Crunchy Con

Balko: GOP needs a good, purgative thrashing

Wednesday October 22, 2008

Categories: Republicans
Well, it's hard to argue with libertarian Radley Balko's contention that the GOP has forfeited its right to govern. Excerpt: While I'm not thrilled at the prospect of an Obama administration (especially with a friendly Congress), the Republicans still need...
Advertisement
Comments
Kit Stolz
October 22, 2008 4:12 PM

Perhaps the best aspect of the American political electoral system, which is a rickety contraption in the best of times, is its tendency towards exactly this sort of purge. I'm a lefty, and think Reagan steered us down the wrong path in many respects, but I can't blame the nation for rejecting Carter back in l980. Carter just did not have what it takes to lead this country well.

My hope is that out of the ashes of the Bush/Cheney fiasco will rise a new conservatism for the 21st century, one that recognizes the importance of natural culture and capital as well as human culture and capital.

I know, I know, I'm naive...but in the long run, I think our future depends on a far-sighted conservatism as well as a compassionate liberalism, and right now, the GOP is as myopic as Mr. Magoo.

Larry
October 22, 2008 4:20 PM

This administration believes that on any issue that can remotely be tied to foreign policy or national security (and on quite a few other issues as well), the president has boundless, limitless, unchecked power to do anything he wants. They believe that on these matters, neither Congress nor the courts can restrain him.

And he has stacked, with Senate approval, the Supreme Court with those who believe just like him. Those who think we need to vote Republican because of possible Supreme Court nominees need to consider that Bush's appointees couldn't find the right to Habeas Corpus in the Constitution. It would interfere with the right of the "unitary executive", you see.

Marc
October 22, 2008 4:21 PM

Amen, again. Too bad our binary political society can't manage to purge both parties right now.

lancelot lamar
October 22, 2008 4:30 PM

Well, he's right that the Republicans have botched things horribly and do deserve to be kicked out. The problem is, to do that we have to give even more power to Chris Dodd and Barney Frank and the rest of their crew, who are even more corrupt, more responsible for the financial meltdown, and more big government/high tax oriented.

The lesser of evils is at least to have a divided government, which is maybe the best we can do in the sad state of our Republic with neither party representing a true, constitional option.

steve
October 22, 2008 4:38 PM

Balko is usually a good read and he is spot on here. Staying in power has become more important than adhering to principle for the Republican party elites. When a party cannot adhere to its own core beliefs, it needs to go. Political parties do not have a history of self-reformation while they are still in power. The US really needs a party that believes in fiscal responsibility. Maybe the Republican party can be that party someday.

Steve

John E. - Agn Stoic
October 22, 2008 5:38 PM

The GOP no more has a 'right to govern' than do I have a 'right to be employed'.

If I do good work at my job, I get to stay employed. If the GOP had done good work running the country, they would have gotten to stay governing.

Problem was that they got caught up in the idea of a 'Permanent Republican Majority'. Didn't work out like they planned, eh?

Elizabeth Anne
October 22, 2008 6:18 PM

My husband introduced me to The Agitator when we first met, and Radley has become one of my all time favorite bloggers.

Colleenc
October 22, 2008 6:32 PM

I can't believe Mr. Crunchy Con would in any way support the Moloch Obama presidency. Say it isn't so!!! I'm not that fond of John McCain, but he doesn't think it's A-OK to partially deliver a baby (at 8.5 months gestation) stick a tool into it's brain, crush the brain and skull, and then deliver a tortured DEAD human being!!! Mr. Obama has said that one of the 1st things he will do as president is sign the FREEDOM of CHOICE ACT, which will shove this barbaric act down the throats of all 50 states, regardless if they wish it or not. He also will not allow states to decide if 13 year olds need to tell their parents that they are having surgery (ear piercing yes, surgery not!)

If Mr. Obama is SOOO wrong on this, how can he be right on ANYTHING else. Yes, this is a litmus test of his integrity as a human being.

Colleen

Scott Walker
October 22, 2008 6:43 PM

A few nights ago we were watching The News Hour on PBS, and caught the interview with perennial laughingstock, Ralph Nader. When it was over, my wife and I agreed that Ralph was talking more sense than either of the two major party candidates, which was actually a bit scary. Not that it matters, as Oregon is going to vote for Obama by a large majority, but I'm going to vote third party this time around and support Ralph. I've voted Republican in every election since 1976, but enough is enough, for the reasons Balko mentioned, and for a few more besides. The practical definition of insanity is to keep doing the same things while expecting different results, and it should be abundantly evident to anybody with a pulse that neither of the two major parties will do anything to disturb the oligarchs who control them. The recent bailout of the greedheads of Wall Street tells me everything I need to know about the American political elite. I'm done with them.

DavidTC
October 22, 2008 8:19 PM

When it was over, my wife and I agreed that Ralph was talking more sense than either of the two major party candidates, which was actually a bit scary.

Ralph Nader always talks sense. A good deal of sense. That, of course, does not excuse the fact is he unwilling to work inside the system, preferring to operate outside where he gets free PR, and additionally sabotages the system at every opportunity by attacking his allies instead of his enemies.

He's not only the reason we get Republicans like Bush in office, he's the reason we get DLC Democrats like Clinton in office...because he's off pulling away the votes of people who would be picking Democrats farther to the left. He has staked out, on many issues, the farther-left sane position that exists, and thus politicians who would take that position, or a close one, in the Democratic party end up losing the election.

I'm convinced the reason that Obama is doing so well is that Nader finally just shut up, probably because several million Democrats were threatening to lynch him if he screwed this one up.

OTOH, I find it very surreal to hear that a Republican is going to vote for him. Exactly where do you agree with Nader and disagree with Obama?

Reaganite in NYC
October 22, 2008 9:51 PM

Even if it was true that the GOP needs a "good, purgative thrashing" ...

... do you honestly think that an Obama Presidency (along with a 60-seat Democratic Senate and a Pelosi House) is what the country needs?

Does the country we love deserve a "good, purgative thrashing" ? That could only be the wish of that diseased soul, Reverend Jeremiah Wright ("No, no, no: not God Bless America. God D----- America.") Apparently Rev. Wright would get his prayer answered if Obama gets elected.

Wake up!! Stop treating the 2008 election and the prospect of a McCain defeat as nothing more than "an interesting thought experiment." Stop fantasizing about a one-term Obama presidency or the prospects of a Huckabee/Jindal ticket in 2012.

If Obama/Pelosi get their way on tax hikes we will see the country pushed into a depression ... with a lot of people we care about looking for work and unemployable for as long as a decade (including a lot of folks who blog here). Read Michael Medved's latest column for a good taste of the future under an Obama presidency.

If Obama and his Secretary of State, John Kerry, get their way on the world stage you will eventually see Ukraine wiped off the map by Putin, Georgians learning to speak Russian again, the Middle East rocked from end-to-end by a nuclear Iran and their terrorist buddies, the Russian Navy operating out of their bases in Venezuela, and the Chinese saber-rattling Asia and threatening us from the sky.

Nightstalker
October 22, 2008 10:12 PM

If the GOP has no "right to govern", it means that in the opinion of the writer, the DNC does - because ONE of the two will.

I have absolutely NO use for anyone who claims to be a conservative, but wants the DNC to have free hand to do what they want. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who so turns on conservatism that way deserves "traitor" after their name.

Rawlins: Ghost-Poster To The GOP Stars
October 22, 2008 10:42 PM

I have decided that some regular conservative posters are predictable enough that I would like to offer my services as a ghost writer for time-cramped partisans whom I liken to ‘boomerangs’. Meaning...no matter how the subject, the response makes a u-turn to the Far Right. Think of my possible 'ghost poster position' as a GOP blog posting equivalent of dog-walking.

May I offer as sample audition?

***EXAMPLE ROD THREAD TITLE QUESTION: "Do you like Fall or Spring better?"
~~~~
***GHOSTWRITTEN POST FOR TIME-STRAPPED BUT PREDICTABLE 'BOOMERANG' PARTISAN: "I always have like the Fall. But Obama is making this usually season of reflection one of alarming danger since his nature is corrupt and his knowledge of human nature flawed."

Any takers?

simeon
October 22, 2008 10:55 PM

Rawlins: clever, but you forgot to blame the media for something and everything.

Christopher
October 22, 2008 11:10 PM

"I have absolutely NO use for anyone who claims to be a conservative..."

Which is exactly how we have gotten into this mess - sheepish support of the GOP.

Problem is, folks are not buying it anymore. In other words, they are beginning to suspect that honest liberalism (honest anything) is better than supporting the Rockefeller led GOP. Ask yourself, what has the GOP really done for the libertarian since 94? What concerns of a traditional conservative (such as myself) been addressed? I don't pretend to be able to accurately define a "crunchy con", but has the "conservative revolution" brought any of your principals to the government?

Nightstalker, the lesser of two evil argument is suspect in principle. Applied though as a threat to support the GOP no matter how obvious and deep their failure to govern in a conservative manner?!? How are conservatives supposed to respond to that? Allow me to answer that last one: staying home in 06 and now 08…

Nightstalker
October 23, 2008 12:59 AM

"honest liberal"???? What the bloody hell are you talking about? Obama's honest? What kind of idiocy is that? There's not a shred of honesty, integrity, wisdom, or sobriety to be found in the rabid leftist arrogance and vengeance of the Democrat party.

I can tell you what it is... The same kind of dishonest tripe you're arguing. I didn't say that EITHER party "deserves" to rule. Neither should, EVER. The GOP is not "conservatism", nor will it ever be. It is simply a political party. It is, at least, semi-friendly to conservatives, while the Democrats are flagrantly hostile to conservatives.

Given those options, the course of action is OBVIOUS. Conservatives need to take over the party. duhh. Control it. Get conservatives elected. Get into party leadership. Political parties are chameleons, they simply resemble who pulls the strings.

To simply turn your back on your friends, in a juvenile fit of anger... Like the kid who says "if you don't let me do whatever I want, I'm talking my ball and going home" the rest just say "ok, whatever" and take someone else's ball and play away.

"The lesser of two evils" is suspect? Perhaps. But there is going to be ONE OR THE OTHER in the driver's seat.

And since it is MY life, MY future, MY business, MY family who has to suffer the results of a liberal government. And you wanting to play a personal game against a political party, ignoring the consequences to millions of Americans, is just infuriating to me. Not to mention, just plain arrogant. To think that vengeance against party leadership is more important, or even slightly important, in comparison to at least trying to affect a better than 'default' outcome is inexcuseable, in my opinion.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with "blind support" or even "grudging support", or anything else, for the GOP as a party. It is simply recognition that there's two choices for who's going to govern, and one's better than the other, by a LONG ways.

Playing petty vengeance games is absurd, in my view. If you want to "teach the party a lesson", then get yourself in charge. Displace the faithfless or spineless, or WHATEVER the people are that are in charge and do something.

But to pretend that you, and everyone else, deserves the wrongness and evil to be perpetrated on the country by an unrestrained bunch of Democrats, for the purpose of personal revenge against party leadership, is as I stated... traitorous. Put the country first, not your emotions.


Christopher
October 23, 2008 3:35 AM

Boy Nightstalker, I do know how to push your buttons - and I don't even know you! I would gently suggest you take a look under your saddle - there's a bur under thar

The crux of your argument appears to be:

"This has absolutely NOTHING to do with "blind support" or even "grudging support", or anything else, for the GOP as a party. It is simply recognition that there's two choices for who's going to govern, and one's better than the other, by a LONG ways."

Which I obviously disagree with. I run my families medical practice, so yes we are in the top earners and own our business, employ others, etc.

Yet, as I have argued for years now it will be the GOP and not the Dem's who complete the socialization of medicine (it is partly socialized now through Medicare). The Dem's don't have the fiscal clout. More importantly the GOP is in the pocket of big business interests (who are alternatively libertarian or socialist - when ever it suits them). What better way to get the cost of health care off your books than by passing it on to the tax payer?

Tell me NightStalker, which party created and passed the biggest expansion of the entitlement state since LBJ? Answer: GOP with the Prescription Drug Giveaway (unless of course you count the recent bail out).

You see, I just don't buy the argument that one party is "traitorously" liberal, while the other is not. Fact is they are both liberal - it's just that one is honest about it. The other? Well, it talks the conservative talk but rarely walks the walk. Just look at the record of GOP governance from 94 till 06.

I'm a traditional conservative in the Kirkean sense. On the social/cultural side, the GOP has delivered nothing but crumbs. They can't even hold the judiciary. On the economic side, they have been more successful at expanding the scope and size of government than the Dem's have since the sixties.

When it comes down to it, I give the Dem's more credit as far as being "predictable" than the GOP. This is as important as anything, because it allows me to better plan the future of my business and the investment of my wealth. Not too far distant, the unfunded entitlements (SS and Medicare) will put this country in a ruin similar to Britain in the post war years. 70-80% taxes, with significant inflation. Republicans like talk tough about this, but look how easily they folded in the recent bailout (it being "necessary", etc.). Unless the GOP gets some direction other than a Rockefeller one, the Dem's will be the honest ones here also.

I say all this Nightstalker simply to show there is a rational behind the rejection of the GOP in 06, 08. I also think they will be smacked in 2012 also, to hear "conservative" GOPers like Tom Coburn talk (http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/10/21/senate-bailout-vote-oped-cx_tc_1022coburn.html)

In any case, if I were you I would check under that saddle of yours...;)

Nightstalker
October 23, 2008 4:20 AM

And you do it yet again.

It seems no matter what I say, you're going to invent a straw man and argue against it. Even if it completely contradicts what I say, you just keep on repeating the same nonsense.

You keep arguing about the GOP, as if I'm advocating the "party" as some kind of solution.

Absolutely NOWHERE do I say anything even faintly like that notion.

I argued that your argument that the GOP needs to be defeated is absurd. That means you want Democrats. Which you deny. Talk about cognitive dissonance!

You WILL have one or the other. The time has come to choose one or the other. Voting Democrat or not voting, WILL NEVER CHANGE THE GOP. It will help Democrats. That's all that will happen. Oh, and the leadership will "understand" that you are preferring Democrat policies and the party will move left some more.

I happen to wholeheartedly agree with the faults of the GOP leadership. But that's the problem. It's the leadership. Parties are chameleons, they simply resemble those who lead it.

You will NOT change the GOP by trying to banish them to the wilderness of minority status. You WILL by getting involved and taking leadership away from the quasi-conservatives that run it.

Of course, if you're small minded, can't envision anything productive, and consider the indulgence of voting to punish people you don't know and don't know you... Then you're my enemy.

The choices DO matter. It matters to my life, it matters to yours. Socialization of all medicine is a fait acompli if Obama wins. And you WILL BE JOBLESS. His intention is to basically kill all private insurance and force all into a single government pay program. And he very well will have the votes to do it. I need not explain to you how you will become irrelevant when you find that all prices, procedures, compensation, etc, are controlled by Congress.

He is intending to do to medicine, what Fannie and Freddie did to mortgage lending. The plan is to force all employers to provide medical benefits, or face a fine - a fine much smaller than the cost of insurance. This will result in near immediate loss of private insurance coverage that is not contractually secured. It's quite simple. The cost of the fine will be approximately 1/4 - 1/5 of the cost of insurance, and those whose employers pay it will be covered by federal "insurance". Employers who choose to pay private insurance over goverment will be so rare that the health care insurance industry as we know it will be gone. Period.

And when the insurance companies leave the health care market (or go bankrupt) then voluntary non-employee insurance will vanish as well. When Congress finds that it has taken on a 1-1.5 trillion dollar annual liability and has only 20% of the revenue to pay it, you will find that compensation will be so reduced that private health care firms will simply have to close the doors - or become subsidized by the state or federal goverment.

Within 2 years, Obama could entirely socialize medicine without EVER having Congress declare it, and he would be claiming to be 'saving' the industry. And you will be jobless.

When that happens, if Obama is elected, please post here how it was so important to spite your anger at GOP party leadership that you really did need to do this to yourself and your country. Please. And then, please describe how attacking the GOP saved you and me.

Or, you could use your God given brain and forget about vengeance and anger, and instead, TAKE OVER the party, and turn it conservative, rather than whatever the heck it is now.

Oh, and please, don't insult my intelligence with "we'll make a new party" gibberish. You'll simply do to it what you're doing to the GOP, determined to punish it into conformity with whatever your view is, and have absolutely NO success at all.

Nightstalker
October 23, 2008 4:51 AM
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTllNTk2MDNmNDk1YmQ0OWEzOTZmMTVmODUwZTQwY2E=

Let's try that here...

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTllNTk2MDNmNDk1YmQ0OWEzOTZmMTVmODUwZTQwY2E=

Freddoso compares Obama with Obama, and we all get to see exactly what kind of ethics and integrity he has.

Obama sought and got agreement from other candidates to live by the limitations of public campaign financing. And then at the last moment, bailed. Knowing full well that no GOP opponent would break their pledge, he bailed.

Obama and his campaign - and his defenders - officially mock and deride the questioners about whether he is technically allowed to run for office, proffering the notion that such technicalities are just cover for racism, bigotry, hate.

Obama owes his life in public office due to his ability to remove opponents from the ballot due to "technicalities" over sloppy paperwork.

There's no mystery here. We all have known people who are like this. Who do anything, no mattter how hypocritical, to benefit themselves. Who will mislead, break every trust placed in them to benefit themselves.

Show of hands, who believe Obama's sincere about ANYTHING he's saying as far as what he intends to do?

Ok, those of you with hands raised, please send over your credit cards, signed blank checks, and cash for me to invest for you. I've got this great hot tip... And you deserve to be ripped off for being deliberately incomprehensibly stupid.

You can put your hands down now. The robbery is over.


Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Please type the text you see in the box below to verify your post and help us prevent spam. You have a limited time to type - you may wish to compose your comment in a separate document and paste it here upon completion.

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Advertisement

Search This Blog

About Crunchy Con

Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.

feed icon Subscribe

RSS Feed

Receive updates from Crunchy Con

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Beliefnet

Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet.

Legal

Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet.

Advertisement

Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.