John McCain and the Death of Conservatism

As the primary season grinds to a close, many Democrats expect a decisive victory in the November general election and look forward to four years of a Democratic president working with a partisan Congress. What isn't being discussed is the possible end of the conservative era. The smashing defeat of John McCain and the Republican Party should signal Americans reject the inept conservative ideology that's dominated U.S. politics for twenty-eight years.

Since the Reagan Presidency, four pillars of American conservative ideology have controlled political discourse. The first is the idea America is best protected by a gargantuan military. Conservatives have contended that to keep the U.S. safe we must have the world's biggest defense establishment. This notion reached its apotheosis at the end of the Reagan era when the US won the arms race with the Soviet Union, ending the Cold War.

After 1990, conservatives insisted U.S. military expenditures should remain enormous, citing first the risk from "rogue states" and more recently the threat of terrorism. The fallacy of this position became clear during the George W. Bush administration: having the world's largest military didn't protect the U.S. on 9/11; conventional military action didn't bring the terrorist perpetrators to justice; and an exclusively military operation in Iraq didn't produce stability and democracy.

The past seven years revealed the conservative illusion of protecting America exclusively by a mammoth military has two logical flaws: In the modern world no problem can be solved by an exclusively military response. And, it makes no sense for conservatives to insist on a small, well managed Federal government while maintaining our humongous military establishment be run with no performance expectations. Yet, Republican presidential nominee McCain advocates the same inept conservative military strategy.

The second pillar of conservative ideology is the promise of small government. Since the Reagan presidency, conservatives have contended the federal government needs to be decreased by professional managers. In practice, they have reduced governmental oversight -- causing problems such as the recent credit crisis -- and filled the vast federal bureaucracy with incompetent political appointments such as Michael Brown and Donald Rumsfeld. John McCain promises to continue the dysfunctional conservative practices that decrease the effectiveness and integrity of Federal programs.

The third pillar of conservatism is tax reduction. Beginning with the Reagan era, conservatives have argued much of the federal government is a waste of money and, therefore, American shouldn't have to pay for it. As a result, the marginal tax rates for individuals and corporations were diminished until today they are roughly half of what they were in 1980. However, while federal revenues diminished, expenditures surged because of the growth of the military establishment and the reality Americans rely upon federal services. During the Bush administration the Federal budget deficit grew to the point where it became a serious impediment to U.S. economic growth. Nonetheless, John McCain continues to advocate lower taxes for the rich and powerful.

The fourth pillar of conservatism is the promise of competent management. Ronald Reagan recognized that when Americans have confidence in their leaders, particularly the President, they are optimistic about the future, which is good for the economy. But after eight years of George W. Bush, Americans no longer have faith in their Republican leaders. 82 percent of Americans believe the US is headed in the wrong direction and two-thirds feel it's Bush's fault.

For the past twenty-eight years, conservatives have argued that while Democrats are "social engineers" who only know how to lash together ineffective federal social programs, Republicans are "professional managers" who know how to run government like a business. Eight years of George W. Bush, the first "CEO president," have proven this to be a lie. Furthermore, Senator McCain's candidacy is not run by professional managers, but rather by corporate lobbyists.

John McCain's presidential campaign is based upon a single premise: "I'm well prepared to continue the Bush era." Despite his unearned reputation as a maverick, McCain is a rock-ribbed conservative who advocates the same flawed ideology that has driven every Republican administration since Reagan: a bloated military establishment, a neutered Federal bureaucracy, lower taxes for the rich and powerful, and incompetent management.

If McCain is defeated, what Democratic ideology will replace the vacuum created by the failure of conservatism? Hopefully, one that favors a smaller, more flexible military coupled with diplomatic initiatives to effectively fight the war on terrorism. Domestically, this should be paired with a smaller, more effective government tailored to meet the needs of working families and provide the oversight required to protect all Americans. To balance the budget, and help get the economy back on track, Democrats should emphasize equitable taxation -- a system where everyone pays their fair share.

None of this will be possible without competent management. For the past twenty-eight years, Republicans have substituted ideological dogmatism for managerial expertise. They've focused on amassing power rather than on governing America for the best interests of all the people. Beginning in January 2009, Democrats should have the opportunity to reverse the savage legacy of conservatism and turn America in a positive direction.

Comments

[TRex86]

American conservatism is only about the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few plutocrats (kleptocrats actually). All else has been opportunistic coalition-building. They drew in religious conservatives and pro-life Catholics by pretending to share their "family" values. Don't believe it. The reason there are no teen pregnancies among the ruling class is their daughters get aborted as soon as they flunk the pregnancy test.
My wish list for a Democratic government (in no particular order):
1. Out of Iraq
2. Shrink the military to no larger than the next largest military in the world
3. Consolidate the entitlements programs and finance them with progressive income taxes
4. Universal access to basic health care
5. End the War on Drugs
6. Empty the prisons of non-violent offenders
7. WPA programs to restore the infrastructure
8. Simplify the tax code and finance government through progressive taxation (repeal the Bush cuts)
9. Penalize corporations that profiteer or outsource our jobs overseas
10. Restore fiscal sanity
11. Prosecute all the Bush-Cheney administration criminals
12. Restore our civil rights
13. Close Gitmo
14. Etc.

[outnow]

William F. Buckley, Jr. provided a forum to consolidate the various factions within the "conservative" movement. The Nation Magazine provided much discussion over the years addressing the issues being pushed by the right. The neocons are conservative in many ways although Buckley tried to distance himself from them. The paleoconservatives recognize the disastrous effects of the policies of the neocons and attempt to distance themselves. But these policies are their own. There is a strange amalgam of characters in the conservative movement. Buckley tried to keep all the factions together. There must be at least seven separate sub-groups within the Republican fold. These groups range from libertarians, to fundamental religious, to tax-cutters, free trade, strong military, to Ayn Rand types. There are tensions between the groups which would lead to a breakdown of the movement in a rational world. We just don't live in a rational world. The media and talk radio keep the "base" revved up on an emotional level. Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley, Jr. and Patrick Buchanan have all broken ranks with the neocons. Underneath, they are all the same, however. It is genetic I believe.

[BethStuart]

I think McCain is a "caricature conservative" like the neo-cons who have dominated the Bush administration and the Republican party for the last eight years. Only their thorough drubbing at the polls in November will release the United States from their clutches.

[ofbbg]

And then we'll be in someone elses "clutches". Re-read the Declaration of Indepence sometime substituting the word "State" for the word "King", and see if you can agree with any of it!

[RossalGondamer]

Amazing - 11 paragraphs to summerize Ron Paul's plank without mentioning him.

Obviously your proposed revolution will not be televised.

[kavan]

I fear people will continue to vote against their best personal & public interests in November.

[DianeDfromPhoenix]

I've been thinking the same things, Bob. I was in my late teens when Reagan was elected and have had my entire adult life negatively impacted by wingnut politics. I am so glad that as I enter the second half of life, this horrid, horrid era has peaked. What I do hope, however, is that liberals do not make the same kind of mistakes. I'm referring to over-reach. The Repugs did it with Social Security reform (it would be nice to say it was this bogus war, but it was Social Security). The Dems did it with busing in the 70's.

[ofbbg]

Don't forget the famous "War on Poverty". That's 44 years old isn't it? How's it going? Are we winning, yet?

[ofbbg]

And perhaps I'm getting a bit old, but what reforms were the Repubs trying to get passed?

[rbenjamin]

It's not so much Conservatism that's dying but the Republican Party. The radical right wing of the GOP co-opted the Conservative label and debased it. Now both brands have as much popular appeal as YUGO or Thalidomide. Not so long ago it was actually cool for a young person to claim he/she was Republican. That fashion statement is out. GOP? Gay Old Pederast. Try selling that.

In their day (the end of the Nixon admin.) the conservatives were young and smart. They knew how to organize by mail, and they knew how to advertise on TV. They are old now, and tied to obsolete media. Oh yeah, and failure is an orphan. A botched War and a sick economy is a pariah.

Can the Republican brand be revived? Perhaps, but why bother? Any up and coming Conservative, a small government, low taxes, competent management Conservative, not a Neocon phony, is at home with the Libertarians. The aura of GOP invincibility is gone. The Republican Party is just a big pot of money, and that pot is going to be pretty empty after the 2008 election is over and after the retiring members of congress take their campaign chests with them.

What to do? The merciful solution for everyone is to lead the elephant out to a nice quiet spot in the back yard of politics and shoot it . The big hole for the carcass has already been dug by George Dubya.

[walk0nwalls]

Well said sir. Though I would like to see the new form of conservatism. Perhaps it's Libertarianism like you say. We'll see. It'd be nice to go back to intelligent debate again.

[rbenjamin]

Interesting to see the groundswell for Libertarian philosophies in many of the replies. If I were a member of the Libertarian Party I'd be both pleased and wary. Wary of ex-Republicans trying to co-opt the organization. Ambitious types in a bind, needing a quiet place to build a new identity. Ditch the family values stuff and the crucifix, it doesn't play anymore. Downplay the ties to big corporate money, which is going to be hard to come by for a while anyway. Low taxes. Yeah, low taxes. Small government, uh, yeah. Small government and small military .... long pause...yyyeah. Competence. Dead silence.

This is going to be a quirky election year. Democrats have a charismatic presidential candidate (no, not Hillary). They are better organized than the Republicans, and will be able to raise more money. They get the power of the Internet. They stand to win seats that haven't been occupied by a Democrats behind in living memory. It's gonna be a Republican Exodus baby. Moses, Moses, Moses. If I were a Libertarian I'd build a fence, but I'm not. Some great aspects to the party, but many bricks short of a load.

[BethStuart]

I doubt traditional conservatives see neo-cons as real conservatives. The neo-con program is essentially a shell game designed to scare people into acting against their own best interests.

[Liberal2]

HuffPost's Pick

I disagree. Neo-cons are conservatives. Using the christian religion as an analogy, they are simply the Hagee/Parsley branch. Libertarians would be, based on their stated philosophy, more a Quaker strain of conservatism. Although, for this analogy, picture chiristianity in the time of the Inquisition, basic conservatism = the catholic church, neo-cons = today's evangelicals (ie, Hagee & Parsley).

Conservatives have always used fear. However, in the '30s, they wanted socialism to be more feared than fascism. 1930s conservatives admired the "German experiment."

[RobtBrock]

A lot of neo-cons are Democrats or former Democrats who were agry about the perception of American weakness vis-a-vis the Vietnam War. They prefer a very aggressive approach to foreign policy and want to flaunt American power even if it means war. They have no problem with American involvement in foreign quarrels and harken back to the day when Jack Kennedy spoke of going anyplace, bearing any burden, etc, in defense of liberty.

Many neo-cons are Jewish and wish that the US would use its great power to further the interests of Israel.

Beating up a bunch of chumps such as Saddam and the Baathists in Iraq was the perfect tonic for the neo-cons; unfortunately, getting out will be enormously difficult and reality is going to desroy the neo-cons. Good riddance.

[ofbbg]

You sure have gotten your facts all screwed-up! Conservatives use fear? Wasn't it JFK who won his squeaker election by creating the fear of a non-existent "Missle Gap"? And the "War on Poverty", "War on Hunger", "War on Drugs", "War on Climate change/Global warming". Fear tactics all! Fear has been the stock-in-trade of the american Left, not the Right. And how could anyone fear socialism more than Fascism? They're pretty much the same thing! You might recall that Musollini, the founder of Fascism, began his political career as a committed Communist but became disenchanted with the international aspect , so he founded National SOCIALISM. He was idolized by the american Left throughout the 20s and 30s! Thirties Conservatives were appalled by International Communism, Fascism, and the so called "German experiment" - Fascism was defined as "right-wing" by none other than Stalin, because the Commies and Nazis were competing for the same constituency in Germany. (And EVERYTHING is to the right of Joe Stalin!!) Also remember that Hitler founded the NSDAP - translates as National SOCIALIST German Workers Party - you should read the party platform; reads as if it might have been written by John Edwards! And one could easily argue that there was an American Fascist State under Woodrow Wilson, the Progressive Democrat, rascist, and fervent believer in eugenics! your facts straight!! Start studying real History; stop regurgitating propoganda!! You should sue your Poli Sci proffessors!! And this comment was a HuffPost Pick?? YIKES!!!!+

[altohone]

The word "conservative" as now used contradicts the actual definition of the word.

Self-described conservatives in Congress are anything but, and that includes LOTS of Democrats too.



"Radical corporatist ideologues" is the synonym that applies to Republicans and Democrats who self-describe that way... as are the policies they enact and the judges this cadre is confirming.

I object to distorting our language by embracing the wrong definition as this post does.
You are facilitating a falsehood, AND disempowering and even alienating true conservatives in both parties who would otherwise provide a bullwark against this radicalism.

I ask you to reconsider your word choice going forward.
My mom has a cat that fetches like a dog, but we still call it a cat... and we still would even if it learned how to talk and insisted we call it a dog.

[Liberal2]

"...The word "conservative" as now used contradicts the actual definition of the word...." Really? How?

[ProudLiberalDan]

I think Conservatives are hysterical in the way they are trying to disown "neo" conservatism and George W. Bush.

Here's a thought. Maybe what has happened is that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have PROVEN that conservatism doesn't work.

It's not the packaging, its the ideology itself that is caca and rotten from from the inside out.

Conservatism was found to be insufficient for the1930's in America and we may simply be entering a period in our history where conservatism is once again shown to be lacking.

They have no answers for any of America's problems because once their one-trick pony of lower taxes for the wealthy failed to deliver prosperity for the whole of society, let alone access to health care and a sustainable environment, they simply have nothing now to offer.

Lower taxes doesn't not solve every problem. Has it solved ANY problem?

Conservatives bought into this cacamamie economic theory of their because they know the American people would never accept the draconian cuts to social and defense spending that would be required to allow the for the derisory level of taxation they'd be willing to pay.

Then, like insane madmen, they are simply offering the same treatment of low taxes for wealthy people and corporations that didn't work before.

No wonder they love campaigns on divisive social issues. They have nothing else to offer because their policies didn't work.

[mpkirby]

How about instead of a "democratic ideology" we elect people who care about their constituencies. People who believe that government has a role in our society, that it should be paid for as we go, and that the role should be developed as we confront the challenges of the future.

How about no ideology.

How about smart people doing reasonable things to help make us safe and prosperous.

Did I mention smart people? People smart enough to see when their preconceptions are wrong, and that they might have to try something different? Something that the "other guy" might have suggested.

Let's try hiring smart people into the government. (let's start by raising the pay so we can attract them).

How about senators and congressmen voting for their constituents, and perhaps against their party.

I'd love to see regional voting blocks again.

South vs. North, West vs. East, Water rich vs. Water poor. Big land vs. big City.

How I hate Republican vs. democrat.

Let's get smart people back. Let's get rid of the "cult of the mediocrity".

Mike

[Stella01]

Great article!

[glesslib]

McCain is a little late for the death of conservatism to be blamed on him. Conservatism is meant to watch government spending, be good stewards of the American people, and protect the Constitution.

Those ideals died the day that Cheney and his puppet were elected. George Bush is so unqualfied for the presidency that Cheney has run this country into the ground, along with our economy and our future. These two killed conservatism, one through commission and one through omission. John McCain is merely an afterthought.

[BADEN]

My father was a good Barry Goldwater conservative.
McCain is no conservative.
My father would have called him what he really is.
A fascist wrapped in a flag, carrying a bible.

He despised these types.

[Liberal2]

Maybe *YOU* need to study what Goldwater was back in the '50s. Not the more thoughtful person he became.

As I've posted in the past, 1930's conservatives (Charles Lindbergh) admired Hitler's "no nonsense" approach to government. And his distain for the liberal ilk. Congressional conservatives wanted a non-aggression treaty with Germany.

Oh how the conservatives are like the Germans of May 1945, "Nazis?? Nazis?? Jawohl, I've heard of them, but never met one." You're all goddamn neo-cons. If you voted for Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Bush 1/2, you're a goddamn neo-con. If yoo voted "R", you're a goddamn neo-con. If you voted for Joe Liebermann, or a southern conservative democrat, you're a goddamn neo-con.

Boy, how you bums are looking at your feet.

[BADEN]

Uh....you talkin' to ME?

I stated my DAD was a good Goldwater Republican.

And I still say, this group has "out fascisted" even my dad's circle.....

I considered my dad pretty much a fascist at that time.

He'd be down-right center of the road at this junction in our pathetic political history.

He would have NEVER worn a "flag pin"......never.

[LouisPWu]

If the rank and file voters choose four more years by voting for McCain, the only things they can expect is more unemployment, higher energy prices, a weaker dollar, stagflation, inflation, and an every rising national debt. After those four years, America can then declare bankruptcy.

[Yohomegirl]

As a life long Democrat I've had Republicans tell me over and over that they chose their party because they were fiscally conservative. Huh! Not only has Bush taken us from having a surplus to a unknown before now some trillion dollar deficit, that he prefers anybody but the very rich to pay off, but now the Pentagon goes and announces that they have no idea where billions have gone. They say they are sorry, they just didn't know how to keep track with a war of this size. Fiscally conservative my ass. All they are fiscally conservative with is the very richest Americans money. Well, that just won't cut the mustard in a democratic society.