The Conservative Purge Has Begun

Christopher Buckley's announcement that he's supporting Barack Obama for the presidency comes as no surprise to me. Years ago Buckley, who worked as a speechwriter for George H.W. Bush and reveres him, expressed his consternation to me about George W. Bush's dismal performance. He seemed to watch the self-destruction of the Bush presidency with a kind of fascinated horror. Now, in the wake of the Sarah Palin debacle, Buckley deserves a place on the conservative intellectual honor roll for breaking with John McCain.

He won't get it, of course. Instead, the National Review has apparently terminated Buckley's column -- high comedy when you consider that his father merely founded the magazine and fought to make conservatism intellectually respectable, banishing the anti-Semites and other riff-raff who tainted the movement. Now conservatism is regressing, turning into a Frankenstein. Other members of the old guard at National Review such as Jeffrey Hart have also denounced the mendacity of the Bush administration. Their voices were not heeded.

Today, as the McCain campaign lurches to its dolorous conclusion, conservatives are beginning to blame each other for the collapse of their movement. Instead of excommunicating Buckley and others, conservatives should be debating with them. But intolerance is winning out over intellectual inquisitiveness. As an intellectual movement, conservatism is suffering its death throes. And with the Buckley affair, the purge has begun.

Comments

[libertron]

What exactly about Sarah Palin is a debacle? If you are talking about this state trooper thing, read this guy's record. I don't want a mean dirtbag walking around with a gun and a badge and it's to her credit that she tried to get him fired.

[dlinguist]

Uhm.... ok.. let's drop the troopergate thing (you kinda are missing the point there anyhow)...

Where do you want to begin with the rest of the issues? Wow, where DOES one begin.
You wouldn't perhaps have been cryogenically frozen these past 7+ weeks?
Nothing personal, but WOW again.

[hollace]

who does J M and SP think are going to man their wars..{no more friendly nations,they have dissed everyone] .Pay for their wars....Pay their Lawyers..
And there will be lots of those needed in the future...just the cases palin has against her now will go on and on ad infinitum,..and whwhere would her huband live as his security clearance wouldn't be high enough to live in the whitehouse?

Also, what counrtries would leave their money in american investments if little miss muffit was V.P. and oh so close to that nuclear phone?.no foriegn money means your dollar woth less...Goodbye Influence..Here comes Asia with their shoulders to the grindstone..While Americans watch their future
played with by a cowardly old man and a women so afraid of the world she only goes out with someones permission... Please don,t buy a pig in a poke...

[pennsykid2000]

So, unlike Cheney's comment in 2003 that the insurgency was in its "last throes", apparently conservatism really is in its last throes. Perhaps they just have to "stay the course"; that's worked so well for Republicans in the past.

[Tzimisce]

Does it really surprise anyone that this is happening? Most of the true ideological [i.e. intellectually honest] conservatives voted for W in 2004 while holding their noses. The man was responsible for the biggest expansion of federal bureaucracy in history and put the U.S. taxpayers in charge of not one but two major nation-building enterprises. That's not consistent with the conservative philosophy at all.
There was only one true conservative in the 2008 race from the get-go, and that was Ron Paul. He was a pariah to the Republican mainstream because he's anti-war and anti-Patriot Act.
The Republican mainstream is no longer conservative. It's turned into some unholy amalgam of Neocon warmongers and intellectually impoverished rednecks.
The Reagan coalition is dead and there's no reviving it.
Many of the Reagan conservatives [not a majority by any means, but a substantial number] are crossing over and voting for Obama, not because they necessarily agree with his policies but because they see a McCain presidency as being even more calamitous in terms of undermining the Constitution, which they hold sacrosanct, than that of Bush.

[NoSillyName]

The Republican mainstream also includes an uncounted number of the elderly former Democrats who were taken in by Reagan and won't change their minds now, won't or can't do research and only get their info from Couric, if they even bother to pay attention.

[libertron]

You are so right about this it scares me. Every word of it. I recognize that most people on Huffpo are hardcore Democrats and laugh about this conservative implosion, but where will this country be with one-party rule and Obama in the white house with a Dem supermajority in the senate? I don't think any party is good enough to not be corrupt without meaningful opposition.

[ernieson]

It's time for a SURGE IN THE US------A SURGE TO PURGE THE GREEDY HYPOCRITICAL REPUBLICANS FROM POSITIONS OF POWER.

[Magella]

The right song for all this's' Vanity' song by Mystique GP, cause the country need it, thats why since i download it from itunes i'm playing it everyday until the big day to name the new person to run the country.

[14U]

JackieTW
WELL SAID ! ! PLEASE tell the people here reading this, becouse as you said it is
The conservative movement has complete responsibility for these issues, regardless if the President does or does not. AS YOU JUST SAID .THANK YOU ! ! For clearing that up for me. The DEMOCRATS in congress couldn't get any thing ( DONE ) becouse we have a lame duck for a president. Even with the ( MAJORITY OF CONGRESS DEMCRATS ! ! )
I HOPE THAT WHEN PRESIDENT OBAMA GETS ELECTED ( THE CHANGE ) he talks about is what YOU think it is, and what WE can all live with ! !
AGAIN THANK YOU FOR CLEARING THAT UP.

[ibsteve2u]

It is pretty easy for today's Republicans, whose basic belief is that you should not let anything - not ethics, not patrotism, not anything at all - come between themselves and wealth accumulation, to fool true conservatives.

The former sound quite sincere when they talk about limiting the size of government, because they are - taxes come between themselves and wealth accumulation. But because of their lack of morality or ethics, they too often do not bother to weigh the legality of how they get wealthier, and if what they are doing damages the American people and America itself, they just do not care.

The conservatives like Buckley shouldn't feel bad, though; the Republicans suckered the Christian right, too. They were both just wheels on the machine the Republicans rode to more power and thus more wealth.

[Timekeeper10]

How about job accumulation. who do you think hires people in this country?

[nedfarrar]

I think that wealthy people and corporations can and often do hire people to work for them in this country, BUT - and this is a point that too many conservatives these days miss - before anyone hires anyone they need to have a customer for the goods and/or services they sell.

Much was made of "Joe the plumber" in last night's debate. It was said that if Joe's taxes were kept low, he could buy a business and hire people. It should have also been pointed out that if Joe's customers had their taxes kept low, and their home values kept stable, they would be in a better position to hire Joe's company to repair their pipes, install new sinks and toilets, and do all the work a plumber needs to be doing in order to get paid and therefore make it worthwhile to be a plumber in the first place. If a businessman has enough business, paying taxes becomes much less of a concern.

By focusing all of its attention on the owners of wealth in this country, and effectively eviscerating the middle class from which their customers come, the conservatives have destroyed more than one plumber's ability to stay in business.

We need a government today that is dedicated to growing our economy from the ground up, not a continuation of this idea that the poor and middle classes depend upon a trickle down effect for their living.

[daddysboy]

The poor spend every dime that they make; 100% recirculation of money. The same thing cannot be said about the very rich. In the end, what difference does it make if all of the money is circulated through the very poor first? Ultimately, the very rich just want to accumulate and don't care whether the economy thrives because they are sheltered from any major crisis by their massive amounts of cash. This is the fundamental problem with non-regulated markets and pure capitalism; the concentration of wealth. In addition to this, all of the labor and effort is contributed by the very poor while nearly none is accomplished by the "leisure class". A better concept is a mixture of socialism and capitalism in a responsible, democratic government where there are some controls on a few people's tendency to acquire to excess and to the detriment of our society.

[eden4barack08]

How do you explain the presently,high unemployment rate?

[Fordham03]

Wow! That clarified things dramatically for me. Republicans, wealth accumulation; Democrats, more humane policies helping the rest of the people share in the American dream. If you doubt it, look at the last eight years and the mess we are in: two wars, massive debt, non-regulation allowing business to go amok. You think Enron would have been a warning but then they were massive campaign contributors to Bush.

It's time for a change of direction folks. Send Mr. McSame to pasture and Sarah the pit bull back to Alaska.

[14U]

JackieTW
WELL SAID ! ! PLEASE tell the people here reading this, becouse as you said it is
The conservative movement has complete responsibility for these issues, regardless if the President does or does not. AS YOU JUST SAID The DEMOCRATS done

[SoutheastReview]

Nobody has a more thoroughgoing contempt than I do for the policies and positions of the so-called 'neoconservatives' Yet I am dubious that the orientation of our thinking is optimal, whether in examining Buckley's 'desertion' or our own feelings.

These futhermuckers have been ruling the roost, in one incarnation or another, since 1968. Tricky Dick was practically the progenitor of the movement, politically if not intellectually. Their moneybags backers have pumped hundreds of millions into coming up with what we are calling stupidity and idiocy.

From one perspective, of course, just about everything that emanates from these folks, whether garbed in the iron glove of a Nazi radio rant or the velvet fist of the slick rhetoric of the "National Review," is at best garbled and delusional criminal conspiracy, corrupt thuggishness of the most vicious and self-serving variety. So saying, however, they used these ideas to win.

Unless we are willing to write off a huge chunk of the working class of this country--and I won't do that--we have to take some responsibility here. Our intellectual efforts have rarely strayed beyond 'liberal' IMF positions; we lack the commitment to consider a social democratic alternative to the neocon paradigm, and, sturdy populists that they are, they have punished us for it.

[Rocku]

It would be interesting to see what kind of Constitution a neocon would write! It has always been my opinion that civilization and government are intertwined, and that the best form of government is a Democratic Republic in which the rights of the minorities are protected by some stated Bill of Rights. We have such a government, but somehow the memory of the founding principles and their reason for being seems to have escaped those recently and currently in office. The destruction piecemeal of the Bill of Rights has been going on most of my life, and I am not a young man. In some things I'm quite conservative, believing in the absolute rights granted me by the Constitution, and in other ways I am very liberal, thinking that individuals should be extended other rights implied by conditions of society, but that none should be diminished. I believe in the right to keep and bear arms, but I think we should all have health care. I think someone should present a warrant if they want to enter my house or a student's locker, but I think people should get a pension capable of supporting them in their old age. I believe illegal immigrants should be deported, but that education for our citizens should be the best in the world. I think we can fix almost anything, and if we can't we can start over. Maybe it's time!

[SoutheastReview]

No matter how I might fight it, I'm a Jeffersonian too. The man was so real! Thus, at least occasionally against my more 'intellectual' inclinations, I have to say "RIGHT ON!" to most of what you've posted here. Much to the chagrin of many of my 'lefty' friends, I consider the founding documents of the United States to embody amazing political insights and procedural genius.

Anybody who does not put a resuscitation of the Bill of Rights at the utmost center of procedural politics is either a fascist or a clueless boob. Harshly judgmental or not, I'd go to the mat about this point.

On the other hand, I find anomalous the point about "illegal immigrants," although I suppose that if you're a Cherokee or Comanche or something similar, then I'd have to acknowledge a point of information if not a practical advisory. Capital has no borders, and if we try to restrict the flow of money and goods again, we're making WWIII a rapidly pending inevitability.

In such an environment, labor must be able to move, to 'vote with the feet' against fascists that our government either supports in our names or ignores at their moral and political peril. We need a constitution for the earth, not just for America. The days when a national ideology can effective answer our needs have vanished since the days when we were both "young men."

[daddysboy]

The neoCON movement is not a populist movement by ANY stretch of the word. If anything it is the opposite since it's main tenets are a contempt for government and an indifference to inequality and social injustice.

[SoutheastReview]

Not 'populist?' The 'granddaddy' of the analysis of such belief 'strains,' Richard Hofstedter, would certainly take you to task. A working definition of a populist might look like this: "One who follows, promulgates, or has an interest in popular political opinions and approaches--ideas and methods that, without any apparent theoretical or ideological grounding, large portions of the population believe in or approve of."

Thus, William Jennings Bryan, who railed against the "cross of gold," was one sort of populist and Father Coughlin, who railed against commies and Jews, was of a decidedly different stripe. Hitler and Roosevelt were both populists.

The key to understanding any social phenomenon is the ability to see the countervailing forces always at play inside of it. Thus, Jim Hightower is a progressive populist and Rush Limbaugh is a reactionary populist.

The key difference, since whatever appearances seem to indicate, almost all politicians have SOME ideological paradigm that they follow, between the two is that Hightower developed his perspective 'from the ground up,' for the most part, whereas Limbaugh and his fascist ilk have garnered the benefit of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of thinking by the 'think-tank' brigade of the neo-conservative movement. We need to ask ourselves when we will have our own such institutions.

And we should always remember this. Fascism is always a form of populism.

[Skepticat]

The current Neocons are not conservatives as in "save what is good" but rapacious plunderers staying in power by exploiting, promoting and perpetuating ignorance and fear, wedge issues, voter fraud, politicizing of the judiciary, crony capitalism, jingoism, greed, theocratic myopia and blind hatred of the differentiated "other" aided by a supine media and perpetual lies. Questioning any of the above "values" would be akin to a mob guy saying, "Hey Vinnie, maybe we shouldn't whack little Joey blue eyes - it don't seem ethical" Questioning policy is not recommended in organizations engaged in bad behaviour. Purges are probably inevitable.

[HillbillyBob]

Stop and look at what you just said, then review.
In short this is an attempted repeat of the fascist regime of Germany prior to WW2. For years I thought it was just jingoism or those who spoke of such were, crazed, obsessed or just mistaken. Though after years of observation, mind numbing research, I come to the same conclusions as those who told me such things.
People as varied as the nice old lady down the block who remembered the little bit that was actually allowed in the newspaper or on the radio before TV, from Holocaust survivors, from former Intel folks, from Joe Sixpack.
I hope the hell it is the sunset of this awful group and I wish it was the ideology, lest they succeed at another try. G'ddess forbid.
Mr Buckley and others mentioned in the essay by Mr Heilbrunn are perhaps seeing just how bad their unquestioning support of NeoKonservatism is.
It is a bankrupt ideology ugly and mean (in both meanings of the word).
Forgive me for using a way overused recently saying, "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is Still a pig", and a fascist racist selfish ideology is still wrong for America and the world. Some experiments should not be allowed to repeat.

[maxiemom]

William F. Buckley would've allowed any point of view if it could've been backed up. I also have a sneaking hunch myself that he might have voted for Obama, not McCain, because he himself was a critic of the current administration and the Iraq war, and what they have done to the conservative movement he helped to create.

Face it: the Republican party conservatives are now led by the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly, which proves that they have been dumbed down to the point of idiocy. Intellectuals like Christopher Buckley or his father don't stand a chance with that crowd of brutish louts.

Though I am not, nor have I ever been, a conservative, it appalls me to think that National Review has fallen so low that it has actually accepted the resignation of the son of WFB (who is still a co-owner for heaven's sake!). This only shows just how intolerant of others, including their own intellectuals, conservatives are. Today's conservatives simply can't tolerate nor appreciate anyone who can actually use their brain for anything other than a vacuum.

[promisedlyric]

WONDERFUL!!!!

[Ironfox]

Christopher quoted his father as saying "You know, I've spent my entire life time seperating the Right from the kooks." How ironic that the kooks have excommunicated the son.

[bosse]

Most people in this country has NO PARTY affiliation, I bet even some elected official, that switch parties to get just elected, like kids at a bse ball park taking the side of the winning team
This is because most do not hear or read ablout any thing or any party until election time the party structure( offices etc in States and counties) is non existing till the year of an election. HONEST people cannot support what is going on for the past eight years. Intelligent people cannot stand the "worst president' in history's*: actions and inaction.
So join us intelligent people who care for this great nation and its kids.
WE can do it, just vote for the bright man and do not think about skin color, I beg you ktb

[14U]

IF YOU THINK, ABOUT IT ! !

TO ALL MY FRIENDS....LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE...FYI only.

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.

A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high ;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +
5) American's were buying new cars,taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!...

But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right. In the PAST YEAR:

1) Consumer confidence has plummeted ;
2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;
3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping;

5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another low~~
$2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!

YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE...AND WE SURE GOT IT! ....

REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS CAN.

AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE, THE LAST TWO YEARS, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE IS GOING TO REALLY GIVE US CHANGE ALONG WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS!!!!

HOW MUCH 'CHANGE' CAN YOU STAND?

[JackieTW]

14U, get the hell out of here. The conservative movement has complete responsibility for these issues, regardless if the President does or does not.

George W. Bush lied us into war. He tortures other people. His conservative constituency has buyoed an era of deregulation which is the result of this fiasco--it was NOT caused by a democratically elected congress by the people of these United States. The funny thing is, you're one of the last people on Earth who doesn't see these facts.

The most insulting thing in your 'argument' (if you can call it that, since you clearly aren't a fan of logic), is that you start out almost sounding like you're simply offering an objective piece of information. You just want to give all of us poor democrats something to think about. The truth is there isn't an objective bone in your body. You're pretty much like all the hacks that have caused this mess: we break it, then we blame other people for it.

I have confidence that the party who ISN'T the same one that caused this will reverse the mess.

[Ironfox]

Please don't feed IT.

[Timekeeper10]

14U is correct and far fron the last on earth who believe these fact. Millions of workng families also know his facts to be true. 2 1/2 years ago, the left was preparing to take back the presidency with the war issue. The majority leader of the senate had already announced the war lost, much to the encouragement of our enemies. As their approval rating fell to 13% ,the do nothing congress continued to milk the war issue even after if was painfull obvious to them it that the war was turning around. They abandoned the war issue as tremedous gains were made in Iraq. Fortunately for them and with their help, the economy begins to tank, Presto-they once again have a chance at the white house. Unfortunately for the country, they continue to do nothing the 2 1/2 years they are in power. As ususal politics comes before the well-being of the country.

[rnadna]

and of course i know why this nonsense is being spouted...

they want someone to blame for the dismal failure of the last 30 years of defunct repub ideology.

that will most certainly be the democratic congress of the last 21/2 years....

already the ideolog bankrupt right are telegraphing their agenda for the next 4 years when Obama/Biden are in office....

lol! do you really think we are all that stupid!!! you guys better get a day job - assuming you'll be even able to find one!

[bullet92443]

Then tell me why bush had to give away money to the people when he went into office boy you need to get it right

[Pal-Mac]

14U, take your head out of the sand and tell me this... if the dem. congress did nothing the last 2 years, how can you blame them for this mess we are in?The wonderful policies Bush and company are still there humming along, doing the damage that brought us to this crisis. Even McCain admits that Bush and the neocons are responsible and he runs away from them.

So take your head out of the sand and stop listening to those great patriotic Americans - Rush and Hannity.

[ibsteve2u]

lolllll....so you think all laws and policies have an instantaneous impact?

The things the Republicans and this Administration have done - from free trade to trickle down economics to refusing to regulate hedge funds and deregulating investment banking - take TIME to have an impact.

Unfortunately, I am afraid it will take a goodly amount of TIME to recover from their actions.

Besides, propaganda such as you post tends to - accidentally? - overlook the fact that the Democrats do not have a veto-proof majority anywhere and they suffer under a Republican President.

To sum up - what a hokie excuse blaming the Democrats is. It is if you work for the RNC directly, and have fallen for their assumption that Americans are stupid.

[Rocku]

Please remember that the term "trickle down economics" was invented by Ronald Regan and his gang, many of whom still wander the halls of government. Like I said earlier, the destruction of the Bill of Rights has been going on most of my life, and I am not a young man! As an aside, though I'm certainly not a fan of the current President, he has used the veto less than any other who held office in my memory. The Congress' past and present were mostly "conservative" however, and have passed numerous laws which boggle the mind including almost complete deregulation of the finance industry which was regulated in response to the Great Depression. No one seems to have a clue about history anymore, including most current politicians, and THAT is the problem. Perhaps we should be electing history professors instead of lawyers to office! At least they would bring some context to the job.

[rnadna]

obviously you dont even know how your own government works!

did you ever hear of MAJORITY or VETO?

the democratic majority you so perjoratively speak of above is/was nonexistent for the last 2 years because:

1. The conservative Democrats from the south always voted the Republican way, so no majority votes.
2. The Senate is 50-50 - so no Majority to override anything.
3. And Bush, of course, always vetoed anything that was not veto proof.

So much for your polemic above! But that is true for all you republicans! just state any nonsense and possibly you might in 1 in a zillion state some truism!

[BobHiggins]

They may purge the apostates but those that remain are sharpening their steely knives and plotting their shared dreams.

There will be no coffee break if we win this election.

Watch your backs.

Bob Higgins

[Timekeeper10]

And the dreams of health and prosperity of all Americans. WWRD

[appleknocker]

George H.W. Bush knew better than anyone on earth how grossly unsuitable Dubya was for the presidency, or any other responsible job. Yet he helped him attain the WH, thereby demonstrating that he put his own paternal ego above the welfare of the country. And Buckley "reveres" this guy? Well, aristocrats must stick together, right?

[BobHiggins]

Right! old chum.

Excuse me, I'm late for polo.

Bob