Ah, to be an anthropologist at CPAC, where the kids was smokin' th' political crack. From the WaPo:
[Tucker] Carlson got in a bit of a dust-up with the audience when he spoke Thursday. Arguing that conservatives need to put more effort into digging up facts and rely less on opinion and punditry, he noted that the New York Times, a favorite target of conservative wrath, at least cares about spelling people's names right."NOOOOOOO," arose a moan from some in the crowd.
"I'm merely saying that at the core of their news-gathering operation is gathering news."
"NOOOOO . . ."
". . . finding facts and bringing it to people . . ."
"NOOOOO . . ."
Verily, that's the way to bring the party back: blame the media. I talked to a conservative the other day who assured me that Obama's success is entirely a creation of the lying biased media, which tricked people into voting for him. The unpopularity of Republican policies has nothing to do with it. Why, we have that from the mouth of America's Top Conservative, who said at CPAC:
Rush Limbaugh, touted by many conservatives as the de facto head of the party in the interregnum, closed the conference with his own speech. "We can take this country back," the radio host told the assembly. "All we need is to nominate the right candidate. It's no more complicated than that."
Yep, it's just that easy. No need to return to first principles and recalibrate policies to account for new realities. Just find a better messenger for the same old same old. You begin to see why nobody inside that bubble could grasp what a flop Bobby Jindal's reheated Republican mush of a speech was going to be ahead of time. Here's a transcript of the entire Limbaugh CPAC speech. Take a look at this passage, and please tell me what is conservative about it?:
Let me tell you who we conservatives are: We love people. [Applause] When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don't see groups. We don't see victims. We don't see people we want to exploit. What we see -- what we see is potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt. We don't think that person doesn't have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government.
This is a comforting lie. It is Rousseau conservatism: the idea that man is born innocent, but corrupted by society, or government. Remove the chains of government, and man will return to his natural, good state, which is one of limitless possibility. This denies two bedrock truths of philosophical conservatism, which are that 1) human nature is fallen, and 2) man must learn to live within limits. A conservatism that is not founded on a conscious recognition of those two truths is a false conservatism, and has a shaky foundation from which to criticize liberal utopianism.
More Limbaugh:
President Obama has the ability -- he has the ability to inspire excellence in people's pursuits. He has the ability to do all this, yet he pursues a path, seeks a path that punishes achievement, that punishes earners and punishes -- and he speaks negatively of the country. Ronald Reagan used to speak of a shining city on a hill. Barack Obama portrays America as a soup kitchen in some dark night in a corner of America that's very obscure. He's constantly telling the American people that bad times are ahead, worst times are ahead. And it's troubling, because this is the United States of America.
Got that? Any attempt to grapple in a public way with the sins and failings of America, the errors that got us into this ditch, is to be seen as unpatriotic. We must ever keep before us the America Idol, and the power of positive thinking.
Crack. Crack.
The freedom we spoke of earlier is the freedom, it's the ambition, it's the desire, the wherewithal, the passions that people have that gave us the great entrepreneurial advances, the great inventions, the greatest food production, the human lifestyle advances in this country, why shouldn't that be rewarded?
Pure, uncut Progressivism. It's astonishing, really.
We have a challenge. We've got factions now within our own movement seeking power to dominate it, and worst of all to redefine it. Well, the Constitution doesn't need to be redefined. Conservative intellectuals, the Declaration of Independence does not need to be redefined and neither does conservativism. Conservativism is what it is and it is forever. It's not something you can bend and shape and flake and form. [Applause] Thank you. Thank you.
Because, what, it was handed down from Sinai? One hardly knows what to say to this. Do they really believe politics is dogmatic religion? They must. And if so, they're hopeless. Can you imagine going to such a liberal gathering in 1985, after Fritz Mondale had his head handed to him by Ronald Reagan, and listening to the de facto leader of US liberalism talking this way, saying that, "Liberalism is what it is and it is forever. It's not something you can bend and shape and flake and form"? If you were a conservative, you would have chortled and taken comfort in the evidence that the opposition was going to be spending a lot more time in the woods before the light of reality dawned upon their furrowed faces.
So there will be different factions lining up to try to define what conservatism is. And beware of those different factions who seek as part of their attempt to redefine conservativism, as making sure the liberals like us, making sure that the media likes us. They never will, as long as we remain conservatives. They can't possibly like us; they're our enemy. In a political arena of ideas, they're our enemy.
Anybody who challenges Limbavian orthodoxy is, ipso facto, the Enemy. If you suggest reform, even from the Right, you are a useful idiot for the Media, which are the Enemy, and can never be anything but the Enemy. Limbaughism sounds a lot like Leninism.
I loved it when the Soviet Union went down and the wall went down and the liberals in our country said you know they may not be ready for freedom over there. They've been oppressed -- yes, liberals will gladly tell you who can have freedom and who can't.
Um, what were the Nineties like in the former Soviet Union? That experiment proved that free markets and liberal democracy can't take hold without the cultural and social preconditions for same. Ditto Iraq. But the Limbavian ideologues, these Right-Wing Rousseauists, see human nature as essentially perfect, except for the corrupting hand of government.
Toward the end:
As I say, we want the best: Happiness for everybody.
I give up. It's going to be a long, long Lent for American conservatism.
I should say that there's something to like in the Limbaugh speech; I share a degree of his skepticism over the expanding role of the state in American life under Obama, and his confidence that the greater responsibility for our own condition lies in individual and private-sector initiative. But good grief, is this what constitutes popular conservatism in 2009? This ideologically-driven right-wing Rousseauism, with Leninist overtones about the Enemies of the People? If so, then count me as an Enemy, because I want nothing to do with it, as I recognize it as simply a crudely politicized form of philosophical liberalism.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
Your name, Phillip, your name. . . ditto. You said it better than I could. Thanks for taking the time, I enjoyed reading it.
I know Rod is a smart guy, but what happened to him? This is beneath him.
Wow. I am shocked to read how Obamamania has taken hold of you supposed conservatives.
Add me to the people that want Obama to fail. I, frankly, don't want the economic fascism they're serving up. I like having the opportunity to try, to fail, and to succeed by my own free will. I don't like Barney Frank and Chuck Schurmer picking and choosing winners. I don't like Nancy Pelosi shoveling billions of dollars to Planned Parenthood.
I. hope. he. fails.
Limbaugh's speech, as he has said all week, was designed to enunciate basic conservative princlples for the average American. That's it.
These shots fired back and forth here about his intellect, his appearance, his history are missing his point.
And debasing for all.
His point was to return to principles. From there, problems and issues can be addressed. Policies can be developed, and implemeted.
Reagan's and Hayek's and Friedman's principles can be applied to any problem, any time.
It is a matter of application and implementation. But the principles must come first. They are eternal. You adhere to them and forge ahead.
If you believe a problem or issue cannot be solved with those eternal conservative principles, the conflict lies not with conservatism.
The conflict lies in you.
For whatever reason, your belief in those certain principles and their effectiveness has wavered, or even failed. But that is not a sign of weakness or foolishness on your part. Nor is it a sign of enlightenment or new found brilliance within yourself.
But it is a sign something has changed.
Again, the conflict lies in you, and it is up to you to decide your next step. If those steps take you furthur away, a man like Limbaugh will call you on it. Not out of malice, but because he wants you to turn back.
In the meantime, this is our struggle. Let's make the most of our opportunities everyday, however big or small.
Limbaugh sure did last week.
But please, do not criticize others whom are trying to rally our cause while you do not adhere to our cause's principles. And don't hold conservatism responsible for the shift within yourself.
Cordially, MJS
Great Information
I think that whoever suggests that America is becoming a socialist state, should first live in a socialist state. Then I think it would be obvious that America is far, far away from anything resembling socialism.
It is funny that budget overspending is suddenly becoming such a problem. I do seem to recall that Bill Clinton amassed a record budget surplus, and that George Bush, a Republican President, was the one who turned it into a budget deficit. And suddenly Obama wants to turn America into a socialist state? I can definitely see the logical line there.
And I also seem to recall that there is a massive financial crisis that is happening, approximately right now. We expect the government to just let that happen? Sure, perhaps the effects of the crisis isn't being felt as much by the individual, but cumulatively it is extremely serious. Obama, with his expansionary fiscal policy, isn't trying to turn the country into a socialist state, he is merely trying to prevent the collapse of the financial system. And so far I haven't heard a cohesive policy to combat the crisis from the conservative side, actually, I don't really hear a lot of discussion on policy from the conservative side.
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.