Building a Better Conservatism
Columnist Steven Greenhut writes:
Syndicated columnist Bob Novak, writing about the surprising number of conservatives who are backing Democrat Barack Obama rather than Republican John McCain for the presidency, captured their widespread sentiment when he quoted one "Obamacon" with impeccable GOP credentials: "The Republican Party is a dead rotting carcass with a few decrepit old leaders stumbling around like zombies in a horror version of ‘Weekend at Bernie,’ handcuffed to a corpse." These Obama supporters hold no illusions about Obama’s liberalism, but they are so angry at the GOP, Novak writes, that they seek a "therapeutic electoral bloodbath."… [I]n a two-party system, when one party screws up royally, the voters reward the other party.’
(OC Register; emphasis added)
It’s actually quite affirming that some conservatives have decided to rebel against what the Bush administration and its abettors and enablers and are prepared, in the best traditions of democracy, to throw the rascals out.’
Because ‘conservative’ sure doesn’t mean what it used to. It doesn’t actually even mean ‘conservative’ anymore.
After all, as Greenhut points out:
President Bush has increased the size of the federal government faster than even LBJ. Bush promised the nation a humbler foreign policy. Certainly, that’s a dead letter. There was a time when Republicans understood the importance of the separation of powers and other protections against centralized government. No more. Another Republican with unassailable credentials, former Reagan appointee Paul Craig Roberts, wrote recently: "The Republican Party has shown beyond all doubt that it holds the U.S. Constitution in total contempt. Today, the Republican Party stands for unaccountable executive power. To re-elect such a party is to murder liberty in America." (OC Register)
At Poligazette, Michael van der Galien similarly suggests that what the GOP really needs is a message about what it can do to make things better.
The Grand Old Party has, from the perspective of an outsider at least, a grumpy old party, with grumpy old man, who offer fear, sarcasm and cynicism. Now, there’s reason to be cynical about politics, but if you want your country to make progress, cynicism won’t get you anywhere. You need a healthy dose of cynicism in order to be able to say what plans will and won’t work, and to point out to voters that they should not expect miracles from the government – they’ve got to do
it themselves in the end, but you also need a positive message to progress. You need to work towards something, a goal, a vision.This ‘vision thing’ is sorely lacking. And if Republicans do have a vision, it’s a negative one. Republicans should use their strengths and not just exploit the weaknesses of the Democratic Party. Conservative policies can revive the economy and encourage entrepreneurship. They can increase competition and give people the feeling that they can get ahead in life, they can succeed, if they want to and work hard for it. And when you do, the message and policy should be, you’re rewarded.
I think van der Galien is both right and wrong here. He’s written well elsewhere and often about conservative principles so I give him a pass for reducing it down to one questionable assumption when he’s really talking about something else. But I am nevertheless going to challenge — or perhaps just question — the notion of what a conservative vision ought to be.
I agree that the Republicans desperately need to revise their message. But they need to start by retooling their vision of reality.
It’s just not true what van der Galien says: that people can necessarily ‘get ahead in life…if they want to and work hard for it.’ If that were so, all those middle-aged people in the Rust Belt who are having to move back in with their parents — and all the people who saved for years to pay for their homes, provide for a comfortable retirement, and pay for their children’s educations —would be laughing.
If it were true, I — and I consider myself fortunate both in my work and my ability to work 15 hour days when I need to — wouldn’t be worrying how I’m going to scrape up the money to help pay for my stepdaughter’s wedding without incurring serious debt…or to pay the expenses of flying my husband and me to England to attend it, ditto.
In fact, the idea that hard work = success was probable never true. For one thing, ‘to get ahead in life’ is a relative concept. It depends on where you want to go, and on there being somewhere to get. It might be as rewarding, for example, to be a community worker as it is to be Donald Trump, but you aren’t going to be financially rewarded for it.
What does ‘getting ahead in life’ even mean to someone who is doing necessary work — say, collecting the garbage — and doing it well, responsibly, etc.? Suppose that person isn’t really qualified to be anything else? Suppose then after 15 years of working responsibly, that person’s job is cut be a state desperate to conserve funds and no longer has health care, money to pay the rent or the mortgage, or a pension fund? Suppose that the person tries to find other work and ends up settling for a job that pays minimum wage and offers no benefits, or offers such benefits as a health care plan that pays 70% and has a $1500 deductible? How does that person ‘get ahead’ by working hard?
Maybe today’s self-styled conservatives really need to completely rethink what it means to be conservative. Or maybe what I am really saying is that they should return to their roots—van der Galien knows more about this than I do. But what is it, exactly, that conservatives aspire to conserve? I’d recommend:
(1) Supporting notions of responsible stewardship, such as:
- Caring for the environment, conserving resources, protecting wildlife to prevent further accelerating species die-off (which in the long run IS going to affect humans).
- Rationally balancing the risks of short-term benefits against the possible disastrous consequences of long-term risks.
- Objectively looking into the opinions of environmental scientists, embryonic stem cell researchers, and other experts on subjects affecting our long-term welfare so as to make intelligent decisions that correctly weigh competing interests.
I could go on for hours. None of these notions are at odds with true conservative principles, but they are certainly at odds with the ideas that most Republicans have pushed on the American public during the last few years.
Share This
Related Posts
-
Military Working Dogs
Posted on Apr 18, 2013
-
Earth To Stock Market. Earth To Stock Market. Are You There Stock Market?
Posted on Feb 28, 2013
-
Save The Earth – An Environmental Protection Project Of My Heart
Posted on Feb 8, 2013
-
Our Four-Legged Warriors: They Serve, They Sacrifice, They Retire and, Sadly, They Leave Us.
Posted on Feb 6, 2013
the Democrats cannot be serious about the environment as long as they support open borders and unlimited. A refusal to deport illegal aliens and giving illegal aliens government benefits, cause population explosions, causes people to talk actions to avoid being harmed from unlimited immigration, and thus hurts the environment.
If the government wants to run health care is should demonstrate its competence by running primary and secondary education for the benefit of the students instead of as a jobs program. Until the DC public schools function properly, please leave the rest of the government alone.
I can tell you have never dealt much with government planners. The idea that no one can be hurt by failure will quickly be turned into no one can succeed. It will become that all profits are ill gotten. Please tell me why anyone would want to start a new business in the coming Obama Admnistration. Why risk your own capital when the government will want any profits made? Isn't it easier to invest in government debt instead of starting your own business? Isn't it easier to work for the government instead of the private sector? Of course the government cannot produce wealth than will pay taxes and fund retirements but the Democrats seem to have forgotten as much economics as the Republicans.
You obviosly have never lived in DC. When a crisis comes up, the politicians must do something. Look at the window dressing that started right after 9/11. Do you really think that the Democrats will be able to resisit a massive response to the next 9/11 type incident?
I think Reagan is the corpse they are handcuffed to…
And SD… “Please tell me why anyone would want to start a new business in the coming Obama Admnistration. Why risk your own capital when the government will want any profits made?”
Don't you think that statement is a tad ridiculous?
ChrisWWW,
What part of the private sector do you think will have above normal growth in an Obama Administration. Labor Unions, public sector employees, and trial lawyers to not have stock owners.
What will be the best place for your retirement investment in an Obama Administration? Stocks in companies that have higher corporate taxes, higher capital gains taxes, and new regulatory schemes? Should you invest in bonds? maybe foreign investment would be best because it will be the least affect by the Obama Administration.
Please, what part of the private sector is going to make higher profits and experience growth under an Obama Administration? The Clinton Administration only had good growth when it keep its hands off of the private sector.
SD,
How is your stock portfolio doing right now?
Here's a little clip about the Lincoln Club of Orange County stopping their contributions to incumbent Repubicans as a sign to them that change in party leadership is needed.
http://www.greenfaucet.com/hanlons-pub/proud-to…
Pretty interesting..
ChrisWWW
The Bush Administration had been horrible. However, the market is beginning to factor in the coming Obama Administration. Energy, Transportation, chemical, and manufacturing will all be hit with the new regulations. All the companies will be hit with increased capital gains taxes and with new corporate income taxes.
A real question is if any corporations are putting off new products or expansion plans because the mid-range economic outlook is bad.
Again, what companies are going to benefit from the coming Obama Administration.
“Again, what companies are going to benefit from the coming Obama Administration.”
Seems to me the same ones that benefited during the Clinton administration.
“A real question is if any corporations are putting off new products or expansion plans because the mid-range economic outlook is bad.”
What exactly does that have to do with a potential Obama administration? Is Obama to blame for the mid range economic outlook?
I can tell you as a small business owner that despite the current economic situation, 2008 looks to be the most profitable year in my 11 year history.
And it has nothing to do with Bush, Obama, nor any other politician.
The chaos the world will face with an Obama presidency is mindboggling.
Democrats. Will not drill, will not build new refineriers and will not build new nuclear power plants. World oil demand will rise under Obama. The price of oil skyrockets. The democrats hold out hope that Barak Obama can somehow smooth talk more oil out of the arabs asses to lower prices.
The democrats raise taxes but give it back to the middle class. Net gain zero. They raise taxes on corporations. The corporations pass the tax increase back to the consumer thru higher prices.
They pass additional regulation which forces the corporations to reduce job growth. Unemployment rises.
Barak Obama cannot bring the troops home from Iraq soon enough, he has to continue the battle in Afghanistan.
The result is huge tax shortfalls, 8 percent to 10 percent unemployment. Interest rates in the double digits because of legislation that forces the corporations to pass on the costs to consumers so they can do what they do…………..make a profit.
JIMMY CARTER all over again. However Barak Obama does give some imspiring speechs to those who are unemployed finding a way to convince them that the GOP which consists of 3 old men in a Larry Craig stall at the airport ARE TOTALLY TO BLAME.
Meanwhile Maxine Waters continues to threaten to Social…….er nationalize the Oil companies believeing that the government can find more oil on those leases that the oil companies continue to allow to lapse. We all know that with oil at 150 dollars a barrel they do not want to drill and make more money.
As things continue to denegrate The democratic congress finally understands economics and decides that 10 dollar a gallon gasoline which has destroyed the teamsters, trucking, Automobile industry and recreation vehicle industry forces the teamsters to throw their lot in with the 3 GOP men in the Larry Craig airport stall.
In contrast GMC, FORD and Chrysler turn to manufacturing Bicycles and the Democrats keen to see a potential for profit start throwing an energy tax credit on the bicycles making a toddlers hot wheels cost 300 dollars, a tricycle 3000 dollars and a regular Bicycle 24,000 dollars.
Forced to turn to horses in order to plow the fields, farmers are charged 30,ooo dollars per delivery of horse food and veternarians who have to make house calls on 24,000 dollar bicycles are forced to charge roughly 3000 dollars per house call to check on the farmers horses.
This is all in fun……….but it is what is facing us if these f*(cannot control my vocabulary) do not find a way out of this oil mess we are facing.
Neocon,
More oil drilling only forestalls the problem, which is that oil is a finite resource, and demand for energy is increasing because of China and India. Neither Obama or McCain can change that fact.
What they can do is organize this country to embrace and use alternative fuels.
And for the record, you're wrong about Obama and nuclear power. He supports an expansion as long as certain safety and security concerns are alleviated: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/EnergyFac… bottom of page 4.
Neocon,
Excuse me but are you suggesting that the US should nationalize it's oil companies?
Really?
Because governments don't drill, don't build new refineries, nor new nuclear plants, unless of course they have taken over the countries energy industries.
Actually it only takes a bit of your time and an open mind.
Scour the internet and you will find time after time where Oil refineries have tried to add on in order to meet new expansion and end up in courts. They try to remodel and they end up in court. Last year 1/3rd of all refineries in America spent a significant amount of time broke down and not producing because they are old and out dated.
Yet Democrats continued response is the same old bullshit. I support IF certain safeguards can be met…………..no one can guarantee a fire will never occur, a nuclear plant can never melt down so…………..the debate rages on
In the meantime America burns as congress FIDDLES>>>>>
consider:
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%
Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
1) Consumer confidence plummet
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $4.00 a gallon
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase)
4) American households have seen $23 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses)
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure
America voted for change in 2006, and we got it! OH BUT ITS BUSHS FAULT…..I know of course it is. Perhaps there might be a reason congress has an 18 percent approval rating? Huh??
Why? Not George W. Bush…….CONGRESS. America burns while they fiddle till they can have unmatched power. The GOP is dead Long live the Democrats.
What they can do is organize this country to embrace and use alternative fuels.
Okay……….WHAT alternative fuels is that? Is that something that we can do in the next week. Opening up drilling will ease oil pressures……..telling the world we are going to embark upon a manhattan project to create a new battery that REQUIRES OIL TO RECHARGE IS………um A nice democrat plan to fake out the constituents and pander to the tree huggers in their party.
In the meantime America burns while congress fiddles.
If we start using a greater share of nuclear, solar, wind, hydrogen and plant based ethanol we'll be well on our way.
Increasing drilling won't affect the oil markets today. It won't affect them tomorrow, it won't affect them for years. And then the problem repeats itself anyways.
I'm guessing you're opposed to alternative fuels because you hate hippies.
This is so frustrating.
Even if we start building a nuke plant tomorrow it wont be on line for 10 years. I live out west where there are 1000's of solar panels and wind generators. Heck I even have a wind generator in my back yard thats hooked to the power grid and I get a check every 6 months from the electric coop where I live for my contribution to the grid.
Bio fuels. In the end are proving to create more green house gases then the gasoline they produce. Obama wants to bring on more and more idle land to create more corn to make more gasoline…………GREAT……..the reason lands are idle is because you cannot farm them year after year. They have to sit idle to replenish their soil and nutrients.
Look………Im not opposed to all these……..go for them…….today. However they have been around for years and years and they are not making a dent in the price of oil. Thats because nearly everything is manufactured with oil by products. One of the things we use oil for is gasoline. There are a gazillion other things that uses oil by products as well.
Please everyone drop your talking point for a minute and think. Drilling will take 2 or 4 years to get oil to the market………..BUT we have to start NOW. If we don't well at least the air we breathe will be clean as were killing each other for food.
You guys continue to point to renewables as the future. I AGREE……..100 percent. But it is today that gasoline is heading for 5 and 6 and 7 and 8 dollars per gallon. Oil drilling has to start TODAY.
This is not Obama's fault. Its congress fault.
And for the record, I don't oppose new drilling. I just think it should up for a vote in the coastal communities that will feel the effects.
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) – Facing complaints from price-pinched consumers, U.S. lawmakers are targeting lax futures trading rules that some critics say have given rise to a speculative bubble in oil and other commodities.
While Americans watch their life savings go up in gasoline our congress argues about loopholes to oil speculators. Anyone see the bigger picture here? AND they wonder why their approval rating is 18 percent?????
To say the government should not allow drilling for oil because drilling won't give us oil tomorrow– that has to be the dumbest statement in human history. It's exactly the same as saying that, because we won't be able to harvest the crops tomorrow, the government should prevent farmers from planting wheat, corn, and rice.
duh.
In addition, if the government announced that companies will be allowed to drill for oil, the price of oil would droop and the stock market would explode upward. Anyone that understands economics knows that prices are set on the margin.
The economy is dying now because we all know that, because the government does not permit drilling, there will be zero oil ten years from now.
duh.
I can't vote for McCain, and I wish I could vote for Obama. But I can't because he keeps making statements that reveal his total ignorance of reality.
That's not the argument.
The argument is that the government shouldn't drill allow drilling for oil because the environmental tradeoff isn't worth the meager returns estimated by the best possible circumstances.
Even :the White House's Energy Information Administration says that drilling won't affect the price of oil in any significant way.
Chris again this is a DNC talking point to appease the tree huggers in your party.
The GOP is in freakin bed with the oil companies. AS is the Democrats as well, but both for very different reasons. I wished you would hear what Im saying on this. Its not Obama's fault and its not the Democrats and its not the GOP's fault. The fact of the matter is that because BUSH who is in bed with big oil wont drill should not be a surprise.
The facts are simple. The oil companies really dont want to drill for three very important reasons. There are nuances to the following but this is the gist of things as they stand now.
1. We cant refine the oil we have now and are in fact IMPORTING gasoline as we speak.
2. Oil exploration is extremely expensive and unless the current fields which are producing enough oil to ensure record profits begin to decline then their is no incentive for them to spend billions exploring and drilling only to increase the production and reduce the price of oil. What would you rather do………make 10 hats and sell them for a dollar and work all day or make 1 hat….sell it for 10 dollars and take the rest of the day off?
3. In the 70's and 80's some of my family flew jets, owned rather large boats in the gulf of Mexico for one very important reason. They were wild cat drillers who found oil for companies who then sold the oil for a rather substantial profit. Big oil(opec and our big oil companies) drove the price of oil to 10 dollars a BBL and ran all this competition out of business. Once the competition was gone then the price of oil began a slow and steady climb towards profitablity. Right now their are plenty of wildcat'ers who would love to drill for oil and sell it at 100 dollars a bbl but they cannot because the leases to any land that is of any consequence is a bidding war with Exxon and their billions of dollars.
The fact is that once the government started putting the lands with oil up to the highest bidder then the wildcat'er……..the heart and soul of the oil industry was destined to go bust because My family could not bid 26 million dollars on a parcel of land that might or might not have oil on it. Exxon and Shell could………end of story.
Congress is duplicit in this. Its a massive conspiracy to control oil and the government has given big oil what they want……….a monopoly.