WP, Dionne: "This is the week conservatism reached the point of collapse."

[DeepModem Mom]

The End Of the Right?
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, August 4, 2006; Page A17

Is conservatism finished?

What might have seemed an absurd question less than two years ago is now one of the most important issues in American politics. The question is being asked -- mostly quietly but occasionally publicly -- by conservatives themselves as they survey the wreckage of their hopes, and as their champions in the Republican Party use any means necessary to survive this fall's elections.

Conservatism is an honorable disposition that, in its modern form, is inspired by the philosophy developed by Edmund Burke in the 18th century. But as a contemporary American movement, conservatism is rooted intellectually in the 1950s and the circles around William F. Buckley Jr. and National Review magazine. It rose politically with Barry Goldwater's campaign in 1964.

Conservatism was always a delicate balancing act between small-government economic libertarians and social traditionalists who revered family, faith and old values. The two wings were often held together by a common enemy, modern liberalism certainly, but even more so by communism until the early 1990s, and now by what some conservatives call "Islamofascism."

President Bush, his defenders say, has pioneered a new philosophical approach, sometimes known as "big-government conservatism." The most articulate defender of this position, the journalist Fred Barnes, argues that Bush's view is "Hamiltonian" as in Alexander, Thomas Jefferson's rival in the early republic. Bush's strategy, Barnes says, "is to use government as a means to achieve conservative ends."

Kudos to Barnes for trying bravely to make sense of what to so many others -- including some in conservative ranks -- seems an incoherent enterprise. But I would argue that this is the week in which conservatism, Hamiltonian or not, reached the point of collapse....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080301259.html?nav=hcmodule

[Erika]

1. W is a corporate neocon.

Recognized as such by all.

[MidwestTransplant]

2. Crony capitalist.

[Harry Monroe]

23. A Corporate Neocon??

More like a corporate whore.

[Skittles]

50. neocons suck but so do average conservatives

there has never been anything noble about conservatives

[Reckon]

3. Don't buy it. ... n/t

[formercia]

4. Hamiltonian shmameltonian

lipstick on a pig, methinks.

[Marr]

16. I agree with you.

There's no high-minded "Hamiltonian" thought here. Just a bunch of small-minded people with a lust for wealth and power. They want an imperial presidency only because that would deliver them even more personal benefit. They weren't making these "Hamiltonian" arguments back when we had a Democratic president, after all.

[calimary]

5. From your laptop to God's ear, E.J.

I also liked the passage that pointed out how clear it is that conservatives can't control Congress without the help (collusion?) of moderates - an admission that they don't have the numbers on their side. And Dionne continues that there is no such thing as a conservative majority in the country to back them up and keep them in power. That alone was a feast for my eyes.

I hope they get the absolute frickin' snot beaten out of them in November. I hope they're set back so far that it'll take generations for them to regroup. If ever.

[DeepModem Mom]

6. That was an important point -- they are not a majority. Never have been.

n/t

[jaysunb]

9. Never EVER has been !

Kinda reminds me of the Wizard of Oz......

[hfojvt]

37. just talked to my county chairman on Wednesday

He said that conservatives got thumped in the recent primary in Kansas. That would be versus moderate Republicans. Sounds good, but I am not sure it helps us in the fall. It makes the fall choice into a moderate Republican vs. DINO/former Republican contest. And that contest kinda favors the Republican in a Republican state.

Plus, as Claire McCaskill needs to stress, there has been no such thing as a moderate Republican in Congress - they have voted lockstep to enable and empower the Bush administration.

[Art_from_Ark]

7. Hamiltonian, huh?

The only thing "Hamiltonian" I can see about that guy is that he might have some differences with the veep.

[madmusic]

8. Political movements lose power

:Political movements lose power when they lose their self-confidence and sense of mission. Liberalism went into a long decline after 1968 when liberals clawed at each other more than they battled conservatives -- and when they began to wonder whether their project was worth salvaging."

Actually, they lose power when they start thinking themselves invincible and incapable of error. That's when they make errors and start shooting each other.

[upi402]

10. When a dominant power is this drunk with power...

a democratic form of government will allow the governed to rescind their consent to be governed.

[zippy890]

11. kick good article

would that it be true
:dem:

[no_hypocrisy]

12. True, traditional conservatism will survive. I'm not certain about the

perversion of conservatism that we've had to endure since 2001. This is a rightwing minority political viewpoint that is at risk of losing power and influence.

[marions ghost]

39. yeah but

how do you explain the "traditional conservatives" complete capitulation to the right wing? I think "traditional conservative" isn't doing so well now.

[no_hypocrisy]

42. They've been cowed like the rest of the "true believers" of

the other political organizations in this country.

[marions ghost]

46. OK well

maybe "true believers" everywhere need some shaking up. The difference between conservative "true believers" and liberal "true believers" is rather huge, tho. Conservatives have no excuses now. Being 'cowed' doesn't hold up for anybody, right or left. Conservatism as a political philosophy has failed. Conservatives have had control and propelled the country into an abyss far worse than any liberal of any stripe could have imagined. Democrat "true believers" would not have been suckered into supporting fascists.
Big diff.

[dreamsvsnightmares]

54. I must disagree with that Democrats would not be suckered

into supporting fascists. True believers or not there is only a handful of Democrats that have stood against the policies of this administration. They have been strong and honest but no one seems to be paying attention to them because their name is not Clinton.

[marions ghost]

58. what I said was

"Democrat true believers would not support fascists."

Sure, CONSERVATIVE Dems supported the Commander-in-Thief. These are not what I would describe as "true believer" liberals. Those Dems who have stood against the administration are what i think of as the true believers, those who take the principles that the party appears to stand by seriously.

[Jade Fox]

61. This right-wing minority viewpoint is also based largely on fantasy.....

and it's amazing how easily fantasy crashes:

Fantasies:

-the US can become an old time empire and dominate the world.

-if you just hide the truth and tell enough lies, everyone will become Conservative.

-most people want the US to become a Religious State based on wacky takes on Christianity.

-we can pollute endlessly with no negative consequences.

-there is no real need for reproductive freedom as long as women stop acting like sluts.

-the hands of time CAN be turned back!

[malaise]

13. If he had said

loot government rather than "...use government as a means to achieve conservative ends", I'd agree 100%.

[mom cat]

14. kick!

[Marr]

15. Modern "conservatism" is inspired by one thing:

Short-sighted, personal greed. That's *it*. There's no underpinning social ideal whatsoever, unless it's something like "fuck the poor". The GOP has devolved into little more than a sort of organized crime operation that panders to religious fundamentalists. There's no Goldwater left in this thing.

[marions ghost]

40. I totally agree

the entire GOP has "devolved" as u say

[EST]

44. It appears to me that their attitude toward the poor and

socially strangled likely doesn't even reach that level.
Rather than antipathy, just apathy. The "poor" are no more than a temporary annoyance, with barely a frustrated nod toward noblesse oblige. The game they are playing is the game for the big boys with the American team as the most utterly incompetent imaginable.

I don't know whether to refer to them as neo-clowns or republiclowns but, either way, they've never absorbed the notion most of us have heard of in a song about the kingdom being lost for want of a horseshoe nail. The neoclown world benders have consistently discounted all of us horseshoe nails-Iraqi, Mexican, disadvantaged, black, honest-and it's gonna bite 'em.

[Efilroft Sul]

17. "the journalist Fred Barnes"

Oh, please. That's like saying "the Zionist Adolf Hitler."

[yellowcanine]

33. Now if he had said, "the journalist whore" Fred Barnes.....

[ProudDad]

62. Or like saying the

"humanitarian Ehud Olmert"

[southpaw]

18. Hamiltonian, eh?

This crew is about to meet its Aaron Burr!

[Lasher]

19. Wow, the Walton family needs some fresh PR talent!

This particular smokescreen is pretty lame.

[Totallybushed]

20. Is conservatism finished?

HA!

Not while they have Diebold!

[Harry Monroe]

21. This Administration has invented a new kind of political philosophy

And it is not conservative at all. Traditional conservatives believe in smaller government, less federal spending and less involvement in world affairs. We need to come up with a new name for this fucked up philosophy that this Administration has been practicing since 2001. Oh wait, there are already names for it. Dictatorship and totalitarinism come to mind. It is an insult to our Founding Fathers to link their brand of snake oil to the principals of Hamilton. The only ends this Administration is trying to reach with this new brand of ""big government conservatism" is the rear ends of the average citizens who are willing to bend over and take it.

[Malidictus Maximus]

25. Call it what it is:

'Corporate Socialism'.
Or 'Corporate Oligarchy'.

'True' conservatives versus 'true' liberals have meaningful dialogs- vis a vis where do individual as opposed to societal rights and responsibilities lay. There are many points on the matrix with opinions of economic freedom on one axis and individual liberties on the other.

But Bushco Inc put the good of the corporation(s) above both the good of the individual and the good of society.

[VaYallaDawg]

27. Excellent post - and welcome to DU Malidictus! n/t

[DeepModem Mom]

32. Right on, MM -- welcome to DU!

[VOX]

52. Precisely. There's **nothing** "conservative" about any of this ilk...

And welcome to DU, MM.

Looking forward to your posts! :toast:

[ProudDad]

63. Authoritarian Fascism comes to mind

I also like "Corporate Oligarchy"

[galileo3000]

22. I suspect that Conservatism and Liberalism are cyclical.

Peace
- galileo

[nam78_two]

24. hopefully /nt

[VotingVet]

26. Conservatism has been dead since the 2000 "selection"

The neoconservative movement was really a break with conservatism. Neocon-ism is pretty clearly nothing more than bald faced corporate fascism. And Fred Barnes is not merely wrong, he's damned insulting to the memory of Hamilton when he compares a simpleton like Bush to him. For one thing, Hamilton, whether you like him or not, was an intellectual, a thinker. For another, Hamilton stood up to Aaron Burr on the field of honor. Can anyone even imagine the Crawford Pipsqueak squaring off with a mortal enemy like that? (Hamilton, so the story goes, fired into the air, assuming Burr would also do the honorable thing. Burr, of course, knowing that Hamilton was without further ammunition, fired the deadly shot that ended the duel. That being the case, which of these 2 men does Bush most resemble?)

As for conservatism, real conservatism, being dead since 2000, I'm reminded that John Dean declared himself to be a "Goldwater Conservative" when he was on the Daily Show. "That," he added, "places me somewhat to the left of center these days."

[wake.up.america]

28. Seriously speaking, clear as bell. Thank you.

[newyawker99]

29. Hi VotingVet!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[DeepModem Mom]

31. Excellent post, Voting Vet -- welcome to DU!

[VOX]

53. Absolutely true. I never refer to the right as "conservative" any more...

Using instead the term "right-wing radicals."

But you're quite correct about corporate fascism, of which Benito Mussolini was once the most recognizable historical proponent. No longer, I think.

Welcome to DU. Looking forward to your posts! :toast:

[FUGW]

55. I agree, I call them Authoritarians. Welcome home Thinking Vet.

[ProudDad]

65. Actually, Conservatism has been dead

since Hoover...

Hopefully, the neo-cons will be a blip on the radar of history... They don't deserve any more than that.

[ElboRuum]

30. Conservatism Dead? Yes...

You know what's really funny about all of this?

If conservatives were at all conservative in the more principled definitions that Buckley and Will often opine about, Democrats/liberals might not have such a problem voting for them and they wouldn't be in the crashing mess they're in.

A socially libertarian fiscal conservative with his/her finger off the trigger more than its on is really what we're asking for, isn't it?

I, for one, will not be unhappy to see modern conservatism buy the farm.

[marions ghost]

41. this person you describe....

"A socially libertarian fiscal conservative with his/her finger off the trigger more than its on is really what we're asking for, isn't it?"

That would appear to be a conservative Democrat.

[ElboRuum]

47. Not necessarily...

I would agree if you define "fiscal conservative" as a tightwad who doesn't believe in public programs. To me, the words mean someone who is interested in frugality. A person would qualify in my book as a fiscal conservative even if they wanted to raise taxes but who would insist that this money be spent in a responsible manner.

For example:

A person can be fiscally conservative even if the program might be termed a "liberal" concern, like universal health care, for example. So long as they're interested in measuring the efficacy of the program, interested in metrics for the assessment of results, and against pork barrelling the funds earmarked for that program, they are "fiscally conservative".

In other words, they treat YOUR money as if it were coming from THEIR own personal checking account, and there must be a return on that investment which is accountable. It doesn't matter what they spend it on, they spend responsibly, even if the amounts are large.

[klyon]

60. yes that describes my fiscally conservative position

Frugality and who will pay the bills?

[ElboRuum]

66. Modern politics...

...seems to be in these fiscally unconservative times an exercise in sticking the last guy at the table with the check... only writ large.

[Lasher]

70. I'm cautious about the use of the libertarian label

While it is true that the term has been used in the past to describe a classic liberal, it has lately taken on a whole new meaning. I have noticed that people describing themselves as libertarians are those who strongly oppose what they call the 'welfare state'. Their view of a perfect society is one in which government offers no social services whatsoever, and exercises little or no control over individuals or corporations. Anarchists are the most extreme version of this philosophy. But oddly enough, in no case do these individuals endorse any reduction of military spending.

I have had discussions with some of these people. If they had their way all government services would be immediately terminated. Confronted with the fate of the most helpless among us, their simplistic response is to say that government should not be supporting them. Masses could literally die, but that's OK with these people as long as their ideology is supported.

I try to keep an open mind, but I am baffled and appalled by this mindset. I can think of no better reason why I have been a Democrat my whole life than to oppose evil people like these.

[ElboRuum]

71. Truth be known...

A "libertarian" is someone who thinks people should be autonomous in the nth degree... at least until they need a little help themselves. Then it's "pass the social programs". A social libertarian simply sees the personal liberty of the individual to act in legal accordance and in a manner personally relevant as the paramount of all protected freedoms. It is the freedom from which all others issue. Freedom of press, expression, assembly, redress of the government, all come from the reasonably unfettered ability of the individual to act without consultation or approval of other parties. When the social conservatives say "you should not be allowed to do things", and the social liberals say "you should absolutely allowed to do these things", a social libertarian says, "I'm sorry, I don't remember asking either of you."

This is the difficult part of labels. No one's ever really clear if the label is completely and accurately applied. I find that a discussion of philosophies (political or otherwise) in a more verbose manner, though it may lack the intellectual shortcuts and therefore take longer, is often a more accurate and beneficial way to discuss issues of import.

[Lasher]

72. But we do need our labels and prejudices

Few, if any, have the time and energy to proceed from absolute square one in every case.

[Plaid Adder]

34. Isn't "big government conservatism" fascism?

I'm just sayin'.

The Plaid Adder

[EST]

51. Hi, P A!

Haven't ogled you for a while and I was feeling guilty, hoping to cross paths.

Back before I found DU and was a nervous netophyte, I was desperately seeking solace and some social sanity.

Jammed into a hospital bed in the dining room, way out in the country, I was watching the destruction of our country and needing sanity when I found your site and read every word you wrote.
You may not be guilty of saving my life but you helped me put my mental humpty-dumpty back together and I thank you from the bottom of crusty old whatever-it-is! Four years too late but I wanted you to know. Thanks! XOXOX

[tomreedtoon]

35. Wishful thinking and hallucination.

In 1968, the Democratic Party was also declared dead, and with a lot more physical reason. Chicago mayor Richard J. Daley, an old-school machine Democrat, presided over the beating and tear-gassing of mobs of New Left protestors at the Democratic convention in Chicago. According to Newsweek, that year's nominee Hubert Humphrey - himself a bland machine Democrat - wept in his hotel suite, even as he won the Democratic nomination. He knew he had already lost.

But look at today. The main Democratic candidates - Kerry, Gore and Clinton - are as bland and as reliant on the Democratic Party as Humphrey was. Even though the Democratic Party no longer has any kind of efficient "machine" politics - there are no more unions to provide loyal voters, or corrupt mayors on the scale of Daley - they still operate the same way. They assume that they are owed votes by various groups, and don't bother really contacting the voters or addressing their needs. (When was the last time any of these guys whistle-stopped, either from a train or a plane?)

So now this article claims that conservatism and the Republican Party are dead. Sure. You wanna buy some land south of Miami, buddy?

They still have the powerful religious right, especially in the South. They own the media and the press, and if they have their way, they'll own the Internet soon. People may be momentarily tired of their fear-mongering, but conservatives have the potential to switch to the other side of the equasion; they are the only people who can ease our fears, the fears they helped generate. From Hellfire sermon to Pat O'Brien twinkling charm, it's two sides of the same game.

They are not dead. They will never be dead. They will continue as long as this country will, in some mutated form or another, and they will never stop until they control your life. Like a virus, they will adapt and grow and come back even stronger than before.

[comtec]

38. Liberalism and conservatism crossed lines about 20/30 years ago

The original (being 100 years or so ago) meaning of conservatism was to CONSERVate! anyway, as my (conservative iirc) government teacher said, liberalism used to be big business and cutting down forests. My how things have changed.The democrats were once Repubic-ans (who believed in the republic) and republicans were once democrats (they changed with Lincoln during the civil war).

Labels don't really mean anything. It's actions not words that matter. There's a great Jefferson or Franklin, or some other damned great american saying for the point I'm trying to make, but I can't think of it right now...

May god *or whatever) lend us the power to remove this filth before the damage is too great, the rot too deep, too irrevocable to be undone.

[tomreedtoon]

73. God doesn't care. WE have to.

Unlike a lot of people here who proclaim themselves to be atheists, I do believe in a Supreme Being. I don't believe in the Catholic Church any more, being a "collapsed" Catholic, but I still have that foundation of belief.

But I believe that God doesn't rescue us by magic. God expects us to rescue ourselves, and to rescue each other.

It's the old Lincoln quote (I think): I don't claim that God is on our side, but I try to be on what I believe is God's side. Victory may or may not be assured, but as long as you keep fighting the good fight (and the fight for Good) you will have no fear when you finally die.

[Ganja Ninja]

36. A little premature.

Right now it's on a feeding tube. Two more years of W will really nail the coffin down and bury it.

[EstimatedProphet]

43. Is conservatism finished? Not by a long shot!

I would argue Dionne's about conservatism as it is practiced today. I think at it's core is a sense of smug superiority and entitlement. Why is it so jingoistic? Because Americans should be sucked up to. Why is a social safety net such a bad thing? Because anyone who is poor or becomes poor is inferior, and deserves being poor. Conservatism today is just a vehicle for monetary elitism.

Instead of asking if conservatism is dead, ask if racism is dead, or elitism, or militarism. Same question really, just more out in the open.

[marions ghost]

59. right !

what I strongly object to is this idea that there are 'true conservatives' --meaning there is something good about being identified with these values. There is NOTHING to be admired in modern day "conservatism," which is not conservative whatsoever. Yes, it represents monetary elitism (helped out by fundy suckerism).

Republican is the party for the unashamedly greedy and selfish.

[brainshrub]

45. No. It's not.

Every few months someone writes something like this.

Conservativism will thrive in the United States because we are an empire - and you can't run an empire with a democracy. Period.

[Festivito]

48. I think Conservatism is a marketing tool moniker. It's not going away yet.

The monied elite have invested in the word, it still resonates in churches where that elite can send money to buy sermons. They are working on separating Bush from their long advertised "Conservatism" so they can keep their investment.

It's not going away.

Doesn't matter: from where it came, it's history, who followed it, who best personifies it. That is all hooey. Conservatism is whatever people will swallow. With a sucker born every minute, Conservatism is here to stay.

[liberal N proud]

49. We can only pray that we have seen the last of the neocons

But like all evil things they will return to attack us anew.

[Canuckistanian]

56. Not only is conservatism dead

It's starting to smell bad.

[NJCher]

57. let's not allow them to continue with the "conservative" masquerade

I generally like what E.J. Dionne has to say but in this case he got it wrong by equating bushco's philosophy with conservatism. We at DU know that real conservatives eschew bush. Only a week ago, Wm. F. Buckley disowned him and Buckley is not the only one. Over the past year or two, many others have dismissed him as being representative of their values. Bush is not a conservative. Cheney is not a conservative. As poster Malidictus Maximus points out above, a more accurate name for their behavior is "corporate socialism" or "corporate oligarchy."

The Republican party was hijacked by corporate business interests because it has, in recent history, been the most sympathetic to their interests. They used the marketing tools and techniques of corporate America to stage a coup. Then, under the guise of a formerly legitimate political party, they pretended to be "governors" when in fact all they were doing is funneling our tax dollars to those who financed their coup.

Now we as a country are worse than broke. They have burdened our future generations with billions and billions in taxes that will go to pay interest on the debt for a war that has earned us nothing but the enmity of the world.

We cannot allow the old names to continue. What really happens needs to be framed and communicated to the American public. While I like Dionne's sentiment, it isn't doing us any favors to continue with the mislabeling of the forces that have so damaged our country.




Cher

[symbolman]

67. This is the best definition of the situation I've seen in a LONG time

you Nailed IT Cher.

Corporatists, pure and simple, no allegiance to our country, the constitution or any values that came before. As Hunter Thompson once said, paraphrasing,,"America is a nation of cut throat used car salesmen who would sooner kill you than get caught.."

Eisenhower would be spinning in his grave, and if you read a passage of an Ike speech (say the Iron Cross Speech) to someone who claims to be a conservative now they'd call him a Screaming Liberal.

Hell, Goldwater Looks GOOD to ME now compared to what we have, shit.. CLONE NIXON..

Nice try Dionne, close, appreciate the effort, but you forgot the part about the Treasury being used as an ATM Machine, and Diebold.

[ProudDad]

64. Of course

Hamilton was the father of the Deficit. bush is Hamiltonian in that...

[Generic Brad]

68. If true...

Woo Hoo! :woohoo:

[eviltwin2525]

69. So much simpler

The well-understood word which sums up "big-government conservatism" is quite simple: FASCISM. Fascists believe the sole purpose of power is to serve those who are willing to use power; the more you're willing to throw your weight around, the more it will serve you, principally by providing you with even more power. Another useful synonym: CANCER.