Mark Thompson, writing on John Schwenkler's new Culture 11 blog:
[T]he problems [for conservatives] have not been caused by religious conservatives or adherence to free market beliefs, but instead by a sort of "talk radio" dogmatism in which any given issue becomes a litmus test for whether one is a "true" conservative or Republican.This dogmatism has become terribly pervasive, dominating the party infrastructure and including many of the most prominent faces of conservatism both online and on the air. It is a dogmatism that is in some ways pushed by a wide variety of conservatives - free market conservatives and libertarians, religious conservatives, and defense conservatives. And yet it is also a dogmatism with which large elements of each of those groups take significant umbrage.
In and of itself, though, a little dogmatism is not necessarily a unique hindrance to a political party or movement's electability or even its legislative agenda - political dogma has existed for at least as long as political parties have existed, and without some of it political parties cannot distinguish themselves from their competitors.
Instead, the problem with this particular form of dogma is its all-around meanness. Under this dogmatism, dissenters of any stripe are treated as the enemy, regardless of whether the dissenter's general viewpoint could be described as "conservative," and regardless of the dissenter's political affiliation. Wide nets are cast to stereotype anyone who may be adversely affected by implementation of one of the dogma's tenets. Where a particular tenet relies on a particular fact, and a suggestion is made that the fact is inaccurate, the personal loyalties of the questioner are called into question - even if the fact is demonstrably wrong.
Liberals can be quite intolerant, yet I don't think they have an entire category -- RINO (Republican In Name Only) -- to describe and marginalize as a heretic anybody who doesn't line up 100 percent with the ideological orthodoxy. Thompson goes on to say that if you build your political movement around constantly pointing out that it's Us vs. Them, pretty soon you'll find that there aren't too many of Us left.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Mark Ping....
Um... Which part of "Reagan signed an Amnesty Bill" is inaccurate?
Well, Democrats do have a similar term, 'DINO', but it tends to be applied to 'Democratic' politicians who, in essence, vote the Bush party line in every way that matters. I.e, centrist-right 'Democratic' Congressmen. It's usually used in the context that there should be a primary challenge. (Re: Lieberman)
It's not applied to non-politicians, and no one is running around arguing what liberalism 'really' and saying they aren't that...they're saying DINOs are simply not far enough to the left to be 'D's.
This is probably because the left does know what 'liberal' and 'progressive' mean, even if they are often confused for each other, and can actually rank people in some sort of meaningful manner on left as to where they fall.
We sometimes debate over where someone does fall exactly, although we're usually pretty agreed on it. And we often disagree on where the ideal position is, how far to the left is where 'the left' is.(1) But, all things considered, we actually have a workable axis over here. Two, actually, progressive and liberal, although we just sorta add them together.
Unlike you guys, which seem to have three or four axis, which you've all named 'conservative'. I guess that makes it easier to remember, like naming all your kids 'Pete'. It sure makes it harder to talk about, though.
1) This applies to domestic stuff. We have no idea just what foreign policy is 'liberal'. As, like I said just a few weeks ago, neither party has a 'foreign policy' worth a damn, which is why the neocons were able to waltz in with a prepackaged one. It was full of suck, but it was a foreign policy.
Conservatism has 3-4 axises as DavidTC says, but I think that they are all only called the same thing in general parlance. As most people on this blog are at least a little interested in politics, they surely know the differences between neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, libertarians, etc. We have all heard of the "three legged stool" on conservatism. But the broadness of this movement/ideology/political philosophy includes not just McCarthy, Goldwater and Reagan but Mel Bradford, Richard Weaver, Russel Kirk, Lew Rockwell just to name a few.
However, part of the problem is the equating of Republican Party with Conservatism. While it may be the banner carrying party of conservatism, it is not conservatism itself. Which is in part why I don't see the term RINO as mean spirited as I guess some here do. It just seems obvious that if you are a Republican who consistently votes against your party, in some distinct way you are not really in line with that party. You may or may not still be a conservative. Isn't that kind of the impetus of Rod's book?
EddieinCA -I hope you know that there are people making principled arguments for those items you mentioned. Perhaps they don't make it into the limelight enough.
As far as Talk Radio goes, I think it has added to the public discourse. Not to the level of good in depth articles in well done magazines, or excellent books dedicated to a subject but worth far more that yet another sports show or sicking Bob and Tom type humor shows. Sure I sometimes get infuriated with Rush or Savage. I often think they are wrong or blinded by their own personal histories and current popularity. But on whole I am glad they are there and occasionally enjoy listening to them.
The talk radio types are entertainers of the paranoid style, not serious analysts, and it shows how bankrupt the GOP constituency is to consider them as any type of leaders. I can't listen to talk radio anymore, can barely even read National Review online, and can't vote republican anymore either. I don't think there is anything that can be done at this point; let the evolutionary dead end play itself out.
Re: Which is in part why I don't see the term RINO as mean spirited as I guess some here do. It just seems obvious that if you are a Republican who consistently votes against your party, in some distinct way you are not really in line with that party.
I don't have a problem when the epithet is used for people like Lincoln Chaffee. But when it's hung on John McCain or Charlie Crist it simply means "Republican politician the speaker dislikes".
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.