What's Really Important What Exactly Is A Conservative Nowadays?
Listening to John McCain, and previously Mitt Romney, as well as various other Republicans of all shapes and sizes, go on and on with “I’m more conservative than you are” is enough to make one nauseous, or worse. I myself haven’t known what a “real” conservative is for almost a decade. It used to be somewhat easy to define one, using a few trusty key concepts like small government, fiscal responsibility and states rights. And then, we were suddenly informed that there was something called a “compassionate conservative,” but that didn’t last very long, most likely because nobody could find many anywhere. What makes this even more confusing is that recently, Republican politicians seem to be dancing to the drum of some form of conservatism that only they can hear.
One must take it on trust that many religious extremists are conservative, only because they say they are. I don’t agree it’s a given that someone who is very religious is by nature conservative. It’s not my opinion that traditional values of any sort automatically qualify as being conservative. Yet even so, those on the religious right don’t seem to require anything from their politicians other than that they talk about religion a lot, as if that in itself means much of anything in general, nonetheless confirms their conservatism.
I’m not sure which annoys me more about John McCain, calling everyone “my friend(s),” or his constant blathering about how conservative he is. It doesn’t seem to matter that those who consider themselves staunch conservatives, look at McCain in horror when he makes such claims. Even that self-proclaimed, loud-mouthed, BSing archconservative Rush Limbaugh has been filling the radio airways with volumes of hot air refuting McCain’s claim. He also claims that McCain and Huckabee can destroy the Republican Party. Funny, I'd thought Bush et al had already accomplished that! But what made me laugh the most, and still does, was Ann Coulter arguing with Sean Hannity about it on his TV program, saying she would campaign for Hillary Clinton before she’d support the “liberal” McCain. Check out this video clip from the show for yourself if you want a hardy laugh: Who Would Reagan Vote For? The Shocker of the Republican Primary. Of course, Alan Colmes won the day when he raised his hands in victory and claimed, “my work is done,” and then asked Coulter, “could you fill in for me next week?”
I listened to McCain recently warning a crowd of the dangers of allowing those evil Democrats to win the Presidency. He warned them of irresponsible spending, large government, and less protection from Islamic radicalism. I got very confused, because I would have sworn he was referring to the Republican leadership of the past seven years. What really blew my mind was when he mentioned the horrors of higher taxes, if the Democrats were elected. I don’t recall any of the Democratic candidates talking about raising taxes, so I can only assume he meant the desire of some to discontinue the Bush tax cut for the mostly obscenely wealthy, something McCain himself voted against twice.
It’s interesting how often we are expected to believe what comes out of the mouths of politicians who change their positions because they are in an election.
So, what am I missing? Someone please help me! I thought the Right Wing/GOP/Republican Party was supposed to represent true conservatism, as they repeatedly claim. Am I wrong, or under this “conservative” regime (Executive/Congress/Supreme Court) of the past seven years has our nation not gone from a surplus to a $trillion deficit, and hasn’t the national debt risen through the roof, while the dollar is being destroyed on the world market, with all likelihood that we are entering into a serious recession? Has not President Bush borrowed more foreign money than all other presidents combined, and increased the size of the government to the largest it has ever been?
Yes I know we are at war, so what can we expect, unless we ask ourselves the question: who started the war and why? One begins to suspect war is one of those conservative values I am trying to define; after all, it’s almost a mantra from the right wing candidates and base. Helluva thing when the one conservative value you can rely on is war!
Comments
I think what is most interesting is the pundits trashing McCain are trashing him about his stance on amnesty and yet Bush was for amnesty for the illegal immigrants. And Reagan gave illegal immigrants amnesty.
Also the pundits trash McCain for being against the Bush tax cuts at first but then he was for them. Yet McCain's argument for being against the Bush tax cuts was fiscal responsibility. If I am not mistaken, that is what Conservatives are suppose to stand for...fiscal responsibility.
In a nutshell you are absolutely correct, the party with the ideological crisis is the Republican party.
Posted by: Melissa | February 12, 2008 01:58 PM
Melissa --- as you say, all this from the party that chronically accuses their opposition of voting one way before they vote another. Isn't it ironic that the Republican Party is whining on and on about the need for a true conservative in the White House, all the while bashing McCain for displaying real fiscal responsibility and conservatism when he did oppose the Bush "tax cut?"
It would appear that the right wing has no shame. There is no limit to the level of hypocrisy they are willing to display, or the utter crap they believe they can continue to try and sell! It appears their base is incapable of independent thinking and rational thought!
Thanks for the comment (smile)!
Posted by: Stephen | February 12, 2008 06:41 PM
Many good people became Republicans because it was the party of moral values, but they failed to notice as the behavior of their party leaders belied most of those values.
Many good people became Republicans because it was the party of fiscal responsibility, but they failed to notice as their party leaders spent our country into trillion dollar debt.
Many good people became Republicans because it was the party of small government, but they failed to notice as their party leaders voted to let the government invade our lives in the name of security.
But suddenly one day they woke up and noticed there were no leaders in their party who stood for the things they believed. And they moaned and groaned over the lack of viable conservative candidates.
So I guess if the Republicans want true conservative leaders they should start noticing what is going on. People who don’t pay attention get what they deserve.
Posted by: Trish | February 16, 2008 06:54 PM
It's unfortunate Trish that the rest of us also sometimes get stuck with what those not paying attention deserve.
Posted by: Stephen | February 16, 2008 08:46 PM
John McCain is a pathetic old man who has nothing to go on but his maverick myth.... and it is a myth!... and his "war hero-ness" which everyone seems to equate with the fact that he was a prisoner of war (and though he is known to have performed some herioc feats during the Vietnam War, labeling him a hero because he was a prisoner of war seems particularly silly, since that simply means he got caught, which may have nothing to do with heriosm).
John McCain, long a spokesperson against torture (including waterboarding, which, by the way, used to be called "water torture"... doh...) and for the Geneva Conventions, just voted against a bill that defined waterboarding as torture. Please. Pure, unadulterated hypocrisy.
As for the Republican party in general, I agree with Trish in concept. However, I would say that many people hooked up with the Republicans because they SAID they were the party of moral values, they SAID they were the party of fiscal responsibility, they SAID they were the party of small government. But talking is not walking, and we have all seen that the Republican party is none of these things, not by a long shot. Unfortunately, people still spout it, apparently giving no thought or consideration whatsoever to what the Republican party actually does, which is certainly nowhere near what it says.
They all make me sick to my stomach.
Posted by: Renee G | February 18, 2008 09:09 AM
Renee, I'm sick of hearing how being involved with the military and war, somehow automatically makes one a hero, and therefore highly qualified to be in public office. War is a scourge on humanity, and necessitated only because mankind has not evolved beyond it's own self-serving primal infancy. It’s unfortunate that our society is as yet unable to set a higher standard for heroes.
Of course I appreciate those who serve in the military because that is where we are as a race, but that doesn't automatically translate into my being thankful that that IS where we are as a race. The belief that any individual is better qualified to serve in a position of leadership because they have been in war, might seem prudent in the short run, but it can also be a self-perpetuating prophesy guaranteeing more of the same in the future.
Jesus and Gandhi were also heroes, precisely because they did not advocate war, when in actuality, they were both in a position to create it on a very large scale. It may take great courage to enter into a battle, but often it takes even more not to. This is the standard we need to set for leadership.
Yes, I’m being very idealistic, but so were the two men just mentioned. They both understood that violence always perpetuates more of the same (“those who live by the sword, shall die by the sword”), and that we will only be rid of it, when we have the courage to walk away from it.
This is all fodder for a blog in the making. Our species will soon reach a nexus point where it will have to choose to live or die. It will not survive if it does not transcend violence.
Posted by: Stephen | February 18, 2008 10:03 AM
Stephen, being idealistic is a good thing especially when it is tempered with a little practicality. Idealism helps us continue to strive to improve things while those who grow cynical tend to throw up their hands and quit trying. It does seem, with our “advanced civilization” that we could find ways to solve problems without killing others. We condemn middle-easterners as barbarians because they behead people. But how much better are we when we electrocute, hang, gas, and poison our criminals and invade sovereign countries for reasons other than self-defense? It is encouraging that most people admire the non-violent approach of Ghandi and Jesus. Now if we can just move from admiring to emulating…
Posted by: Trish | February 18, 2008 05:22 PM