Comments on: Where Next for Conservatism? http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/30/where-next-for-conservatism/ Exposing the ugly truths about the Bush Administration. Fri, 05 Dec 2008 10:00:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: maha http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/30/where-next-for-conservatism/#comment-368604 Thu, 01 Nov 2007 11:25:09 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/30/where-next-for-conservatism/#comment-368604 <i>They bought the media and repealed the Fairness Doctrine.</i> That was the medium. I'm talking about the message. Some parts of the message go back to McCarthy, but most of it congealed during the Nixon Administration. Nixon was a long-time red baiter who steered the GOP in the direction of race baiting. This was before the Right bought the media, note. For more explanation see: http://www.mahablog.com/2006/08/10/dont-blame-mcgovern/ http://www.mahablog.com/2006/08/16/how-the-democrats-lost-period/ They bought the media and repealed the Fairness Doctrine.

That was the medium. I’m talking about the message. Some parts of the message go back to McCarthy, but most of it congealed during the Nixon Administration. Nixon was a long-time red baiter who steered the GOP in the direction of race baiting. This was before the Right bought the media, note. For more explanation see:

http://www.mahablog.com/2006/08/10/dont-blame-mcgovern/

http://www.mahablog.com/2006/08/16/how-the-democrats-lost-period/

]]> by: “character means absolute obedience that does not question the results of the order” « The Long Goodbye http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/30/where-next-for-conservatism/#comment-368453 Thu, 01 Nov 2007 06:35:21 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/30/where-next-for-conservatism/#comment-368453 [...] America has had three great leaps in the expansion of federal government power since WW II, Nixon, Reagan and Bush II. Yet they still run around, though many red faced and shrill at this point claiming to be the party of small government. For years Conservatives have been mainlining that big goberment smack, taxpayer money in the form of that good old traditional pay for play.  Goberment as evil and as big tit at which nanny state Republicans have lined up to feed. Republicans have been post Eisenhower an absurd and corrupting merger of warped ideals as you&#8221;ll find this side of the Robber Barons of the Gilded Age. Republicans are &#8220;values voters&#8221;? In what universe. Anyway Mahablog said it first and best here, Where Next for Conservatism? [...] […] America has had three great leaps in the expansion of federal government power since WW II, Nixon, Reagan and Bush II. Yet they still run around, though many red faced and shrill at this point claiming to be the party of small government. For years Conservatives have been mainlining that big goberment smack, taxpayer money in the form of that good old traditional pay for play.  Goberment as evil and as big tit at which nanny state Republicans have lined up to feed. Republicans have been post Eisenhower an absurd and corrupting merger of warped ideals as you”ll find this side of the Robber Barons of the Gilded Age. Republicans are “values voters”? In what universe. Anyway Mahablog said it first and best here, Where Next for Conservatism? […]

]]> by: calling all toasters http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/30/where-next-for-conservatism/#comment-368326 Thu, 01 Nov 2007 03:14:22 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/30/where-next-for-conservatism/#comment-368326 <i>What was it that enabled the plutocracy to take over the government and dominate politics in recent years? </i> They bought the media and repealed the Fairness Doctrine. But I'm sure they've recognized the intellectual contradictions of their positions and will now give it all back.[/kamiyaesque putzery]. What was it that enabled the plutocracy to take over the government and dominate politics in recent years?

They bought the media and repealed the Fairness Doctrine.

But I’m sure they’ve recognized the intellectual contradictions of their positions and will now give it all back.[/kamiyaesque putzery].

]]> by: maha http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/30/where-next-for-conservatism/#comment-368315 Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:35:13 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/30/where-next-for-conservatism/#comment-368315 <i>Kamiya only fails to mention the actual reason for the existence of the conservative movement: the increase of the wealth and privilege of America’s already wealthy and privileged.</i> You miss the point. Of course the money fueling the conservative movement is from the plutocracy, but the would-be plutocrats have been with us throughout the nation's history. What was it that enabled the plutocracy to take over the government and dominate politics in recent years? They couldn't have done it fifty years ago, even though there were at least as many wealthy right-wing men around fifty years ago. What caused white middle class America to turn on itself and empower the plutocracy was, mostly, racism. I watched this happen. Kamiya is right. Kamiya only fails to mention the actual reason for the existence of the conservative movement: the increase of the wealth and privilege of America’s already wealthy and privileged.

You miss the point. Of course the money fueling the conservative movement is from the plutocracy, but the would-be plutocrats have been with us throughout the nation’s history. What was it that enabled the plutocracy to take over the government and dominate politics in recent years? They couldn’t have done it fifty years ago, even though there were at least as many wealthy right-wing men around fifty years ago. What caused white middle class America to turn on itself and empower the plutocracy was, mostly, racism. I watched this happen. Kamiya is right.

]]> by: calling all toasters http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/30/where-next-for-conservatism/#comment-368154 Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:51:16 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/30/where-next-for-conservatism/#comment-368154 I feel like I just read an article about how the Boston Red Sox became winners by an author who doesn't actually know that they play baseball. Kamiya only fails to mention the actual reason for the existence of the conservative movement: the increase of the wealth and privilege of America's already wealthy and privileged. Somehow he thinks that the red meat that Scaife &#38; Co. throw to the racists is going to go away because it's not some intellectually consistent doodad. A consistent conservatism would argue that nobody except the wealthy should get ahead. Perhaps Kamiya does not see that that is not a winning formula in a country where public officials are elected. Of course conservative candidates lie, and of course they are inconsistent, and of course they play whatever card is handy--values or war or Communist infiltration or whatever. Their supporters could not give a shit that it's a lie, either. They just want to be given an argument that allows them to hate the Other ( liberals, bureaucrats, dark-skinned people, foreigners, etc.). The whole world knows this, although conservatives (of course) pretend that they don't know it. What is Kamiya's excuse? I feel like I just read an article about how the Boston Red Sox became winners by an author who doesn’t actually know that they play baseball. Kamiya only fails to mention the actual reason for the existence of the conservative movement: the increase of the wealth and privilege of America’s already wealthy and privileged.

Somehow he thinks that the red meat that Scaife & Co. throw to the racists is going to go away because it’s not some intellectually consistent doodad. A consistent conservatism would argue that nobody except the wealthy should get ahead. Perhaps Kamiya does not see that that is not a winning formula in a country where public officials are elected. Of course conservative candidates lie, and of course they are inconsistent, and of course they play whatever card is handy–values or war or Communist infiltration or whatever. Their supporters could not give a shit that it’s a lie, either. They just want to be given an argument that allows them to hate the Other ( liberals, bureaucrats, dark-skinned people, foreigners, etc.). The whole world knows this, although conservatives (of course) pretend that they don’t know it.

What is Kamiya’s excuse?

]]> by: whig http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/30/where-next-for-conservatism/#comment-368013 Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:32:49 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/30/where-next-for-conservatism/#comment-368013 An example of what I consider Whiggish, I have spent a lot of my blog posts calling attention to <i>habeas corpus</i>. Liberals are often Whiggish in this way too. I think Glenn Greenwald would be a Whig, and I know Jon Stewart calls himself one. An example of what I consider Whiggish, I have spent a lot of my blog posts calling attention to habeas corpus. Liberals are often Whiggish in this way too. I think Glenn Greenwald would be a Whig, and I know Jon Stewart calls himself one.

]]> by: whig http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/30/where-next-for-conservatism/#comment-368009 Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:26:14 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/30/where-next-for-conservatism/#comment-368009 Of course if someone picks bad historical traditions to maintain, that's not a good thing. And if you reject novelty out of hand you stop understanding the real world when it changes. Everything needs balancing, not too much too fast but not too little too slow, steer around the rocks and avoid the waterfall. Of course if someone picks bad historical traditions to maintain, that’s not a good thing. And if you reject novelty out of hand you stop understanding the real world when it changes.

Everything needs balancing, not too much too fast but not too little too slow, steer around the rocks and avoid the waterfall.

]]> by: whig http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/30/where-next-for-conservatism/#comment-368006 Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:22:17 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/30/where-next-for-conservatism/#comment-368006 Whiggishness is not racist, nor mercantile. It is a desire for freedom rooted in historical traditions. Not always has it been understood even by its proponents, and someone may well say that I misapprehend it myself, but I think I'm comfortable with it as a self-description. Whiggishness is not racist, nor mercantile. It is a desire for freedom rooted in historical traditions. Not always has it been understood even by its proponents, and someone may well say that I misapprehend it myself, but I think I’m comfortable with it as a self-description.

]]> by: whig http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/30/where-next-for-conservatism/#comment-368003 Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:19:07 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/30/where-next-for-conservatism/#comment-368003 The fundamental issue is not conservatism, per se, but deceptiveness. We have a political party that is based on lies. The Republican party does not tell the truth. If there were an honest conservative party, perhaps they would be called Whigs. But I call myself liberal these days. The fundamental issue is not conservatism, per se, but deceptiveness.

We have a political party that is based on lies. The Republican party does not tell the truth.

If there were an honest conservative party, perhaps they would be called Whigs. But I call myself liberal these days.

]]> by: Dan http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/30/where-next-for-conservatism/#comment-367885 Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:15:24 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/10/30/where-next-for-conservatism/#comment-367885 Completely OT: The "immigration issue" just a few years ago was the province of a handful of overly excited people who wanted to find a way to bash the Sierra Club. Then someone came up with the "12 million" figure and it has winkled its way into a much broader audience. Do you know where this figure comes from, and why it has catalyzed a moribund non-starter issue into the mainstream? (You say you read the comments and not E-mail, so here it is) Dan Completely OT:

The “immigration issue” just a few years ago was the province of a handful of overly excited people who wanted to find a way to bash the Sierra Club. Then someone came up with the “12 million” figure and it has winkled its way into a much broader audience.

Do you know where this figure comes from, and why it has catalyzed a moribund non-starter issue into the mainstream?

(You say you read the comments and not E-mail, so here it is)

Dan

]]>