Make HuffPost Your HomePage
Get Email Alerts
To Republicans: Conservatism Has Failed. Deal With It
I have a guilty pleasure to admit: I have been listening to right wing radio over the last few weeks with increasing pleasure. I am reminded of the phrase, "when in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging." However, it's doubtful they will take my advice. But in listening to Rush and Hannity and reading the likes of Powerline and RedState, I see them dance around the central issue without quite getting there. So let me offer my help to help them get to that ever important point of acceptance.
You guys controlled the While House and Congress for 6 years. The country saw what you want to accomplish and are experiencing the impact of your policies. And guess what? THEY THINK CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT STINKS.
Let's start with the big one.
No one likes Iraq. Between the shifting rationale for the war, the ever-increasing cost, the continued loss of American lives and the Iraqi's inability to form any kind of meaningful government, Iraq was a bad idea all the way around. Period. Spin it how you like, you're going to come up with the same answer.
Terry Schiavo: This was by far the clearest indication of what the religious right will do if they attain power. And it isn't pretty. Let's tackle this by showing how clearly this situation violated literally every core Republican belief.
"Republicans believe in state's rights." This situation was litigated for years at the state level, in an area of law that traditionally has happened at the state level. The religious right didn't like the result, so they made it a federal issue.
"Republicans believe in individual rights." Schiavo's husband demonstrated in court that his wife wanted to die should her then current situation happen to her. That was her individual choice. A judge agreed. The religious right decided that just wasn't good enough.
"Limited Federal Government". The Republicans used the federal government to interject themselves into a family matter.
Katrina: This is what happens when people who don't like government and don't think it can work are put in charge.
The economy: The Republicans -- the party of fiscal conservatism -- have added an additional $3.2 trillion dollars to the federal debt. They have created an economy build on debt at the consumer level and hoped to leave office before the secret got out. Well, the secret got out and people have figured out it was a giant illusion.
Here's the point: every policy that the Republicans have initiated has fallen apart. It doesn't work plain and simple. The Republicans wonder why there's an enthusiasm gap? Even Republican voters realize they're failed. Only the hard-core 30% Republican supporters are hanging on right now. Fine -- let them. It's their choice.
Every "true conservative" Republican candidate has failed. The reason? Conservative polities don't work. You guys are trying to sell a typewriter in a word processor world.
When Republican are in charge
-- they are nothing more than power hungry spendthrifts who will add hundreds of billions to the national debt
-- they will lie to go to war (despite most of you never serving in the military yourself)
-- they will use the Federal government to interject themselves into personal family matters if their religious right leaders want them to.
Raise your hand if that's what you want in government.
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Mr. Stewart, loved the article.
May I state that in my opinion there is nothing particularly wrong with traditional conservative principles, as long as they are used with a little common sense. In fact, the Democratic party today more closely follows traditional conservative principles than does the Republican party.
The neo-cons have hijacked the GOP, and turned it into the right-wing-nut party. It is incapable of making good decisions, as evidenced by at least the last seven years. Forget about conservative principles, neo-cons have none. It is as if the GOP is without a driver, going all over the road, and the rest of us are left to watch in horror, wondering if and when they will drive us all into a light post at 70 mph.
Bonddad,
You point out that bushco(tm) has increased the national debt by 3.2 Trillion dollars. I would like to add, that in 1980, the national debt stood at 930.2 BILLION dollars. This worked out to be 26.1 Percent of the GDP. In 2007, after 20 years of trickle down theory in 28 years, the national debt stood at more than 9 TRILLION dollars. This was 36.8 percent of the GDP. Therefore, even accounting for the fact that GDP went up, we still have 10% MORE debt than we did when raygun took office.
Further, during the Clinton years (actually 1990-2000) the national debt went from 3,233,000,000 dollars (3.2 Trillion dollars, the debt increase under bush II) to 5,674,000,000 dollars (5.7 Trillion dollars). This looks like a large increase, but the debt as a percentage of GDP went DOWN from 42% to 35.1%, and would have continued had georgie boy not cut the taxes, increased the budget, and sold our souls to China and the Middle East.
What you are really saying is that Bush and the Republican lead Congress - did not practice Conservative principals - yes, you are 100% correct about that.
This is why many Conservatives are very unhappy with Bush and why there was little support for the Republicans among many, particularly fiscal Conservatives in 2006.
Just because someone wraps themselves in the word "Conservative" does not make them one - actions speak louder than words.
In the end you pointed out exactly what many of us believe - when sound Conservative principals are not followed - you end up with the results Bush got.
I think it is funny and sad that conservatives try to weasel out by saying all those bad things were done by people who were not conservatives.
Insanely funny or simply insane?!
As mentioned previously ,self proclaimed conservatives supported these folks and their authoritarian agendas, and many still do.
One of the big problems with neoCONS is that they will not take responsibility for their actions.
Thus demonstrating, at least for those that care to learn it, the real differences between 'Conservatives' and 'Neo-cons / Fundamentalists'.
Ron Paul (and as a disclaimer - I am NOT a supporter of Dr. Paul) is the closest thing to what a classic Conservative should be that has run. Basicly - classic conservatives are Libertarians.
Religious fundamentalists, and the corporatists that have become known as Neo-Conservatives, are not the same thing as Conservatives. They have been packaged as Conservatives, but now most (except that wierd 30%) have realized at least subconsciously what the difference really is.
And - they don't like it.
Yes - we saw how the Republican Establishment treated Ron Paul. When faced with a person who is in many ways a real Conservative (which as you pointed out in today's terminology is really a Libertarian position on many issues) they freaked out.
But the level of support Paul received - I think does show that many in the US are ready for some Libertarian ideas.
Conservatives? There haven't been any since Goldwater. The Republican party has simply become a vehicle for authoritarians.
I completely agree with both statements. It's sad to think, or remember, the Republican Party once being a truly Grand Old Party. Now it's been devoured by a religious right that, while a minority, is rapidly changing the ideals of the Republican platform.
Not just the religious right, but the neo-liberal right as well.
You are correct - 100%.
The Republicans are now wrapped around two very poor pillars.
1) Social-Conservatives.
2) Neo-Conservatives.
They wouldn't know an old-fashioned Conservative if they saw one - in fact I would bet that if an old-fashioned Conservative actually stood up they would call himher a Liberal for such heretical thoughts such as - keeping the gov't out of our lives, believing in States Rights in practice, running a budget where if you cut taxes - you ALSO cut spending, and we don't do nation building and leave war as a last resort...
It is interesting.... They went so far right, that they would look left to the traditional conservatives of Ike's time!
Liberal, conservative, do these things mean anything anymore? The "conservative" party has adopted a Wilsonian foreign policy that is radically liberal.
Electoral politics mandates that some part of a party platform has to be aspirational. For the Republicans, it's the desire to use our military might to reshape the world in Americas image, creating deregulated market-oriented trading partners through regime change.
It hasn't worked. It turns out that it's dramatically more expensive to bomb your way into a market than to make the investments directly. We could have been well on our way to eliminating our dependence on foreign oil over the past 5 years with a fraction of the federal funding that went toward the occupation.
We could have taken a peaceful economic approach that would have left us in vastly better shape today. Instead we used our military as an economic instrument, which is almost never the right solution. We used our military in Iraq and not in Darfur. We're building a massive embassy in Baghdad but aren't addressing the levies in New Orleans. These are backwards priorities that are difficult to rationalize.
Whenever something goes wrong blame it on the liberals, or like one of my conservative friends likes to point out the democrats are just as bad or did it first or brings up Bill Clinton. Let us not forget the corruption of the Nixon, Reagan, Bush H. and the present Bush administrations when we talk about conservative policy failures.
Uh, Hale? Who are you angry at? Are you attacking the Republicans who are corrupt, or Republicans as a whole? Are you attacking conservatism, or those who wrongly touted it? Why in the hell are you basing your argument on the premise that all Republicans are conservatives and all conservatives are "religious right"?
Your concluding points are similarly confusing.
Your first point describes every corrupt official of any party that ever was. Try again.
Your second point describes both analogous wars in Asia that were started by Democratic officials, and is still only describing the corrupt politicians and not all politicians.
Your third point is "nicely" balanced by the obsessive use of judicial activism and legislating from the bar that the "far left" has advocated. Still, you're only describing a minority, however noisy they may be.
Do you even know what conservatism is?
friend,
read the statement that states responsibility. the last seven (7--count 'em) years have been the republicans fantasy wet dream. "we run the zoo!"
they screwed the pooch seven (7--count 'em) ways from sunday.
we don't want them. they don't want them. thats how you get two democrats and one republican that has built a career (cynically...) running against republicans.
i, you and we are the pooch!
rinse, repeat..
d
No, my issue is that the author of this article apparently doesn't know conservative philosophy very well. He would do well to read and study before spouting off partisan "some screwed up so they all must be wrong" messages.
George W. Bush is NOT a true conservative, and is NOT a true Republican. Neither was his dad. Hell, neither was Raegan, given the man's domestic policies. We haven't had a true conservative in office in the last what, sixty years? Hale is denouncing a political ideology that hasn't been seen in national office since long before the civil rights movement (some diehards will trace as far back as Taft). How can you put down conservatism when you neither know what it was, nor have seen it in action in decades?
Yes, you and I, Dave, and everyone else in this country have been screwed hard for the last seven years. We have one of the worst foreign policies this country has ever maintained, on par with Teddy's imperialism long ago but perhaps worse becuase at least Teddy helped get the Japanese and Russians on speaking terms with one another. Bush has all the diplomatic skills of a two year old throwing a tantrum. But do you really think it would have been so different if a different set of corrupt politicians had been in power?
You are using a small little red-herring here. You are correct, by the traditional definition of conservative, bush, daddy, reagan, nixon, and any others back there were not conservative. HOWEVER, they ran as conservative. They claimed to be conservative. They spoke as though they spoke for all conservatives, and the conservatives, the real ones, NEVER SPOKE UP. Because of that, the definition of conservative has changed. In fact, YOUR definition of conservative (and mine, as well) is, in fact, to the LEFT of those currently being called liberal.
You are using a small little red-herring here. You are correct, by the traditional definition of conservative, bush, daddy, reagan, nixon, and any others back there were not conservative. HOWEVER, they ran as conservative. They claimed to be conservative. They spoke as though they spoke for all conservatives, and the conservatives, the real ones, NEVER SPOKE UP. Because of that, the definition of conservative has changed. In fact, YOUR definition of conservative (and mine, as well) is, in fact, to the LEFT of those currently being called liberal.
Once again. Your definition of conservative. Doesn't mean a damn thing anymore and I don't care how you decide to define it.
The author is on the one hand saying that the Republicans "Conservative" polices failed - but on the other hand is saying that they did not follow Conservative principals.
He actually answers his own question - the Republicans Failed because they did not follow Conservative principals.
Thanks Hale. One caveat: you've described Republicans; conservatives are extinct.
They are not quite extinct,... but they are definately a rare breed any more.
They are a cornered rat right now and quite dangerous.
I think that conservatism didn't so much fail as it got SOLD. Basically, on eBay. The military got bitched out to foreign countries under the aegis of 'globalization', used as
budget placeholders by a laundry list of companies that knew damn well they were just printing scrip, and the sunshine stories got piled higher, and deeper, until eventually some serious cracks formed in the entire apparatus, there, and George, poor bastard, got dropped in the hot seat, and told, 'deal'. Conservative?
I don't think so. Neo-con? How about Neo-scam, with a dash of neo-nazi thrown in, for flavor?
Remember the 50's? When the government got the whole country wired for electrical and phone service? Who basically owns the world today?
MCI? Enron? Some phenomenae are multi-generational, span decades, centuries, even.
Learning to recognize the patterns is a bear,
they don't necessarily give it all a thorough treatment in feel-good history class...since we're on the subject, let's talk Big Oil and 'Conservatism'. Can you say, 'murderous sellouts'? Very good.
Notice how the GOP is for fiscal responsibility ONLY when they are not in power?
If they have the votes to spend, its BORROW and SPEND and BORROW and SPEND.
Also, notice how the Party of Personal Responsibility spends the kids money, passes the IOUs to the kids, blames the Democrats for everything, then says "Adios"?
No, Hale, that's not what I want in government.
But what, really now, does "the Republican Party" (or for that matter "the Democratic Party") have to do with it?
As General "Ike" Eisenhower foresaw, back in 1961, the unchecked rise of the military industrial complex (as he coined the phrase) represented an unprecedented threat to our Republic. It corrupted everything and everyone that it touched.
The fable of King Midas is very apropos. It turned everything that it touched into gold and has left us with nothing to eat.
Libertarians should look into the mirror when asking who is to blame for fiscal irresponsibility. Instead of supporting fiscal responsibility wherever the opportunity arises, they imagine that it should be a partisan issue. When Democrats campaign for fiscal responsibility they choose to ignore and campaign against the Democrat. Meanwhile, Libertarians are ignored by Republicans because they count on their vote without patronizing their opinion.
You can't grow food by sowing a seed and expecting a harvest. You must learn to sow whatever seed that will grow in your climate.
have just noticed something.
Per Bonddad: $3.2 trillion Debt (Bush added to national debt.)
Per Bush Budget: $3.1 trillion '09 Budget for federal government
Inference:
The entire '09 Budget has been put into hock; meaning it would take the entire revenue of the government in '09 to pay off the federal debt accumulated by Bush II.
Theoretically. the entire Federal budget can be financed with borrowed money with interest only being paid so that a excellent credit rating will still be intact.
True, but why would it be a smart idea to borrow and spend. If you haven't noticed you have to pay interest which makes everything more expensive. Woo Hoo!! the country has a great credit rating. If we spent by paying for it in taxes it would be a lot smarter. Everything the govenment buys on credit is more expensive just like everything a person buys on credit is more expensive. We have managed in this country to convince ourselves that to spend money on interest is a good thing. What schmucks!!!!
The entire Republican era should be regarded as a tragedy in economics. If we learned anything in the 90's it certainly has already been forgotten. It was greed and unfettered capitalism that destroyed everything we gained.
Gilded Age 2.0
How about this: The INTEREST on the debt last year was about $429 billion... about the same amount as the deficit.
Over 33% of that interest is due ONLY to Bush and his GOP cronies.
The failure of conservatism is a failure of the notion that if everyone acts in their personal best interest, the general interest will be served.
On second thought, the premise might be true if those in the lead, so to speak, weren't also the ones changing the rules to further disadvantage those NOT in the lead.
A level playing field is not determined by the "free market."
Conservatism has failed? How so? The republican party is in disarray. It should be. It went to liberal. Just keep thinking the way you do. Please.
mike-
"How so ?"
did you read the article-
or are you simply obtuse ?
The administration and the congress between 2000 and 2006 were by no means liberal - even to the smallest degree. There were no liberals in government aside from a handful even among Democrats.
Liberal does not being stupid. Liberal does not mean spending your children's money. Liberal does not mean invading foreign nations. Liberal does not wasting money, and becoming strapped by foreign debt. Liberal does not mean using the last drop of energy without finding new energy sources. Liberal does not mean trashing the environment. I don't know what anyone could possibly do to convince brain-washed liberal-haters before they begin to believe even the most obvious facts before them.
Liberal is the model for the American Constitution.
The point Mike was trying to make is that the worst perception of liberal, that they spend all of "our" hard-earned money, was lived out by the repubs.
It is a natural result of the Rovian politic that to please as many voters and stay in power, you cannot curb spending.
I am even more cyniacal that Mr. Stewart, I believe that the repubs know exactly what they are doing (ruining our economy) but in the end, regardless of America's standard of living, the rich will live fine, and that is all they care about. They get their marching order from the super-rich who have no national allegiance, only money.
Loading comments…
These are not just the philosophical musings of a new...
Long before $150,000-gate, Sarah Palin seemed to...
The Obamas dropped by the Vatican on Friday, with daughters...
Yesterday evening, Greg Sargent reported on The Plum Line that one of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's key reasons...
I never actually heard the words made famous by a certain man on a certain TV show. Instead I got a lot...
Jim Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for...
Don't write off Saint Sarah all you political pundits,...
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — The former fiance of Gov. Sarah Palin's...
Hermione herself, Emma Watson, charmed David Letterman and...
Think Progress flags David Brooks telling...
While we of course do not claim to know anyone's thoughts, we nominate these...
The Daily Show's John Oliver is unhappy with mainstream journalism, and even drearier...
For this week's installment of their "Lunch with the FT" feature the...
Al Franken's been anointed as Minnesota's junior senator, but how did the...
SYDNEY — Residents of a rural Australian town hoping to protect the earth and their wallets...
"What's for dinner?" A lot of us ask that question right...
Posted February 9, 2008 | 09:34 AM (EST)