Kristol: Criminalizing Conservatives

The Weekly Standard ^ | 10/24/05 | William Kristol

[TalBlack]

"If criminalization is seen to loom ahead for every conservative who begins successfully to act out his or her beliefs in government or politics, is the project of conservative reform sustainable?"

Yep! See the 2nd amendment. That's why it's there.

[beyond the sea]

ROFL!

[TAdams8591]

Excellent title and excellent article.

[G.Mason]

" ... All of you are dreaming. And all of you are dead in the water."

Just how many OldFriend's are there?

[G.Mason]

"Yep! See the 2nd amendment. That's why it's there."

It is be coming apparent that this may be much closer than we may think.

[chesley]

I had similar thoughts. Whatever weapons the Dems use against us, we are morally entitled to use against them, in only in self-defense. Of course, when we do, we get complaints about how we are polarizing politics.

[RKV]

Well, don't be too sure about that (2nd Amendment that is). The states rights branch of conservatism allows states like mine to override the Bill of Rights. McCain and the big government branch of conservatism doesn't like the 2nd Amendment either. Bush is about to try to get rid of posse comitatus laws which prevent the use of the "standing army" for law enforcement inside our borders. Leftists sure don't like it and regularly infringe on our right to keep and bear arms too. All in all, we need to undo a LOT of legislation if the 2nd is going to work as intended. I hate to say it, but the Feds would win right now, they are better armed and if willing to abort the Constitution, the rest of us citizens couldn't stop them. Flame on.

[MinuteGal]

"Why are conservative Republicans, who control the executive and legislative branches of government for the first time in living memory, so vulnerable to the phenomenon of criminalization?"

First of all, conservative Republicans do NOT control the legislative branch, which of course, hamstrings the President. The legislative branch is controlled by a cabal of Senate Democrats and RINO's.......and when you get right down to it, the Senate is controlled by 6 or 7 faux Republicans in the McCain, Chaffee, Snowe mold. One might also add to this the "gang of 14" which deftly seized control in the judicial appointments process, again hamstringing the President.

Second, Republican solons don't know how to fight back and they never have. They are not alley-cat fighters like the Dems have always been. This pussiness is always praised by purists as being something "noble". About as "noble" as the phoney Nobel peace prizes.

Right off the bat, the "new tone" in DC disarmed the GOP victors. It lulled them, and soon, they preferred the state of lullness to any meaningful confrontations. The GOP elected hierarchy are, for the most part, paper tigers big on talk, short on wielding the big stick.

Mr. Krystal, you know the answer to your own question as well as we, you are just too delicate, sensitive and wussy to articulate it. Perhaps you fear a more manly critique of the fighting spirit of the DC GOP might hurt sales of your magazine. If so, then you are part of the problem.

Years ago, GOP "compassionate conservatism" in DC morphed into "dispassionate conservatism".....and therein lies the rub.

Leni

[DoughtyOne]

Kristol is such a glowing moderate that I'm rather surprised he could wrap his head around this concept, pleasantly surprised.

[cgbg]

I think you also should point out that folks from all administrations leak for a variety of reasons, some noble, some less so. When they do so they take a calculated risk.

There has been an excellent "example" in the last year's West Wing episodes (which imho are often very realistic though of course laced with left-wing bias).

The Chief of Staff disagrees with the President's policy on an important matter and leaks very top secret info to force him to change it. She wants to save lives in immediate danger, he is looking at longer term issues.

While the President rants and raves "find the leaker" the viewer gets to ponder what they would have done in a similar situation.

(The President can't find the leaker, though after an internal investigation he is told that it came from within the White House.)

Leaks are as much a part of DC inside baseball as diplomatic parties and secret meetings with key players frozen out of the discussion.

[Cboldt]

Bill has nothing to worry about.

That was good!

[TalBlack]

"I hate to say it, but the Feds would win right now, they are better armed and if willing to abort the Constitution, the rest of us citizens couldn't stop them. Flame on."

The Fed's win when they can bully.

Theose nut-cases at Waco showed the Fed's for the cowards that they are when they plinked a few Feds and the Feds did what no Marine or Grunt could ever do in the same exact situation (without winding up in front of a fireing squad.)

The feds were better armed and the level of their defensive kit indicated an expectation of 'war'. Yet when they got the thing that is the setting for glory unparalleled---they broke and ran.

Another thing to consider is that those Fed agencies and, for that matter the military are staffed by a certain percentage of true, constitution respecting Americans.

I look it it this way: I am so out of phase with the PC, statist society that I live in that some clash--even if I am doing all I can to avoid it (which I would do)is inevitable--so I simply don't worry about anything.

Stick to your fundamental principles, get as near to Right as you can in any situation, and sleep the sleep of the just. And to hell with how well armed anyone is--is HE right or am I right--that's it at the end of the day

[dinoparty]

Get a life. You impress me so much with your great manliness, Mr. Macho.

[dinoparty]

A glowing moderate he is not. Unorthodox, yes...independant, yes...but I wouldn't call one of the three fathers of regime change in Iraq a "moderate".

[Bernard Marx]

Your post is an accurate description of American politics since at least Watergate times. To me the mystery is why Pubbies don't figure it out and naively keep kicking Lucy's football, expecting a different outcome "this time." The only explanation that makes any sense to me is that they truly don't comprehend the depth of Democrat corruption, cynicism, America-hatred and ruthlessness.

[atomic conspiracy]

The criminality of dissenting opinion is a central tenet of leftist strategy and rhetoric. These specific cases are merely the public tip of a very large iceberg.

Out here in the trenches, even the dimmest liberal conformist sheep know that the first reaction to criticism, dissent, or opposition should be to represent such opposition as a criminal attack on liberal rights. Last week, I spoke with a high school English teacher who was almost comically obtuse about this.
She literally could not conceive of the idea that criticizing, say, the Dixie Chicks was not a criminal attack on their rights. She had no conception of the irony of pretending that total stone silence from those with certain opinions was the only way to protect "free expression."
Two generations of Americans have now been indoctrinated to believe implicitly in these imaginary rights for liberals and leftists: the right to the forum of their choice, the right to an audience, the right to financial support, and the right to be taken seriously.

[yarddog]

I like your tag line. I also agree with what you said.

I have come to believe there is a vast left wing conspiracy in this country. I am not kidding BTW.

I have always loved conspiracy theories, they are so darned interesting but I didn't really believe in them. In the last few years I have come to to totally believe in them. The only problem I have is many who think the same thing really are nuts.

How would I join in with a bunch that I know to be mostly if not all, at least a little strange?

Maybe 20 years ago, I noticed these things seemed to be staged and pushed by real forces. I am not even saying they are all wrong.

First of all came the anarchists and atheists who were also communists. Next came the civil rights movement. Then the sexual revolution, attack on the family (along with feminism) and open immigration.

I can remember back around 1988 when I was in grad school mentioning to a friend that the next big push was going to be homosexual rights. I also said I thought they had finally overstepped. Boy was I wrong.

A few days ago on the History Channel they had a program on secret societies. Among them was "skull and bones" and the various groups such as the CFR, Trilateral Commisssion and the Bilderbergers.

Then it hit me. These groups are just what the right wing nuts called them. They really are conspiracies to take over the world.

In fact they are really conspiracies right on the face of it, hiding in plain sight. The only thing which could be argued is what they are doing.

[Phsstpok]

I think lil Bill has realized that he has gone too far too fast in trashing Harriet Miers. Less than 15% of self identified Republicans agree with him that she should be defeated. More than half of Republicans, and a plurality of all surveyed, think she should be confirmed. By a wide margin a majority thinks that she is being prejudged without evidence by those, like Kristol, who are attacking her. (Source Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll, 10/13/05 - note: this is the PDF file with full results)

This is a nice, safe, obvious topic and he's using it to try to suck up to the vast majority of conservatives and say "see, I really am one of you and not a stuck up inside the beltway self appointed god king pundit!"

Even a blind sow finds an acorn every once in awhile. But it's still a pig.

[Cicero]

I haven't had much use for Kristol in recent years, although he was a hero in the old days. But he's right on target here.

What can we do about it? How about getting some backbones and fighting back? You can't blame the Democrats for using dirty tactics if they always work.

For one thing, why on earth have the Republicans kept that silly rule that the leader of the house has to step down if he is indicted? That's nothing but an invitation to indict, and as we have seen here it certainly doesn't contribute to what must have been the purpose of this stupid rule, that Republicans are cleaner than Democrats. Just the opposite. It give the media a free opportunity to say that Republicans are dirtier than Democrats. Get rid of that rule!

Also, why do we always agree to hold hearing and appoint investigative commissions, while the Democrats just dig in their heels and refuse? Under the rules Republicans seem to agree to, an indicted Republican is in a weaker position than a convicted Democrat.

Even Kristol, complaining about this, says that politics are more polarized than ever. Sure, but not equally. The Democrats have pulled out all the stops, while the Republicans just sit their with weak grins on their faces. How about fighting back?

[G.Mason]

An excellent synopsis.

"I think you also should point out ...

That is what I love about FR. When one omits, another picks him/ her up.

Thanks