congress for aids research. How many lives went down with that little flick of executive back hand? What exactly is a market friendly safety net? We will probably find out soon. Look I am a conservatitive. I believe we all act conservatively most of the time as in gang plank politics. I got mine now pull up the gang plank. Introduce Peter Wehner to a thinking conservative like Andrew Sullivan-get those guys to agree on list of damages by this president. I want to read that column. Thank you NYT. This was good-really! Everybody have a magnificent sunny day.....
10
When I went through the thought pattern you just described in this op-ed, I became a Democrat. It works! That was twenty five years ago, and I've never regretted that decision. The Republicans are so busy complaining about the inevitable changes in the world, they can't find sensible solutions to current problems. Get out of it and help the country. It needs people who think and create, and they're as welcome in the Democratic party as they are scorned in the Republican.
17
The current crop of Republican conservatives in Congress should come up a more apt label to describe their philosophy. I would like to recommend this new label: Sociopaths.
According MD-Health.com, here are some of the traits of a sociopath:
According to ICD-10 criteria, presence of 3 or more of the following qualifies for the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder (~sociopathy):
1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.
2/ Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, and obligations.
3. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them.
4. Very low tolerance to frustration, a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.
5. Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
6. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalization for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.
According MD-Health.com, here are some of the traits of a sociopath:
According to ICD-10 criteria, presence of 3 or more of the following qualifies for the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder (~sociopathy):
1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.
2/ Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, and obligations.
3. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them.
4. Very low tolerance to frustration, a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.
5. Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
6. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalization for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.
11
"Authentic conservatism has a high regard for things empirical, for facts that can lead us to better apprehend the truth."
Is that right? Well, you had better sell the rest of the Republicans on that, because I've never seen any group of people run away from empiricism, facts, and the truth faster and more willingly than today's extreme conservatives.
Is that right? Well, you had better sell the rest of the Republicans on that, because I've never seen any group of people run away from empiricism, facts, and the truth faster and more willingly than today's extreme conservatives.
24
"Authentic conservatism has a high regard for things empirical, for facts that can lead us to better apprehend the truth." When I read that sentence, I had to wonder which conservatism the author was describing. The one I read about denies human influenced climate change, and evolution. It's solutions for all problems are tax cuts and more guns.
A high regard for things empirical and for facts is the primary characteristic of someone NOT currently regarded as a conservative.
A high regard for things empirical and for facts is the primary characteristic of someone NOT currently regarded as a conservative.
12
This sounds more like an apology rather than an explanation of conservatism. "Conservatism is rooted in human experience" the author says. Whose experience is he talking about?
4
I can't wait to peruse the details of the Republicans' "market-friendly safety net." I. Seriously. Can't. Wait.
Of course, they've been talking about their "market-friendly" alternative to the Affordable Care Act---how in the world could a plan be more "market-friendly" than the ACA?---for the past five years and we have yet to see its details, so I may have something of a wait ahead of me.
My suggestions for a course correction in the conservative "disposition" are two: (1) They perhaps could exchange the phrase "market-friendly" for the phrase "people-friendly," and (2) They could perhaps then devise policies to match their shift in phraseology.
But Mr. Wehner's column assures us that at least the latter of my two suggestions won't be happening anytime soon. To posit that the biggest problem presently faced by conservatives is "dispositional" instead of "positional" is, after all, rather like saying "We don't have to actually be 'compassionate conservatives,' we just have to act like we are."
Of course, they've been talking about their "market-friendly" alternative to the Affordable Care Act---how in the world could a plan be more "market-friendly" than the ACA?---for the past five years and we have yet to see its details, so I may have something of a wait ahead of me.
My suggestions for a course correction in the conservative "disposition" are two: (1) They perhaps could exchange the phrase "market-friendly" for the phrase "people-friendly," and (2) They could perhaps then devise policies to match their shift in phraseology.
But Mr. Wehner's column assures us that at least the latter of my two suggestions won't be happening anytime soon. To posit that the biggest problem presently faced by conservatives is "dispositional" instead of "positional" is, after all, rather like saying "We don't have to actually be 'compassionate conservatives,' we just have to act like we are."
7
START WITH THIS:
democracy REQUIRES compromise. Living with other people requires seeing at least some of their views. Acceptance of things you don't like, a personal sacrifice for the larger good, is essential in a democracy.
America's "conservatives" seek a radical change from the way the country has been moving for more or less the last 100 yrs., since the progressive era of Teddy Roosevelt. If one were to list 100 items that have resulted in change in our country, the right in America would check off 80 or so boxes under the heading, "turn back the tide".
The Republican right doesn't understand or accept that a lot of what they have, especially in the so called red states, was built by that evil, ugly thing they call government. Farm subsidies by the billions pour into the red states. Workers who couldn't get jobs during the recession sought to go on disability whenever possible. The social safety net, much opposed, goes disproportionately to their states, helping to keep the lowest economic class afloat and, yes, off their throats.
How long will this poor bargain continue? How long can the Republican states get what they want from the federal govt., including massive defense spending, while voting down or opposing what the other states need and want?
Sooner or later, the moderate/progressive side of America is going to realize they've made a bad deal, trying to keep peace with those who want no peace and no compromise, ever.
Doug Terry
democracy REQUIRES compromise. Living with other people requires seeing at least some of their views. Acceptance of things you don't like, a personal sacrifice for the larger good, is essential in a democracy.
America's "conservatives" seek a radical change from the way the country has been moving for more or less the last 100 yrs., since the progressive era of Teddy Roosevelt. If one were to list 100 items that have resulted in change in our country, the right in America would check off 80 or so boxes under the heading, "turn back the tide".
The Republican right doesn't understand or accept that a lot of what they have, especially in the so called red states, was built by that evil, ugly thing they call government. Farm subsidies by the billions pour into the red states. Workers who couldn't get jobs during the recession sought to go on disability whenever possible. The social safety net, much opposed, goes disproportionately to their states, helping to keep the lowest economic class afloat and, yes, off their throats.
How long will this poor bargain continue? How long can the Republican states get what they want from the federal govt., including massive defense spending, while voting down or opposing what the other states need and want?
Sooner or later, the moderate/progressive side of America is going to realize they've made a bad deal, trying to keep peace with those who want no peace and no compromise, ever.
Doug Terry
11
With all that federal money pouring into these red states from farm subsidies to military spending to interstate highway dollars, the TVA and Social Security and Medicare...it's time to pull the plug on these malcontents.
I recently spoke with a woman who lives in a small town in rual Virginia bemoan the fact that the supplemental security income (SSI) that her 18 yr old Down Syndrome child wasn't enough to support him. She feared that his health insurance would run out under her husband's health plan When I indicated that her children's coverage would stay in place until they were 26 yrs old under the ACA, she said that was just a ploy to save the government money by putting the burden on her husband's company and thus costing jobs. A stay-at-home Mom with three sons living at home...one disabled, one in college working part-time and a husband earning $40K per year. Heaven forbid she get a part-time job or ask her college age son to contribute to the household. What's the thinking here?
I recently spoke with a woman who lives in a small town in rual Virginia bemoan the fact that the supplemental security income (SSI) that her 18 yr old Down Syndrome child wasn't enough to support him. She feared that his health insurance would run out under her husband's health plan When I indicated that her children's coverage would stay in place until they were 26 yrs old under the ACA, she said that was just a ploy to save the government money by putting the burden on her husband's company and thus costing jobs. A stay-at-home Mom with three sons living at home...one disabled, one in college working part-time and a husband earning $40K per year. Heaven forbid she get a part-time job or ask her college age son to contribute to the household. What's the thinking here?
2
The US Supreme Court opened the way for different treatment of the various states when it ruled that the states must have the ability to opt-out of the expansion of Medicaid. In other words, if the Republican dominated states have decided they don't need the federal government, they don't have to have it. The basic position of the Republicans is, "As long as we get what we want, everything will be fine." Meanwhile, they want to cut anything that the other states want/need. The Court opened the door to ending this silliness.
Doug Terry
Doug Terry
1
Whatever a conservative means, it's surely not going to be defined accurately on the pages of the NYTimes.
The conservatives I know are just like most people, however with the distinction of not liking increasing government meddling in their lives while their pockets are being picked by Uncle Sam.
It all boils down to money; liberals think that everyone's money belongs to society for spreading around for the "public good" and conservatives think their savings or earnings are their property.
Liberals by definition are hypocrites since they think that the other guy is responsible for paying to provide something for those whom the liberal likes and is more "deserving" than the other guy.
The political battles about taxes and spending are at the core about whether you think you are your "brother's keeper" or are not.
Conservatives believe they are their own "keepers".
The conservatives I know are just like most people, however with the distinction of not liking increasing government meddling in their lives while their pockets are being picked by Uncle Sam.
It all boils down to money; liberals think that everyone's money belongs to society for spreading around for the "public good" and conservatives think their savings or earnings are their property.
Liberals by definition are hypocrites since they think that the other guy is responsible for paying to provide something for those whom the liberal likes and is more "deserving" than the other guy.
The political battles about taxes and spending are at the core about whether you think you are your "brother's keeper" or are not.
Conservatives believe they are their own "keepers".
1
But that's not the answer God gave Cain.
1
Come on! You guys are "enjoying" plenty. The poor are getting poorer and more insecure. The rich...well, there's no "maximum wage" is there? Instead of socialized medicine, we subsidize the insurance companies. Everything is for sale, including judges and legislatures. If we become any more conservative, our capitalism will be less like Britain's and more like Guatemala's. The Guilded Age has returned and you won't be happy until every program that benefits workers, the sick, the poor, and the elderly get scraped. Your op-ed was just too rich - the top hatted, cigar smoking aristocracy complaining about the riff-raff in the Tea Party. Thanks for the laugh - I "enjoyed" it.
9
"Authentic conservatism has a high regard for things empirical, for facts that can lead us to better apprehend the truth." If only modern conservatism would live up to this ideal, we would all be better off.
Modern conservatism however, looks at climate change data, gun violence, wealth inequality, immigration, social security, health care and virtually every big challenge facing this country and willfully ignores empirical data in favor of utopian ideology. Even the author proposes that our government-backed social safety net should be transformed into a market-driven model. Where is the data to support such a risky proposition? And when the "market" crashes and fails, who then will step in to help the poorest among us?
When modern American conservatives get all teary-eyed about the "free-market" and believe it can solve problems with its invisible magic hand, I can't help but think of those blurry-eyed hippies from the sixties who believed that communal "free-love" would magically solve problems by sharing everything. It appears our modern "free-market" champions are ignoring empirical facts and are instead trying to be, under the sea, in an Octopus's garden in the shade.
Seems to me that modern conservatism has more in common with yesterday's liberals than they realize. If modern conservatism doesn't change course, it is likely they will do as much damage to the Republican brand, as the hippies did to the Democrat brand.
Modern conservatism however, looks at climate change data, gun violence, wealth inequality, immigration, social security, health care and virtually every big challenge facing this country and willfully ignores empirical data in favor of utopian ideology. Even the author proposes that our government-backed social safety net should be transformed into a market-driven model. Where is the data to support such a risky proposition? And when the "market" crashes and fails, who then will step in to help the poorest among us?
When modern American conservatives get all teary-eyed about the "free-market" and believe it can solve problems with its invisible magic hand, I can't help but think of those blurry-eyed hippies from the sixties who believed that communal "free-love" would magically solve problems by sharing everything. It appears our modern "free-market" champions are ignoring empirical facts and are instead trying to be, under the sea, in an Octopus's garden in the shade.
Seems to me that modern conservatism has more in common with yesterday's liberals than they realize. If modern conservatism doesn't change course, it is likely they will do as much damage to the Republican brand, as the hippies did to the Democrat brand.
8
The author speaks of the vitriol coming from some on the right wing, then goes on to say "Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president..."
What damage is he talking about... providing more Americans with access to health care? Repairing the damage done to the economy by conservatives? Ending wars that were poorly executed by conservatives? Keeping America relatively safe from foreign terrorists? Appointing qualified and compassionate judges? Working against global warming? Restoring America's standing in the world? Reducing the budget deficit?
Pot, meet Kettle.
What damage is he talking about... providing more Americans with access to health care? Repairing the damage done to the economy by conservatives? Ending wars that were poorly executed by conservatives? Keeping America relatively safe from foreign terrorists? Appointing qualified and compassionate judges? Working against global warming? Restoring America's standing in the world? Reducing the budget deficit?
Pot, meet Kettle.
10
The far right are not conservatives, though they like to style themselves as such. Far from it, they are radicals. The world they claim they want to "return" to is a mythical golden age that has never existed apart from the Donna Reed Show and Leave it to Beaver. But in fact the world of deregulation and social Darwinism they want to move toward, having all the worst aspects of Dodge City and Dicken's London has never existed at all, and that makes them radicals.
6
"Is there a conservative disposition? The answer, I think, is that there is, and what I’ve just described is not it."
Man, where has this guy been the last 20 years? What he describes as conservatism is what is was during the heyday of William Buckley. Back then, there was at least some attempt at an intellectual underpinning to conservatism. Now it's just reduce taxes, cut everything, and give more power to billionaires, over and over and over again.
This essay reads like some memoir of a time long past that the author refuses to acknowledge has gone. He identifies the serious problems tearing through the Republican Party and says "Hey, that's not really us." Yes it is.
Man, where has this guy been the last 20 years? What he describes as conservatism is what is was during the heyday of William Buckley. Back then, there was at least some attempt at an intellectual underpinning to conservatism. Now it's just reduce taxes, cut everything, and give more power to billionaires, over and over and over again.
This essay reads like some memoir of a time long past that the author refuses to acknowledge has gone. He identifies the serious problems tearing through the Republican Party and says "Hey, that's not really us." Yes it is.
12
In pointing to conservatives with the right disposition, Mr. Wehner states "Ronald Reagan. . . told his aides, “Remember, we have no enemies, only opponents.” I seem to recall that this right disposition led Mr. Reagan to surreptitiously use Iran as a political ally at a time when everyone else in the U.S. viewed Iran as an enemy. Methinks the only difference between Nixon and Reagan was disposition (aka style) but certainly not substance.
2
Upon first reading the title I had hopes the writer might address the real mis-labeling that the word "conservative" embraces. "Conservatives" do not want to conserve - not oil, not energy, not resources, not money (anyone up for another war?), not human potential. They only wish to preserve an old, gilded-age view of life as properly lived by only the wealthy.
A better and far more accurate label for these people would be "preservatives."
A better and far more accurate label for these people would be "preservatives."
12
If it was "really populism" it could be amenable to compromise, what it really is, is paranoid demagoguery, blind to facts and immune to reason.
2
So, how come we never see an op-ed that examines "liberals" in name only? Liberals who now advocate restrictions on free speech and free expression in the name of equality and social justice. Who decry greed in business but never ever challenge greed in government. Who believe that for every problem there is a government program as the solution. Who avoid critical thinking and, instead, advocate political dogma. Where is that introspective op-ed?
If you "know" so much about us, why don't you write it?
2
While it is good to see appeals to moderation and civility, the writer undermines his higher ground and risks being labelled too clever by half with his throwaway line about the "damage" the president has done to the country. He may prefer different policies but what is the test of doing damage? Traditional conservatism [should be almost a redundant term] is built on facing facts and avoiding wishful thinking. Even so-called moderate Republicans continue to support policies that have been shown to be delusional: We don't need financial regulation, cutting taxes of the rich benefits all, and the like. What happened to that other conservative idea; that we have obligations to one another to build a stronger social whole rather than focusing solely on individual profit?
5
Mr. Wehner cites Ronald Reagan as his conservative model, but Reagan shared some of the same unhinged convictions that are expressed so commonly today by the leaders and rank-and-file of today's Republican Party (see Reagan's commentary on Medicare, etc.).
Reagan became more of a pragmatist while president, but his pragmatism has long since been forgotten by his zealous spawn. To paraphrase Senator Ted Cruz, the greatest problem facing our country today began when the American people first swallowed the Kool-Aid Ronald Reagan had to offer.
Reagan became more of a pragmatist while president, but his pragmatism has long since been forgotten by his zealous spawn. To paraphrase Senator Ted Cruz, the greatest problem facing our country today began when the American people first swallowed the Kool-Aid Ronald Reagan had to offer.
1
Republicans may, in principle at least, have some features that add value to a national conversation, if based on reality, empirical evidence of what works and not, politics instead of politicking. However, being so rigid, adamant that it has to be their way or the highway, with a rigid ideology exempt of common sense, their ability to bend impaired by recalcitrant 'tedcruzes' may become the last straw to disable them to help the country. So many problems, so little space for common purpose and viable solutions. Is stupidity worth the fight?
My problem with the so-called middle of the road republicans is with their physical policies. As a so-called "Krugman liberal", I am sickened by the Federal Reserve's Quantitave Easing. Although I realize it had to be. We had significant unemployment in 2008. Pure Keynesian philosophy would have taken the created easing quantities from the Fed and would have buried them to be discovered by the Executive Branch as new money that could be expended on infra-structure repairs. But the conservative physical philosophy was that this type of deficit spending is a "no no" backed by the faulty analysis of the great deceased economist Milton Friedman.
Yes the monkey shines of the process of quantitative easing did a partial job. So much of it went to unused bank reserves but some of it bled into enhanced values in the stock market and made the upper 4% freer spenders with their "book" wealth. I am no longer a practicing economist, but I would appreciate a Krugman type analysis of how quantitative easing replaced deficit financing.
What I am saying is that conservative philosophy forced quantitative easing on a politically democrat government that would have much preferred a larger use of deficit financing.
Yes the monkey shines of the process of quantitative easing did a partial job. So much of it went to unused bank reserves but some of it bled into enhanced values in the stock market and made the upper 4% freer spenders with their "book" wealth. I am no longer a practicing economist, but I would appreciate a Krugman type analysis of how quantitative easing replaced deficit financing.
What I am saying is that conservative philosophy forced quantitative easing on a politically democrat government that would have much preferred a larger use of deficit financing.
It is touching when the New York Times finds a Republican to knock the conservative movement. Why do I doubt that the ultra liberal New York Times would only have the best interests of the conservative movement at heart? The paper tells us that conservatives should not be so staunchly against this administration despite the damage it has done and continues to do our country. I for one will not take this advice.
1
The populism of today's conservatism is based on fear, ignorance, bigotry and selfishness.
8
One wonders why every prosperous industrialized nation in history, including the United States, has replaced a "market friendly" state with a "welfare" state.
Something in the water?
Something in the water?
2
You can rest assured that any Republican who gets space in the NYT Op-Ed sections is there to blast those members of the GOP whose views are the furthest from the liberal sensibilities of the NYT staff.
Would love to see an article from centrist Democrat blasting the far left of that party. Lord knows we saw plenty of Nazi analogies during the Bush years and we certainly hear apocalyptic rhetoric from the Senator Warren wing. That message does not fit with the ideological agenda of the activists at the NYT. Hence, we will never see such an article. Be assured that we will continue to see Republicans who attack the far right side of the party, just as we have seen them before.
Would love to see an article from centrist Democrat blasting the far left of that party. Lord knows we saw plenty of Nazi analogies during the Bush years and we certainly hear apocalyptic rhetoric from the Senator Warren wing. That message does not fit with the ideological agenda of the activists at the NYT. Hence, we will never see such an article. Be assured that we will continue to see Republicans who attack the far right side of the party, just as we have seen them before.
1
"Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president but don’t share this doom-laden view are labeled by some on the right as cowardly and unprincipled."
Not to mention those of us who are conservative and more deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on our country by our obstructionist Republican party in Congress than we are concerned about anything President Obama has done or will do. We've watched the party by and large refuse to participate in governance for the past six years, so here is hoping Wehner's voice carries some influence. We hear reports regularly about the number of issues where there is bipartisan agreement about needs, such as infrastructure development or immigration reform. This ought not be so difficult for grownups.
Not to mention those of us who are conservative and more deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on our country by our obstructionist Republican party in Congress than we are concerned about anything President Obama has done or will do. We've watched the party by and large refuse to participate in governance for the past six years, so here is hoping Wehner's voice carries some influence. We hear reports regularly about the number of issues where there is bipartisan agreement about needs, such as infrastructure development or immigration reform. This ought not be so difficult for grownups.
12
"In a marvelous 1976 essay, the historian Gertrude Himmelfarb contended that the key word to describe the conservative disposition was 'enjoyment.' Unlike those who are 'always lusting after something that is not,' the conservative tends to find delight in the achievements and blessings we have." -- Peter Wehner
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?" -- Robert Kennedy
"Conservative: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others." -- Ambrose Bierce
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?" -- Robert Kennedy
"Conservative: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others." -- Ambrose Bierce
3
What is the "Republican cause" now? Is it anything other than acquiring, using, and expanding power?
6
Complaints about "damage inflicted on the country by the president" ring hollow from a supporter of George W. Bush. The largely imaginary Obama damage - details of which are strangely omitted from this piece - can easily be compared to the very real wounds inflicted GWB.
The worst terrorist attack in US history. The festering sore that is Iraq. Abu Graib. The utterly avoidable Great Recession.
The botched response to Katrina. The politicization of the US Attorney's office. The Plame affair. The Schiavo mess (hi Jeb!) Alberto Gonzalez. The Merkel massage. Enough?
The man left office with abysmal approval ratings - we're talking in the 20s - both domestically and internationally. Why? Because of the very real damage he inflicted on the country.
Mr. Obama, on the other hand, has inflicted (minor) damage to the very well-off by causing them to be slightly less well-off, while attempting to actually improve the lives of the remaining population. And no mistake - THAT is what irks Mr. Wehner and his fellow Republicans.
As for the main thrust of the article, the GOP has hopped on the fast train to crazy town. There is no stop scheduled for Reality Street. The party's dream of finding another Ronald Reagan - that is, the mythical St. Ronnie - seems unlikely, and unfortunately, there is no way to gerrymander a Presidential election. (Swipe it...maybe.) Anyway, good luck with that.
The worst terrorist attack in US history. The festering sore that is Iraq. Abu Graib. The utterly avoidable Great Recession.
The botched response to Katrina. The politicization of the US Attorney's office. The Plame affair. The Schiavo mess (hi Jeb!) Alberto Gonzalez. The Merkel massage. Enough?
The man left office with abysmal approval ratings - we're talking in the 20s - both domestically and internationally. Why? Because of the very real damage he inflicted on the country.
Mr. Obama, on the other hand, has inflicted (minor) damage to the very well-off by causing them to be slightly less well-off, while attempting to actually improve the lives of the remaining population. And no mistake - THAT is what irks Mr. Wehner and his fellow Republicans.
As for the main thrust of the article, the GOP has hopped on the fast train to crazy town. There is no stop scheduled for Reality Street. The party's dream of finding another Ronald Reagan - that is, the mythical St. Ronnie - seems unlikely, and unfortunately, there is no way to gerrymander a Presidential election. (Swipe it...maybe.) Anyway, good luck with that.
26
Since his election, Barack Obama has sought to govern as "someone with a conservative disposition, who is seen as a reassuring agent of change, and who can persuade voters rather than hector them." The Republicans in opposition have united behind a strategy of attempting to deny the legitimacy of his election and reelection by clear margins, appealing to the worst hateful and racist instincts of their 'base'. Sadly, the respectable, reasonable conservatives Wehner commends to our attention evidently do not exist.
14
From afar, what the Republican Party and conservatives nowadays clearly stand for are a deep and stunningly resentful hatred of anything to the left of their own views and a fear -- of others, of change -- that is so disproportionate to reality as to be laughable if it weren't so influential in driving American politics.
13
"Authentic conservatism has a high regard for things empirical..." You mean things like trickle down economics, climate change denial, religious doctrine, etc.?
38
Are you joking? "Conservatism" today seems like a grab bag of opportunistic scrabblers. Each seeking his own advantage. The moralistic and self assuring repetition that "we are correct, we are moral and we are the preservers of traditional values" has devolved into a ridiculous spectacle. Ayn Rand has left Edmund Burke in the dust.
22
A key word for conservatism is enjoyment? What about fear or reluctance? Since the age of the Enlightenment and the gradual creation of the world as we know it, conservatives have opposed every step. As the market place was developing with the rise of the merchant class, they stood with the nobles who measured their wealth in titles and land. As democracy was unfolding, they stood with the kings. It was the liberals who created capitalism, and then, when its cost proved so high, they tried to soften its brutality. Now it is the conservatives who stand for a predatory Darwinian capitalism that is tearing the world into the one percent whose wealth is almost beyond the calculation of ordinary people, and the rest of us who stand powerless before Wall Street and the financial class. Against this background, the author imagines there are conservatives who revel in enjoyment. The shallowness of this article makes me gasp.
23
Because this is the NY Times, I guess I should use more elegant language, but........what a crock. Exactly what "damage" has this administration inflicted upon the country? Please, spell it out so we can all be edified. The Washington Post has some hacks who just make it up as they go (Jennifer Rubin a perfect example) but I would expect a bit more from this newspaper. And exactly what have conservatives (even given a generous definition) done for most of us lateley?
20
I believe conservatives have reached the high water mark in congress measured by numbers of members. After a year, more and more Americans will get tired of the emptiness and shallowness of legislative conservatism. We're smarter than you think though it may take more time to get that you'd like to roll back most all the achievements accrued to the working person, not the investor. When your deregulatory dreams come true and the balloon bursts I will have Social Security and watch the investors leap out the office window.
2
This actually after the 2010 election.
It is one thing to: "advance a policy agenda that systematically transforms welfare-state programs into a market-friendly safety net." It is quite another to advance a policy that advances further concentration of wealth at the top and leaves little opportunity or hope for all others. This seems to be the lesson of "conservative" philosophy. I challenge you to change this and TRULY care about those who have not already reached the top.
9
A whole article about conservatism and not one mention of the word money.
6
If you are a conservative you would vote Democratic.
The Democrats are far to the right of the Republicans of 30 years ago.
The Republicans vary from off-the-wall (as Peter Wehner argues) to not paying attention to facts (the moderate, Boehner, Republicans).
When did ignoring science and factrs become a criterion not just for the off the wall types, but the possibly remotely moderate Republicans?
The Democrats are far to the right of the Republicans of 30 years ago.
The Republicans vary from off-the-wall (as Peter Wehner argues) to not paying attention to facts (the moderate, Boehner, Republicans).
When did ignoring science and factrs become a criterion not just for the off the wall types, but the possibly remotely moderate Republicans?
7
So let me see if i understand:
If one believes that the people who run this country have taken it in directions opposite to those in which it was founded and wish to turn the country back to them, he is not a conservative but some kind of nut.
A conservative is one who wants to change a few things within the ambit of how the country is being run.
Consequently, the country is divided between an d establishment that contains Progressives like Obama and conservatives like Mr Wehner, and millions of unsavory American yahoos.
And the moon is made of green cheese.
If one believes that the people who run this country have taken it in directions opposite to those in which it was founded and wish to turn the country back to them, he is not a conservative but some kind of nut.
A conservative is one who wants to change a few things within the ambit of how the country is being run.
Consequently, the country is divided between an d establishment that contains Progressives like Obama and conservatives like Mr Wehner, and millions of unsavory American yahoos.
And the moon is made of green cheese.
1
I think Mr. Wehner has just assured that he won't be serving in any more Republican adminstrations... for begging to differ even one iota from the Required Right-Wing Rhetoric.
Grand Moff Limbaugh and Darth Cheney, and the clown princes over at a certain "Fair and Balanced" operation will have a field day with this piece.
Grand Moff Limbaugh and Darth Cheney, and the clown princes over at a certain "Fair and Balanced" operation will have a field day with this piece.
4
We already changed welfare programs into a market friendly safety net. They are called the earned income tax credit, which allows the poor to keep a decent portion of their low income wages; food stamps, which let the poor buy the food they want instead of giving them whatever farmers raised too much of; and subsidies to buy health insurance on exchanges, rather than having to accept whatever doctors would take Medicaid. What more are you looking for?
And if you want to look at Republicans rejecting empiricism, read Paul Krugman's columns for a week or so and look at how they endorse policies designed to deepen our recession. Today, what passes for conservatism does not admit the possibility of examining the data and changing policies based on it. As Keynes said, "When the facts change, sir, I change my mind. What do you do?" Oh, yeah, he was a Keynesian.
But, you and I agree on one thing, it seems. Most of those who call themselves conservatives today are, in fact, radical.
And if you want to look at Republicans rejecting empiricism, read Paul Krugman's columns for a week or so and look at how they endorse policies designed to deepen our recession. Today, what passes for conservatism does not admit the possibility of examining the data and changing policies based on it. As Keynes said, "When the facts change, sir, I change my mind. What do you do?" Oh, yeah, he was a Keynesian.
But, you and I agree on one thing, it seems. Most of those who call themselves conservatives today are, in fact, radical.
13
Quote "Magnanimity, winsomeness and grace aren’t antithetical to conservatism. They are an essential part of it."
Good luck with that line of reasoning when you attend any Republican function.....
Good luck with that line of reasoning when you attend any Republican function.....
11
I have the feeling that Mr. Wehner bears the same relationship to the Republican party that ascetic monks do to the Vatican clergy.
5
Perhaps the writer can enlighten us with a follow-up column detailing exactly what a "real" conservative agenda might look like. I for one would greatly appreciate a thorough description of "welfare-state programs" versus "market-friendly safety net". And also, while you're at it, please specify the "damage inflicted on the country by the president".
For the record, effective governance requires more than making nice, or pretending to, until after elections. It requires more than declaring "morning in America" while stripping the country of all safeguards against outrageous inequality of opportunity. It requires more than blind devotion to the sacred market (this coming from a former investment banker), which has really come to mean fealty to money in politics. To refresh - democracy is defined as rule by the majority, of people and not money.
For the record, effective governance requires more than making nice, or pretending to, until after elections. It requires more than declaring "morning in America" while stripping the country of all safeguards against outrageous inequality of opportunity. It requires more than blind devotion to the sacred market (this coming from a former investment banker), which has really come to mean fealty to money in politics. To refresh - democracy is defined as rule by the majority, of people and not money.
19
Today's republican party has made a deal with the Devil. It has used the anger of right-wing populism as embodied in the Tea Party and hate radio (e.g. Mark Levin) to capture power which it then uses to bilk and exploit the very people who are induced to vote for it by fear and resentment of the "other" (i.e. big city ethnic minorities). Its core is an unreconstructed racist base (prominent in but not limited to the South) and as long as anger can be directed against the black and the brown it will not be directed where it belongs: at the financial parasites who produce nothing of value but accrue ones and zeroes in computer files by manipulation and cutting ethical corners where they do not actually go over the line into outright criminality. The logical end of rightist populism coupled with corporatism is fascism. The raw materials are all around us, waiting to be ignited by the right demagogue.
251
jprfrog: Bravo a hundred times over......concise and brilliant.
4
Yes, and Ted Cruz wants really, really badly to be that right demagogue. He's just itching to light the fire.
1
Nice article - swell description of a political organization and ideology. But today's Republican Party is about the last thing that comes to mind when reading it.
88
The only welfare-state program this country has is the one that pays those elected to do the people's work to do nothing (with full benefits). These takers are dedicated to the demise of government via de-regulation, tax avoidance, obstruction, and an ingenious propaganda machine that has a working class voting against its own interest. The label "Conservative" has provided intellectual cover for the faux, randy propaganda of a movement that has no interest in seeing a nation deal with its complex responsibilities toward its infrastructure, schools, science research , or stewardship toward the earth.
168
I'd like to see a winsome candidate, from either party.
1
I'd like to see a human candidate, from either party.
11
I have a hard time with this piece on so many different levels. Look at two statements: "What often masquerades as conservatism these days is really populism. There is room for populism within conservatism, but it should not define conservatism. In fact, it is often in conflict with it." Are you kidding me? The populism of the Tea Party cannot be considered on the same plane as that of the Occupy movement ( to provide a similarly noisy comparator). One is concerned with basic rights and equity expressed as community values; the other is concerned with basic rights and equity expressed as individual choice and "freedoms". One is about "we" the other is about "me".
The other comment further cements that difference: "Today’s Republicans, for example, should advance a policy agenda that systematically transforms welfare-state programs into a market-friendly safety net." So why does compassion have to be market friendly or even market based? Markets are famously unfriendly (just look at health insurance). Again, this is an answer that screams: Republicans are not concerned with we the people, but me the person. Modern conservative principles flow from narcissistic and nakedly egocentric views of the world. I, me, mine - not us, we or all. Community falls by the wayside. And that especially includes empirical facts if they do not jive with that particular worldview.
Sorry but this screed is merely a way of saying modern conservatism will be this countries ruin.
The other comment further cements that difference: "Today’s Republicans, for example, should advance a policy agenda that systematically transforms welfare-state programs into a market-friendly safety net." So why does compassion have to be market friendly or even market based? Markets are famously unfriendly (just look at health insurance). Again, this is an answer that screams: Republicans are not concerned with we the people, but me the person. Modern conservative principles flow from narcissistic and nakedly egocentric views of the world. I, me, mine - not us, we or all. Community falls by the wayside. And that especially includes empirical facts if they do not jive with that particular worldview.
Sorry but this screed is merely a way of saying modern conservatism will be this countries ruin.
216
OK. What about calling others with a different viewpoint Nazi's? Where exactly is this "tyranny" your teammates refer to. And what of the deep damage being inflicted by this President. What exactly is it? Explaining this would give me "enjoyment".
114
What in the world is a "market-friendly safety-net"? Is that where the family who needs help has to put up a $500 dollars to get $500 dollars in help? Maybe it's sending the medicaid recipient out to the farm fields to pick some fruit in exchange for medical help.
I am also left scratching my head on the conservative disposition being that of "enjoyment". There is a palpable angst amongst conservatives about the sorry state of affairs in the world. No family values, gays getting equal rights, immigrants infesting our neighborhoods, abortions rampant, and the list goes on.
Give it a rest. The right is terrified that the world is drifting away from their manifest destiny. Sharing the wealth is the real issue.
I am also left scratching my head on the conservative disposition being that of "enjoyment". There is a palpable angst amongst conservatives about the sorry state of affairs in the world. No family values, gays getting equal rights, immigrants infesting our neighborhoods, abortions rampant, and the list goes on.
Give it a rest. The right is terrified that the world is drifting away from their manifest destiny. Sharing the wealth is the real issue.
384
I can only think a "market-friendly safety-net" would be to privatize all those programs, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc, so Corporations can move in and make money. How quickly do you think that profit will become their main concern? A good example would be the private sector Medicare Part B plans. They are there to cover expenses not covered by Medicare. Consider the cost of those programs and how much money is being made by the large insurance corporations.
7
I have no wealth. Which disproves everything you believe.
No, a market friendly safety net is where a family puts up $500 to get $400 in help, while really rich people use the pilfered $100 to get leather on the steering wheel of their 2nd yacht.
That's market friendly!
That's market friendly!
6
No Mr. Boehner, the November elections did NOT give the imperative to challenge the President on immigration. Yet another one of your low-life tactics that appeal to ignorant people in your base that hate Obama, like you and your cronies do. None of you care so much about immigration as trying to hurt a man you hate for his policies and for his leadership.
36
"Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president..."
And there's where you lose me and begin to sound like the talk radio jocks you're decrying. What kind of selective amnesia do you suffer from? Please recall where the country was under W. Under President Obama, unemployment is down, the stock market is up, the deficit is down, and we're getting out of foreign wars.
The main problem facing the country right now is massive inequality, and "conservative" policies are exacerbating that, not solving it. The damage being done to the country is by the red Congress, not the President.
And there's where you lose me and begin to sound like the talk radio jocks you're decrying. What kind of selective amnesia do you suffer from? Please recall where the country was under W. Under President Obama, unemployment is down, the stock market is up, the deficit is down, and we're getting out of foreign wars.
The main problem facing the country right now is massive inequality, and "conservative" policies are exacerbating that, not solving it. The damage being done to the country is by the red Congress, not the President.
338
The Republican Party: An anti-government extremist group.
74
Perfect!
4
"Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president..." A given, tripingly off the tongue. I guess real conservatives can fill in the rest according each to his particular peeves.
20
"Authentic conservatism has a high regard for things empirical, for facts that can lead us to better apprehend the truth."
This is either the funniest thing I've read in years or is legitmate evidence that "authentic conservatism" in the political realm hasn't existed in my lifetime.
This is either the funniest thing I've read in years or is legitmate evidence that "authentic conservatism" in the political realm hasn't existed in my lifetime.
150
Magnanimity, winsomeness and grace aren’t antithetical to conservatism. They are an essential part of it.
Yep, just like with Ronald Reagan, a friendly smile and a good story helps one do the most horrendous , even criminal, things with impunity. Have a lack of charm, ala Nixon, and you're toast. Ergo the political success and abysmal real world failure of a George Bush or even a John Boehner.
Yep, just like with Ronald Reagan, a friendly smile and a good story helps one do the most horrendous , even criminal, things with impunity. Have a lack of charm, ala Nixon, and you're toast. Ergo the political success and abysmal real world failure of a George Bush or even a John Boehner.
38
"Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president"
The damage to this country is being done by the entire GOP, sir. Your collective mendacity is disgusting.
The damage to this country is being done by the entire GOP, sir. Your collective mendacity is disgusting.
167
Yes, there are many conservatives in name only, just as there are many liberals in the name only. These people belong to same group; those who enjoy the advantages of wealth. Most conservatives are rich, but so are the liberals, and it seems that the more liberal one is, the richer they are. Liberals, as in the case of Obama's school lunch plan, dictate to everyday, working class folk what their children must eat. Yet the wealthy who can afford to send their kids to schools like Sidwell Friends in DC, do not have to subject their children to the Obama dietary regime. The children of the rich, conservative and liberal alike, eat whatever they want. Why? Because they have enough money to not rely on federal subsidies. So, politicians, conservative and liberal alike, operate in a world not impeded by federal money; they can do as they please without having to worry if their federal funds will be cut-off. Yes, there are conservatives in name only, just as there are liberals in name only, and both adhere to the mantra "do as I say, not as I do."
4
Maybe you could just pack your kids a lunch?
4
You need to pick a better illustration than "the Obama dietary regime" for school lunches. That has only been an attempt to improve the nutritional value of school lunches and reduce the junk food. But any parents who don't like what the school lunches offer can pack their own lunch for their kids. We're everyday working-class folks and that is what we did for 12 years. No one is "subject" to school lunches if they don't like them.
8
The reason many see the Republican Party as opposed to change, too extreme and inflexible and unwilling to compromise is because that is an apt description of the legislation that Republicans espouse. Rather than words, look at facts. The House just passed legislation to avoid any change to immigration, still hoping to deport 11 million illegal immigrants. They have not proposed any legislation of their own. They just passed legislation undoing much of Dodd-Frank, not providing any legislation to prevent another Great Recession in the future. They are fighting to return health care to the situation we have had for almost a generation. Words are just words. If the author wants us to believe that the Republican Party has something positive to offer, rather than either maintaining the status quo or moving backwards, provide at least one example.
38
Conservatism is as conservatism does, and what it does is Dominionism.
11
The damage inflicted by this Preident? How about the damage the last president did and this president had to fix. How about the damage the Republican Party does to this country now and will likely inflict in the future.
That is what is wrong with the Republican Party. The rhetoric is a sideshow.
That is what is wrong with the Republican Party. The rhetoric is a sideshow.
74
In other words, the next 'con-servative' presidential candidate should fake it and pretend they are something they are not? I thought Mitt did that last time, he was the con man until he got filmed talking about the 47%.
Don't complain about Cruz and Carson when McCain and Graham are fear and hysteria mongers only marginally different from the real loons in the once GOP.
Your party, your ideology has lost its mind.
Don't complain about Cruz and Carson when McCain and Graham are fear and hysteria mongers only marginally different from the real loons in the once GOP.
Your party, your ideology has lost its mind.
42
Mr. Wehner must have slept through the disaster of the last Republican Administration, and one certainly hopes it was the last Republican Administration. Would it help to review the highlights?
Two wars, neither paid for, one based completely on lies about nonexistent weapons. Five thousand American dead, over one hundred thousand Iraqi dead, millions displaced, Final costs estimated at three trillion dollars to accomplish the destruction of a country.
Net zero private sector jobs for eight years. An economy bleeding 600,000 jobs per month. Financial markets which lost 40% of their value. A total collapse of the auto industry. A real estate bubble produced by Wall Street deregulation, producing a nearly total collapse of the worldwide financial system.
Attempts to privatise Social Security on behalf of Wall Street. Regulatory capture run wild. Hundreds of billions in no-bid contracts to fellow crony capitalists.
Turning a trillion in surpluses to trillions in debt by the magic of supply side fantasy. Trillions in home equity and pension assets lost.
How lost in the Republican Alternate Universe does one have to be, in order to make Mr. Wehner's statement that he is "deeply disturbed" by the subsequent administration which had to clean up the series of disasters created by Bush and his criminally incompetent cohorts?
Two wars, neither paid for, one based completely on lies about nonexistent weapons. Five thousand American dead, over one hundred thousand Iraqi dead, millions displaced, Final costs estimated at three trillion dollars to accomplish the destruction of a country.
Net zero private sector jobs for eight years. An economy bleeding 600,000 jobs per month. Financial markets which lost 40% of their value. A total collapse of the auto industry. A real estate bubble produced by Wall Street deregulation, producing a nearly total collapse of the worldwide financial system.
Attempts to privatise Social Security on behalf of Wall Street. Regulatory capture run wild. Hundreds of billions in no-bid contracts to fellow crony capitalists.
Turning a trillion in surpluses to trillions in debt by the magic of supply side fantasy. Trillions in home equity and pension assets lost.
How lost in the Republican Alternate Universe does one have to be, in order to make Mr. Wehner's statement that he is "deeply disturbed" by the subsequent administration which had to clean up the series of disasters created by Bush and his criminally incompetent cohorts?
845
Indeed, Republican memory is amazingly short when it comes to Bush the younger...however, our vox populi seem to have a short memory too or just a lot of ignorance and stupidity---leading to a Congress that is a awash in money and corporate and idealogue influence.
7
Agreed, and you forgot unfunded Medicare Part D.
6
"Which is why Republicans, in selecting a presidential nominee, should choose someone with a conservative disposition, who is seen as a reassuring agent of change, and who can persuade voters rather than hector them."
I'd settle for a candidate who isn't under the complete and utter control of Wall Street. All the other "issues" in recent election cycles are just distractions for the proles.
I'd settle for a candidate who isn't under the complete and utter control of Wall Street. All the other "issues" in recent election cycles are just distractions for the proles.
12
Oh. My. Goodness.
I keep on looking for coherent expressions of Conservatism, but it is so difficult to find. This is not it either.
The author has some ivory tower, utopian view of conservatism with nothing rooted in reality. "Market friendly safety net"? What in the world is THAT? What does such a thing look like, considering how such a thing has never been seen in the the world?
This all sounds nice, but what does the author have to say about modern Conservatism's view that profits should be made by Corporations even at the expense of the society that supports it? Some examples are how little Conservatives believes that Corporations should pay the society for using the roads, water, other infrastructure wear and tear - and that little should be zero.
Remember Exxon Valdez? Exxon paid pennies on the real cost of the clean up, while the public picked up the rest, and still bears the cost of the disaster, thanks to Conservative lobbying and legislation.
Sorry, I cannot just "Enjoy it" when it means Socializing costs while Privatizing Profits.
I keep on looking for coherent expressions of Conservatism, but it is so difficult to find. This is not it either.
The author has some ivory tower, utopian view of conservatism with nothing rooted in reality. "Market friendly safety net"? What in the world is THAT? What does such a thing look like, considering how such a thing has never been seen in the the world?
This all sounds nice, but what does the author have to say about modern Conservatism's view that profits should be made by Corporations even at the expense of the society that supports it? Some examples are how little Conservatives believes that Corporations should pay the society for using the roads, water, other infrastructure wear and tear - and that little should be zero.
Remember Exxon Valdez? Exxon paid pennies on the real cost of the clean up, while the public picked up the rest, and still bears the cost of the disaster, thanks to Conservative lobbying and legislation.
Sorry, I cannot just "Enjoy it" when it means Socializing costs while Privatizing Profits.
64
The modern republican party, an oxymoron if there ever was one, is not conservative.
Being for perpetual war, allowing Wall Street to rape Americans daily, stealing food stamps to subsidise Big Ag, and being willing to burn the last molecule of carbon as it kills life on this planet is not even remotely the definition of conserve, the root of conservatism.
Being for perpetual war, allowing Wall Street to rape Americans daily, stealing food stamps to subsidise Big Ag, and being willing to burn the last molecule of carbon as it kills life on this planet is not even remotely the definition of conserve, the root of conservatism.
55
Finally, the underlying source of conflict between those who fund the Republican Party (eastern establishment Wall Street types) and those who vote for its candidates (conservatives) is spelled out clearly. It's not that the two groups are consumed in an abiding loathing of each other, it's just that (according to Wehner) conservatives don't realize they are anti-utopian Himmelfarbians. That Wehner doesn't understand the irony of his analysis only underscores the notion that conservatives and Republicans are the Brad Pitt and Jeniffer Anniston of politics. On paper they were a match. In real life, not so much.
The truth is the last point at which anyone clearly knew what Republicanism stood for was when Sherman finished burning Columbia. After that point of departure it's all just been a bunch of Wall Street protectionism wrapped in "hooray for our side" nationalism.
So conservatives suffer Republicans because they lack the financing to go it alone and Republicans look at conservatives as poor relations who should be happy to be included in the family photo at reunions but not in between. It's a marriage which can't, and probably shouldn't, be saved and twenty years from now when the crowd sourcing of politics kicks in it will all be a moot point. Conservatives will finally have their own party and Republicans will march off into the sunset to join Whigs in the dustbin of history.
The truth is the last point at which anyone clearly knew what Republicanism stood for was when Sherman finished burning Columbia. After that point of departure it's all just been a bunch of Wall Street protectionism wrapped in "hooray for our side" nationalism.
So conservatives suffer Republicans because they lack the financing to go it alone and Republicans look at conservatives as poor relations who should be happy to be included in the family photo at reunions but not in between. It's a marriage which can't, and probably shouldn't, be saved and twenty years from now when the crowd sourcing of politics kicks in it will all be a moot point. Conservatives will finally have their own party and Republicans will march off into the sunset to join Whigs in the dustbin of history.
7
I would really like to know what constitutes a "market friendly safety net".
I'm guessing it has something to do with tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations.
I'm guessing it has something to do with tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations.
80
It means "privatize Social Security"
14
And privatizing Social Security
"Today’s Republicans, for example, should advance a policy agenda that systematically transforms welfare-state programs into a market-friendly safety net."
It is easier to square the circle than to accomplish that reasonable-sounding but totally devoid-of-meaning task.
It is easier to square the circle than to accomplish that reasonable-sounding but totally devoid-of-meaning task.
17
Does Mr. Wehner not see the inherent contradiction in his statement, “Which is why Republicans, in selecting a presidential nominee, should choose someone with a conservative disposition, who is seen as a reassuring agent of change, and who can persuade voters rather than hector them.”
The conflict in the Republican Party today is between what Mr. Wehner calls “the populists,” who want to keep things the way they always were and the “change conservatives,” who have a “high regard for things empirical” and are not “opposed to compromise per se.” Unfortunately, a “change conservative” is an oxymoron that populists like Ted Cruz love to excoriate.
Tea Party populists have hijacked the Republican Party agenda and unless a conservative leader with “Magnanimity, winsomeness and grace” comes along, it is hard to see a conservative occupy the Oval Office in 2016.
The conflict in the Republican Party today is between what Mr. Wehner calls “the populists,” who want to keep things the way they always were and the “change conservatives,” who have a “high regard for things empirical” and are not “opposed to compromise per se.” Unfortunately, a “change conservative” is an oxymoron that populists like Ted Cruz love to excoriate.
Tea Party populists have hijacked the Republican Party agenda and unless a conservative leader with “Magnanimity, winsomeness and grace” comes along, it is hard to see a conservative occupy the Oval Office in 2016.
7
Could Mr. Wehner list some Republican office holders who possess the personal qualities he praises? Far more democrats possess them than Republicans, in my experience.
14
The personal disposition of its members might be a factor in determining political groupings and their ideologies -- but only a small factor. Other factors, like class, race, geography and religious heritage are far more important. It is no coincidence that there are 44 Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Unitarians and Decline-to-states, all of whom (but one) are Democrats) -- regardless of their "disposition". It is no coincidence that racial minorities in Congress are overwhelmingly Democrats. No doubt many of them have a "conservative disposition" (whatever that is). And many a Wall Street toady or goon has a temperament that is. . .what is the opposite of "conservative"? Class, race, geography and religious heritage do not completely determine political position -- but they are more important by far than "disposition".
As for the difference between far right-wing populists and other Republicans, I am not sure how important that difference is. Big corporations and financial interests want certain results in the political arena -- lower taxes, lower tariffs, less regulation, less unionism, and so on -- and they are willing to use whatever political grouping comes along. Republicans or Tea Party -- capitalists have made use of them all. In Germany industrialists became enthusiastic supporters of Hitler. Why not here? (If it comes to that, capitalists have no problem with compliant Democrats like Bill Clinton.)
Temperament has nothing to do with it.
As for the difference between far right-wing populists and other Republicans, I am not sure how important that difference is. Big corporations and financial interests want certain results in the political arena -- lower taxes, lower tariffs, less regulation, less unionism, and so on -- and they are willing to use whatever political grouping comes along. Republicans or Tea Party -- capitalists have made use of them all. In Germany industrialists became enthusiastic supporters of Hitler. Why not here? (If it comes to that, capitalists have no problem with compliant Democrats like Bill Clinton.)
Temperament has nothing to do with it.
6
Mr. Wehner:
It is nice of you to put forth the more reasonable aspects of conservative philosohy. I don't believe that Mr. Boehner has been an exemplar of the points you put forward. Some would find the genius of the Constitution is that it forces compromise as an added buffer againist hegemony of thought and almost ensures some form of centrist progress.
However, that premise is only viable when respect is shown for that document. Obstructing the process by disregarding the rules is antithetical to what you have written as true conservatism. If any true conservatives are serving in Congress, then they are showing no spine in standing up for their beliefs. They are acting a lot like many in the Demoratic Party has in running away from President Obama in the last election.
In short, I see no evidence of the conservatism you speak of in Congress or anywhere else. What are you or any who believe as you do going to do about it? Or is the conservatism you speak of a relic of the past devoid of power? This country has been ill seved by the "conservative" power on display for decades at this point. The treatment of the office of the Presidency by this party has been despicable. I learned in the army that one salutes the rank, not the individual. So, how did you let this happen and what do you propose to change it? Or are you,at this point,selling a myth?
It is nice of you to put forth the more reasonable aspects of conservative philosohy. I don't believe that Mr. Boehner has been an exemplar of the points you put forward. Some would find the genius of the Constitution is that it forces compromise as an added buffer againist hegemony of thought and almost ensures some form of centrist progress.
However, that premise is only viable when respect is shown for that document. Obstructing the process by disregarding the rules is antithetical to what you have written as true conservatism. If any true conservatives are serving in Congress, then they are showing no spine in standing up for their beliefs. They are acting a lot like many in the Demoratic Party has in running away from President Obama in the last election.
In short, I see no evidence of the conservatism you speak of in Congress or anywhere else. What are you or any who believe as you do going to do about it? Or is the conservatism you speak of a relic of the past devoid of power? This country has been ill seved by the "conservative" power on display for decades at this point. The treatment of the office of the Presidency by this party has been despicable. I learned in the army that one salutes the rank, not the individual. So, how did you let this happen and what do you propose to change it? Or are you,at this point,selling a myth?
8
There is little to disagree with here. That is except for the claim that 'this president has done great harm to our country'.
Please list these acts of great harm. There may well be things that irritate your conservative principals but 'harm' is something you should be able to point to and that we should be able to measure.
Did he lie and get us in to an unnecessary war?
Did he take over the auto industry or banking system and turn them into state controlled businesses?
Did he destroy jobs?
Declare martial law?
Don't tell me about your feelings or your prejudices. Give me real evidence.
Waiting...
Waiting...
Thought so
Please list these acts of great harm. There may well be things that irritate your conservative principals but 'harm' is something you should be able to point to and that we should be able to measure.
Did he lie and get us in to an unnecessary war?
Did he take over the auto industry or banking system and turn them into state controlled businesses?
Did he destroy jobs?
Declare martial law?
Don't tell me about your feelings or your prejudices. Give me real evidence.
Waiting...
Waiting...
Thought so
89
This definition of the Conservative disposition — prudent; open to compromise; incrementalist; urgency balanced by practical wisdom, equanimity and a sense of proportion; passion balanced by gratitude; delight in what one has; magnanimity, winsomeness and grace — fits president Barack Obama to a C.
So why, then, is Mr. Wehner still in the Republican party?
So why, then, is Mr. Wehner still in the Republican party?
28
Now that we have a federally-supported and imposed safety net, the conservative approach is to make it more efficient and less costly. Many on the right want to replace our safety net with individual savings and charity, so that people may not in fact starve or sicken but they will have no right to food or medical care and no guarantee that these will be available to those with inadequate money. This is not conservatism.
The split in the Republican Party is between conservatives and anarchists. Populists generally want to defend the little guy against the powers that are oppressing or cheating them. Usually these powers are private entities, and populists want government to be their tool for standing up to these powers rather than a tool of the powers.
The only powers that the right recognizes as oppressive are governments; if businesses were not tempted and regulated and oppressed by big government, they would mind their businesses, compete fairly with each other, and generate the great results that free enterprise in theory brings.
Since this way of thinking leaves no way to oppose private misbehavior except perhaps consumer boycotts, it is completely inadequate to address oil spills or financial meltdowns. It can only do message control and image management.
These days the only conservatives around are Democrats. Republicans are strident because they want to back out of the New Deal and see brinkmanship as the only way to do this.
The split in the Republican Party is between conservatives and anarchists. Populists generally want to defend the little guy against the powers that are oppressing or cheating them. Usually these powers are private entities, and populists want government to be their tool for standing up to these powers rather than a tool of the powers.
The only powers that the right recognizes as oppressive are governments; if businesses were not tempted and regulated and oppressed by big government, they would mind their businesses, compete fairly with each other, and generate the great results that free enterprise in theory brings.
Since this way of thinking leaves no way to oppose private misbehavior except perhaps consumer boycotts, it is completely inadequate to address oil spills or financial meltdowns. It can only do message control and image management.
These days the only conservatives around are Democrats. Republicans are strident because they want to back out of the New Deal and see brinkmanship as the only way to do this.
21
With all due respect Mr. Wehner, what you describe as "Populism" in your party isn't.
A form of populism it may be, just as National Socialism in Germany was a form of populism. That is of course ironic insofar as those you brand as "Populists" in your party are accusing Liberals of making America into Nazi Germany.
But then, the National Socialists thought of themselves as "socialists," didn't they?
As for your idealistic vision of Conservatism as "enjoyment" I don't believe I have in my lifetime of 66 years seen that on exhibition with the possible exception of Mr. Eisenhower who led us out of Korea but planned the invasion of Cuba, enforced Civil Rights rulings of our Supreme Court, but hesitated to censor Senator McCarthy, "enjoyed" golf, but contributed little of lasting importance to the fabric of the national identity.
More to the point is that "Conservatism" which you describe as exhibiting "prudence" hit on the idea of employing the likes of Murray Chotiner, Lee Atwater, Charles Colson, Donald Segretti, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney to form the body politic in their image.
Conservatism is to U.S. politics since Depression era times as the Vatican's employment of Arnaud Amalric in the Albigensian Crusade is to sound religious practice.
Amalric is credited with having said, "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" prior to the massacre at Béziers in 1209: "Kill them all; God will know his own."
.
A form of populism it may be, just as National Socialism in Germany was a form of populism. That is of course ironic insofar as those you brand as "Populists" in your party are accusing Liberals of making America into Nazi Germany.
But then, the National Socialists thought of themselves as "socialists," didn't they?
As for your idealistic vision of Conservatism as "enjoyment" I don't believe I have in my lifetime of 66 years seen that on exhibition with the possible exception of Mr. Eisenhower who led us out of Korea but planned the invasion of Cuba, enforced Civil Rights rulings of our Supreme Court, but hesitated to censor Senator McCarthy, "enjoyed" golf, but contributed little of lasting importance to the fabric of the national identity.
More to the point is that "Conservatism" which you describe as exhibiting "prudence" hit on the idea of employing the likes of Murray Chotiner, Lee Atwater, Charles Colson, Donald Segretti, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney to form the body politic in their image.
Conservatism is to U.S. politics since Depression era times as the Vatican's employment of Arnaud Amalric in the Albigensian Crusade is to sound religious practice.
Amalric is credited with having said, "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" prior to the massacre at Béziers in 1209: "Kill them all; God will know his own."
.
22
"Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president but don’t share this doom-laden view are labeled by some on the right as cowardly and unprincipled. "
Avoid mirrors Wehner. Deeply. Concerned. Damage. Inflicted. The president.
Pander with false rhetoric having nothing to do with reality--stick market, gdp, a taxes and federal employment down, GHW Bush foreign policy, a president to the right of Nixon--, then weasel.
Trash is trash.
Avoid mirrors Wehner. Deeply. Concerned. Damage. Inflicted. The president.
Pander with false rhetoric having nothing to do with reality--stick market, gdp, a taxes and federal employment down, GHW Bush foreign policy, a president to the right of Nixon--, then weasel.
Trash is trash.
29
"Unlike those who are 'always lusting after something that is not' the conservative tends to find delight in the achievements and blessings we have." Okay, but who is "we"? For those born into wealth (i.e., most of our "job creators") this is a good-enough rule to live by. To recommend it for the rest of us is presumptuous in the extreme. To "lust" after a decent standard of living is an entirely reasonable alternative to the prospect of accepting the bare minimum that conservatives are willing to offer. Which is not to say that we're all looking for hand-outs from the government but rather that the achievements and the blessings aren't sufficient unless you were lucky enough to have been born to them.
134
Remember Mitt, telling students without funds for college......then go ask your parents.....these Repubs, all, however they define themselves, are totally out of touch with reality as this reader (Independent) experiences it.
11
Stu - everyone born in the US belongs in the top 10% of all people on this planet and have living conditions far, far above the average human.
Should all of us here count our blessings? Absolutely.
Instead, most commenters here want to transfer wealth from the world's 1% to those who are "merely" in the top 10%. IMO, any and all wealth transfer should go to those really in need: the billions of yellow/brown skinned humans who are only now emerging from absolute poverty (~$1/day).
Should all of us here count our blessings? Absolutely.
Instead, most commenters here want to transfer wealth from the world's 1% to those who are "merely" in the top 10%. IMO, any and all wealth transfer should go to those really in need: the billions of yellow/brown skinned humans who are only now emerging from absolute poverty (~$1/day).
2
'.....Think of the difference in attitude between the resentfulness of Richard Nixon and the sunny optimism of Ronald Reagan. One had an enemies list while the other told his aides, “Remember, we have no enemies, only opponents.”.....'
This encapsulates what the writer is trying to do - put a smiling face on a mean party, just as the genial Ronald Reagan did when he laid the foundations for the present robber-baron era. Wehner claims not to go along with “an apocalyptic view of American life during the Obama era” but is “deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president”. Damage, after he has struggled over six years to nurse the nation back to health (and this despite malicious opposition) after the most damaging economic collapse in most of our lifetimes?
The Republicans are lousy at governing but masters at campaigning, and Wehner’s piece is just cog in the next campaign, attempting to assure us that the tea party doesn’t really represent the GOP. The rhetoric may change but, come 2016, the tea party tail will not only still be wagging the Republican dog – as near as doesn’t matter, it will be the entire dog.
This encapsulates what the writer is trying to do - put a smiling face on a mean party, just as the genial Ronald Reagan did when he laid the foundations for the present robber-baron era. Wehner claims not to go along with “an apocalyptic view of American life during the Obama era” but is “deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president”. Damage, after he has struggled over six years to nurse the nation back to health (and this despite malicious opposition) after the most damaging economic collapse in most of our lifetimes?
The Republicans are lousy at governing but masters at campaigning, and Wehner’s piece is just cog in the next campaign, attempting to assure us that the tea party doesn’t really represent the GOP. The rhetoric may change but, come 2016, the tea party tail will not only still be wagging the Republican dog – as near as doesn’t matter, it will be the entire dog.
406
From the comments I have read, looks like Mr. Wehner is a major failure at rebranding his expired, tainted product. If I were a conservative, I would fire him for failing to meet minimum expectations, giving a more qualified candidate a chance.
7
Hopefully, for that reason alone they will fail to garner the Presidency in 2016.
3
@ c: unlike progressives/liberals, conservatives have a long-term strategy to get what they want. In their eyes, winning the presidency is a bonus but still not their primary goal. Their eyes are firmly on the prize of controlling Congress and the state governments. Democrats would do well to remember Grover Norquist saying that conservatives don't mind putting up with a Democratic president, provided he/she is prevented from governing as a Democrat.
4
The largest and most consequential polarization is between the American people who vote or could vote, and the politicans of both parties.
The politicans position themselves with respect to each other in the eyes of donors.
Meanwhile, voters have entirely different priorities and preferences. Those don't matter to politicians. Without donors, they can't even run, and with donors they must obey to remain.
Lobbyists are the enforcers and bag men for donors. There is nobody in and out of politicians' offices for voters, just a parade of bag men and enforcers.
That is our real polarization. Most people won't even vote anymore they are so disgusted with all of them.
The politicans position themselves with respect to each other in the eyes of donors.
Meanwhile, voters have entirely different priorities and preferences. Those don't matter to politicians. Without donors, they can't even run, and with donors they must obey to remain.
Lobbyists are the enforcers and bag men for donors. There is nobody in and out of politicians' offices for voters, just a parade of bag men and enforcers.
That is our real polarization. Most people won't even vote anymore they are so disgusted with all of them.
100
That is our real polarization. Most people won't even vote anymore they are so disgusted with all of them.
Your last two sentences neatly define the very strategy that the far Right, Daddy Warbucks class has been working on since Saint Ronnie, and such as Karl Rove and Grover Norquist and their nasty ilk grabbed the reins. They want to anger and bore and disrespect voters so much that they just give up and then it only take oh 17% to win an election. THAT is the meta-strategy.
Your last two sentences neatly define the very strategy that the far Right, Daddy Warbucks class has been working on since Saint Ronnie, and such as Karl Rove and Grover Norquist and their nasty ilk grabbed the reins. They want to anger and bore and disrespect voters so much that they just give up and then it only take oh 17% to win an election. THAT is the meta-strategy.
13
Mark Thomason said, "The politicans position themselves with respect to each other in the eyes of donors."
You make an excellent point. I might add that generally only the most politically active members of either party are likely to be so passionate about politics that they donate money or time and vote in primaries -- and they are likely to be more polarized.
The average voter does none of these -- and they are like to be far more central.
Until we get money out of elections, especially the primary cycle, things will never change.
You make an excellent point. I might add that generally only the most politically active members of either party are likely to be so passionate about politics that they donate money or time and vote in primaries -- and they are likely to be more polarized.
The average voter does none of these -- and they are like to be far more central.
Until we get money out of elections, especially the primary cycle, things will never change.
2
You have the politicians you deserve, because you voted or didn't vote. The American way of democracy is of course hindered by ugly political philosophy. Like the thought that only the informed and reasonable citizens should vote. And there are a lot of mean structures hindering. Like your almost totally commercialized political debate. But isn't there first and foremost the kind of individualism you practice? Why being subdued by anyone, especially a collective of ordinary dull people? Well, The Europeean way has been "United we stand, divided we fall". That is a principle common to the fascist, the Soviet communist, as well as the social-conservative and his or her social-liberal counterpart. It's a principle that has worked more than a century with obviously higher voter turnout than in the US. The political philosophy behind is already mentioned. But of course, one has to ORGANIZE and build ORGANISATIONS that will last through decades.
1
Historically, political conservatives thought that looking to the past and respecting traditions that had long records of stability was better than utopian schemes that had no guarantee of working. Today's "conservatives" believe that the market can solve all problems ("market-friendly safety net" indeed!). Edmund Burke would roll over in his grave.
The ideology of modern liberals is not that government can solve all problems; it's that our society has serious problems, and that the market has only exacerbated them. Just one example: we need health care for all; it makes no sense to imagine that people who can't afford surgery would make the rational choice not to get hurt or sick. "Let them die" is not traditional conservatism, but an ideological pro-rich ideology. Still, if these people want to call themselves conservatives, they can't then complain when liberals point out that they're a bunch of angry fanatics.
The ideology of modern liberals is not that government can solve all problems; it's that our society has serious problems, and that the market has only exacerbated them. Just one example: we need health care for all; it makes no sense to imagine that people who can't afford surgery would make the rational choice not to get hurt or sick. "Let them die" is not traditional conservatism, but an ideological pro-rich ideology. Still, if these people want to call themselves conservatives, they can't then complain when liberals point out that they're a bunch of angry fanatics.
621
Excellent response.
As a liberal, I'd be completely supportive of a legitimate free market effort to expand grassroots prosperity - for instance, through establishment of a tax code that encourages the creation and retention of jobs that pay a living wage within America (which, by definition, are jobs that would not require a worker be given much, if any, additional government assistance in order to make ends meet) - while strongly discouraging the exploitation of emerging market workers.
Human nature being deeply imperfect, the market will never spontaneously gravitate in such a direction.
As a liberal, I'd be completely supportive of a legitimate free market effort to expand grassroots prosperity - for instance, through establishment of a tax code that encourages the creation and retention of jobs that pay a living wage within America (which, by definition, are jobs that would not require a worker be given much, if any, additional government assistance in order to make ends meet) - while strongly discouraging the exploitation of emerging market workers.
Human nature being deeply imperfect, the market will never spontaneously gravitate in such a direction.
9
The Republicans try to paint "the government" as the enemy. I suppose that it can be seen as "the enemy" to them, since "it" (We the People) was formed to "provide for the general welfare" and not for the further enrichment of the richest.
"Republicans want smaller government for the same reason that crooks want fewer cops." - James Carville
"Republicans want smaller government for the same reason that crooks want fewer cops." - James Carville
8
Republicans blather that government is corrupt and inefficient, then if elected prove those points perfectly.
6
Those of us who are conservative and deeply concerned about the damage inflicted on the country by the president.
Conservatism is belligerent and backward-looking, willing to do tremendous damage to the nation in order to preserve itself be it by vote suppression, government shutdowns, credit downgrades, etc. and willfully cruel against reform of the world's most expensive medical system whose only virtue is that it conforms to conservative ideology in part anyway, that only the deserving should have access to medicine. Yes, all this can be concealed with a cheerful disposition and the passing of bills with Orwellian names but today's conservatism has gone far beyond mere issues of disposition
Conservatism is belligerent and backward-looking, willing to do tremendous damage to the nation in order to preserve itself be it by vote suppression, government shutdowns, credit downgrades, etc. and willfully cruel against reform of the world's most expensive medical system whose only virtue is that it conforms to conservative ideology in part anyway, that only the deserving should have access to medicine. Yes, all this can be concealed with a cheerful disposition and the passing of bills with Orwellian names but today's conservatism has gone far beyond mere issues of disposition
448
Exactly right, BD. Conservatism is backward-looking.
"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt
"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt
169
There is a forward-looking conservative utopia where elected government knowing it can never do anything right hands our social security to free market magicians on Wall Street until they innovate another crashed economy and get rewarded for it when we unwittingly bail them out to begin the next cycle ...
9
The Koch Brothers idea of "liberty" is paying workers $3 or $4 dollars an hour and passing the cost of polluting onto taxpayers. David Koch was the vice presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party in 1980. The party platform:
“We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws."
“We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
“We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system."
“We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service."
“We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes."
“We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”
“We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”
“We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs."
“We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”
The platform called for the abolition of the EPA, FDA, FEC, Departments of Energy and Transportation, Consumer Priduct Safety Commission, FAA, and the repeal of OSHA.
For more on the platform, go to sanders.senate.gov and recent business: "The Koch Brothers Are Winning" (4/12/14).
“We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws."
“We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
“We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system."
“We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service."
“We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes."
“We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”
“We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”
“We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs."
“We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”
The platform called for the abolition of the EPA, FDA, FEC, Departments of Energy and Transportation, Consumer Priduct Safety Commission, FAA, and the repeal of OSHA.
For more on the platform, go to sanders.senate.gov and recent business: "The Koch Brothers Are Winning" (4/12/14).
413
Don't forget Papa Koch was a founding member of the John Birch Society.
15
Of course, all the above mentioned has nothing to do with him personally since he has a gazillion dollars. Oops, I'm wrong, it has everything to do with him because they help him get more gazillions.
10
But the market itself will replace the FDA, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the FAA. If the food, products, or services that a company sells kills their customers, then those customers certainly won't buy those products again, and other informed consumers will also avoid those products and the market will force those companies out of business. No need for regulation. No need for tort lawyers. The market will sort everything out and punish wrongdoers.
9
Even moderate Republicans are starting to mimic their far right colleagues and in particular their supporting pundits and conservative media, a pessimistic hyperventilating chicken little with obsessive compulsive disorder. Current conservatism isn't a rigid ideology? In the past 10 years in my deeply red state, I have only met conservatives who were rigid ideologues. Pray tell, where do non rigid conservatives live? I would like to meet one sometime. It is about the same for finding a flaming left wing liberal. They, too, are in short supply. Perhaps if I lived on the coast I would meet a non rigid conservative and a flaming liberal.
139
I would like to meet a liberal who didn't want to raise my taxes, but then they wouldn't be a liberal.
2
Come to the middle of the country. I can introduce you to any number of what we call "liberals" that don't see any need to raise taxes, want to cut some taxes, support the second amendment and oppose gun control. They are called liberal because of their positions on social issues.
6
Remember how quiet liberals were during the last Bush Administration?
We all knew he would shoot himself in the foot. Did he ever. Did they ever.
We all knew he would shoot himself in the foot. Did he ever. Did they ever.
3
"What's in a name?" asked Juliet,
Had not met the Koch Brothers yet,
The GOP,
Dreadful to see,
To move further Right, is now set.
Just one more inch, and o'er the side,
That no room's left, can't be denied,
But don't despair
Some billionaire,
May wave as down the slope you slide.
Had not met the Koch Brothers yet,
The GOP,
Dreadful to see,
To move further Right, is now set.
Just one more inch, and o'er the side,
That no room's left, can't be denied,
But don't despair
Some billionaire,
May wave as down the slope you slide.
95
Three cheers for Larry Eisenberg, poet laureate of the NY Times comments section.
6
A conservative’s duty’s to heed
The government penchant for greed.
To workers of this fair land
They’ll ne’er lend a hand
Yet is liberal when it comes to his need.
Giving welfare is strictly taboo
To the needy it’s, “how dare you.”
Yet to folks of this nation
They call corporations
Denying welfare really won’t do.
Larry, I read you with glee,
You really do inspire me
But please do not fear
I’m no Shakespeare
Nor can I great poems write like thee.
The government penchant for greed.
To workers of this fair land
They’ll ne’er lend a hand
Yet is liberal when it comes to his need.
Giving welfare is strictly taboo
To the needy it’s, “how dare you.”
Yet to folks of this nation
They call corporations
Denying welfare really won’t do.
Larry, I read you with glee,
You really do inspire me
But please do not fear
I’m no Shakespeare
Nor can I great poems write like thee.
9
Larry, one of your very best!!
3
"This doesn’t mean that conservatives shouldn’t fight passionately for liberty and justice. Today’s Republicans, for example, should advance a policy agenda that systematically transforms welfare-state programs into a market-friendly safety net"-Wehner.
I have no idea what the author means. I understand freedom and justice but liberty seem to mean the ability to exploit. What could "a market friendly safety net" be, other than another way of exploiting the poor and the sick?
I have no idea what the author means. I understand freedom and justice but liberty seem to mean the ability to exploit. What could "a market friendly safety net" be, other than another way of exploiting the poor and the sick?
524
Exactly. "Market-friendly safety-net" is an oxymoron, but it's one of those sound-good phrases that conservative wordsmiths excel at. If the market always worked, we wouldn't need a safety net
169
I was going to ask about the "market-friendly safety net" too. It sounds as if profit-making organizations would replace government agencies. Money always comes first.
26
My question exactly: What in the world is a market friendly safety net? Perhaps the details don't matter if the proposal for such a safety net is presented by a candidate who is winsome enough.
30