Comments on: One More Thing http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2009/03/02/one-more-thing-2/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=one-more-thing-2 n. the principle of good order<br /><br /> "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:25:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: ottovbvs http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2009/03/02/one-more-thing-2/comment-page-1/#comment-30503 ottovbvs Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:48:58 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/?p=8612#comment-30503 Oh boy Daniel you're really laying it on the line. This really was a superb bit of analysis. The mindset of the conservative polity is essentially the product of 25 years of relentless polarizing where the GOP's Atwaters and Roves developed a strategy of demonizing all and every aspect of their opponents. Much of the ammunition came from right wing think tanks who developed all kinds of beautiful constructs that could be used to batter traditional liberal/centrist ideas. Not surprisingly some people saw money in this strategy. Limbaugh was one of the first but since then he has been joined by a small army of real or pseudo conservatives who dominate talk radio and conservative publishing producing a product aimed at the demographic produced by polarization. And so we have Fox News, Coulter, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, et al sucking at the conservative teat and the more angry they make that group the more profitable it becomes for them. Just think about all those conservative fund raising letters that owe their success to Bill Clinton. Hence these people at it's most simple have a vested interest in conflict. Conflict makes the cash registers ring. At the same time they have become so influential with the base they have to be humored by regular politicians who simply daren't offend them. Thus these shills or entertainers have taken the regular party hostage and by so doing have become more of problem for it than for the democrats who easily target someone as grotesque as Limbaugh. What's happened is the Rove's, Frum's, Safire's, Brooks, Bush's, et al have let the Morlocks out of the basement and they've taken over the house. If you look back through history it happens everytime. The Girondists loose out to the Jacobins, the Mensheviks to the Bolsheviks, the nationalists to the Nazis. In a more subdued way that's what's happening here. Ultimately the only way this ends is electoral defeat and this is what I think will happen here. If the economy is on the mend by the spring of next year the GOP is going to lose some more senate and even a few more house seats. At this point someone is going to emerge who will blow the whistle on the Limbaugh/Coulter/Plumber contingent. I don't see him but maybe John Huntsman or even Newt. Interesting times however. Oh boy Daniel you’re really laying it on the line. This really was a superb bit of analysis. The mindset of the conservative polity is essentially the product of 25 years of relentless polarizing where the GOP’s Atwaters and Roves developed a strategy of demonizing all and every aspect of their opponents. Much of the ammunition came from right wing think tanks who developed all kinds of beautiful constructs that could be used to batter traditional liberal/centrist ideas. Not surprisingly some people saw money in this strategy. Limbaugh was one of the first but since then he has been joined by a small army of real or pseudo conservatives who dominate talk radio and conservative publishing producing a product aimed at the demographic produced by polarization. And so we have Fox News, Coulter, Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly, et al sucking at the conservative teat and the more angry they make that group the more profitable it becomes for them. Just think about all those conservative fund raising letters that owe their success to Bill Clinton. Hence these people at it’s most simple have a vested interest in conflict. Conflict makes the cash registers ring. At the same time they have become so influential with the base they have to be humored by regular politicians who simply daren’t offend them. Thus these shills or entertainers have taken the regular party hostage and by so doing have become more of problem for it than for the democrats who easily target someone as grotesque as Limbaugh. What’s happened is the Rove’s, Frum’s, Safire’s, Brooks, Bush’s, et al have let the Morlocks out of the basement and they’ve taken over the house. If you look back through history it happens everytime. The Girondists loose out to the Jacobins, the Mensheviks to the Bolsheviks, the nationalists to the Nazis. In a more subdued way that’s what’s happening here. Ultimately the only way this ends is electoral defeat and this is what I think will happen here. If the economy is on the mend by the spring of next year the GOP is going to lose some more senate and even a few more house seats. At this point someone is going to emerge who will blow the whistle on the Limbaugh/Coulter/Plumber contingent. I don’t see him but maybe John Huntsman or even Newt. Interesting times however.

]]> By: RedPhillips http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2009/03/02/one-more-thing-2/comment-page-1/#comment-30477 RedPhillips Mon, 02 Mar 2009 21:51:16 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/?p=8612#comment-30477 I think I am missing something here. Yes we believe conservative movementism and three-legs-of-the-stoolism is part of the problem. But we partially think it is a problem because it has been insufficiently conservative (adhered to to the degree it represents authentic conservatism) and that some elements of the legs are arguably not conservative. (The reflexive national defense leg, for example.) And yes times have changed and 2009 is probably not 1994. But to the degree this is true, it is unfortunate even as sorry as thing were in '94 by our reckoning. So low taxes and less spending no longer sell and "rejectionism" is not a wise political strategy? Then help me out Daniel. What are you suggesting as an alternative? Rejectionism is almost certainly going to be better than whatever a bunch of wise guy idea people come up with. Actually following the Constitution would be a good idea, but I don't think that is the kind of ideas anyone has in mind or we are going to get. If they go to people for ideas I don't think they are going to go to Larison or Bacevich or Paul. Nor are they likely to look to TakiMag, AmCon or Conservative Heritage Times. Reihan says Rush is a true believer. That is part of the problem. Rush is not a true believer or if he is, he is only a true believer by modern distorted standards. He is actually a pragmatist and a GOP water carrier. Did "true believer" Rush instruct his listeners to vote for Chuck Baldwin because McCain was inadequately conservative? Once McCain got the GOP nomination, Rush stopped criticizing him and went into attack the Democrats mode. So I see myself in sympathy with rejectionism in general and with the broad gestalt (if not the details) of what Rush was saying. Aren't paleos partially true believers who think that movement true believers are sell outs? Who think that Rush is a sell out? Again, what am I missing? I think I am missing something here. Yes we believe conservative movementism and three-legs-of-the-stoolism is part of the problem. But we partially think it is a problem because it has been insufficiently conservative (adhered to to the degree it represents authentic conservatism) and that some elements of the legs are arguably not conservative. (The reflexive national defense leg, for example.)

And yes times have changed and 2009 is probably not 1994. But to the degree this is true, it is unfortunate even as sorry as thing were in ’94 by our reckoning.

So low taxes and less spending no longer sell and “rejectionism” is not a wise political strategy? Then help me out Daniel. What are you suggesting as an alternative? Rejectionism is almost certainly going to be better than whatever a bunch of wise guy idea people come up with.

Actually following the Constitution would be a good idea, but I don’t think that is the kind of ideas anyone has in mind or we are going to get. If they go to people for ideas I don’t think they are going to go to Larison or Bacevich or Paul. Nor are they likely to look to TakiMag, AmCon or Conservative Heritage Times.

Reihan says Rush is a true believer. That is part of the problem. Rush is not a true believer or if he is, he is only a true believer by modern distorted standards. He is actually a pragmatist and a GOP water carrier. Did “true believer” Rush instruct his listeners to vote for Chuck Baldwin because McCain was inadequately conservative? Once McCain got the GOP nomination, Rush stopped criticizing him and went into attack the Democrats mode.

So I see myself in sympathy with rejectionism in general and with the broad gestalt (if not the details) of what Rush was saying. Aren’t paleos partially true believers who think that movement true believers are sell outs? Who think that Rush is a sell out?

Again, what am I missing?

]]>