Posted on 12/11/2003 7:59:11 AM PST by happykidjill
Like most Toogood Reports readers, I observed this year's battles within the conservative ranks with profound discomfort. In my mind, there are far too many real enemies out there to waste time and print fighting one another.
It seems that the world of conservatism has been split up between the "conservatives" and the "paleo-conservatives" or between the "conservatives" and the "neo-conservatives." Both sides present themselves as the bona fide article and the other side as the one in need of a prefix.
Personally, I just want to spit up this strife the same way the bleachers of Wrigley Field do the opposition´s home run balls. This qualifies as a "which side are you on boys" issue. It is my goal to conserve America's wonderful, non-living Constitution, and to forever preserve the personal and economic freedoms that embody our way of life. If you agree with me about these basic propositions, then you're on my side and the rest of your views are of secondary concern. Simply revering the spirit of the Founding Fathers puts you in the top 50 percent of the population on the Chap-o-meter.
Not only is an inter-journalist, inter-intellectual, conservative civil war fruitless, it is also detrimental to the nation as a whole. The country needs all of our efforts just to have a chance of mitigating the damage the culture war has wrought.
Our daily resistance may be the biggest obstacle to the federal pacman swallowing up fifty percent of the economy. We cannot afford to bicker amongst ourselves. The odds are too great. Obsessing over who said what about Taki, Buchanan, Frum, Lowry or any of the other public figures who make up the American right is counter-productive.
The neocon/paleocon debate is as bewildering as it is petty and misguided. Sadly, some conservatives now feel more comfortable with leftists than they do their own kind [I know of one who astonished me by saying that he regards the American Enterprise Institute as "The Death Star"]. Certainly, internal disagreements are to be expected, but they are trivial in comparison to accepting the positions advocated by the other side of the political spectrum. Socialism, cultural Marxism, white guilt, and radical feminism are eternal obstacles to advancing society. Other conflicts pale in importance when compared to them.
I propose that we abandon slurs like paleo-con and neo-con. Instead we should all evolve into "Logicons." The Logicon refuses to slash at the brethren who march alongside him because maintaining some level of public harmony is the only logical way in which we will succeed. Logicons realize that our fighting strength should not be diluted by internecine combat.
Much of the controversy currently centers around President Bush and whether or not one approves of his job performance. I've written here and elsewhere how much I personally admire him, but I also acknowledge that certain criticisms have been valid. Those who label him a big spender are correct in their assessments. He has not used his veto to curb the size of government and has developed a habit of hugging Ted Kennedy's voluminous appropriations.
While this is unfortunate, to pretend that Bush is not the best bet for advancing the country's interests is shortsighted. There are many conservatives out there who could do a better job of slashing outlays, but it is highly unlikely that any of them could get elected by our emotive and squishy electorate. On our side, George W. Bush "feels their pain" better than anyone. He brings in moderate voters the way my old Erie Dearie lures used to bag walleyes .
The problem is one of perspective. We can spend time complaining about steel tariffs or the administration´s pathetic capitulation on affirmative action last summer. Yes, I would have been greatly pleased if he disseminated a Michigan Law brief of his own after the decision entitled “O´Connor a Known Fruitcake,” but the fact is that he didn't and there´s nothing we can do about it. However, we must keep our outlook global by remembering what the alternatives are.
What would Al Gore do with affirmative action? How about Howard Dean, the neurotic would-be-king, with Al Qaeda? Makes you shudder doesn´t it? After the election, Al Sharpton would take his standup around the world as our Secretary of State and we´d hear Patricia Ireland lambasting “patriarchal textbooks” in her role as Secretary of Education.
In actuality, my examples really aren´t all that farfetched. The radical left has been carrying the Democrat Party since 2001 and, now, if the Democrats win, bills will need to be paid.
Rather than fantasize about an ideal future, conservatives need to think about how things can, and will, get devastatingly worse, should Bush lose. Be it Dean or Kerry or whatever burrito they decide to roll out of the Taqueria next summer, the fate of the country will be in jeopardy. By this time in 2006, there will be a foreign policy coward in every pot and a benefit check in the hands of every college drop out. Think France, think Germany, and then be grateful we have a president who doesn't spit after saying "tax cuts."
Besides, the Bush Presidency has produced many hidden benefits. His appointees may well be our salvation even though he backs obese budgets. In the latest issue of The New Criterion, we see that his appointments to the National Endowment of the Arts have had a wonderful effect. Under Dana Gioia, the agency is sponsoring Macbeth for military bases and has resurrected traditional Shakespeare at the national level [Shakespearean plays are now staged as in the days of old which means brothels and bath house scenes are no longer mandatory].
I don´t care if you insult him or trade in Karl Rove conspiracy theories, but, in November of 2004, this particular rightist is going to stand by George W. Bush just as the bumper sticker on my car promises. Our hopes for a better tomorrow rest in the White House on his bed. We must support him because heady days await and also because his reelection keeps the Democrat Party headless. Let´s proudly stand by our man as he loudly subsumes the popular positions of the left while promoting many of ours in the shadows though his judges, appointees, and minions.
To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Bernard at bchapafl@hotmail.com .
Well said.
Yes, I can see how the president professing a belief that there is but one God would bother "a Christian".
/s
No he didn't. He gave incumbents what they wanted. The American people didn't ask for this.
The other comment on that is, if the American people wanted to reinstitute slavery would you make the same case?
That's why he let the court decide if it was actually constitutional.
So he now thinks it's constitutional?
The support for getting dirty money out of politics was HUGE!
You are delusional.
We are the small minority here. The rest of the country is happy.
You have gone from delusional to demented.
Then many are not very smart. The big picture and the overall good of the country is what is important, and if conservatives act like babies having fits and vote for someone else...well...their tunnel vision will kill my children and grandchildren. I don't appreciate that too much.
99.9% of the Bush champions have at least said that this law is bad. Not you. You are foresquare behind it.
There is a reason tyrannies occur. It is because common men back them.
No, my FRiend...Vote Libertarian = Vote Libertarian....MUD
What an incredibly sick and stupid comment.
Nobody is buying that copout.
In Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution it is written:
"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it."
Something I'm missing here? Seems pretty straight foreword to me.
Right. Clinton tolerated all sin. Political correctness and thought control is what we got.
Now you see why electing a man with moral character, like Bush, is important?
I don't hate Bush. I see him for what he is. A power seeker. A left of center politicion. Just another person in power who percieves the Constitution as a obstacle to be overcome instead of a bluprint for freedom.
I leave hate for the pretend conservatives who hate Clinton but otherwise have no clue.
It may hurt the Dems more for now, but it is clearly a law abridging the freedom of speech. So if by "us" you mean Republicans, you may be right. But if by "us" you mean Americans, I think this is a very big blow to the First Amendment.
The outrage here is that the Supremes DID declare it constitutional, in spite of having no legitimate ground to do so. Bush shold have vetoed this stinker of a law when he had the chance. Instead, he took the easy political way out and punted it over to the Supremes, who obviously cannot be trusted on this or any other issue nowadays. He could have stopped it when he had the chance and didn't, and now America is stuck with this serious limitation on our liberies. That is the problem with Bush on this issue.
Again, you suffer delusion. How old are you anyway?
No one in "our camp" thinks George W. Bush is perfect. NO one. That's another illogical statement that comes only from those of you whose distaste for him overwhelms your common sense.
Let's take for example, CFR. My opinion on it, is that I think it was a big mistake for him to sign it. I might even go so far as to say it was a big, stupid mistake. His position was that there were parts of it that he disagreed with that the Supreme Court would strike down. They didn't. He should have vetoed it, and I don't understand why he didn't.
I haven't read yesterdays decision, so I'm not sure which, if any freedoms I have personally been denied because of it. Most likely, none. Certainly not my right to free speech.
As to trampling the Bill of Rights, I just don't believe that he has done that. I don't believe that you or I have lost freedom because of this President. I believe we have lost surprisingly few in spite of terrorists' wanting to destroy us, precisely BECAUSE we have this President who is safeguarding our rights.
The Bill of Rights, and your freedom to interpret what they mean, will do you no good at all if you are DEAD, Laz. THAT's the big picture.
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.