[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

William Barr: Mueller clears Trump in Russia probe

The Truth About Hell (If true, is it "fair"? Why won't all souls enter The Kingdom of Heaven?)

REP. SCHIFF VOWS TO KEEP INVESTIGATING TRUMP: 'WE HAVE TO FIND THE TRUTH'- The congressman is still optimistic more indictments will be forthcoming

Trump Blocks Bolton, Reverses New North Korea Sanctions

One 2020 Democrat Debate Will Be Solely Focus ed on LGBT Issues (Queers and Baby Killers)

Suspect who mailed pipe bombs to Trump critics pleads guilty

Mueller submits long-awaited Russia probe report to Justice Department; next move up to AG Barr

The Left sees Christianity as an obstacle to the state ... so anything that represents it in a positive light --- must be destroyed

Many Antichrists; One Beastly System - Message by Dr. Chuck Baldwin on Jan. 13, 2019

Ichiro retires after emotional finale in Tokyo (There *is* Crying in Baseball)

Man arrested for keeping TV sent to him by mistake

It's An Emergency You Dumb Communist Bastards!

Bernie Sanders Calls for New Zealand-Style Gun Ban in U.S.

The manipulation of the American mind: Edward Bernays and the birth of public relations

Trump, Graham, Rubio, et. al are about to enact a gun confiscation bill that rivals anything in Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Russia

On The Anniversary Of The Iraq Invasion, Bush Press Secretary Claims Bush Didn’t Lie

Harvard researchers say certain ADHD medications may increase risk of psychosis

NJ Governor Signs “Rain Tax” Bill; Residents Can Now BE TAXED When It Rains On Their Property

The Zoning Code Banned His Tall Fence, but Not the Naked Mannequin Party Behind It

The Texas State House has passed a bill legalizing lemonade stands run by children

New Zealand Prime Minister announces immediate ban on all assault weapons

Fond Memories of Hitching

Are we a soul, or do we hava a soul?

Can the President Legally Break the Law?

Facebook just suspended Natural News for 7 days for posting this rather ho-hum fluoride infographic

Missouri Senate Bans All Federal Gun Control Laws in Proposed Bill

WOW! Just Rewatched Enemy of the State & Guess what I found

The Ex-Model Who Claimed Silvio Berlusconi Hosted Satanic Rituals in His House Died From “Apparent Poisoning”

MLB Going Full-Blown TSA: Teams Prepare To Scan Millions Of Fans’ Faces

Why Does The Mainstream Media Purposely Ignore Mass Killings Of Christians Across The Globe?

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Require Police to Render Emergency Aid After Ohio Police Shoot Military Veteran Multiple Times, Let Him Bleed to Death

Don’t Shoot the Dogs: The Growing Epidemic of Cops Shooting Family Dogs

Ron Paul Support Legalizing Heroin

Reputed Gambino crime boss' suspected killer flashes 'MAGA,' other slogans on hand

lMalia, Michelle, Barack and the College Admissions Scandal

Sen. Warren: ‘I Would Support Removing Confederate’ Statues and Monuments

HOW U.S. MEDIA IS HELPING THE NEW ZEALAND TERRORIST ACHIEVE HIS ULTIMATE GOAL There's a reason the media is selectively choosing which facts to report about this killer's purpose

Is Trump Really About to Attack Venezuela?

The Grim Reaper – Frequently A Personified Insignificant Force

Dick Dale, a Great American Original, RIP

Government to Pizzeria: You Can Paint a Mural, Just Not One That Features Pizza

Donna Bazile Hired as FOX News Contributor

Source Claims Fox News Host Secretly Worked to Get Jeanine Pirro Suspended to Curry Favor With Democrats

AP Pushes New Leftwing Conspiracy Theory: "Puzzling" Number of Activists Connected to Ferguson are Dying (Usually by Suicide or Drug Overdose), And That Suggests They're Being Secretly Murdered by an Unidentified But Obviously White Cabal

Man cleaning garage finds burglar crushed by fallen 900-pound floor safe, cops say

US Supreme Court denies hearing Ron Paul 2012 aides' appeal

'Beto' Was A Member Of A Prominent Hacking Group, a Punk-Rock Band And His Name Was 'Psychedelic Warlord,' Report Says

Conservative? Hardly. New Zealand mass shooter is a far-Left “eco-fascist” who praised communist China

Tucker Carlson and Thoughtcrime

New Zealand: The Most Hysterical Reaction to an Event I’ve Seen Since 9/11


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles

Title: The Republican Party Abandons Conservatism (Duh!)
Source: The Atlantic
URL Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a ... can-party-conservative/571747/
Published: Oct 4, 2018
Author: Eliot A. Cohen
Post Date: 2018-10-04 08:54:26 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 138
Comments: 11

The conservative virtues remain real virtues, the conservative insights real insights, and the conservative temperament an indispensable internal gyro keeping a country stable and sane.

Ignoring the dictum that if one is not of the left as a young person, one has no heart, and not of the right in middle age, one has no head, I have always been a conservative. I voted Republican most of the time, affiliated with the GOP, and served proudly as a political appointee under two Republican presidents. I bitterly opposed Donald Trump’s candidacy and dropped my Republican affiliation once he won in 2016, figuring that the party would soon fall in line. I said as much in public, and my predictions were borne out. But it is only now that I have concluded that the break between conservative beliefs and the party that claimed to uphold them is complete and irreversible.

Being a conservative has always meant, to me, taking a certain view of human nature, and embracing a certain set of values and virtues. The conservative is warier than her liberal counterpart about the darker impulses and desires that lurk in men and women, more doubtful of their perfectibility, skeptical of and opposed to the engineering of individual souls, and more inclined to celebrate freedom moderated by law, custom, education, and culture. She knows that power tends to corrupt, and likes to see it checked and divided. Words like responsibility, stoicism, self-control, frugality, fidelity, decorum, honor, character, independence, and integrity appeal to most decent people. They come particularly easily to the admirers of thinkers from Edmund Burke to Irving Kristol.

The GOP threw frugality and fiscal responsibility away long ago, initially in the Reagan years, but now on a stunning scale involving trillion-dollar deficits as far as can be forecast. It abandoned most of its beliefs in fidelity and character when it embraced a liar, cheat, and philanderer as its nominee and then as president. But something else snapped this week.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s judicial philosophy as expressed in various statements and conclusions was, for the most part, pretty standard conservative fare, save for one telltale element: his ascription of very high levels of immunity and discretion to the executive. In this respect, what passes today for conservatism is anything but. Where traditionally conservatives have wanted “ambition to check ambition,” as Alexander Hamilton put it, Republicans are now executive-branch kinds of people. It is not surprising that Kavanaugh himself worked at a high level in a Republican White House. The disdain of many contemporary Republicans for congressional power and prerogative makes them indistinguishable from liberals who (as recently as the Obama years) turned to sweeping uses of executive power to circumvent a balky House of Representatives and Senate.

It was, however, in the epic clash over the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford that the collapse of conservatism in the Republican Party became most evident. Eleven men, most of them old, hid behind a female prosecutor wheeled in from Arizona, because they could not, apparently, trust themselves to treat a victim of sexual assault with consideration and respect. So much for courage. Their anger at Democratic shenanigans was understandable, but virtually without exception. When they did summon up the nerve to speak (during Kavanaugh’s turn), their questions consisted almost exclusively of partisan baying at the opposition. Genuine conservatives might have snarled initially, but would have, out of regard for the truth, tried to figure out exactly what happened to Ford 35 years ago, and whether the character of the man before them was what it was said to be.

Perhaps the collapse of modern conservatism came out most clearly in Kavanaugh’s own testimony—its self-pity, its hysteria, its conjuring up of conspiracies, its vindictiveness. He and his family had no doubt suffered agonies. But if we expect steely resolve from a police officer confronting a knife-wielding assailant, or disciplined courage from a firefighter rushing into a burning house, we should expect stoic self-control and calm from a conservative judge, even if his heart is being eaten out. No one watching those proceedings could imagine that a Democrat standing before this judge’s bench in the future would get a fair hearing. This was not the conservative temperament on display. It was, rather, personalized grievance politics.

Real conservatives have always prided themselves on their willingness to stand up to their own kind in the name of moral principle. Think of Senator Robert Taft opposing the North Atlantic Treaty, knowing that those positions could destroy his political career. Taft was wrong in his views, but he was principled, he was courageous, and he went down speaking truth as he saw it. William F. Buckley took on the John Birch Society in the middle of the 20th century, and the anti-Semites in the conservative camp later on. In 1993, when Buckley had to choose between loyalty to Joseph Sobran, his longtime protégé and colleague at the National Review, and rejection of bigotry, principle won and he fired his friend.

During the Ford and Kavanaugh testimonies, Americans watched the cranky maunderings of Senator Chuck Grassley and the spitting, menacing fury of Senator Lindsey Graham. The combination of calm strength and good humor that characterized the modern conservative icon, Ronald Reagan, was nowhere to be found. But that spirit, the spirit of a president who celebrated America as a city on a hill that was generous abroad, welcoming to newcomers, and self-confident at home, has been replaced by the sour meanness of a party chiefly of men, who build walls to keep the world out, erect tariffs to destroy free trade, despise the alliances that keep Americans secure, and sanction the deliberate plucking of babes from their mothers’ breasts in order to teach illegal immigrants a painful lesson. In such a world, decorum and courtesy are irrelevant.

There has always been a dark side to American conservatism, much of it originating in the antebellum curse of a society, large parts of which favored slavery and the extermination of America’s native population, the exclusion of immigrants from American life, and discrimination against Catholics and Jews. Many of us had hoped that the civil-rights achievements of the mid-20th century (in which Republicans were indispensable partners), changing social norms regarding women, and rising levels of education had eliminated the germs that produced secession, lynching, and Indian massacres. Instead, those microbes simply went into dormancy, and now, in the presence of Trump, erupt again like plague buboes—bitter, potent, and vile.

The last twitches of conservative independence consisted of Senator Jeff Flake securing a week-long FBI investigation of Ford’s charges. For the rest, there was not a profile in courage to be seen. Not one.

It is impossible at this moment to envisage the Republican Party coming back. Like a brontosaurus with some brain-eating disorder, it might lumber forward in the direction dictated by its past, favoring deregulation of businesses here and standing up to a rising China there, but there will be no higher mental functioning at work. And so it will plod into a future in which it is detested in a general way by women, African Americans, recent immigrants, and the educated young as well as progressives pure and simple. It might stumble into a political tar pit and cease to exist or it might survive as a curious, decaying relic of more savage times and more primitive instincts, lashing out and crushing things but incapable of much else.

Intellectuals do not build American political parties. Politicians do. The most we can do is point out the truths as we see them, and cheer on those who can do the necessary work. It is supposedly inconceivable that a genuinely conservative party could emerge, but then again, who thought the United States could be where it is now? And progressives, no less than bereft conservatives, should want this to happen, because the conservative virtues remain real virtues, the conservative insights real insights, and the conservative temperament an indispensable internal gyro keeping a country stable and sane. “Cometh the hour, cometh the man” runs the proverb. The hour is upon the country: Conservatives wait for the men (or, more likely, women) to meet it.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Willie Green (#0)

I bitterly opposed Donald Trump’s candidacy and dropped my Republican affiliation once he won in 2016, figuring that the party would soon fall in line. I said as much in public, and my predictions were borne out. But it is only now that I have concluded that the break between conservative beliefs and the party that claimed to uphold them is complete and irreversible.

He's right, it IS irreversible.

So, the question for everybody on that shrinking, defeated Right is this: which do you want

(1) lightly regulated, lightly taxed, protected markets with restricted immigration, gay marriage and, possibly restrictions on abortion, eventually That's Trump Republicanism.

OR do you want

(2) socialism, administered by Democrats.

Choose one. Because those are your choices. What you want will never be. So choose the lesser of two evils.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-10-04   8:58:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Willie Green (#0)

It abandoned most of its beliefs in fidelity and character when it embraced a liar, cheat, and philanderer as its nominee and then as president.

Bill Clinton?

misterwhite  posted on  2018-10-04   9:19:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Willie Green (#0)

When they did summon up the nerve to speak (during Kavanaugh’s turn), their questions consisted almost exclusively of partisan baying at the opposition.

I seem to recall the exact same thing happening when Democrats questioned Dr. Ford.

misterwhite  posted on  2018-10-04   9:21:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Willie Green (#0)

No one watching those proceedings could imagine that a Democrat standing before this judge’s bench in the future would get a fair hearing.

“When you strike at a king, you must kill him.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson

misterwhite  posted on  2018-10-04   9:24:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Willie Green (#0)

The combination of calm strength and good humor that characterized the modern conservative icon, Ronald Reagan, was nowhere to be found.

I seem to recall the Democrats taking advantage of Reagan's good nature when they totally FUCKED him by promising a 3-1 reduction in spending if he increased taxes -- they got their taxes and refused to cut spending. Then they did the exact same thing to Bush.

No more Mr. Nice Guy, and you can blame the Democrats.

misterwhite  posted on  2018-10-04   9:38:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Willie Green (#0)

The conservative is warier than her liberal counterpart ... She knows that power tends to corrupt,

Her? She?

misterwhite  posted on  2018-10-04   9:40:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: misterwhite (#6)

Her? She?

Yeah... he's talking about the women...

Conservative males aren't very "wary."
The toe-tapping perverts keep getting busted all the time...

Willie Green  posted on  2018-10-04   13:00:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Willie Green (#7)

Day old dogs

On The side of The road

Road kill rabies

The dnc is gone

Over

Good riddance
boris

If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !

BorisY  posted on  2018-10-04   13:39:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Willie Green (#7)

Yeah... he's talking about the women...

Oh. I thought he was talking about conservatives.

misterwhite  posted on  2018-10-04   14:21:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Willie Green (#0)

It was, however, in the epic clash over the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford that the collapse of conservatism in the Republican Party became most evident. Eleven men, most of them old, hid behind a female prosecutor wheeled in from Arizona, because they could not, apparently, trust themselves to treat a victim of sexual assault with consideration and respect. So much for courage. Their anger at Democratic shenanigans was understandable, but virtually without exception. When they did summon up the nerve to speak (during Kavanaugh’s turn), their questions consisted almost exclusively of partisan baying at the opposition. Genuine conservatives might have snarled initially, but would have, out of regard for the truth, tried to figure out exactly what happened to Ford 35 years ago, and whether the character of the man before them was what it was said to be.

Genuine conservatives did the right thing and let Rachel Mitchell question Dr. Ford, quietly mining gold while letting the liberal Democrats destroy themselves and their party in the court of public opinion.

Unlike author Eliot A. Cohen, genuine conservatives do not carry water for the liberal Democrats and sprinkle pixie dust on liberal Democrat talking points and present them as genuine conservative ideas.

What would they ask Judge Kavanaugh?

Q. Judge Kavanaugh, what happened 35 years ago to Dr. Ford?

A. I don't know, I wasn't there.

What would they ask Dr. Ford?

Here is a relevant portion of what Rachel Mitchell asked Dr. Ford during time of Sen. Hatch:

MITCHELL: On The Washington Post article, did you submit to an interview by a reporter with The Washington Post for that article to be written?
FORD: Correct.
MITCHELL: OK. And then finally, was the statement that you provided this morning — I assume that, to the best of your recollection, that that was accurate?
FORD: That this whole article is accurate?
MITCHELL: No, no. The statement that you made this morning.
FORD: Yes.
MITCHELL: OK. I want to talk to you about the day that this happened leading up to the gathering.
FORD: OK.
MITCHELL: In your statement this morning, have you told us everything that you remember about the day leading up to that?
FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: Let me ask just a few questions to make sure that you’ve thought of everything, OK? You indicated that you were at the country club swimming that day.
FORD: That’s my best estimate of how this could have happened.
MITCHELL: OK. And when you say “best estimate,” is that based on the fact that you said you went there pretty much every day?
FORD: (says something not uttered into the microphone)
MITCHELL: Is that a yes?
FORD: Yes.
MITCHELL: OK. Do you recall prior to getting there… so I’m — I’m only talking about up to the gathering — had you had anything to drink?
FORD: Not at all.
MITCHELL: Were you on any sort of medication?
FORD: None.
MITCHELL: Do you recall knowing before you went who was going to be at that gathering?
FORD: I recall that — expecting that Mark Judge and Leland would be at that gathering.
MITCHELL: OK. Do you recall an expectation that Brett Kavanaugh would be there?
FORD: I don’t recall whether or not I expected that.
MITCHELL: OK. Now let’s talk about the gathering up from the time you arrived until right when you went up the stairs, just that period of time, OK? What was the atmosphere like at the gathering?
FORD: Mr. Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge were extremely inebriated, they had clearly been drinking prior. And the other people at the party were not. The living room was…
MITCHELL: Can I ask you just to follow up on that? When you said it was clear that they had been drinking prior, do you mean prior to the time you had gotten there or prior to the time they had arrived?
FORD: Prior to the time that they arrived. I don’t recall who arrived first, though, whether it was me or them.
MITCHELL: OK, please continue.
FORD: OK. So I recall that the — I could — I can sketch a floor plan. I recall that it was a sparsely furnished, fairly modest living room. And it was not really a party like the news has made it sound. It was not. It was just a gathering that I assumed was going to lead to a party later on that those boys would attend because they tended to have parties later at night than I was allowed to stay out. So it was kind of a pre-gathering.
MITCHELL: Was it loud?
FORD: No, not in the living room.
MITCHELL: Besides the music that you’ve described that was playing in the bedroom, was there any other music or television or anything like that that was adding?
FORD: No.
MITCHELL: OK. So there wasn’t a stereo playing downstairs?
FORD: No.
MITCHELL: OK.

Dr. Ford told them everything she could remember about leading up to the gathering.

More with Rachel Mitchell:

MITCHELL: You’ve gone into detail about what happened once you went up the stairs. So I don’t feel like it’s necessary to go over those things again. FORD: OK. MITCHELL: OK? FORD: Thank you. MITCHELL: Have you told us everything that you do remember about it?
FORD: I believe so. But if there are other questions I will — I can attempt to answer them.

Dr. Ford told them everything she could remember about the events once she went up the stairs.

More with Rachel Mitchell:

MITCHELL: OK. Your next sentence – let me try to clarify this. After you said “other persons at the house were talking with them,” the letter goes on with the very next sentence, “I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home.”
FORD: Correct.
MITCHELL: OK. You said that you do not remember how you got home, is that correct?
FORD: I do not remember.
MITCHELL: OK.
FORD: … other than I did not drive home.

Dr. Ford told them she exited the bathroom, ran outside and went home, she does not remember how she got home, other than that she did not drive.

Dr. Ford could have taken two hours for her opening statement. She offered nothing new and absolutely nothing that could corroborate anything she said, while assuring that she offered everything she could remember.

What new, illuminating information does Dr. Ford have to offer the FBI?

What would a genuine conservative ask? Why did the liberal Democrats give speeches and not try to elicit corroboration?

nolu chan  posted on  2018-10-04   15:07:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: nolu chan (#10)

What new, illuminating information does Dr. Ford have to offer the FBI?

Who did you usually go swimming with at the country club? Were they there that day or were you alone?

Who told you about the party gathering? How did you know where to go?

Did anyone at the party gathering live in the house? Certainly no one that you mentioned.

Did this incident happen when you were 15 in the summer of 1982 as you said in couples counseling or did it happen in your "late teens" as told to your individual therapist?

misterwhite  posted on  2018-10-04   16:08:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com