The credit for galvanizing ordinary people and placing individual freedom and limited government back on the national agenda principally belongs to President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Their heedless pursuit of progressive transformation reinvigorated a moribund conservative spirit, just as in 1993 and 1994 the Clintons' overreaching on health care sparked a popular uprising resulting in a Republican takeover of Congress.So it wasn't that conservative principles caught hold of America. It was that the progressives scared the hell out of us.
August 28, 2010
Peter Berkowitz collects quotes from 2008 saying conservatism in America is over forever.
And:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
40 comments:
The big difference between the Clinton overreach and the Obama overreach is that Obama's actually resulted in a vast expansion of federal power, including massive regulation of the health care system. Conservatives will need a lot more than Glen Beck rallies and constitutional challenges to undo all of that.
So it wasn't that conservative principles caught hold of America. It was that the progressives scared the hell out of us.
"Us"? Millions where I live are still unscared. There are more people who think Obama is far too conservative than who identify with the tea party movement.
So, is the era of Cruel Neutrality officially over? And if so, why? Was it Meade's pillow talk? A newly strengthened respect for the Gospel According to Rush?
For over 40% of the American public, conservatism in America is over forever. For a good 10-20%, they sway with the wind, unable to give voice to their discomfort over recent events, a culmination of decades of progressivism.
The November elections are key, but I have little faith our people have any more strength than the Greeks to undo the chains of state welfarism.
I liked this quote from Sam Tannanhaus:
"...the emergence of a president who seems more thoroughly steeped in the principles of Burkean conservatism than any significant thinker or political figure on the right."
This sort of pretentious, unaware bullshit is like an infection in most leftist writing.
fls imagines: "Us"? Millions where I live are still unscared. There are more people who think Obama is far too conservative than who identify with the tea party movement.
So, is the era of Cruel Neutrality officially over? And if so, why? Was it Meade's pillow talk? A newly strengthened respect for the Gospel According to Rush?"
Oh bullshit fls. You're dreaming unless you have something even remotely resembling evidence to back up this bizarre assertion.
I'm constantly amazed at the left's problems with projection. Just because you, a small minority, consider Obama to be a conservative (har dee fucking har), doesn't mean there are millions who think so.
Tell ya what, you post some data that backs up your comical claims - tht Obama is conservative and that millions think so and then I'll post some stuff. Then we can talk about the gospel according to reality.
Deal?
I think it is about half and half.
There are some conservative principles that America has always embraced, including limited government and a strong defense.
Progressives are not about that, so the disconnect happening is easy to explain.
But by and large Americans like being left alone. Conservative principles tend to run against that at times.
And before any libertarians pop up, remember the part about a strong defense, and throw in an aversion against dogma that is intertwined with the desire to be left alone.
Getting back to the article:
"A thoughtful conservatism in America—a prerequisite of a sustainable conservatism—must also recognize that the liberty, democracy and free markets that it seeks to conserve have destabilizing effects. For all their blessings, they breed distrust of order, virtue and tradition, all of which must be cultivated if liberty is to be well-used."
This is really the only part of the article I have a problem with. It's just screaming for more because There's plenty of evidence to suggest that direct government involvement (legislative manipulation) and indirect involvement (corruption) are the big contributors to the negatives. Couple the disinformation campaigns in the media, and this strikes me as the root of the problems.
I would have liked to see him expound upon that, but I realize there are space constraints.
ann you married meade but that doesn't mean you have to buy into his ideas. sheesh.
besides there is conservative america and republicans who aren't over the edge and then there is that nice little 10million group of utter fools who would follow a talking duck to the end of time....but then again, a talking duck might make more sense.
"It was that the progressives scared the hell out of us."
Followed by...
"Us"? Millions where I live are still unscared. There are more people who think Obama is far too conservative than who identify with the tea party movement.
It is very dubious to assert that there are more people who think Obama is too conservative than who identify with the tea party movement. Roper Public Affairs polled this month and found that more people generally agree with the tea party movement's positions on political issues than disagree with it. It stands to reason that only a portion of those who disagree with the tea party's positions on political issues think Obama isn't liberal enough- so it probably is closer to the truth to say that there are twice as many people who support the tea party's political positions as think Obama isn't progressive enough.
Hell, that just makes sense given that Americans self-identify as conservatives twice as often as they self-identify as liberals, and the majority identify Obama as a liberal.
But leave the dubiousness of your assertion aside. The fact that his approval is tanking and your side thinks he needs to go even further than he has is exactly why you all have "scared the hell out of all of us."
Well, isn't it true we don't vote 'for' someone as much as we vote 'against' someone else?
HDHouse said...
ann you married meade but that doesn't mean you have to buy into his ideas. sheesh.
besides there is conservative america and republicans who aren't over the edge and then there is that nice little 10million group of utter fools who would follow a talking duck to the end of time....but then again, a talking duck might make more sense.
That 10 million group of utter fools spent '08 singing, "Barack Hussein Obama, Mm, Mm, Mm".
And the Rs HD classes as not over the edge are the ones the Demos love - RINOs. Too bad they're an endangered species.
PS Punctuate and capitalize, HD. Your stuff is weird enough as it is.
And hit a space bar once in a while.
Is it shocking that Americans are motivated by fear mongers?
If only we could go back to doubling the deficit as a percentage of GDP and tripling the debt of the US while never submitting a balanced budget to Congress. And, we need a tough talker on foreign policy who would strongly promise to not retreat after terrorists killed nearly 250 Americans--but four months later the tough talk was followed up with the proverbial white flag of defeat and retreat.
Who will be the next Reagan?
FLS wrote: So, is the era of Cruel Neutrality officially over? And if so, why? Was it Meade's pillow talk? A newly strengthened respect for the Gospel According to Rush?
then HDHouse wrote: ann you married meade but that doesn't mean you have to buy into his ideas. sheesh.
Where's all anti-Meade sentiment coming from so suddenly?
How Alinsky of you guys.
BTW, librul elites aren't the only Americans who can be fun to quote.
I am always amazed how the liberals that post here have such a
low opinion of women. I mean to think that the blogger lady will bow to the will of Meade is just the typical sexist stupidity that you guys spew all the time.
The evil blogger lady has a mind of her own. Meade doesn't tell her what the do. Haven't you been paying attention.
The poor guy is lucky if he gets to choose what half glass of beer he can get to drink every night.
Sharpen up.
"Us"? So who's "them"?
That's the pendulum of politics. cycle or two down the road, and the rest of "us" will be scared of the wingnuts that creep in on this coming election. What scares me right now is that I'm not represented by the current government, and I'm sure as hell not going to be represented by the Glenn Beck/Sarah Palin mob.
Psota, were you sleeping when Medicare, Part D was passed?
I'll believe people in the "heartland" want limited government when they start complaining about ag subsidies.
I'll believe conservatives want limited government when they stop running up deficits and passing as many laws as liberals do.
1jpb said...
Is it shocking that Americans are motivated by fear mongers?
If only we could go back to doubling the deficit as a percentage of GDP and tripling the debt of the US while never submitting a balanced budget to Congress. And, we need a tough talker on foreign policy who would strongly promise to not retreat after terrorists killed nearly 250 Americans--but four months later the tough talk was followed up with the proverbial white flag of defeat and retreat.
Cute. Maybe he just knew how to pick his fights. Stopping a Communist move into the Caribbean Basin and breaking the Russians may have seemed a better idea than fighting Menachem Begin's holy war.
Beth said...
I'll believe conservatives want limited government when they stop running up deficits and passing as many laws as liberals do.
Those aren't Conservatives. They're RINOs, Republicans only a Democrat could love.
I'll believe conservatives want limited government when they stop running up deficits and passing as many laws
Now you are talking about politicians.
My point is that Americans in general prefer limited government. Politicians who promise that tend to find appeal, until they get into office and show that they were not really serious.
FLS - "So, is the era of Cruel Neutrality officially over?"
We have, right there, refutation that it was ever neutral.
Those aren't Conservatives. They're RINOs, Republicans only a Democrat could love.
Comrade, never forget, the Party never fails the people, the people fail the Party!
I mean to think that the blogger lady will bow to the will of Meade is just the typical sexist stupidity that you guys spew all the time.
I see an effect -- the professor's rightward drift -- and I'm searching for a cause. Marriage is not the imposition of one partner's will upon the other -- I'm very surprised to hear Trooper even suggest that -- it is a union of equal spirits.
"The conservativism is coming from inside the house. -- When a Conservative Calls a Citizens United production, 2009
I'm constantly amazed at the left's problems with projection.
My point is that Americans in general prefer limited government.
Projector, heal thyself.
There are more people where I live that think Obama's too conservative than there are tea partiers.
- Military still asking and telling
- No single payer health care, not even a public option
- Still military courts
- Still on Bush's timetable for Iraq
- Still "Patriot" Act
- Gitmo still not closed
- Military buildup in Afghanistan
- Caved on cap and trade
- (Before BP catastrophe) Caved on offshore oil drilling
- Appointing Goldman Sachs alumni to adminstration's economic posts like hiring foxes to guard the chicken coop
Dude you and hd are always blaming poor Meade for positions that the blogger lady is taking that are too "right wing" for you taste.
I mean come on. He can't even get her to stop watching the Man from Uncle for crying out loud.
Well we watch the Man from U.N.C.L.E. here, too. But lately it's been replaced with Scarecrow and Mrs. King.
Now, we know Meade has persuasive skills. He persuaded the professor to end her singularity, correct?
How I hate pundits pronouncing the end of anything. In 2004 it was the end of the liberal Democrats on the national stage. They would be reduced to disperse regional power-brokers. 4 years later they won the presidency and both houses of Congress. (Remind me, when was the last time conservatives had that?)
Clinton was the end of Reagan-Bush. Bush was the end of Clinton-Gore. Obama was the end of Bush-Cheney... Whatever isn't obvious is overreach. And it's so fucking predictable and boring.
Ed,
What was the biggest non-jabber circumstance where Reagan went after the Soviet military? I'd say it was his policy of following the Carter initiated, and then Wilson pushed funding of the Mujahideen. I'm sure you would agree that Reagan could have done a better job finishing what Carter/Wilson started, e.g. it would have been better to not leave a bunch of Islamist nuts skulking about.
Or, are you more impressed w/ Reagan's love of deficit funded wealth transfers to the military industrial complex? If so a couple of MIT economists have a message (actually based on data) for you: Abstract of Paper
Soviet growth over 1960-89 was the worst in the world after we control for investment and capital; the relative performance worsens over time. There is some evidence that the burden of defense spending modestly contributed to the Soviet debacle. The declining Soviet growth rate over 1950-87 can be accounted for by a declining marginal product of capital with a constant rate of TFP growth. The Soviet reliance on extensive growth (rising capital to output ratios) was no greater than that of market economies like Japan and Korea, but low elasticity of substitution between capital and labor implied especially acute diminishing returns to capital compared to market economies.
Could you please explain to me why you think Commies in the south were a legitimate reason to retreat from folks w/ Hezbollah connections (e.g. Mughniyeh)? [At least someone (W?) took care of Mughniyeh in 2008. Better late than never.]
The seeds of our current fiscal and global problems were planted by the Keynesian-(aka deficit funded)-stimulus-loving, Islamist-nut-job-ignoring Reagan. But, somehow cons have been trained to think that we need another Reagan. Odd.
"...deficit funded wealth transfers to the military industrial complex?"
Yeah, I'll bet Noam Chomsky has a lot of freinds in the economics department.
Obviously, somebody never heard that Menachem Begin heard the voices of the angels, and that led him to Judea and Samaria. When you're double-crossed, you have to reassess.
How did this get to be about Ann and Meade?
You can't make a reasoned point so you take cheap shots at someone's personal life? Go somewhere else and peddle that crap. May Edroso needs an assistant.
The reason Dems are in trouble is because they thought they now were indomitable and passed a bunch of really overreaching laws in an arrogant and secretive way that was dismissive of the peoples' right to hear discussion and debate. And now the economy has responded as conservatives said it would.
Yeah, they scared the hell out of us, by showing their true faces, their arrogant stupidity and low opinion of us. We're not scared now, though. We're just as mad as hell.
Zzzzzzzzzzz...Medicare Part Wha?
(the Crypto-Jew)
I laugh(ed) at such things...How I remember articles in the post-2004 Election era that BUSH had created a political dynasty that was going to carry Republicans forwards for decades!
The best line about politcs is, In politcs 24 hours can be a long time."
Clinton was the end of Reagan-Bush. Bush was the end of Clinton-Gore. Obama was the end of Bush-Cheney... Whatever isn't obvious is overreach. And it's so fucking predictable and boring.
Yes, the only thing more predictable than overreach by pundits is their lack of memory or sense of history.
He can't even get her to stop watching the Man from Uncle for crying out loud.
You da man Blogfather!
I love it when someone actually gets the joke.
Comrade, never forget, the Party never fails the people, the people fail the Party!
Wouldn't his point (and mine, I guess) be that the people in the party often fail the people?
the professor's rightward drift -- and I'm searching for a cause
I'll offer a suggestion.
It might be because
* she's been a moderate Democrat her entire life,
* who occasionally has decided a Republican was the better choice,
* who bought into the idea that Obama was actually a moderate pretending to be an open slate who far-left liberals would project their hopes on,
* who is now realizing he is actually either a far-left liberal who moderates projected their hopes on or is simply incompetent.
One or the other. Either she's changed, or she's who she's always been.
My experience is that people do not change all that much after age 30. Yours may vary.
fls tried: "There are more people where I live that think Obama's too conservative than there are tea partiers."
You said millions Champ. Still waiting for a cite.
- Military still asking and telling
You know that's a Clinton era policy right?
-No single payer health care, not even a public option
What we got was hardly "conservative". What we got was still firmly leftist. Of course we're still figuring out what we're getting because your side passed the bill without reading it.
- Still military courts
This isn't a conservative position. You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that just because something happened under Bush, that means it's conservative. Laughable.
- Still on Bush's timetable for Iraq
See previous. Still laughable.
- Still "Patriot" Act
See previous. See also: basic civics for understanding of how legislation is repealed.
- Gitmo still not closed
See previous...a-gain.
- Military buildup in Afghanistan
Congratulations, you've found the first thing that could be remotely construed as "conservative". Even then this is arguable.
- Caved on cap and trade
I'm sorry, did a Cap 'n Tax bill cross his desk and I missed it?
- (Before BP catastrophe) Caved on offshore oil drilling
I'd love to slam you on this one, but in the interests of keeping this relatively short, congrats on finding the second conservative position.
- Appointing Goldman Sachs alumni to adminstration's economic posts like hiring foxes to guard the chicken coop
Nope, not a conservative position. Standard corrupt Democrat position.
So, you produce 1.5 points that show an inkling of so-called conservatism from Obama. Want to compare and contrast with his socialist/marxist shit? There really is no contest.
So just to recap - just because Obama isn't anti-Bush enough for you doesn't mean he's conservative. As usual, you have some severe logic problems.
"Us"? Millions where I live are still unscared. There are more people who think Obama is far too conservative than who identify with the tea party movement.
Millions where I live say Bush wasn't a bad President, for a Democrat.
I remember reading articles in Psychology Today saying that a person's basic personality is formed by the age of five or six. In other words, if you were a liar and a selfish jerk in the first grade, you are still one today. This is consistent with my experience. People may change their political affiliations but they rarely change their basic values. They re-evaluate their connections and ideals and adjust as needed. I think that is what Dr. Althouse has done. Lay off Meade.
@ Beth 8/28/10 11:54 AM I'll believe conservatives want limited government when they stop running up deficits and passing as many laws as liberals do.
Beth. Those were not conservatives. Those were Republicans. This is a second or third to the others who have pointed out the same thing.
Some of the liberals on this list missed the fact that while many of us on the right thought / think highly of George Bush we did NOT love Part D or his stance on immigration -- and said so then and say so now.
The accusations in their posts and comments over the years about the "lock step" of the right are vastly overstated and demonstrate poor observation and sorting skills.
Scared of Progressives? Naaah...
So what if they do argue with accomplishment, slander success, pick a fight with prosperity and can't comprehend common sense? They mean well, don't they?
Post a Comment