How Partisanship Hurts Conservatism
Obama-loving liberals are goofy. Despite their once fierce — and warranted — hatred for George W. Bush, Democrats now make every excuse in the book for a president who behaves just like him. Obama first burst on the national scene promising to reverse the Bush policies most unpopular with the Left — quagmire wars, warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, torture — yet he has not only continued each, but expanded them. Leftist Noam Chomsky noted, at the beginning of this president’s first term, “As Obama came into office, [former Secretary of State] Condoleezza Rice predicted he would follow the policies of Bush’s second term, and that is pretty much what happened, apart from a different rhetorical style.” Obama Democrats continue to confuse that style for substantive difference, exemplifying the same sort of mindless partisanship that characterized the Bush Republicans they once abhorred.
Mistaking style, or mere surface differences, for substance is by no means exclusive to the Left. When Michelle Obama took a trip to Spain recently, a man called in to the radio station where I’m employed to voice his anger over it. Puzzled by the caller’s rage, I sort of dismissed him, only to learn that talk host Rush Limbaugh had also harshly criticized the first lady for the same reason. Standing in a restaurant later that day, I overheard a group of old men having a political discussion. “Barack Hussein Obama,” said one man, repeatedly. Another declared, “If the Republicans don’t win the next election, there’s going to be riots.”
In their hatred for all things Obama, I’m quite sure all of these men consider themselves patriots of some sort, who might “save” this country if they could only get rid of the current administration. They think they’re valiant, but they’re not.
They’re completely useless.
If conservatives want to know how Obama and his party are currently able to get away with creating colossal debt and an even more monstrous government they should look no further than the last administration. Where was the Right — as the Left often asks, and justifiably so — when Bush doubled the size of government and the national debt during his eight year term? Where was the caller who is so angry about Michelle Obama’s vacation when Bush created the largest entitlement expansion since Lyndon Johnson, with Medicare Part D? What was Limbaugh complaining about the same week Dubya was enacting the federally intrusive education disaster “No Child Left Behind”?
I can tell you where today’s Republican House Minority Leader and Obama-critic John Boehner was — the man whose party winning in 2010 might prevent “riots” — he was standing right next to Bush as he signed NCLB, heartily endorsing the legislation as one of his “proudest achievements.” It has been reported that some Republican outfit, apparently nostalgic for pre-Obama America, has erected a billboard featuring Bush with the caption, “Miss me yet?” Are they kidding? Hell no, I don’t miss him — and any serious conservative shouldn’t either, as our current president simply continues to build upon the last one’s statist achievements.
And “building” is exactly what it is — regardless of which party is in control, when was the last time a president departed office, leaving behind a federal government smaller than he found it? Not even Ronald Reagan did this, as each successive administration piles on new and massive bureaucracy. Imagine this — what if there had never been a George W. Bush, and America went straight from Bill Clinton to Obama in 2000. Now imagine Obama did exactly everything Bush did, in terms of policy, programs, the whole works. Would the Right be beating up a Democratic president for doing exactly what they either defended or ignored Bush doing? Of course they would. “Why is President Obama on vacation down at the Crawford Ranch in Texas?” an angry talk radio caller might ask. Limbaugh would have probably asked the same, incessantly. “Barack Hussein Obama” would have been accused by conservatives of bankrupting the country with his Medicare expansion, and “riots” might have been predicted over No Child Left Behind. It would certainly not go unnoticed by Republicans that Obama had doubled the national debt. And the GOP would be promising voters they would never do any of this stuff — and a vote for them come November would be the surest way to stop it.
This week, I have the honor of speaking at Young Americans for Liberty’s national convention in Washington, D.C. YAL is a relatively new but rapidly growing conservative student activist organization. These younger conservatives give me much hope, in that they instinctively understand that America’s ever increasing statism is the fault of both parties, and they seem far more concerned with this addressing this primary problem than getting bogged down in the partisan minutiae of bitching about nonsense like where the first lady vacations or what the president’s middle name is. If Michelle Obama stayed on permanent vacation or if the president’s name was Barack “Hussein-Osama-Adolph Hitler-Mel Gibson” Obama, this would not matter more than the fact that the next time Republicans are in charge they will probably not dismantle any of the government monstrosities the Democrats are now erecting, and if history is any guide, will likely add to them. Perhaps there should be “riots” — and they should be bipartisan.
Yes! I’ve made this argument only to receive puzzled looks from people who reflexively foam at the mouth at the mere sight of the current president, or the mention his name.
“Where was the Right — as the Left often asks, and justifiably so — when Bush doubled the size of government and the national debt during his eight year term?”
BINGO.
and that tells me all i’ve needed to know about the tea partiers
“Where was the Right — as the Left often asks, and justifiably so — when Bush doubled the size of government and the national debt during his eight year term?”
BINGO.
and that tells me all i’ve needed to know about the tea partiers
(sorry if this comes twice, my computer’s wonky.)
FTA: “It has been reported that some Republican outfit, apparently nostalgic for pre-Obama America, has erected a billboard featuring Bush with the caption, “Miss me yet?” Are they kidding? Hell no, I don’t miss him — and any serious conservative shouldn’t either, as our current president simply continues to build upon the last one’s statist achievements.”
Miss Bush yet? Hell, no. No more than I miss that hemorrhoid I had removed in ambulatory surgery last January.
After Bush, I no longer waste my vote on republicans.
Best article ever, Mr. Hunter. This is what I was thinking…right when the Tea Parties first exploded on the scene. Oh, Reason fell for them (as well as this magazine), and everyone inside and outside the Beltway pinned their hopes on this populist crank-job trainwreck. But, now they are realizing that anyone who was serious about politics have no business in such a mindless movement.
I’m a libertarian, not a conservative, but conservatism is founded on suspicion of mass movements as well as government. Such things tend to throw society off balance.
The Bush billboard strikes me as rhetorical. “As bad as Bush was, at least he’s no Obama” It has a certain ring to it, even though a choice between Bush and Obama is a choice between blowing your brains out or emigrating.
“Where was the Right”- Duped by the GOP offering a compassionate neocon in conservative clothing. Sadly, if you look at some of the 2010 primaries folks are getting fooled again.
We have a nation run by and for a ruling class. Within that class there are two camps on how to control and exploit the worker slaves. One has a Marxist/Corporatist managemnet style and thier puppets are the Democrats, the other has a more Fascist/Corporatist management style and is represented by the Republicans, either way we all lose.
The corporate totalitarian state grows and our freedom and prosperity withers.
As much as I’d like to see Ron Paul as President I think we need a revolution to change things. I’m thinking Gandhi type civil disobedience on a massive scale and nothing short of that will change anything, it’s all too entrenched and the mob is too brainwashed and afraid.But that may change as the Empire continues to decline.
I fail to see how getting ten million people active in politics is a bad idea in any way for a republic style of government. The Tea Pary people are concerned citizens who may not fit your bigoted pre-concieved notions of what a ‘proper’ politically educated person might believe, but they are not the problem.
They are the problems of political elitists, who get upset that someone who isnt from their particular school of thought might be playing in there sandboxes.
Who cares where they were?! The important thing is that they are here now. So either you can sit here whining about the past, or you can get out there and start to work and mobilize this vast groundswell of support that is crying out for proper leadership.
Crybabies.
Jack Hunter expressed something that has frustrated me since well before Inauguration Day.
There are no mainstream conservatives. There are neoconservatives, and there are “American Conservative” conservatives (tac-cons, am-cons, whatever; in any case, its intellectual leaders should bomb the word “paleo” back to the Stone Age).
The “mainstream” conservatism is the current political agenda of the Republican Party.
“Who cares where they were?! The important thing is that they are here now. So either you can sit here whining about the past, or you can get out there and start to work and mobilize this vast groundswell of support that is crying out for proper leadership.
Crybabies”
Because, when the GOP undoubtabley takes back the White House either in 2012 or 2016, anti-Bush conservatives will want to know if they’ll be the only ones holding the GOP’s feet to the fire on the Right. If a future President Romney decides to expand the size of Government, these independent conservatives want to know “will you be there when it counts?”
“The important thing is that they are here now.”
Well, yes, they’re several trillion dollars late, but I guess better late than never.
As I have said before, all we had for the last 8 yrs was the Repug. version of a Stalinist personality cult of the Great Leader, whom to criticize was unpatriotic. Now we got the Dim version. Only change is the charge is now racism, but regardless, big govt. still gets bigger irrespective the different emphases on warfare or welfare between the A team and the B.
FTM the tea parties started with Ron Paul and only after O won, did the mainstream Repugs jump on board. It remains to be seen whether the policies of Paul or Palin will prevail.
Unfortunately, we might have to wait until the country is stone broke before folks can see beyond the Dim/Repug food fight/cage match.
David Marsh,
What’s wrong with elitism? Clearly, some people are better at things than others-some clearly know more than others. Those who know more are the rock upon which a movement stands. Whatever it’s forms. There is no such thing as a successful movement without intelligent elites. It’s called the Iron Law of Oligarchy. Look it up. Most people aren’t interested enough to really take part in the movement, so only those most interested will. Besides, conservatism is supposed to be skeptical of mass movements. However, being a libertarian, I would just assume the Tea Party and conservatism both drop dead.
Leadership? The Teatards don’t want leadership, or ideas. They just want Obama out-and the Bush-style Administration in. Where do they want to go? How will they get there? Why do they want to? Blank out. Besides, it’s impossible to control a populist movement; they will end up controlling you.
And, yes, I do very much care who is playing in my sandbox. They might mess things up, and they are usually aren’t interested in the hard work the grown-ups have been doing. They’re a bunch of petulant children who need to grow up.
-Tristan
Don Yarish,
While your point about us sorely needing “revolutionary” change is valid, you may want to consider that Gandhi was ultimately a failure — and a swindler. As a first-hand Gandhi guru, I can attest that Gandhi was not just anti-British, but deeply anti-white and anti-Christian. This latter malaise may have been mitigated were it not for the now documented fact that Indians are worse off than they were that day in 1947 when the “Gorahs” (ie, “white fucks”) left India. Consider but one example in my lengthy thesis: in 1947 India had the world’s largest railroad, attesting to super infrastructure — a staple for the masses. Today India has the world’s largest slum — attesting to super administrative failure. There are some that disagree that it is not government failure but the intrinsic features of the “caste’ system that perpetuate this dire human misery condemning a billion to life-long misery. And the record shows that Gandhi did NOT condemn this Hindu-based caste system! Forget about the media-hyped benefits of outsourcing: the “new middle class” Indians represent just 2 percent of the sorry masses. No wonder Gandhi’s kin are in Oregon and Europe — gorah-land! Moral of the story: the United States does needs dramatic change; the Gandhi vision is a gross disaster!
OK, Bush is an imbecile. The Republican party is still infested with those of his ilk and they must be purged. Given that, this country has never seen the likes of B. Hussein Obama who is a true revolutionary and will be another Castro if he can pull it off.
I’d like to see some of the alternative ideas from the smart asses who are trashing the Tea Parties. You don’t like the “Teatards” Tristan – what’s your “grown up” alternative?
Great piece. If it looks, walks, talks, and legislates like a statist it is a statist.
No, not Barrak Hussien Bush; they will soon turn him into another Collin Powel. Barrak H Powel would be more appropriate.
Partisanship, bigotry and complete corporate control of our government and media are the greatest threat to our nation, what it stands for and our Constitution.
Nobody is right all the time or wrong. Both Bush and Obama have faults and virtues. But blind support is wrong.
Right wingers feel they have to attack Obama and defend Bush no matter what.
Same on Left; they feel they must support Obama no matter how many promises he breaks, how many new wars he starts. We have to support good policy and reject wrong no matter who is in charge.
The Congress stopped working for American Public in 1960 and is just another tool for Corporate America.
The Corporate media will not allow great Americans like Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan to be elected.
jose,
Not being a conservative (I’m a libertarian), I can’t tell you much. Considering all the kooks on the Right, I think we need another William F. Buckley or Russell Kirk to act as gatekeepers, as both did back in the day. Basically, if you’re in the fever swamp, you would be gagged. However, I don’t have much of a stake in what happens; the Right can rot for all I care.
I’d just assume have someone like Kucinich or Bernie Sanders in charge; so I can derive the sadistic pleasure of watching conservatives squirm.
-Tristan
Matt Taibbi wrote a book about the rising populist tide of angry Americans, on the right and on the left, who prefer to ignore obvious real problems in favor of perfervid fantasies of conspiracy and blind partisanship. The book is called The Great Derangement. It came out in 2008, but is even more true now than it was then.
The whole problem boils down to what Ralph Nader calls “the two party duopoly.” Sure, third parties are “allowed” to exist, but they are made to effectively count for nothing. The big money always goes to the Democroaches and Republiscums, and a winner take all electoral system creates a “spoiler” effect that discourages people from participation. In addition, the electorate is so dumbed down that in both California and Washington, they enacted a “top two” primary system. This is a so-called “open” primary in which only the top two candidates go on to the general election. In some districts, this will mean two Republiscums, or two Democroaches, will run against each other in the general election. It also means that third parties will never be on the November ballot. In addition, ballot status rules that pertain to numbers of votes in the general election will permanently remove third parties from any future ballot. This will complete, and formalize, the American electoral duopoly that passes itself off as democracy.
The electoral duopoly not only encourages, but requires, hyperpartisanship, with all it’s ridiculous hyperbole and irrational wagon circling. After all, if “your” boy doesn’t win, “their” boy will. And we all known what horrors that will bring! Never mind that said horror has occurred umpteen times before — this time will be the apocalyptic culmination of all the previous horrors, which, it goes without saying, is always the fault of the “other” “party.”
The only solution is to get rid of our present winner take all electoral system, and replace it with ranked choice voting, or any other system that eliminates the “spoiler” effect. It will also mean other electoral reforms, including same day national primaries for presidential candidates, across the country, in order to eliminate the horse race effect that distorts primary results, among many others. That will take people putting aside their many differences to effect electoral reform. Towards that end, I am willing to work with liberals, conservatives, centrists, communists, fascists, tea partyers, disillusioned ex-tea partyers (a growing number), etc., as long as the goal is ending the duopoly and creating democracy. Obviously, it couldn’t be done by voting for Ds & Rs! It would have to involve acts of civil disobedience at the polling place, among other places. Democracy may be practiced at the ballot box, but it can only be created in the streets.
@myself:
The third sentence of my post is incorrect, or is at least not saying what I wanted it to. It presently reads:
“The big money always goes to the Democroaches and Republiscums, and a winner take all electoral system creates a “spoiler” effect that discourages people from participation.”
It should read:
“The big money always goes to the Democroaches and Republiscums, and a winner take all electoral system creates a “spoiler” effect that discourages people from voting for third party candidates.”
A.G. Phillbin,
Excellent post. You really seem to hit upon the main source of the “red-state, blue-state” hyperpartisanship-by concentrating power in two parties. It leads issues to be group together that have no relation (what do tax cuts have to do with abortion? Free trade with “traditional values”? Progressive taxation with gun control? etc.) It also reduces politics to “winning”, rather than principle. Having more parties, like more businesses in the market place, would lead to greater participation in our political system. That way, the paleoconservatives can have the Constitution Party or America First. The Greens have the Green Party. Libertarians can have the LP., etc.
In brief, politics might be fun again.
-Tristan
@Tristan Band,
Thanks for your support. I’m serious about what I said, but I’m not sure how to go about it. I have little doubt that we come from very different political perspectives, but that’s all part of my point. If you have any ideas, or know people who have any, I’m at agfilbin@pacbell.net.
A.G.
Americans have given up their right to have a Democracy.
Like it or not, this is about a bunch of cretins rooting for their team, and it’s only a question of whether the Democrats or Republicans win.
Americans act like mindless cattle, they’re going to be treated like mindless cattle. Nothing is going to stop it now. People are mindlessly partisan, the last possible hope for saving this nation from insolvency was 2008.
[...] however is something of a myth, as Jack Hunter points out, “If conservatives want to know how Obama and his party are currently able to get away with [...]
While Jack Hunter is right about Obama matching or exceeding the excesses of George W. Bush, he is wrong about the existence of a fawning left. What does he think accounts for Obama’s falling poll numbers? The right always hated Obama from the day they realized he was a black man “taking their stuff away.” Ask Pat Buchanan.
Each liberal web site, each radio station, each book I read, and each caller to call in shows convinces me that the so-called “left” is dissappointed at Obama and many of us are mad as hell. The only thing that will turn out us, liberals, to vote for our corporatist President, is another set of whacky competitors like a Palin, Pawlenty, Huckabuck or The Newster. And Romney cannot win the right wingers primaries in any event.
The nation is screwed between two bad choices.
I’ve said it before (and so has Groucho), anybody that runs for office probably shouldn’t hold one.
[...] How Partisanship Hurts Conservatism by Jack Hunter [...]