-Caveat Lector-
Begin forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: June 16, 2007 5:14:07 PM PDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: "Principled Republicans," "the Religious Right" and Other
Oxymorons
'Honest Conservatives': Oxymoron?
Rick Perlstein
June 15, 2007http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/06/15/
honest_conservatives_oxymoron.php
Brad DeLong, the remarkably erudite and morally penetrating blogger
and economics professor, has been writing some very useful things
about the question of "honest conservatism"—the understandable, if
problematic, quest of liberals to find a conservative worthy of
intellectual respect.
Here, he quotes the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek who speaks
of "a witty formula of life under a hard Communist regime: Of the
three features—personal honesty, sincere support of the regime and
intelligence—it was possible to combine only two, never all three.
If one was honest and supportive, one was not very bright; if one
was bright and supportive, one was not honest; if one was honest
and bright, one was not supportive. The problem with Dreyman is
that he does combine all three features."
And here he reflects that the old Eastern Bloc jape " applies just
as well to the Bush regime. Sincere conservative supporters are not
bright. Bright conservative supporters are not honest. Bright and
honest conservatives are not supporters...."
He proposes, thereby, a taxonomy. You might find it handy, too. I
leave out the names. The names are not important.
Class of 2000: People who in 2000 said, "George W. Bush is not
qualified to be president, and we should be really worried about
this."
Class of 2001: People who in 2001 said, "I supported Bush in 2000,
but George W. Bush is not listening to his honest conservative
policy advisers, and we should be really worried about this."
Class of 2002: People who in 2002 said, "I supported Bush in 2000
and 2001, but 9/11 has unhinged the administration; its detention
and other policies are counterproductive; it needs to be opposed."
Class of 2003: People who in 2003 said, "I supported Bush over
2000-2002, but enough is enough. That's it. I supported the
invasion of Iraq because I was certain there was evidence of an
advanced nuclear weapons program--otherwise invading Iraq was just
stupid. Well, there was no advanced nuclear weapons program.
Invading Iraq was just stupid. Plus there's the Medicare drug
benefit. These people need to be evicted from power."
Class of 2004: People who in 2004 said, "I've been a Bush
supporter. I'm a Republican and a conservative, but I've had
enough: I'm voting for Kerry."
Class of 2005: People who in 2005 said, "I voted for Bush in 2004.
But I made a mistake. A big mistake."
Class of 2006: People who in 2006 said, "I know I supported Bush up
to last year, but that shows I'm not the brightest light on the
clued-in tree."
The class of 2007 --people who are now opposed to Bush only because
they think Bush will drag the Republicans down in 2008--doesn't
count. Dead-enders who are still claiming that Bush is Teddy
Roosevelt don't count. They aren't honest conservatives. They are
only worth scorn, and fit objects for nothing but mockery. One just
doesn't joust with them in honorable intellectual combat. It'd be
stooping too low.
I say divide "honest conservatives" into the classes of 2000 to
2006, rank them by seniority according to the date of their public
honesty, and use that as a ranking for who to read, who to respect,
and who to promote as worthy intellectual adversaries. Refer to
them using this citation form:
Brent Scowcroft, Honest Conservative Class of 2004...
Finally, Brad runs a brilliant rant by John Emerson on the moral
cunning of conservatives that eloquently expresses why we call
conservatism "the big con." He explains how "honest conservatives
of the class of 2007"—the ones who only thought to turn away from
Bush when it became obvious he was both destroying their political
prospects and empowering the liberals —will use the public's memory
of Bush's disasters to, well, destroy the Democrats. Most
importantly, the media will let them get away with it.
Read it, tuck it in your memory file, and, two years hence, when
President ClinEdwardsObamaTon finds him/herself forced to govern
with his/her hands tied behind his/her back, remember you read it
here (or, if you're smart enough to read Brad, there) first:
I think that when the "honest conservatives" reject Bush they're
just setting up their assault on the Democratic president they
expect to see elected next year. Their way of digging themselves
out from under the Bush disaster (and obscuring their own role in
that disaster) will be to swear "Never again can an American
President be allowed free rein!" They'll use that to justify
preventing the Democratic President from governing effectively
every step of the way.
For example, Bush's politicization of the career staff in Justice
and elsewhere was a very bad thing, no? And certainly this kind of
thing has to stop, no? So we will forbid the new Democratic
President to interfere with career personnel, with the result that
all of the political hacks Bush put in civil service positions will
be untouchable. (When that happens, can we expect the media to
understand what's going on? No, of course not....)
Now that they've stolen the horse, they're going to lock the barn
door. Just as in January 2001: once Bush was inaugurated, the
Republicans decided that sabotage by impeachment is a really very
bad thing for the country.
See what's free at AOL.com.
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
