Scott Brown’s One-Night Stand
Why does anyone care about politics? It’s a good question. For all the yammering people do about government and politicians little seems to change and few seem satisfied. But politics could be compared to romantic love, where people still long for a certain ideal despite constant heartache, false hope and disappointment. No one finds it strange that people keep looking for love despite a lifetime of failure.
Politics is no different. A year ago, conservatives had not only just been betrayed by a big government Republican president, but the hoopla surrounding the new Democratic president led many to declare that liberalism had permanently triumphed. The Left claimed the GOP had been reduced to a Southern, regional party and some on the Right, notably Bush speechwriter David Frum and New York Times columnist David Brooks, advised conservatives to ditch their limited government rhetoric and embrace a more constructive attitude toward the state.
Today, liberalism is not enjoying the same popularity. Obama has the lowest approval rating in history for any president at this point in their term. The centerpiece of the Democrats agenda—national healthcare—is opposed by a majority of Americans. And a Republican just won Ted Kennedy’s senate seat in Massachusetts. Think about it–in just a year’s time, we’ve gone from the conservative movement being read its eulogy to a Republican taking over the decades-held, blue state seat of the so-called “liberal lion of the Senate.” Writes the American Spectator’s James Antle, “Well, it took George W. Bush five years to bring his party to the brink of electoral disaster. It has taken Obama one year. That’s change, all right.”
But what are conservatives going to do with this discontent? Republican Scott Brown’s senate win in Massachusetts this week was indeed a conservative victory despite the fact that Brown is no conservative. Brown isn’t even much of a Republican and would be dubbed a “RINO” in any political context that was not ultra-liberal Massachusetts. Senator Brown will hopefully be useful in stopping the Democrats current national healthcare scheme but is by no means opposed to the concept, or as he told NBC’s Today show, “I never said I was going to do everything I can to stop healthcare… I believe everybody should have healthcare, it’s just a question of how we do it.”
Yet, the Right continues to go gaga for Brown. Let us remember that it was national disenchantment with Bush that led to the election of Obama. Now that Obama is governing pretty much like Bush—and the nation is still disenchanted—why are so many conservatives eager to rally around a Republican who isn’t much different than Bush or Obama?
When so many voters are expressing discontent with Washington, DC, not only at tea parties but at the ballot box, why would anyone looking for a substantive change in our government look to a politician who exhibits the worst, most establishmentarian positions of both parties? For example, Brown not only voted for government run healthcare in Massachusetts, in addition to supporting some version of it at the national level, but he applauds President Obama’s troop escalation in Afghanistan. If it can be said that Bush protected the welfare state while expanding the warfare state, and Obama is now protecting the warfare state while expanding the welfare state—Brown’s brand of Republicanism seeks to protect and expand both. The tea party movement’s message is clear: “stop spending!” This is not Brown’s message. Not even close.
No doubt, it is frustrating that there isn’t much serious leadership to harness and direct this growing anti-government sentiment, or as Pat Buchanan sums up the current conservative conundrum: “Who in the Republican Party today is calling for a Barry Goldwater-like rollback of federal power and federal programs? Except Ron Paul.”
There is no one–with the noted exception of the not-so-sexy Ron Paul–which is exactly why conservatives are so eager to find someone. Anyone.
People too eager to find love usually don’t, and in their desperation, they settle. When the nights are lonely any warm body will do. This is exactly what conservatives found this week in Scott Brown. Brown is no rightwing knight in shining armor, but a one night stand—attractive and useful for the moment but ultimately good for just one thing—stopping Obamacare.
Conservatives cannot afford to settle. Not anymore. Yet, too many seem ready to marry themselves to this new, barely Republican senator from Massachusetts. The Right needs to control its hormones. And while there’s no shame in being thankful the Democrats no longer have a supermajority in the US Senate, conservatives shouldn’t be thanking Scott Brown for anything more than a good time.
Not-So-Sexy = > Are You Serious ??? I want someone to “Represent Me On The Stage Of Power” not “Look Good While Screwing ME”.
Do Not Be A Rube For The King Makers.
Those who seek popularity through facade will ruin your Liberty And your Currency.
Jack Hunter, you show that you continue to be deceived by your choice of language. There is no left-right spectrum. There is no liberal-conservative spectrum. There is a freedom-slavery spectrum.
Here are some words associated with slavery:
Authoritarianism
Communism
Socialism
Statism
Here are some words associated with freedom:
American conservatism
Liberalism
Libertarianism
American conservatism and liberalism belong together and are opposite to the statism of Bush and Obama.
Liberalism, libertarianism, and liberty come from the Latin “libertas”: of freedom. Google liberalism and you will find it is defined as a belief in the importance of individual liberty. This old liberalism has been renamed classical liberalism, and you use the new hijacked definition of liberalism, but definitions do not change like this except in the world of Orwell’s 1984 where “freedom is slavery”.
Conservatism comes from “conservare”: to preserve, and the meaning of conservatism depends on your geographic location, the times you live in, and even your other beliefs. American conservatism should mean preserving the Declaration of Independence that created the United States: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
There is no liberal-conservative spectrum. Both liberals and American conservatives pursue liberty.
Mr. Hunter,
I for the life of me still cannot figure out why you “paleoconservatives” keep trashing the War on Terror.
Except for the fact that you are a bunch of anti-Semites, and that you are afraid that the War on Terror will make the U.S. look too much like Israel.
I say, great! We SHOULD be more like Israel!
You “paleos” wax poetic about that wonderful Islamic culture, and denigrate Jewish culture. Don’t claim you don’t, because you do.
Your de facto leader, Pat Buchanan, can barely write anymore. He’s slipping, big time. But he’s still out there, pushing his pro-Islam, anti-American, anti-Jewish claptrap. No one’s listening to him anymore, which is why he’s been relegated to the MSNBC graveyard.
You “paleos” revere Adolph Hitler, and question the Holocaust. Why the heck do you “paleos” think anti-Semitism is a ticket to a successful political career? The Germans had the Anti-Semitic Party in the late 19th Century, but it was subsumed into the Nazi Party by 1930.
After Buchanan, Rep. Ron Paul (who’s 75), Paul Craig Roberts, and Chuck Harder leave this earthly mortal coil, who will take their place to lead you “paleos”? The only potential future leaders I can think of are not-so-crypto-fascists such as Alex Jones and the Rev. Chuck Baldwin; the other potential leaders are all in prison sporting Nazi tattoos.
You are right on two points:
1) Scott Brown is a big government liberal who just happened to be slightly better than a MA Democrat.
2) Ron Paul is the only one (credibly) calling for smaller government.
Are there no conservatives in Washington or is it all big government/statist/globalist neo-cons???
I think Mrs. Susan McWilliams essay on Robet Nisbet hit the nail on the head. I’m pondering that the focus of the people is wrong. Instead of working to fix the lack of social adhesion in communities with respect to the individual without using coercion they transcend them into political parties (pathetic tribalistic cults really). These political parties represent idealistic ideals but the follow through is pathetic and pretty much nonexistent. The party is the tribe and golden calf that must be adhered to and defend.
I think people are divorced from history. It is like Plato’s dialogue about a chariot in Phaedrus except the human reason lacks philosophical and historical logic, the human spirit knows something noble must be done, yet without sound internal awareness the person’s passion is freewheeling and flawed. It looks to me like a poor attempt at creating internal and external harmony and order from poor conceived templates.
As a lifelong Massachusetts resident, I must say that I’m disconcerted by the thoroughly cranky (there’s just no other word for it) tone of this post (and a related on “Romneyism” on the site).
I’m not sure where the author is getting this notion that somehow conservatives in MA or anywhere else are enamored with Scott Brown qua Scott Brown. I challenge him to find any noteworthy conservative who has characterized Brown as one of us. The elation over his election is rather rooted in what it represents, namely, a resounding repudiation of the extreme liberalism of the Obama administration (if not necessarily an endorsement of conservative principles). I don’t think anyone is under any illusions about Brown’s views; he is unmistakably a “moderate” who will likely deviate from conservative principles in many situations and he himself has never pretended otherwise.
The blindlingly obvious point (which the author ignores) is that this is simply as good as we’re ever going to get in MA. I would be more thrilled than anyone if a Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul could win a statewide election here but the cold truth is that that’s never going to happen in our lifetimes- and probably ever. In states like this one, the choice is inevitably between “bad” and “worse.” In those rare situations where the former wins out over the latter, it naturally is a cause for celebration, especially when the effect is to destroy even just one piece of disastrous legislation.
The author never points out what he thinks is the better solution. Should the Republican Party and conservative movement expel those like Brown and mount an endless stream of quixotic campaigns? Will the causes conservatives care about really do better with an impregnable 60 vote Democratic majority?
A core element of the conservative ethos is an acceptance of the world as it is, not as we’d like it to be. The unfortunate reality is that barring a sudden and radical change in the political universe, we have 2 basic choices: (1) insistence on purity in the conservative movement and GOP and content ourselves with permanent minority status, thereby achieving virtually nothing in concrete policy objectives; or (2) continue to promote true conservative principles but accept that in order to sustain an effective majority, the movement must include those such as Brown. In such a scenario, maybe we achieve, say, 5% or 10% of what we aspire to.
Maybe it’s just a lifetime of immersion in a suffocating ocean of liberalism but I personally can’t understand how any conservative could not view Brown’s assumption of the seat of Ted Kennedy (the embodiment of modern American liberalism if there ever was one) as a sweet moment of triumph.
Fantastic!
@TB–I lived in Massachusetts for a brief time (Woburn) and fully appreciate that electing any Republican to high office in that state–liberal, moderate or otherwise–is a monumental victory. I supported non-conservative Republican Gov. Bill Weld and even Mitt Romney against Ted Kennedy in his 1994 senate run. Romney’s platform emphasized that he was not a “Reagan Republican” (as Kennedy maintained) but an “independent” (i.e. more Democratic in philosophy than Republicans-at-large). Such is the political environment in liberal MA.
I included this line in my piece: “Republican Scott Brown’s senate win in Massachusetts this week was indeed a conservative victory despite the fact that Brown is no conservative.”
And so it was. Electing Republican Scott Brown to Kennedy’s old seat in liberal MA while a Democratic occupies the White House and America debates national healthcare is significant on many levels. That said, many on the Right, FOX News, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, some at NRO, are taking this minor victory–which is indeed a conservative victory taking into account the political environment in MA–and making Brown out to be some sort of rightwing hero, beyond the context of his unique election. Brown is not the least bit conservative. He’s even being asked if he has any presidential aspirations. This is absurd not only because it is premature, but that conservatives would consider voting for Brown at the national level is a huge step backward, and indicative of the real thirst for leadership on the Right.
In the past, some who write for The American Conservative and similar dissenting outlets on the Right have been accused of simply being contrarian. Sometimes this may be true. It is also true that the mainstream Right–for decades–has done zero in limiting the growth of government or rolling back the state precisely because of its endless obsession with partisanship and personalities. Scott Brown is a perfect example of both.
Serious conservatives–those who really do desire constitutional, limited government and not just Republican victories–would be derelict in their duty if they did not keep pointing out these silly diversions. In between so-much-excitement for war with Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Russia, North Korea, Pakistan and Yemen, waterboarding and Gitmo, Sarah Palin going rogue and Harry Reid going racist–and now championing “conservative hero” Scott Brown–shouldn’t rightwingers at least give some thought to charting some sort of course for REAL conservative victory?
Daniel Weiner, the “war on terror” is a big government neoconservative ploy to maintain the American populace in a state of paranoia so they support our transformation into a security fascist state and wage endless war for global imperialism. Those of us in the know have read the mission statement of Project for a New American Century where these goals are spelled out quite starkly. You neocons don’t mind growing government and shredding the 4th Amendment as long as it serves the purpose of making war and global hegemony. Since 9/11 we’ve spent trillions of dollars on so-called “security” and invaded and occupied two countries, one that had nothing to do with 9/11…..and all that still could not prevent an angry person from strapping a bomb in his underwear on a plane. Please don’t use that pathetic “anti-Semite” BS in trying to make an argument or advance your anti-Arab/holy war mantra. You paranoid war-mongering neocon suckers are part of the reason why Republicans failed.
yolkes is spot-on, thank you.
Look, if you are going to push your magazine as the intellectually honest conservative magazine the least you could do is not spew the Obama has the lowest approval rating of any President at this point in office nonsense. He is actually right about where Carter and Reagan where at this point in their term. This is why intellectual conservatives are leaving the party. I am sick and tired of being lied to by the GOP and their operatives like Mr. Hunter.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/18/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6113290.shtml