Skip to comments.How Bill Kristol ditched conservatism. Great Escape
Posted on 10/03/2002 7:41:50 PM PDT by logician2u
click here to read article
Fractionalizing of various elements has resulted in a power vaccuum, only now filled by such as Rumsfeld and Bush, to a lesser extent Cheney.
There may be a number of academics who could fill the role as spokesman for a conservative "mainstream," but they are routinely bypassed in favor of media-savvy personalities such as Kristol, Will and even William Bennett, who may be one of those "national greatness" fans for all I know. His presence on the tube disgusts me.
I'm convinced that the media turns a blind eye to anyone who can speak with authority with regard to the nation's past and present. They are looking for sound bites only, not anything in depth. It's not even a left-right dichotomy we have to concern ourselves with, as some think. When did you ever see Noam Chomsky on ABC World News, for example? PBS, maybe, but I never watch that propaganda.
Libertarians are just about totally excluded from the major media, with the single exception of Milton Friedman. He gets a pass as a Nobel Laureate and an all-around nice guy, in a non-threatening way. If he wants to repeal Social Security and abolish the Fed, the typical media reporter isn't going to call him on it.
We have to somehow separate the conservatives in government (the few that remain, that is), who are only too well aware of their limitations, from those in academia who are actively formulating plans to roll back federal programs, in anticipation of a new generation of legislators. The former can't really do much because they don't have the votes; the latter can do plenty by educating constituents through on-line journals, newsletters, publications from Heritage and CEI, etc.
The power-brokers like Kristol would never consider going the long route through private citizens (who fall asleep in the middle of their lectures anyway) when they have entree to Capitol offices. They don't really need the media exposure except as it serves as a two-edged sword, keeping others out as they increase their own visibility among the establishment in Washington.
Post 41: If we need to stop criminals police work should suffice.
Police work in the U.S. outside our borders is not work for our police. We have no police that work on a federal level much less with an international scope.
Nations have their own rules for policing.
I associate "hard right"( I definitely consider myself hard right but not a culture warrior) culture warriors with people like Currybot and hold them beneath contempt. You seem like a nice affable guy not some mindless robot spouting off slogans which bash libertarians more than rats.
With terrorist( and commies etc) you have to do unto others before they do unto you.
But is this what everyone thinks conservatives are about? For example there are WOD conservatives on this forum who are not for limiting central power or reducing bureaucracy if it means that individual states will decriminalize marijuana. Most Republicans elected don't appear too interested in reducing bureaucracy or balancing the budget.
My observation is a lot of conservatives want to capture the Federal government so they can implement their way of thinking. Now I personally think having the Republicans controlling both houses of Congress and the Presidency is a good idea so we can get the backlog of judges filled with conservative, non-judicial activist type judges, which means they don't make it up as they go along. But I suspect there are conservatives who do want judges to make it up as they go along - just the "conservative" way - whatever way that is.
As for Kirk's definition - I agree with it completely. But there are plenty of Democrats who would also agree with it. No, not the gay rights, feminazi, race-baiting, "progressive" socialists. But while they make all the noise, they are not the whole Democratic party, either. There's lots of conservative, Catholic, blue collar, Reagan democrats out there still.
So...in what way are FReepers "conservative"? And how many different definitions do we have? And why have we failed to pull in the Reagan democrats? (And we have failed - or the government wouldn't be so closely split.)
And nations have interests other than ours in formulating those rules, and enforcing them. The Taleban certainly had rules for their own police and I got no indication that deterence had pushed them toward cracking down on anti-US terrorist groups. I suspect that they are not the only regime with policing rules that put my safety fairly low on their priority list. Your suggestion seems to be that for those states, and those that may even support anti-US terrorism, threat of destruction is the answer. I think on the other thread you referred to that as "bullying".
Agreed. He's a decent talking head (even though I disagree with a lot of his positions). Problem is his whining, nervous, cracking voice and his stupid and constant smile makes for difficult TV viewing.
Let's hope so. The neo-cons have always been a mile wide, inch deep phenomenon in the Republican Party and for good reason. Their polices of unlimited immigration, de-industrializing "not-so-free trade" deals, and ambivalence on social issues like abortion do not resonate well in the TRUE conservative majority. If their numbers weren't so large in the media, you'd never hear of them.
That will happen when it goes bankrupt. 25 years from now or less SS will not exist...at least not in its present form. Whatever replaces it will be a self-sustaining, investment based, actuarially sound system because, in the end, the truth does dictate what has to done.
The other thing is that a lot of Reagan Democrats probably did go over to the GOP permanently. Today's Democratic base is very different in terms of sex, generation, race, region and profession from what it was in 1940, 1960 or 1980. They've made up for the loss of older, middle class white men with minorities, a younger generation, the more affluent, and, especially women.
I suspect most conservatives are pretty clear on what they want from politics. But many Americans today aren't very much like those voters of past years who only thought about politics once every four years. We are more like New Yorkers with a dozen parties on the ballot than old time Middle American straight ticket voters. We have all manner of media to agitate us and get us to think about the big picture. It's a characteristic of a rich country with affluence and many media outlets. So we're not just looking at the picture of what a President or Congress can realistically do in 2 or 4 years. We're looking at the big picture of what we'd ideally want the country and its governing philosophy to be, rather than about the questions that any President or Congress is likely to resolve.
That is the only way it will happen.
That is the only way it will happen.
Step 6: Al Gore can develop a personality.
Hey... you were on a roll...
Sad but True. I keep hoping that somehow, someway, someday soon this 3rd rail of politics will stop delivering lethal current to those who try to touch on the reality of SS. Regrettably, for the foreseeable future, the punting game continues as the debt ratchets up ever more.
We should be an example for the world, not a policeman.
Deterence worked? You mean "working"? Deterence perfectly describes the Bush doctrine of preeminence.
As for Wahington... discover time travel, go back 200+ years and then show the President a video clip of Hiroshima and 9/11... then see how he changes his farewell address.
I'm sure you're not claiming to Mr. Washington divine omniscience, are you? And, after all, it was just a farwell address, not an ammendment to the Constitution? Unless Mr. Washington also layed claim to sinless perfection (did he really tell the truth about chopping down the cherry tree?), we would do well to understand his words in the context of their time.
I always found it interesting that although the majority of liberals are anti-WOD, the vast majority of liberal politicians are pro-WOD. It seems whenever I hear about a politician having the guts to come out of the closet as anti-WOD, he's a Republican.
What has happened to U.S.? Posted by UnBlinkingEye
While UnBlinkingEye was the biggest whiner about peace at any cost a couple of others joined in. The worst of them was a Ruskie called Stavka2.
You need to get your vague a$$ back over there and answer some of the people you ticked off. Or are you just gonna start something and then run and hide? The thread is still going.
Not everyone was ticked off, I didn't hide and I'll be back...