Streetcar Line
Too Many Deaths on the Right
Time to redeem their legacies.
The great pro-life congressman Henry Hyde died on Nov. 29, 2007. Little did we know how many monumentally significant conservatives would follow in the next two years. We’ve lost too many of our best since then. It’s time for the rest of us to do a better job carrying their causes.
William F. Buckley, Jr. died three months after Hyde. Another three and a half months after that, we lost Tony Snow. Then it was Jesse Helms. Then Patricia Buckley Bozell. We’ve lost Paul Weyrich, Jack Kemp, Bob Novak, Karen (Mrs. Michael) Laub-Novak, Peter Rodman, Rose Friedman, and Father Richard John Neuhaus. These people weren’t just stars in the conservative firmament; they were giants. Each was a pathfinder, sui generis in each’s respective spheres. And now, just in the past two weeks, we’ve also lost the irreplaceable Irving Kristol — and the brilliant William Safire, who infiltrated the enemy territory of the New York Times to great effect.
(And if you want to go back another 14 months before Hyde’s death, you’ll mourn the passing of Milton Friedman, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and perhaps Jerry Falwell too.)
We’ve also lost some of the lesser known but important rising stars of the new media of blogging, among them Dean Barnett and Mark Kilmer, both way too young. We lost a valiant and kind battler for the English language, Jim Boulet, also way too young. A couple of weeks ago I lost my friend Beth Rickey, a longtime Reaganite activist who became the absolute heroine of the movement against neo-Nazi David Duke. Beth was only 53.
And I’m sure I’ve left out some important conservatives who have passed to their greater rewards in the past two years — Ambassador Anne Armstrong should fit in there somewhere, as should Ernest Lefever, founder of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, along with my dear colleague, Mary Lou Forbes, who headed the Commentary pages of the Washington Times for a quarter century. And if you broaden the horizon a little, to include those who weren’t politically active but whose work advanced conservative themes, you’d lament the loss of novelist Michael Crichton, actor Karl Malden, broadcaster Paul Harvey, author John Updike (not a conservative, but a patriot, a man of faith, and a critic of political correctness), and heart surgeon Michael DeBakey.
This is a lot of loss in a very short time. Yes, of course, people die all the time. In any two-year period, a broad movement will lose some of its iconic figures. But not this many, and not quite so iconic and so absolutely essential to the movement’s very existence in its current form. You don’t lose a Buckley and a Kemp and a Novak and a Kristol, not to mention a Weyrich and a Safire and a universally beloved Snow, all in less than 20 months, without feeling a terribly empty feeling in your gut and an ache in your marrow. These were people with a life force that so exceeded the normal, such an unmistakable commitment to principle and to putting principle into action, that they inspired awe and not a little devotion.
The most recent two, Safire and especially Kristol, broadened the reach of conservatism in ways that may still be too little appreciated. No, Safire wasn’t a “movement conservative,” but he was fearless. He wouldn’t back down, and he had credibility that did conservatives a great deal of good when he called the bluffs of the lying Clintons of the world. And Kristol was an unparalleled force. For conservatives not to recognize just how much he added to the intellectual case against Communism and against liberal lenient-on-crime nostrums (and against other liberal cultural ills) is for us to turn our back on our heritage. Before there was a Christian right, there was a growing intellectual “cultural right” that owes much of its provenance to Irving Kristol.
Somehow, with as much talent as there is in conservative ranks today, there still aren’t leaders with the influence, or the reach, of Kristol or Buckley or Kemp. Meaning… what exactly?
Well, it means we need to step up our games. We face a domestic political adversary more radical, and at least as ruthless, as any we’ve ever faced. The left has the numbers in the Senate and the House. It has a White House so caught up in its own ideology that it forsakes friends in Honduras on behalf of an American-hating scofflaw, stabs our allies in Poland and Czechoslovakia in the back, insults the British, and even tacitly supports the ayatollahs in Iran over the more freedom-loving aspirations of the Iranian people. It has control of law enforcement in the person of a corrupt attorney general on a race-based crusade. And it of course enjoys the fawning, determined support of the establishment news media, academia, and the arts.
Against these challenges, the broad middle of the American public is finding its energy and a rough-hewn voice. Public approval for the Obamites of the world is falling fast. But the Obamites still control the levers of power, and they are ruthless enough to continually try to change the very rules of the game. To keep the public’s opposition to the Obamites focused and productive, conservatives need some leaders, some recognizable spokesmen, to earn their stripes and command attention.
Bill Buckley and Bob Novak and Jack Kemp didn’t achieve as much as they did, and build as much as they did, and bequeath to us as much as they did, for us to let it fritter away.
Sure, carrying a cause is easier said than done. Leading a movement is a matter of grit as much as of brilliance. And it’s harder to stand out as a conservative leader when there are so many more conservatives with public fora now than there were when only Buckley and James Kilpatrick had conservative columns to which many Americans could find access.
But that means that the rest of us need to work harder, too, to promote would-be leaders. U.S. Rep. Mike Pence, for instance, has substance and media-savvy, and he’s out there working non-stop for the cause. Conservatives should help promote him rather than waiting for him to promote himself. Likewise for Rep. Paul Ryan, a heady policy leader, and for U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, a stalwart conservative seemingly impervious to Washington group-think.
We’ve lost so much in these past two years. Let’s do honor to our late pathfinders by keeping their causes healthy and strong.
About the Author
Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (60) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Quin Hillyer
More Articles From Streetcar Line
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/01/too-many-deaths-on-the-right
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- We Have Her Example
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- The Continuing Crisis
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Northern Rebel| 10.1.09 @ 7:00AM
I am thrilled to hear Rush is doing cardio workouts, 'cause if anything were to happen to him at tis juncture, surely all would be lost!
We will look back, (if we survive as a nation) and realize what an important American Mr. Limbaugh truly became.
As far as I'm concerned, we should sandblast that fraud Teddy Roosevelt off the mountain, and replace him with that harmless little fuzzball.
After all, it is Mt. RUSHmore!
Alan Brooks| 10.1.09 @ 8:48AM
Agreed on all losses; Karl Malden brings back memories of General Bradley in 'Patton'.
but I don't agree Obama is a radical of any genuine sort. He's faking to the Left to pay off his debt to the Dem base. He is as shrewd as Clinton.
You're going by what he says, and you never go by what anyone says-- you go by behavior.
Obama will fake to Left until after the Midterms.
crookedwren| 10.1.09 @ 9:03AM
Mr. Brooks --
Am I reading you correctly? You are saying that Obama is not a genuine radical?
I wish I could believe that, but so many statements by Obama himself -- and the history of his marked associations with self-avowed Communists and radicals (I won't review the details here -- they are too many) -- argue against any such belief.
And as for his actions, well, if I wanted to ruin our economy, aggravate our staunchest allies, establish greater governmental powers in order to subvert the Constitution -- and all that as quickly as possible while I've got the Marxists and extreme Socialists in places of power beside me -- I couldn't have managed any better in the span of nearly nine months.
Of course, he travels and talks a great deal. Doesn't seem to spend much time in the WH. (Just as well, probably.) Maybe someone else is assisting in the Oval Office?
Will Obama move to the Right after Midterms?
I don't see it coming. I pray that you are right on this one.
Margie| 10.1.09 @ 12:55PM
Well, he IS a wimp. But I still think he's a hardcore Fascist.
John II| 10.1.09 @ 2:16PM
Alan: what did you have for breakfast this morning? If inadvertently, Professor Obama has revealed all too clearly the consequences of his unfortunate personal background, what little of it has been vouchsafed to the rest of it.
Here's what we do know. He was abandoned by a derelict dad and raised first by a neurotic hippie mother whose grandiose hatred of babbitt America took her to various parts of the world other than America, so that his early education was in Indonesia intermittently under Muslim supervision. (He is remembered by students at the same school as being personally aggressive and "bossy"--the usual cliched behavior of kids with that kind of loose parental attention.) When his mother flaked out completely, he was ushered into his chronological adulthood by indulgent grandparents of left-liberal political instincts: they didn't much care for America either. Most of his role models in his early (chronological) adulthood were Marxists, and he went through college and law school under the dispensation of "Affirmative Action"--which perhaps explains why we-the-people are not permitted to know anything about his academic record: I mean, what kinds of courses he took and how well he fared in them.
As David Limbaugh has pointed out, when it was time for him to start making his own associational choices as an adult (chronological adult, that is: from the way he behaves, I would say he stopped growing emotionally at about age 16), he simply continued the pattern in which he'd been raised: the goofy victim-church he joined; the angry street agitation he embraced; the intimate connection to the corrupt politics and corrupt people who control Chicago; the tight relations with the astonishingly corrupt ACORN--which alone disqualifies him morally from his current position.
But that's just a technicality. What really makes his being President of the United States surreal is that he hates the United States, perhaps principally because he knows very little about the United States. He was marinated in hatred for America in his youth, and, in his (chronological) adulthood all his acquaintances and associates, as Noemie Emery reminds us, have been people who agitate, people who make laws, people who teach law, and people who depend on support from the state; he has never associated in any serious or deeply personal way with people who makes things, or people who run things, or people who meet payrolls, or people who serve in the military, or people who contribute creatively to the market economy. His critics have remarked frequently on his apparent ignorance of (and indifference to) economics--but again, we're not allowed to see his school records: not even to see what on earth he studied while he was in school. When the fawning media condemn Obama's critics for calling him a socialist, that's the equivalent of condemning critics of violent sports for calling Benny Paret a boxer.
All this helps explain Obama's compulsive speechifying: he is the classic know-it-all who knows virtually nothing. And he can't seem to learn or to adjust to others' responses. Whence the insane spending and the dogged attempt to nationalize the entire health-care system in utter disregard of all arguments to the contrary and, especially, of the wishes of a huge majority of Americans--whom he obviously holds in contempt, inasmuch as only a tiny fraction of Americans are of his own preferred neurotic-Marxian mindset.
Perhaps he can't help himself, but the man who loves to use the cliche "teachable moment" is not himself teachable. He has allowed his lofty opinion of himself, puffed up further by his sycophantic handlers and a fawning press, to give him the delusional sense that he can unload his destructive social and economic agenda on America without losing the people's trust. I wonder sometimes if he even sees those plummeting polls; he acts as if he thinks he knows what's best for all the rest of us--behavior which itself is profoundly un-American, not to mention top-lofty and arrogant.
For Pete's sake, Alan. Or, as Napoleon Dynamite would say, Gosh!
Margie| 10.1.09 @ 2:38PM
If you don't mind my saying, JohnII, I think your comments should serve quite well to wake Mr. Brooks from that nap he seems to be taking. :^)
JimP| 10.1.09 @ 3:19PM
Alan: Ditto what John II said (Very well summarized IMHO, John.) Obama is a malignant narcissist, born of his very disfunctional family and childhood. He's so sick that it is truly creepy.
Also, Alan, what happens after the midterms? Respectfully, is he going to take back the stimulus; tarp; Obamacare (if it passes); what?
Margie| 10.1.09 @ 2:07PM
*El Rushbo's
Margie| 10.1.09 @ 2:45PM
Not quite sure how the first part of my post is now missing but it is. I only said that I agreed that ElRushbo's likeness ought to be carved into Mt. RUSHmore. Oh the irony. To the agony of the Left!
~The *El Rushbo's was added because I had a typo leaving out the 's' in Rush's name). Ok.. now I will go away.
ghd | 10.5.09 @ 3:48AM
GHD MK4 Kiss is absolutely great, it leaves your hair so silky smooth and soft and trust me. I was a little worried about GHD MK4 Black hair straightener bc the price was lower than I expected.
Melvin| 10.1.09 @ 7:55AM
It is indeed a sad time for Conservatives to loose so much Conservative thought and leadership in the las two years.
These great minds and warriors of Conservatism have sown the seeds of Conservative thought to younger generations that will rise from the muck of perverse Liberal thought and grow into the future Bill Buckley's and Rose Friedman's.
I have the pleasure of working with two co-workers who just graduated from college and one of them even dabbled in government run education and had to quit after one year because he could not stomach the Liberal mindset of government run education.
These two young college graduates didn't embrace Liberalism, despite the constant barrage of Liberal professors and fellow students.
At least I can go to sleep and night and rest easier knowing that there are young Conservatives who reject the Bolshevistic attitude of Liberalism and are willing to stand up and be counted in the culture wars.
crookedwren| 10.1.09 @ 9:13AM
Melvin, thanks. I'd love to know how those two young graduates managed to keep their heads about them during the last years of their Indoctrination Degree! I teach fewer and fewer hours in the hallowed halls because I am sickened by displays of rank Leftist propaganda by otherwise kind and intelligent people. Young people tend to "idolize" professors and when those professors use their influence so shamelessly, it's horrifying.
Most recently, I have seen profs banter about Obama the Candidate in tones that equaled Obama the Prophet. A few students with McCain stickers were quiet. One, though, spoke up and out. But most students listened to these profs with awe and ready assent.
I'm heartened by the young people with whom I've spoken at various rallies and tea parties.
I pray the trend grows -- for the sake of our country and our world.
Margie| 10.1.09 @ 5:30PM
I get to hear some of these young conservatives when they call in to Rush, Sean or Levin's radio programs. They are super encouraging to hear, and always give me a bit of hope. True hope, not that hopey-changey thing.
TennesseeVolunteer| 10.1.09 @ 8:02AM
Quin, the calvary is coming! These leaders you've invoked have done their job well. They have helped educate a layer of conservatives who were at tea parties throughout the nation on April 15th. They have motivated and energized over a million conservative leaders who were 'present' on Sept. 12 in Washington and throughout the nation
The leaders you mentioned in your article were the pioneers! They have sprinkled their wisdom, wit and foresight throughout the nation as seeds of hope and freedom. And now, when our beloved country needs it the most, these NEW LEADERS, THESE EVERYMEN OF EVERY CORNER OF OUR NATION, are rising up in numbers, religions, colors and political parties as a groundswell that will rewrite a new page in our Republic and in American history.
Do not weep for those leaders of the Past , they have done their job, they have been good and faithful servants and now it is time for the millions of us 'Common Patriots of America' to take our place in the renewal of the America that is God centered, and offers any man or woman Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
With God, All Things Are Possible.
Louis Jenkins| 10.1.09 @ 8:28AM
Hillyer:
You left out the death of Alan Stang, author and radio talk show host. Not as widely known as some of those Conservatives you mentioned, but if you ever wanted to hear a case for conservativism he'd be your man. He was unafraid to take on just about anything that reeked of Liberalism, government folly, and even ventured into criticism of Abe Lincoln and his prosecution of the Civil War. Highly opinionated, steeped in historic values, but never afraid to speak his mind. I couldn't always agree with everything he said, but it was well worth reading his articles or listening to his broadcasts.
This article was well worth the read. Hopefully the link will get you there, or just copy and paste in the address bar.
http://www.alanstang.com/index.....ry_or_die/
Alan Brooks| 10.1.09 @ 8:44AM
I don't agree Obama is a radical of any genuine sort. He's faking to the Left to pay off his debt to the Dem base. He is as shrewd as Clinton.
You're going by what he says, and you never go by what anyone says-- you go by behavior.
Obama will fake to Left until after the Midterms.
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.1.09 @ 10:16AM
crookedwren| 10.1.09 @ 9:03AM
Mr. Brooks --
Am I reading you correctly? You are saying that Obama is not a genuine radical?
I wish I could believe that, but so many statements by Obama himself -- and the history of his marked associations with self-avowed Communists and radicals (I won't review the details here -- they are too many) -- argue against any such belief.
And as for his actions, well, if I wanted to ruin our economy, aggravate our staunchest allies, establish greater governmental powers in order to subvert the Constitution -- and all that as quickly as possible while I've got the Marxists and extreme Socialists in places of power beside me -- I couldn't have managed any better in the span of nearly nine months.
Of course, he travels and talks a great deal. Doesn't seem to spend much time in the WH. (Just as well, probably.) Maybe someone else is assisting in the Oval Office?
Will Obama move to the Right after Midterms?
I don't see it coming. I pray that you are right on this one. "
Yeah Wren
You read him correctly and answered him pretty well. He is wrong though. Obama is trying to "transform" this country into a second world dictatorship just as fast as his skinny leggs can carry him. We must stop him...
Bob in Western NY| 10.1.09 @ 9:56AM
As I've watched the debate over the government running health care, it occurs to me that each generation must fight for freedom on its own. While great minds are important, each generation must make its contribution. We started with John Locke. There was a time until Madison, Jefferson, Adam Smith and Edmund Burke. And so it goes.
What inspires me today is the good research being done in economics.
We still have Hernando De Soto, Alvaro Vargas Llosa and the wonderful volumne "Making Poor Nations Rich ..." These folks are proving what people like Hayek thought intuitively. Now, what we need is for some few leaders to intrepret and put into common language the results of those works.
Al Adab| 10.1.09 @ 2:48PM
Hernando DeSoto and his book, Mystery of Capital, should be required reading. Our movement is alive and well around the world, even if a little sickly here at home.
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.1.09 @ 10:18AM
Tennessee Vol.
That was the most eloquent post I have read in a long time. Thank you.
I have copied it into my document files.
Al Adab| 10.1.09 @ 12:08PM
Growing up as I did, I had the privilege of meeting several of these giants over the years and actually knowing a couple of them fairly well. Truly the Movement misses their presense and our nation is better for them but sadder now without.
We should dedicate ourselves to fulfilling their memory and helping to bring their vision to life in a free, Constituional and prosperous United States. There are those who carry on the legacy in Congress today. They, even though all too few, deserve our support.
FRANK COLLATT| 10.1.09 @ 12:12PM
Quin Hillyer you have written a very good article! The important thing to remember is 'we all will pass one day, sooner or later', and those left behind can benefit from our successes and our mistakes. The people mentioned in your article above all left remarkable lessons for each of us to learn by and benefit from!! Let each of us that Truly Loves Our Country(America) and Our Fellowman remember them in our prayers, and go forward in this journey we call life and leave our positive mark in history. Individuals such as OBAMA and his cult of personality followers can also serve to teach us a lesson; of how we never ever want to behave when we grow up!
Northern Rebel| 10.1.09 @ 1:42PM
Tennessee volunteer:
I am one of which you speak! I can only do the little things to promote American freedom, and I do it with privilege, and pleasure.
What we need, is a leader to emerge and wake up the apathetic, and ignorant.
Amaerica's greatness is demonstrated daily, in that Millions of Americans are able to go about their normal lives, without giving any thought to the political nature of our country.
That is the reason we elected a communist radical, with terrorist ties, to the white house!
Alan Brooks could not be more wrong about Obama. He is not smart enough to triangulate as Clinton did. He is a front man for the liberal socialist, secular, nutjobs,who have been attempting to destroy the foundations of our constitution, for decades.
It is they, who fill his teleprompter, and inculcate, and indoctrinate our children, in their union public schools
I doubt Obama could last ten minutes in a debate with me, and I'm a 51 yr old toolmaker, without a high school diploma.
My fear is that we don't have anyone in the republican party, ready to emerge, and rise to the leadership level.
I too, hope I'm wrong.
Margie| 10.1.09 @ 3:03PM
My post was removed here, so I'll try again. What was wrong with what I said?
First, I quoted N.Rebel's-
"I doubt Obama could last ten minutes in a debate with me, and I'm a 51 yr old toolmaker, without a high school diploma."
Then I replied, saying "I as well. But Obama wouldn't debate us because he'd refuse to be without his teleprompter."
Margie| 10.1.09 @ 1:45PM
Quin,
"Perhaps" Jerry Falwell? He was as much a good conservative as the rest of them. I do indeed wonder why no mention of the great El Rushbo, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, or especially Sarah Palin? If you try to say well, Rush, Mark and Sean are "only" on the radio. So what? The ones you mentioned were "only" on paper. I'm sorry, I just don't get the Omission. (Big O, yes.) By the way, have you heard that Sara Palin's book has already reached #1 for pre-orders? Not even out yet. I'm sure sure how you could possibly miss these mentioning these names?
Margie| 10.1.09 @ 5:07PM
I apologize to Mr. Hillyer for being so brash. I am too wound up. I will take a chill pill, and do some calming down.
Mr. Hillyer,
I am sorry for the loss of your good friend. I am not as familiar with the conservatives you mentioned, but I will do some reading about them. I'm more familiar with ones like Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and Sean Hannity. They, to me are the greats of today, although I have read some Thomas Sowell who I think is awesome, and some others.
Sincerely,
Margie
Vern Crisler | 10.1.09 @ 2:35PM
These old conservatives who have passed away are regarded as giants because they faced a giant enemy -- communism. Reagan, Buckley, et al., would they be regarded as great if they hadn't stood athwart a terrible enemy and shouted stop!
Where would Washington or Lincoln be today in our estimation if it hadn't been for the Revolutionary War and the Civil War? Or Madison if there hadn't been the need to form a government of checks and balances and separation of powers?
Today's conservatives face a more disparate set of challenges -- so we should not be looking for giant-killers at this stage. Just folks who'll get the job done.
TennesseeVolunteer| 10.1.09 @ 3:42PM
Thanks Ken, it flew from my fingers onto the keyboard. Every day I get 5-10 emails from friends, family etc helping educate me as to how those 'quiet and brave millions' think.
For each one of us who post here, tens or hundreds read and think. The affect all of you have is beyond your belief.
We must stay strong, speak with courage and always be fair and firm. There are many of the 'unconscious' who still are not truly aware of the danger our Republic faces. It is our job to tell the story here and in every corner of America.
I for one am not too concerned that we don't have a leader. I believe we don't need a leader of millions of followers, we need millions of leaders who will never allow the godless elitists, statists and power hungry politicians to rule over us and our country ever again.
Liberal Reader| 10.1.09 @ 3:43PM
Mr Hillyer,
This is one of the best pieces I've read here in weeks.
One thing that conservatism is losing with the passing of many of these figures is the ability to distinguish between legitimate, strong critiques of liberalism and bizarre or petty attacks on it.
An example I would cite is yesterday's silly criticisms of Obama's bid for the Olympics. Agreed, this is perfectly fair fodder for the satirists (if the right still had any), but the idea that this trip to Europe represents some sort of abdication of presidential responsibilities is just nonsense, and it suggests that you all are criticizing for the sake of criticizing -- i.e., in bad faith.
Social conservatism has morally compelling, powerful arguments to make about politics and society in general. Clear-headed, generous, intellectually searching conservative thought on moral issues is still possible, but it never gets a word in with all the death panel / ACORN paranoia that the right has become obsessed with.
Conservatives make good arguments about personal responsibility and accountability, as well as the moral hazards of excessive social welfare programs. They make good arguments about taxes. Once, they made good arguments about fiscal responsibility -- but TRUST ME, it'll be a LONG TIME before anyone listens to you all again on THAT topic.
There's a failure in intellectual leadership on the right; people tune in by the millions to the hysterical, extremely unmanly and cowardly ravings of Beck, Dobbs, and the rest of the blow-hards: how many are familiar with Strauss, Kristol, Friedman, et al? Compare the right wing radio types to Buckley: it's deeply disheartening.
Margie| 10.1.09 @ 3:57PM
What? Have you finished with your filthy mouthed cursing and insulting and lying from on the other thread, LibReader, and expect to come here and have anyone buy your niceties? How nicely you accuse conservatives of being cowards, unmanly, paranoid, hysterical, and out and out racists (on the other thread, "white" racsists, that is)! We all know your true affiliation with the Marxist, Obama Theology. You are NO conservative!
Liberal Reader| 10.1.09 @ 7:21PM
Yes, I have finished, thank you. But no, I'm not a conservative and never claimed to be one.
I'm a liberal who believes it is in the interests of his country to have a vigorous "marketplace of ideas." The conservative strands of American political thought are crucial to the health of that marketplace, and I think that they are being ruined or at least debased by the talkers and cry-babies of cable tv and right wing radio.
I'm not a conservative, but neither am I a Marxist, and neither is Obama. I think you could only claim he is a Marxist if you did not know what Marxism is. Accusations like this are just more Know-Nothingism.
Margie| 10.1.09 @ 8:07PM
Not only is Obama, your Lord, a Marxist, he is a Communist. You are a wack job and a know nothing. Folks, you see what the author, Quin has posted to the filthy troll. This is the type of person that is permitted to take up residence here. No matter that she was cursing with the uttermost filthy language last night on the article "Obama's Olympic Spirit", but her posta are allowed to remain, and she gets praise from the editor of the American Spectator, yet my posts about saying Rush is great, get removed! It shows the type of people they want here. What a disgrace! This LIBREADER person is allowed to call me a bigot, a white racsist, curse at me, and others, yet American Spectator censors me! Ladies & Gents~~ I am outta here!
Liberal Reader| 10.1.09 @ 8:35PM
"Not only is Obama ... a Marxist, he is a Communist."
Thanks for that, Margie.
It's cold and raining where I live, and frankly I was feeling a bit gloomy until I read this statement.
ChuckD| 10.1.09 @ 11:10PM
Liberal Reader,
"Once, they made good arguments about fiscal responsibility -- but TRUST ME, it'll be a LONG TIME before anyone listens to you all again on THAT topic."
I wouldn't trust you or anything you said.
In 2006, Democrats took over Congress. If you go back to the fourth grade social studies book and look it up, Congress and only Congress can control spending.
Before 2006, Republicans embraced the compassionate conservative idea sponsored by the half-conservative President Bush. Embracing also the spirit of bipartisanship, Bush supported Kennedy's No Child Left Behind bill. This bill increased spending for Education a hundred fold. Bush also proposed and was supported by a majority of Democrats, the AIDs to Africa legislation where once again in the spirit of bipartisanship and compromise, he increased spending to help prevent AIDS by a hundred fold.
Medicare prescription was also voted for by a majority of liberal Democrats.
When Bush proposed the first stimulus bill the Democrats voted for it 2 to 1.
Obama has carried out the same economic policy only magnified. The deficit went from half a trillion under Bush to 4 trillion in only three months after Obama took office.
So if you could manage to make the case that RINO Republicans are not fiscally responsible, you still can't make the case that Democrats are responsible. And in the next election that's what is going to count. 2006 is so yesterday.
Liberal Reader| 10.2.09 @ 1:16AM
Chuck D
It's not rare to find posters having trouble with the facts. However, Chuck, it is rare to find a poster having trouble with EVERY fact he tries to muster.
Republicans didn't suddenly lose all their power in 2006. True, Republicans lost some power, but their influence was still strongly felt in CONGRESS, where spending bills have past.
Now, if you think W's spending excesses were confined to NCLB and AIDS spending in Africa, you're crazy.
Bush and the Congress passed a trillion dollars in tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% that he didn't pay for.
Bush and the Congress passed a corporate give-away called Medicare part D that costs tax payers BILLIONS every year that he didn't pay for.
Bush and the Congress spent over a TRILLION dollars in Iraq that was never paid for. No taxes were levied to pay for it; no spending cuts were initiated to compensate for it.
We're talking about trillions flying out the window with NO PLAN to recover it.
W's work in Africa was mighty decent of him. Its cost to the tax payer was tiny.
NCLB is deeply flawed, but there is evidence that it has improved student performance -- particularly in minority communities. It is NOT a terribly expensive program. I don't know where you got your information about it, but you should go back and double check.
Quin| 10.1.09 @ 6:04PM
To Liberal Reader:
I appreciate your thoughtful comments (and your compliments). Obviously, I don't agree with everything you wrote, but the tone was constructive and I take your criticisms of conservatives in that spirit. These are the sorts of discussions we should be having.
I do want to make a pitch, though, for conservatives' right to claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility. You see, real conservatives complained vociferously when GW Bush and the Hastert/DeLay tandem spent us towards oblivion. In 1995 through 1997, though, conservatives actually did walk the walk on fiscal responsibility. Under Bob Livingston, we cut $50 billion ACTUAL, not just projected, domestic discretionary appropriations (including recissions) from fiscal years 1995 (through rescissions), '96 and '97. And in 1997, for fiscal year 1998, we kept growth right around the inflation rate -- all WITHOUT the old ladies dying in the streets and children starving and all the rest of the dire consequences that had been predicted. Because we did it carefully, with a scalpel, not a bludgeon. We also, under Bill Archer and Clay Shaw, reformed welfare and, on the third attempt, got Clinton to sign it rather than veto it. The welfare reforms worked like a charm, boosted the economy, helped people find work and training, and saved tons of money. We also achieved at least some savings in Medicare without harming recipients, eliminated significant (but not all) fraud in and "gaming" of the Medicaid system, and otherwise ran a fairly tight ship. It was only in the 1998 budget capitulation that coincided with the impeachment inquiry that we lost our fiscal rectitude. But for three years at least, we proved it could be done responsibly.
Thanks again for your comments.
Liberal Reader| 10.1.09 @ 7:14PM
Mr Hillyer --
Welfare reform is a huge success of conservatism; there can be no question about it. I think liberals are far more receptive now to the argument that welfare compromised communities and families as well. (That is, I think the notion that there were moral, rather than simply financial, reasons to reform welfare is more well received on the left -- if not universally accepted -- than it was a few decades ago.) I'm not sure Clinton was as hostile to welfare reform as your post suggests; he was not the "conservative" some Democrats accused him of being, but I don't think he was all the enamored of welfare.
There are many conservatives and Republicans who -- as individuals -- are still credible on fiscal responsibility. The party, during the last eight years or so, however, was not very restrained in its spending and -- what's worse -- refused to anything to raise revenues to COVER the spending. They gave into a very dangerous tendency of the American people to want spending but not taxes.
What I appreciate is the overall message of your article that challenges conservative thinkers to be intellectually ambitious and achieve great things. I am afraid that public discourse in this country is detiorating and that thoughtful dissent and critique of government power is being drowned out by fearful cable-tv NOISE.
John II| 10.4.09 @ 7:54PM
Lib Reader: Now that this thread has worn itself out, I would like to indulge my conservative fondness for hopeless causes by making a few observations that you will probably never read and that I am almost certain you would be oblivious to with the unlikely reading. Full disclosure: I am an ex-liberal, partly because I've spent 45 of my nearly 70 years in academia surrounded by folks of your presumptive disposition. My gradual metanoia, so to speak, started with intermittent bouts of revulsion from what I now recognize as a social pathology.
First, I am not impressed by your repeated claims to any interest in "public discourse." If you were truly interested in rigorous argument as the principal means of settling issues in a democratic social order, you would already be a conservative of some sort and you would be up in arms over the high-handed manner in which Professor Obama and the majority in Congress have pushed their so-called health-care agenda: suppressing open debate and proffering wobbly debater's points as gospel truth in contempt of specific counterpoints.
Second, if you were as morally serious and elevated as you present yourself being, you could not tolerate contemporary liberalism on one issue alone: abortion. And you would recognize that the wrong position on THAT most fundamental issue (that all law necessarily rests on the first principle of respect for life) automatically puts you at loggerheads with a sensible view of countless other, lesser issues.
Third, and owing to the previous two points, you will perhaps forgive me if I call your bluff by suggesting that you are not the serious person you claim to be; that you are, in fact, rather shallow and possibly duplicitous. I believe therefore that Quin's response to you, although infinitely more gracious than mine in its presumption of good faith, is probably off the mark in a way that Quin himself will perhaps understand better when he's lived another 30 years.
Pingback| 10.1.09 @ 7:44PM
A Whole Body Approach To Fat Loss | Healthy Living | Fitness Health Wisdom links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
RIPMarine| 10.2.09 @ 12:36AM
The Conservative firmament of my youth (and its brightest lights) are being extinguished.
My chief criticism of most of these intellectual giants was how they lost their mojo on the field of race politics to the bad guys- instead of fearlessly and unapologetically charging into the inner cities to challenge the insanity of toxic Left race-hate. This had the effect of handing the intellectually bankrupt Democrats a lifeline among the mostly social conservative Blacks and Latinos whose votes have extended the Left's unnatural lifespan.
Pingback| 10.2.09 @ 9:47AM
UltimateSnowsports: Tignes | Skiing Leisure Knowledge links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 10.2.09 @ 1:20PM
Michael Crichton links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
xianshan| 10.6.09 @ 2:13AM
you may also be interested in
Too Many Deaths on the Right 1
Too Many Deaths on the Right 2
dgfdg| 2.25.10 @ 4:14AM
Mac AVCHD Converter,
Blu-ray to AVCHD for Mac