Pol - National Review Article: Conservatives vs Republicans

[Crapshoot]

From Jonah Goldberg over at NR- I don't always agree with him, but he's clearly a bright guy, and makes a point that many are guilty of. I may disagree as to how leftish Bush has been, but the general point stands. Also, any mention of the word "schadenfreude " gets major props from me.

February 17, 2006, 8:21 a.m.
Pro-Choice
How about two distinct visions?

The wonderful thing about writing op-ed pieces is that I get ample feedback, often from people unencumbered by the niceties of interpersonal diplomacy.




Last week, I did what you might expect a conservative columnist to do. I told young orphans there is no Santa Claus. No, no, just kidding. (Besides, I'd have gotten a better reaction closer to the holidays.)

No, I merely cataloged the troubles of the Democratic party. The infuriated response from hordes of liberal readers was, "How could you criticize the Democrats when the Republicans are in so much more trouble?" Fortunately they provided their own answers, most of which involved words such as "hack" and "shill," and phrases ill-suited to a family newspaper — or even to bars frequented by ex-cons. Angry readers recounted the long parade of GOP problems: warrantless wiretaps, the Abramoff scandal, Tom DeLay's indictment, Katrina, the revelation that President Bush is Rosemary's Baby, etc.

And that was before Vice President Dick Cheney started shooting people.

Allow me to defend myself. First, birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, and conservative columnists gotta indulge their schadenfreude about the sorry plight of the Democratic party. It's what we do.

Second, of course the GOP is a mess (although I would remind liberals that it is better to be a majority party with problems than a minority party with problems). Congressmen are hanging out in K-Street warrens like addicts in 19th-century opium dens — but instead of Chinese dudes passing out pipes, there are lobbyists handing out checks, golf trips, and other prizes from behind Curtain No. 2 on Let's Make a Deal. The Contract With America that brought the Republicans to power more than ten years ago is a distant blur in the GOP's rearview mirror. Smaller, competent, and restrained government has been sacrificed to the new coalition of Republican rent-seekers.

Compassionate conservatism may have had some intellectual rigor when it was the stuff of egghead journals and think-tank conferences, but under Bush it has always been a marketing strategy designed to justify spending vast sums of money. This shattering of the GOP's at-least-nominal commitment to limited government has not only resulted in a bidding war between Congress and the White House on how "best" to expand government, it has also caused philosophical incontinence on the right.

I'm less critical of Bush's handling of the war on terror, but there, too, one certainly needn't struggle to the point of herniation to find mistakes.

Third, Republicans and conservatives aren't the same thing. This distinction seems lost on lots of people, including cable television bark-show bookers and partisan Democrats and Republicans alike. To a principled conservative, it is bad news when the Democrats lurch to the left, even if it makes the Democrats less likely to win elections. Why? Because when the Democrats move left, so do the Republicans.

In American politics, when one party moves left or right, the political center of gravity moves that way too. Bill Clinton, whatever his flaws, moved his party to the right. His triangulation infuriated Republicans because it is always vexing when someone steals your lunch. Democrats despise Bush's compassionate conservatism for similar reasons. A Republican president promising to "leave no child behind" annoys Democrats as much as Clinton's denouncing of Sista Soulja irked Republicans. When the Bush presidency is over, it will be more obvious in hindsight how much he moved the GOP to the left — by making the nanny state bipartisan.

It all boils down to what matters to you most. As a conservative, the extent I root for the GOP depends entirely on how successful it is in moving the political climate of the country toward fiscal restraint, limited government, and cultural decency. Single-issue voters understand this point best: Pro-lifers would dearly love to break the GOP monopoly on opposing abortion, just as abortion-rights supporters dream of the day when both parties are pro-choice. Many conservatives, including yours truly, would have agonized over a choice between a reliably pro-war Democrat and George W. Bush in 2004, particularly if judicial appointments weren't so important.

The point, dear liberals, is that some conservatives who criticize the Democrats or offer them advice do so not solely to salt wounds, but in the hope that someday we will have a real choice on Election Day — and not between the lesser of two evils.

[vtbub]

Wow

[CamEdwards]

I like Jonah, but I don't know that he's the guy to write this article. If you're a regular reader, or if you've ever spent a few minutes talking to him, he's more of a blue state conservative than a red state one.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I like Jonah, but I don't know that he's the guy to write this article. If you're a regular reader, or if you've ever spent a few minutes talking to him, he's more of a blue state conservative than a red state one.

Oh yeah, I have no doubt about that- that's very my impression from The Corner. Do you think the point is only applicable to Blue-State conservatives ?

[John Galt]

You lost me at "he's clearly a bright guy." Goldberg is an embarassment to honest intellectuals everywhere. His recent book is an academic travesty. Beyond the fact that he just ripped off Rand and her objectivist cohorts, it is historical revisionism of the worst kind. I think there are few people in the world that I hold in less regard than Jonah Goldberg.

[MrBigglesworth]

Jonah is not on my reading list of conservatives, I think he rarely makes decent points and when he does they are obvious. Like here for example, it seems his point is that he isn't a Republican, he is a conservative, so if the Democratic party was more conservitive than the Republicans, he might vote for them! Yeah, no kidding.

Count me as one of the people that switched to being a Democrat with Clinton's centrism. And let me tell you, Bush's 'compassionate conservatism' does not bother Dems. His lipservice to it to hoodwink the American people into believing it is what bothers the Dems. Even Jonah has to look to a failing initiative from 5 years ago for a compassionate conservative example.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Also, any mention of the word "schadenfreude " gets major props from me.

Yeah, but then he uses "herniation"....

[Young Drachma]

I'm no big fan of his, but at least he takes a stab of explaining to ordinary people in commonspeak, that not all conservatives have to love Republicans.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Count me as one of the people that switched to being a Democrat with Clinton's centrism.

You were a Republican?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

You were a Republican?

Growing up I was, I turned 18 in 1997 and at that point basically flipped a coin to determine whether I would register as a Dem or GOP. I'm economically moderate and socially a libertarian. I was originally a McCain supporter in 2000 (then Gore, I knew Bush would be a train wreck as soon as I saw his resume), I was an Iraq war supporter in 2003.

[flere-imsaho]

Speaking of columnists, both Francis Fukuyama & Andrew Sullivan came forward over the weekend to admit that invading Iraq was a mistake.

Fukuyama in the New York Times.

Andrew Sullivan for Time, responding to Fukuyama's column/article.


My favorite parts were Fukuyama admitting that the realipolitick "realists" may have been more astute in their assessment of the post-9/11 world and Sullivan's last paragraph:

Originally Posted by Andrew Sullivan

The final error was not taking culture seriously enough. Fukuyama is absolutely right to note the discrepancy between neoconservatism's skepticism toward's government's ability to change culture at home and its naivete when it comes to complex, tribal, sectarian and un-Western cultures, like Iraq's, abroad. We have learned a tough lesson, and it's been a lot tougher for those tens of thousands of dead innocent Iraqis and several thousand killed and injured American soldiers than it is for a few humiliated intellectuals. American ingenuity and pragmatism on the ground may be finally turning things around, but the original policy errors have made their work infinitely harder. The correct response to this is not more triumphalism and spin, but a real sense of shame and sorrow that so many have died because of errors made by their superiors, and by intellectuals like me.

[John Galt]

Here is a better view on Goldberg's conclusions from one of my favorite blogs:

http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/20/impostor/

[JW]

As a conservative Democrat, I've often been asked why I don't change my party affiliation. But the Republican Party offers nothing for me. And now it certainly doesn't offer conservatism. Of course the Democratic Party doesn't either in general, though it does have a shrinking conservative wing. John Breaux of Louisiana is a good example. He is probably more properly called a moderate or centrist, but then as a conservative Democrat, that is where I fit in, as a centrist.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by JW

As a conservative Democrat, I've often been asked why I don't change my party affiliation. But the Republican Party offers nothing for me. And now it certainly doesn't offer conservatism. Of course the Democratic Party doesn't either in general, though it does have a shrinking conservative wing. John Breaux of Louisiana is a good example. He is probably more properly called a moderate or centrist, but then as a conservative Democrat, that is where I fit in, as a centrist.

The Republicans continue to find ways to prevent me from officially converting, and registering Republican. Some day I might make the swing, but unless the Republicans back away from their socially conservative fringe, I just don't see it happening.

I'm a conservative democrat who wants to become a moderate republican. They just keep making it difficult.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

The Republicans continue to find ways to prevent me from officially converting, and registering Republican.

Funny, I feel the same way about the Democrats. As much as I want to be a liberal, their insistence on putting forward pitiful candidates in most elections I get to vote in dismays me. I'm certainly not a Republican, though - I'll probably always be registered independent.

[Dutch]

This may surprise some of you but I lean Republican and am registered as such.