McCain excommunicated from Church of Conservatism

Do liberals have these kinds of discussions?

Ask Joe Lieberman and Mickey Kaus. Even Clinton is suspect.

Both sides have their ideological core. They can both tolerate a bit of dissent, but there are key issues. I don't think the waterboarding was it, BTW. Campaign Finance Reform did him in 2000, and his stand on immigration has been the major killer ever since. He'd do himself a big favor if he gave a major speech outlining an enforcement-first immigration program. Committing himself to that will probably shore up a lot of the base.

Not me. I still think he'd be lying through his teeth, but there are more trusting souls out there.

Do conservatives feel the same way watching McCain on the Daily Show, wink and nudge that he's not one of "those" Republicans, as liberals do watching Lieberman on Fox News yucking it up with Sean Hannity?

That could explain the dislike beyond trivial things like voting records.

Waterboarding isn't torture, oral sex isn't sex, it depends on what your definition of "is" is, and so on.

In a bizarre (or maybe not so bizarre) way, the torture debate has actually moved me further to the right (culturally). It opened my eyes to the fact that we really do seem to be losing our way morally as a country and our culture is being degraded. It forced me to reflect upon other issues that I previously had an "oh, c'mon, what's the big deal, lighten up" attitude about.

Of course, millions of young girls looking up to Paris Hilton has an idol had the same effect, so..

I'm not likely to turn into an actual, voting Republican anytime soon, but it did cause some much needed personal reflection about what I actually believe in and the values I care about.

And waterboarding is not torture just because you say it is. Neither the Supreme Court nor the hideously liberal Congress said it was torture when both had opportunities to do so.

I don't remember United States v Sawada, 1946, being overturned.

I have a much simpler test for who's sober or "conservative" or not: whether the name "Rush Limbaugh" does or does not provoke the listener to helpless tearblind, gutsore, jelly-shaken peals of laughter. Ever since the start in 1992 of my eight years selling books across the major chains, refuting daily with my on-the-ground witness Limbaugh's still-held dogma that booksellers hide conservative books from view, I've felt lucky to have grasped the ideological bubble he and his entire movement (and his followers often seem like they themselves haven't had a good one of *those*, as it were, in decades) have happily sealed around them. For a man claiming a rock-ribbed belief in capitalism, he sure as hell demonstrates a pisspoor grasp of the actual on-the-ground working of a sector one might have thought his home turf, the culture industry. Who was I supposed to believe, Rush or my own eyes? There's nothing like real field research as a counter to those whose only research comes in the course of show-prep behind glass walls. And just as patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, so is safety-in-numbers the first refuge of dittoheads, viz.: if Rush is so wrong, so they cry, then how come he's got 20 million listeners? As Dwight Macdonald once put it, "Parody is disarmed before such candor."
Can we have a few grownups as conservative standard bearers again? Or did they die in 1993 with Henry Hazlitt? National Review's brain, *Requiescat in pace*.

Rush is a "right-wing talk radio host," but that's more significant than Rod may think.
Although he invented himself for commercial gain (he was not designed in a smoke-filled room of vast right-wing conspirators), Rush's significance to The Right, it seems to me, is that he he has a megachurch in the cybersphere, with communicants who are want their talking points spoon-fed. When they speak, they sound like repeater stations for Rush. That's my personal experience of dittoheads, roughly three of whom are close acquaintances.
But when they vote, their votes count like anyone else's. I hope K-Lo was citing him only as a barometer for what one faction of the Right coalition may do.

You know why McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts? Because he thought they were fiscally irresponsible. And that makes him unconservative?

Fiscal irresponsibility, it seems to me, appears to be okay to point out as far as the neo-cons are concerned only if the manner of irresponsibility is also ideologically unacceptable. Because the ideology behind Bush's tax cuts was theoretically correct, fiscal irresponsibility was not a legitimate criticism. I've heard it a million times--"The tax cuts are fiscally irresponsible? So you'd rather we just tax the rich?"

The thing is, what "McCain's not conservative" (or "Dreher's not conservative", for that matter) really means is "McCain isn't as conservative as I'd like to think I am."

Richard

McCain is conservative on some things.....strong defense/national security and government spending. But you have to separate his honorable service to our country and look at his policies/votes to determine political/philosophical ideology.

However, when it comes to open borders and amnesty for illegals McCain agrees with Ted Kennedy to let em all in--a liberal view, on campaign finance reform limiting freedom of speech he agrees with Russ Feingold--a liberal view, on the environment he agrees with Joe Lieberman and Al Gore--a liberal view, when it comes to blocking culturally conservative Supreme Court Justices (Gang of 14)in the Senate he agrees with 13 moderates--certainly not a conservative view, and when it came to the Bush tax cuts he was one of two Republicans to vote against it--not a conservative view.

So if you want to say McCain isn't a liberal, you're right. If you want to say he's not a conservative, you're also right. Best you can say is he's a moderate--which this opponent of illegal immigration and Defense, Cultural, and Economic conservative can't support for president. I'll only vote for a conservative--not a liberal or moderate.

Bill

I have a PhD in the humanities from an Ivy, and I'm a fan of Rush. I'm a big enough girl to know when he's full of it and when he's not. He's at his best when he is pillorying libs and the media, imho, not so great when discussing, say, religion. For those of us on the right, he's much-needed daily therapy. Be that as it may...

While I wouldn't rule out voting for McCain in principle, the issues Rush and other conservatives have with McCain comprise more than torture. (Many of us conservatives, being informed by classical Christian social teaching, are profoundly anti-torture.) Among and in addition to others mentioned, I would highlight three: (1) The McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform" legislation really threatens free speech, and as such terrifies me. Sometimes it takes money to speak, and the last place we should be regulating speech is in the political arena. (2) The Judiciary: as part of that "Gang" that hammered out that moderate Senate compromise on judges, McCain (in our view) severely hurt us and our desire to reform the judiciary. (It's on these issues and a couple others -- not torture or waterboarding or such -- that Rush, btw, hammers McCain.) (3) I believe McCain has been a big supporter of embryonic stem-cell research (although he has a 0% rating from NARAL).

In our minds, McCain was wrong on these issues, and few issues move us as much as speech and the judiciary in particular. I think most of us respect his service to his country, of course, and could live with him as a president. But he's not what we'd consider a solid conservative.

Rod asks: "Why is favoring campaign finance reform a "liberal" position?" Or to frame it in the way conservatives usually do, why does campaign reform infringe upon free speech? I'm surprised he had to ask.

Show me the money. Until recently, you could count upon Republican candidates to be better financed than their Democratic opponents. Still today, Republican candidates typically outspend Democrats. In any contest, from sports to politics to the courtroom no leader wants a level playing field. What's my advantage must be protected; what's my opponent's advantage must be compromised somehow. God knows, no one wants to compete strictly on ideas.

"Yes, of course they do. They feel the same way about a Democrat who is against abortion. To be a true Dem you have to affirm the greatness and necessity of abortion."

Actually no. That's more a conservative fantasy of what a liberal is. Abortion is not really a conversation that comes up in liberal circles, except in terms of the threats coming from the GOP.

Lierberman is a better example. His positions on the war become an electoral problem because another Democrat who was more opposed to the war was running against him. It was a political question more than a philosophical question.

Conservatives hate their dissenters to a level unseen in liberal circles.

Conservatives hate their dissenters to a level unseen in liberal circles.

That would be news to the junior senator from Connecticut, who had the singular honor of being portrayed in blackface by fellow liberals.

Rush Limbaugh is a one-man intellectual race to the bottom. And he's going to win.

When did he get to decide who is conservative?

Do we really want an oxy-cotton abusing, hillybilly heroin using, 3-time-divorcee with a suitcase full of contraband Viagra who literally took so many drugs that he WENT DEAF to be the ARBITOR of CONSERVATISM? How did we let this happen?!!

Barry Goldwater is reeling in his grave.

Ora pro nobis peccatoribus.

Conservatives hate their dissenters to a level unseen in liberal circles.

O... kay.

Two points. First, what should be our first test for any candidate: is he a man of honor? Does he mean what he says, and say what he means?

Second, who is best able to win in November?

For both of these reasons, I support John McCain. I don't agree with some of his positions (immigration, especially), but I trust John McCain to do the right thing as his conscience dictates. And, because of his history and personal integrity, believe he is best positioned to defeat either Obama or Clinton.

Fellow Republicans: don't let the search for the perfect candidate doom our chances in November. There is no perfect candidate, and the Gipper isn't available.

"Tax cuts" are not conservative when they drive up the deficit; I am not aware that spending money you don't have is a conservative principle. And "growth" can be damaging to traditional social mores and institutions.

Tax cuts leading to Trickle Down economics benefiting others which we had in the 80's and 90's is the essence of conservative Reaganomics and most compassionate.

Cutting taxes by a dollar bringing two dollars into the Treasury.

Bill

Daniel
Lierberman is a better example.

Right. I urge people to look at Lieberman's voting record since the election and try to tell us on the left that kicking him out was a 'mistake'. He's the ultimate 'provide cover to the people in power by shooting at his own guys' politician.

He's a Republican posing as a Democrat, and it's better that he's out there as a independent instead of doing harm by having newspapers to quote him as 'a Democrat'. (Granted, it almost lost the Dems the Senate majority, but no one had any idea they'd win so much for that to even be a factor.)

Rod Dreher
"Tax cuts" are not conservative when they drive up the deficit; I am not aware that spending money you don't have is a conservative principle.

Rod, you're outnumbered in your party by the delusional people like:

bill
Tax cuts leading to Trickle Down economics benefiting others which we had in the 80's and 90's is the essence of conservative Reaganomics and most compassionate.

Home run with this post, Rod!

My jaw also dropped yesterday reading that "not one of us" post -- citing support for waterboarding as a new "conservative" litmus test!

I disagree with McCain on quite a number of issues, but am actually starting to root for him and Huck precisely because they have the right enemies -- the professional activists who call themselves "movement" conservatives and who keep trying to narrow the definition of conservatism to the point of ridiculousness.

"Tax cuts" are not conservative when they drive up the deficit; I am not aware that spending money you don't have is a conservative principle. And "growth" can be damaging to traditional social mores and institutions.

As a general principle, a conservative should favor both tax cuts AND aggressive spending cuts in order to limit the power and roles of government. The Movement Conservatives pay lip service to the latter, but really care only about the tax cuts. And they have created an absurd situation in which every candidate who does not support ANY proposed tax cut is, ipso facto, a liberal.

Unless that candidate is Mitt Romney, who opposed Bush's 2004 tax cuts but gets a pass because .... why? Maybe Mitt has compromising photos on Rush and the Corner gang.

Mercy, Daniel, of course folks on the left are as evil to dissenters as folks on the right. Orwell called it "orthodoxy sniffing", and it's a human thing, not a right wing thing. Just for experimental purposes, you might want to take a shot at something sacred to the Left, say, GLOBAL WARMING, and then watch and learn as the incoming rounds explode around you. It works equally well with any portside shibboleth, and, to be fair, with any starboardside shibboleth. Human thing. We all want to be able to tell "us" from "them".

Of course, by and large liberals aren't nearly as self-conscious of their liberalism as conservatives are about their conservatism. Rod, Andrew Sullivan, etc spend lots of time and spill lots of virtual ink arguing and defending claims that they really are conservative and that their beliefs and views are conservative and that they're approaches are grounded in "the conservative tradition". This sort of credential-checking just doesn't have a good counterpart in liberal circles. Does the Left have its sacred cows? Sure. Are we prone to over-reacting when those sacred cows get tipped? Lamentably so. That's not the same thing as trying to edit someone out of an entire wing of political philosophy.

I should specify that I'm distinguishing between Liberals and Progressives in the above paragraph. Progressives do tend to be somewhat self-conscious in their labeling and there are occasional spats about who is Progressiver-than-thou. But still not nearly at the same level as it appears on the Right.

Frankly, if those on the Right spent half as much time and effort in making sure their views were correct or truthful as they do to make sure they're "conservative" and "orthodox", I think we'd all be better off.

Oh yeah, I forgot reason 5) He has a good chance of winning the general election.

Cleveland:

Hey, believe in torture if you want to. It's a free country. (Though it won't be for long, IMHO, the more acceptable torture becomes.)

But to make belief in torture a LITMUS TEST for conservatism? That's as bizarre as anything in the 1983 British Labor platform, the infamous "world's longest suicide note." (Some might argue the 1972 Democratic platform was the equivalent in our country.)

Rod:

The short answer to your original question is, WE DID.

That's why you guys won all those elections over the years ;-P (That, and candidates like McGovern, Dukakis and Kerry who couldn't get out of their own way.)

You realize JFK cut taxes in 1963 from 90 to 72% to jumpstart the economy back then and Reagan's tax cuts from 70 to 28% caused revenue to the Treasury to double by the end of the 80's decade? Keeping more of our own money not only creates jobs for others in the private sector, but enables more intact families more disposable income to afford to have a parent at home raising and inculcating their kids with their own values, when they have them--improving society.

You're not accounting for inflation, Reagan's raising of taxes back to the former levels, or increases in productivity. David Stockman admitted 'supply side economics' was a fraud in 1983, and there's a New Yorker article on him demonstrating it in numbers that no supply sider can refute.

We can not tax our way to economic prosperity.

1993 to 2000 disproves the prosperity inhibiting dogma of taxes in peacetime. The stagflation of 2003 to now disproves the efficacy of the tax cut dogma itself. Theologically speaking, 'supply side economics' is an occultic belief system. (You have to become initiated to "understand" it, the Laffer Curve Dogma "proves" the magical outcomes claimed, evidence to the contrary and scientific disproof is dismissed, and no true supply-sider has ever succeeded at demonstrating or proving the theory to academic standards.)

allen
I should specify that I'm distinguishing between Liberals and Progressives in the above paragraph. Progressives do tend to be somewhat self-conscious in their labeling and there are occasional spats about who is Progressiver-than-thou. But still not nearly at the same level as it appears on the Right.

Well, progressive thought is, in a way, trying to recreate itself right now. For too long we (And I count myself as a progressive) have been ignored by liberals, who went along with Republican concepts about how government should operate. Witness their total caving on heath reform in 92.(1)

Anyway, new movements need credential checking, whereas old established ones do not. Part of the whole process is to establish what 'progressive' thought currently means.

This would logically mean the Republicans do not need cred checking, but they clearly have it, but borrow-and-spend neocons are, indeed, a new movement, one that's hijacked the party, it's just many on the right haven't quite grasped it yet.

Hence many right-wing people being confused and outraged to suddenly find themselves 'not conservative'.

Frankly, if those on the Right spent half as much time and effort in making sure their views were correct or truthful as they do to make sure they're "conservative" and "orthodox", I think we'd all be better off.

Amen. The number one inane view of the right: Cutting taxes is a good thing.

No. Having taxes match spending is a good thing. Cutting spending might be a good thing, which would, indeed, let you cut taxes.

But having less taxes as a goal is like trying to spend less on gas as a goal, which you accomplish by not putting as much in your car. Like you use ten gallons of gas a week but only purchase nine. Um. That don't make no sense.

The way to spend less gas is to drive less, or have a car that uses less per mile, or buy cheaper gas, or some combination thereof. But the amount of gas you purchase needs to exactly match the amount that your car actually uses.

And the same with taxes, except we need them higher for a while to pay off the debt, and then we need to have them slightly too high in boom times and slightly too low in bust times.

1) That sounds harsher than I intend it, there's room in this party for both of us, but there are some rather serious problems facing us that need progressive solutions, like the impending bank collapses and, obviously, health care. You people have plenty of your own fights, with the administration running roughshod over civil rights and attempting to cripple protection of minorities, and the less said about their attempts to manipulate elections the better. So we'll get out of your way, you get out of ours. :)

"...McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts...Because he thought they were fiscally irresponsible. And that makes him unconservative?" Rod

Of course it does, especially in view of all his other above-mentioned non-con actions. The fact you didn't know that, along with the other non-cons on this board, is very revealing.

But remember that, nevertheless, true Conservatives will vote for him in a heartbeat if he is the Republican nominee, which Dems want him to be because they think his lack of charisma will make him a loser v. Billary.

"Anyway, the Catholic Church, of which you are a communicant, Cleveland, says torture is immoral. Think about that." Rod

Now you are putting words in the mouth of the Church. Nice! Please don't try to tell an orthodox Catholic what the Church teaches about Bush Administration style waterboarding (which has occurred two or three times since the war began). Even our Special Ops guys, who undergo waterboarding in training, say it's not torture. But you non-cons know better than they do.

Now let me riddle you this: What blog owner with the initials R.D. would scream and cry like a madman to have an Islamo-fascist waterboarded ASAP if the blog owner's wife and children were being slowly tortured at an unknown location? Guess it all boils down to who's ox is being gored, huh, Rod.

"Why is favoring campaign finance reform a "liberal" position?" Rod

"My words were "...Feinegold's ugly little anti-free speech during elections bill was passed under the GUISE of campaign reform." Come on, my friend, you're better than that.

"I would be laughed out of town if I called the Journal editorial page [re immigration] 'unconservative.'" Rod

No, Rod, you would be lauded as a true Conservative. Again, very revealing.

BTW, Irenaeus' January 10, 2008 8:35 AM comment speaks for me, too.

"[Re Cleveland's claim that Bush Administration style waterboarding is not torture] I don't remember United States v Sawada, 1946, being overturned." By mystery poster.

No wonder you wouldn't post you name. After WW II, Japanese military and civilian officials were tried for war crimes, including the torture of captured Allied personnel. Among the types of actual torture techniques brought up in the 1946 Sawada trial was a process called the water treatment:

"The victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach until he lost consciousness. Pressure was then applied, sometimes by jumping upon his abdomen to force the water out. The usual practice was to revive the victim and successively repeat the process."

Mystery poster, I'm glad you posted. It shows how devious and untrustworthy you liberals can be when it come to your hatred of President Bush. United States v Sawada was about the various, infamous, actual torture methods used by the Japanese.

"Who was I supposed to believe, Rush or my own eyes? And just as patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, so is safety-in-numbers the first refuge of dittoheads..." Scott Lahti

Scott, if it comes down to who I believe--you or Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly and my own experience--you lose, big time. Anti-patriotism also seeks refuge in numbers--just look at the Democrat Party.

"Ora pro nobis peccatoribus." gjoe

I do pray for you, gjoe.

Even Laffer, author of the famous Laffer Curve that was long used to justify tax cuts, has recently disowned the idea that cuts in income tax rates will produce more revenue than not cutting income tax rates, et cet.