Skip to comments.Eight Wasted Years - And the ratchet slips free.
Posted on 11/05/2008 11:30:22 AM PST by neverdem
Conservatives have two choices: engineer a takeover of the GOP like the left's takeover of the Dem Party or start a another party. RINOs do not have the vision nor the fortitude to fight the left.
He knows damn well the next four years will not merely be “interesting.” They will be damaging.
As for Thatcher’s observation, it is proving out. There is no turning back.
He nailed it.
ah of course. Blame Bush. How original.
You’re right but the answer is NOT starting another party, as it’s this very attitude that got us here in the first place, and into trouble with disengaging from public schools and allowing William Ayers’ ilk to socialize the younger generation.
We take our kids and run off to homeschool or private school, and STILL we have to pay for their failed godless liberal NEA public schools which STILL indoctrinate children.
THEY get up in our faces while we continue to turn the other cheek. We’ll sure as the day is long lose this country by disngagement.
I think Derbyshire is assuming his readership is literate enough to know that there is a Chinese curse: “May you live in interesting times.”
The problem, IMO, is that the conservatives’ natural state (in general) is a less government/don’t get involved ( in govt) idea. It leaves WIDE PATHS for liberals, who are almost religious in their passion to control, to control the gears of govt, even when conservatives have the top.
What other explanation for educational policy to be so dismal, for DECADES under GOP congress or Presidents? It SHOULD be a state matter, but even in deep Red (we are going to have to change the red/blue state them now) states the engines of educations are decidedly liberal controlled.
I believe just as the Dems turned NEOCONS into a dirty word, NEO MARXIST must be the Obama phrase.
Exactly. Which is why it is so disheartening to read the fools on this site who advocate compromise at every turn. "Better half a loaf than none!" they cry, never realizing that the Dems will be back to ask for half of what we kept, then back for half of that quarter, etc. until there's nothing meaningful remaining.
I hadn't heard of Thatcher's "ratchet effect" but I've understood it intuitively for years. Sadly the Republicans have not and they've drifted slowly leftward over the years, but leftwards nonetheless. Many of the current crop of Republicans in the Congress make John F. Kennedy look like a hardcore right-winger in comparison.
Does Pres. Bush not deserve some of the blame?
How FABULOUS of you to know this!!! Fortune cookies are chock-full of literacy!!!
No thanks. I’m tired of that bandwagon and don’t wish to jump on it.
“May you live in interesting times” is a famous curse, supposedly of Chinese origin.
It is in this sense I think Derbyshire is using the word.
I hate talking out loud, but why can’t Conservatism form the equivalent of a [I can’t remmember!] group that was created to spread communism. Conservatism needs to spread and use any means as well, including forming our own Saul Alinskys. It will take more than our lifetime, but if the Left can do it, so can the Right.
“He knows damn well the next four years will not merely be interesting. They will be damaging.
As for Thatchers observation, it is proving out. There is no turning back.”
The mechanisms we have to “form an equivalent group” will very quickly be shut down by the new order. This will be their most important priority.
Gotta commend Derbyshire for hitting the nail on the head here.
Some of us aren't too disappointed because we were never Republicans in the first place.
“The GOP is not an effective advocate for Conservatism.”
humor by understatement, I presume?
"I supported George W. Bush in 2000 because I thought he had a conservative bone in his body somewhere. I supported him in 2004 because I thought him the lesser of two evils. At this point, I wouldnt let the fool park his car in my driveway."
That was the extent of Bush being mentioned. He may have been harsh in his comment, but if we can't be honest, we're doomed. Cinderella, if the shoe fits, wear it. RINO compassionate conservatism has been an abysmal failure. Our gains in foreign affairs and national security are about to be tossed away. Obama's ideas threaten our economy in too many ways to count. Social security and Medicare/Medicaid funding are a bad joke.
Bush not deserve some of the blame...
Of coure he does.
He proved that he is an establishment mainline tool - not the independent strong conservative we needsd and wanted.
He neglected his conservative base and kowtowed to the liberal elites time and again. I am sure we can enumerate those instances.
I guess somehow you missed the meaning of the title.
John nails it.
That was my take.
Exactly. This don't discuss politics in public has left the left in charge of of the discussion.
Not to worry, this shallow, ignorant, self-obsessed man will surround himself with 'deep thinkers', as Thomas Sowell likes to call them, who'll translate his leftist infantilism into destructive policy measures.
I've been thinking the same thing. It works for the left because they use lies, half-truths, logical fallacies, infiltration, selective disregard of the law, legal intimidation/extortion, and union thuggery.
If we adopt these tactics, we aren't conservatives.
How so? What am I missing? The title is quite appropriate. Government/statism became bigger for what good?
--Eight years ago I was known to make the comment that given the portion of the voting public interested in personal responsibility, freedom of choices and any of the other qualities prized by the founding fathers, that George W. Bush was -at best-only a bump on the road the nation was on, the road leading over a precipice.
--unfortunately , he wasn't much of a bump.
However, we can console ourselves that the last eight years weren't under a Kerry or a Gore---
GWB has not, in 8 years, ever been considered the leader of our party or of the conservative movement. He has governed in many admirable ways (WOT, tax reduction), but I wonder if these have been nullified by his presiding over the exhorbitant growth of federal power, including the prescription drug fiasco. Unfortunately for us he inherited too much of his political ideology from his father, not Ronald Reagan. As far as the WOT, he has been a true leader, all things considered. IMHO
There's no time like the present. Who likes No Child Left Behind? All it did was dumb down the various tests in the states. Medicare Part D wasn't enough. Karl Rove's hopes fell flat.
Forgive me ... but Reagan is the only exception in that list. He was clearly cut from different from different cloth than the "conservatives" of today.
Gingrich is very much an exemplar of "the rule." When it came down to it, Gingrich's Contract for America was nothing more than a campaign tactic that was quickly discarded once it became apparent that Gingrich had neither the political ability nor the political power to carry it out. Bill Clinton beat Gingrich half to death with the Contract, and then used the resultant momentum to win re-election in '96.
It doesn't mean that the principles embodied by the Contract are wrong -- they're not; but the actual results of trying to apply the Contract show that Conservatives really don't know what to do with them.
There are two issues here, both of which we conservatives need to address.
The first is that, despite what the Contract said, "conservatism" has no clear meaning; but at the same time the public has gained a perception of conservatism that is quite unfavorable. Much of that is our own fault -- there are no Reagans among the current crop of "spokesmen for conservatism;" those who step forward, are prone to feeding red meat to an already oppositional media.
The second is strategy and tactics. We've GOT to behave differently.
I know, I know. It is wrong to fight evil by becoming evil. But we have to face some serious facts: the people who make up the voting public are not logical and severely mis-educated. They go for “cool”; style over substance. So even though conservative ideals have produced the wealthiest nation with the greatest personal liberty and freedom, people just won’t care. Even those who are wealthy, like Warren Buffet, will side with the Socialists so they can steal from the American Public. So we will need another approach. I’m just suggesting that a group be formed to look for other ways, but consider all options, even unpleasant ones. It’s either that or wait 2000 years for humans to evolve away from such group-think.
"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy."
Such a comical and cartoon-like self-caricature of leftist clichés.
But it's not satire???
He could be a chapter in Roger Kimball's Tenured Radicals.
Bush seems to have kept the author’s worthless ass and a lot of others safe the last eight years.
May you live in interesting times.
“The GOP is not an effective advocate for Conservatism”
What a silly comment....
“Reagan and Gingrich are proving to the the exception and not the rule. “
Monumental exceptions! These 2 men between them helped keep USA on a more conservative path from 1980-2000.
The GOP is the only political vehicle out there capable of advancing conservatism... WE have to get in and drive it in the right direction. Drivers are needed!
“Gingrich is very much an exemplar of “the rule.” When it came down to it, Gingrich’s Contract for America was nothing more than a campaign tactic that was quickly discarded once it became apparent that Gingrich had neither the political ability nor the political power to carry it out.”
FALSE on a number of levels. First, it was a positive and real agenda. Second, all the 10 promises made were kept in that Gingrich got the bills through the House, in the end most of the proposals went through the Senate and ended up getting passed. In welfare reform case, we have the signature conservative reform of the era, it worked and it made a big difference in reducing welfare dependency.
“The first is that, despite what the Contract said, “conservatism” has no clear meaning;” Did the contract even use the word conservative? It was 10 point specific program.
Not that he doesnt deserve blame, but there is a serious mistake in pretending we didnt get a big benefit from having Bush for President.
2 reasons: Alito, Roberts
When Heller was decided, it was a 5-4 vote. We had Roberts and Alito on the good side. All the Clinton appointees were against our RKBA. That wasnt the only key decision where Roberts and Alito saved us from something awful.
Now I ask you. If Gore or Kerry were President WOULD WE EVEN HAVE A 2ND AMENDMENT TODAY?
Then there are the tax cuts, which the Democrats may take away in part of in whole, and/or bring back the death tax.
Would Gore have even passed it? No.
Not to mention the many ways that Bush properly waged the war on terror despite the Democrats flogging him at every turn.
To call it ‘wasted’ is simply wrong.
BTTT, everything you said.
How would you suggest conservatives fortify themselves against the RINOs who will actively seek to undermine them?
We have to become involved! From the local level right to the top! Explain that we will not vote for them, they serve us, not the other way around!
As hard as it is, I may not vote for Saxby Chambliss in the run off. I’ve got some time to think about it, but I think we’re getting his attention.
WRITE! SPEAK UP!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.