No True Conservative

[Darth Rotor]

An incisive piece by Austin Bramwell, who was once a trustee at the National Review. While this analysis is a case of someone closing the door after the horse has galloped off, an analysis better made in, say, May of 2002, he lays out the malaise that reared up and just bit GW Bush in the buttocks last week. That he felt he could not speak up previously either speaks poorly of his moral courage, or his integrity, I am not sure which.

Goodbye To All That

It is a bit windy, but worth the time.

The opener, if you are interested.

Until recently, it has been almost impossible for me to speak candidly about the conservative movement, for it was my strange fate to serve as director and later trustee of the movement’s flagship journal, National Review. Earlier this year, at William F. Buckley’s request, I resigned both positions. I can therefore now declare what perhaps has oft been thought but never, at least not often enough, expressed. Notwithstanding conservatives’ belief that they, in contrast to their partisan opponents, have thought deeply about the challenges facing the United States, it is they who have become unserious.

The unseriousness began not long after 9/11. On Oct. 15, 2001, for example, National Review—still the most powerful brand in conservative opinion, whose pronouncements the movement must either accept or at least refrain from challenging—wrote, in an editorial entitled “At War: Defining Victory”:

The logic of a ‘war on terrorism’ points beyond itself. … The phrase is meant to suggest that our hostility is not confined to those people who can be proved to have materially aided the attacks of September 11. It encompasses all those who mean to do our people harm. … Bombing bin Laden, if we find him, will not end [this war]. Nor will overthrowing the Taliban. Victory requires either changing the regimes of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, and Sudan, or frightening them enough to change their behavior towards us.

It goes on quite a bit.

The author was somehow unable, within the scope of this piece, to offer a remedy to the coservative's unstable situation, but that was not his main intent. This article was apparently his "OK, I am leaving, but before I go, I'll give you a piece of my mind" message to National Review, and perhaps to WF Buckley.

I wonder how WF Buckley took it. I wonder if Rush will bother to read this, and if he can last through it from start to finish.

DR

 

[Tricky]

An incisive piece by Austin Bramwell, who was once a trustee at the National Review. While this analysis is a case of someone closing the door after the horse has galloped off, an analysis better made in, say, May of 2002, he lays out the malaise that reared up and just bit GW Bush in the buttocks last week. That he felt he could not speak up previously either speaks poorly of his moral courage, or his integrity, I am not sure which.

Goodbye To All That

It is a bit windy, but worth the time.

The opener, if you are interested.


It goes on quite a bit.

The author was somehow unable, within the scope of this piece, to offer a remedy to the coservative's unstable situation, but that was not his main intent. This article was apparently his "OK, I am leaving, but before I go, I'll give you a piece of my mind" message to National Review, and perhaps to WF Buckley.

I wonder how WF Buckley took it. I wonder if Rush will bother to read this, and if he can last through it from start to finish.

DR

The opener is quite interesting, enough to make me read the whole thing, though not right now. Is it me, or are the number of "conversions" of conservatives more than usual?

 

[Darth Rotor]

The opener is quite interesting, enough to make me read the whole thing, though not right now. Is it me, or are the number of "conversions" of conservatives more than usual?

I don't understand your question. I only recently, in the past two years, began to understand the various versions of "conservative" in America myself, so I may not be the best person to answer that question. Labels can be slippery.

DR

 

[Tricky]

I don't understand your question. I only recently, in the past two years, began to understand the various versions of "conservative" in America myself, so I may not be the best person to answer that question. Labels can be slippery.

Okay, I am nailed. I shouldn't use the term "conservative" with such a wide brush.

But we've seen lots of defections in the Bush administration. Some were blatant, some were subtle, like Colin Powell. It also seems to me that even former Republican apologists, like George Will have been making sounds like maybe the "conservative" bandwagon is off the path.

Then of course, there are outright traitors like David Brock who claim outright that the movement they were a part of is a dangerous, deceitful machine. Heck, even Rush Limbaugh has sort of washed his hands of the whole situation. Yeah, I know it is partly because they are down that many have strolled by to kick them, but I don't recall as many defections from the liberal/Democratic side when the GOPS swept into power. Selective memory? Perhaps my memory is stale. I will accept refreshments. (Of course, pun intended.)

 

[LawnOven]

Okay, I am nailed. I shouldn't use the term "conservative" with such a wide brush.

Maybe you should just use the phrase "Bush Supporters".

 

[varwoche]

I've long been aware of the Nat'l Review but never read it. Though I don't often agree with Buckley, he's impressed me over the years as someone with intellectual integrity and assumed that would manifest in his magazine.

I learned about a character named Peter Ferrara recently as a result of his association with a slimy organization called Freedom Enterprise Fund. He's also a regular contributor to National Review.

I'm now disinclined to think of the National Review as having intellectual integrity, because the magazine continues to publish Ferrara despite that he is a paid shill:

Peter Ferrara, a senior policy adviser at the conservative Institute for Policy Innovation, says he, too, took money from Abramoff to write op-ed pieces boosting the lobbyist's clients. "I do that all the time," Ferrara says. "I've done that in the past, and I'll do it in the future." link

 

[Darth Rotor]

Okay, I am nailed. I shouldn't use the term "conservative" with such a wide brush.

But we've seen lots of defections in the Bush administration. Some were blatant, some were subtle, like Colin Powell. It also seems to me that even former Republican apologists, like George Will have been making sounds like maybe the "conservative" bandwagon is off the path.

Then of course, there are outright traitors like David Brock who claim outright that the movement they were a part of is a dangerous, deceitful machine. Heck, even Rush Limbaugh has sort of washed his hands of the whole situation. Yeah, I know it is partly because they are down that many have strolled by to kick them, but I don't recall as many defections from the liberal/Democratic side when the GOPS swept into power. Selective memory? Perhaps my memory is stale. I will accept refreshments. (Of course, pun intended.)

Zell Miller?

I had a subscription to the NR for two years in the mid 1980's. I cancelled it, but kept, for example, my subscriptions to Atlantic Monthly and Scientific American, because they kept my brain stimulated while NR seemed to be repeating itself. This was about the time that I began to have serious issues with the Religious Right.

An abortion clinic was bombed in the city where I lived at about that time. Falwell and his ilk were getting a lot of attention, but to my view were creating a weapon for their opponents: forcing abortion onto every damned ballot as a litmus test for who is or isn't allowed to run in opposition to the tax and spend bleeding hearts. The most recent foolishness is this stem cell gambit, more of the same for no good reason.

DR

 

[RandFan]

Okay, I am nailed. I shouldn't use the term "conservative" with such a wide brush.

But we've seen lots of defections in the Bush administration. Some were blatant, some were subtle, like Colin Powell. It also seems to me that even former Republican apologists, like George Will have been making sounds like maybe the "conservative" bandwagon is off the path.

Then of course, there are outright traitors like David Brock who claim outright that the movement they were a part of is a dangerous, deceitful machine. Heck, even Rush Limbaugh has sort of washed his hands of the whole situation. Yeah, I know it is partly because they are down that many have strolled by to kick them, but I don't recall as many defections from the liberal/Democratic side when the GOPS swept into power. Selective memory? Perhaps my memory is stale. I will accept refreshments. (Of course, pun intended.)

Let's assume that you are correct, what conclusions if any can we draw from that fact? Would that reveal something systemically wrong with the Republican party and/or something inherently wrong with Republicans?

 

[mumblethrax]

Let's assume that you are correct, what conclusions if any can we draw from that fact? Would that reveal something systemically wrong with the Republican party and/or something inherently wrong with Republicans?

No true conservative is the appropriate title for this thread.

What's being revealed here is that many Republican conservatives are attempting to scapegoat Bush for the failures of the ideology they've trumpeted for the past several years: he's no conservative, irrespective of our unconditional support for him in the past. I'm particularly amused by those who have recently taken to describing Bush as left-wing. I'm reminded of nothing so much as Marxists who refuse to acknowledge the repugnant consequences of their political philosophy: Lenin was also a Marxist, whether they like it or not. At some point, you have to acknowledge reality tapping on your window, and admit that your ideology might well suck.

That's not to say that there weren't principled conservative intellectuals who saw this coming, but I can count them on the fingers of one hand. Hell, I can almost count them on the person of one Andrew Sullivan. In other words, yes, there's a serious problem with the Republican party. If I were a conservative, I'd be seriously thinking about jumping ship, too.

Instead, I wake up every morning with a profound sense of relief that I'm not. Happy day, happy day!

 

[corplinx]

I read TFA. He seems to criticize for the "war on terror" for being unrealistic with no end game but then goes on to admit that its just an doctrine or policy and not a real war. If thats the case then why treat it as an actual war?

After splitting hairs over this and other aspects of war on terror, he goes on to bash what I call the Hannity wing of the conservative movement.

Yawn.

 

[LawnOven]

What I still want to know is what has changed in regards to Bushs general policy towards... everything, from the election in 2004 till now that has all these republican talking heads dissing him all of the sudden.

You liked him in 2004, you were high on power; what's the problem now?

Is there actually an intellectually honest answer to this question?

 

[Darth Rotor]

What I still want to know is what has changed in regards to Bushs general policy towards... everything, from the election in 2004 till now that has all these republican talking heads dissing him all of the sudden.

You liked him in 2004, you were high on power; what's the problem now?

Is there actually an intellectually honest answer to this question?

Who is that question posed to?

His policies, as far as I can tell, have changed not one whit. One thing GW has going for him, for better and worse, is steadfastedness of purpose. Stubborn. Frequently wrong, but never in doubt.

DR

 

[Snide]

What I still want to know is what has changed in regards to Bushs general policy towards... everything, from the election in 2004 till now that has all these republican talking heads dissing him all of the sudden.

You liked him in 2004, you were high on power; what's the problem now?

Is there actually an intellectually honest answer to this question?

Well I do remember an awful lot of Kerry-bashing. That is, it's not necessarily that they all loved Bush, but rather hated/smeared Kerry and focused on that.

(Cause we all know only the Dems never have a platform except for "We're not the other guys!")

 

[DJW]

Well I do remember an awful lot of Kerry-bashing. That is, it's not necessarily that they all loved Bush, but rather hated/smeared Kerry and focused on that.

(Cause we all know only the Dems never have a platform except for "We're not the other guys!")

I agree with your analysis, but would add "well-deserved" Kerry bashing. Having been a witness to Kerry's incompetence since he was Lt. Governor under Dukakis, I was at a loss to understand how the Dems could ever go to that well again.

 

[Tony]

...he goes on to bash what I call the Hannity wing of the conservative movement.

Otherwise referred to as the conservative base.

 

[Snide]

I agree with your analysis, but would add "well-deserved" Kerry bashing. Having been a witness to Kerry's incompetence since he was Lt. Governor under Dukakis, I was at a loss to understand how the Dems could ever go to that well again.

Fair enough to point out perceived flaws.

 

[LawnOven]

Who is that question posed to?

His policies, as far as I can tell, have changed not one whit. One thing GW has going for him, for better and worse, is steadfastedness of purpose. Stubborn. Frequently wrong, but never in doubt.

DR

Oh the question is posed to anyone who will answer it. Your answer is how I see it too. I am hoping for one that doesn't just reenforce my low opinion of the republican movement in general.

Well I do remember an awful lot of Kerry-bashing. That is, it's not necessarily that they all loved Bush, but rather hated/smeared Kerry and focused on that.

(Cause we all know only the Dems never have a platform except for "We're not the other guys!")

See, I don't really buy that, that's what everone says about the political cannidate they voted for. "Well he's a crook, but the other guy's a crook and he smells!" So to me it appears irrelavent; how is everybody voting for the guy they hate the least different than everybody voting for the guy they like in a quantitative sense?

Further, not that I'm getting huffy , but that still doesn't really answer my question. Where were all these critics before?

Republicans bought the agenda in 2004, helped further, it promotted it, for 2 (+4) years suddenly it starts to smell so everyone runs to the other side of the room and says "look at that!" "who did that?!" "someone ought to be held responsible for this!" "I know, lets blame the figurehead for all the policies we supported up untill 5 minutes ago!"

Anytime one of these talking heads want to have a public confessional, the first words out of thier mouth or pen should be "I'm sorry for being a liar for so long".

 

[LawnOven]

I agree with your analysis, but would add "well-deserved" Kerry bashing. Having been a witness to Kerry's incompetence since he was Lt. Governor under Dukakis, I was at a loss to understand how the Dems could ever go to that well again.

But is he as incompetent as bush? I would atleast be comforted with the fact that he wouldn't start any, new, unnessesary wars.

 

[DJW]

But is he as incompetent as bush? I would atleast be comforted with the fact that he wouldn't start any, new, unnessesary wars.

That’s cold comfort and hard to understand. John Kerry is so “nuanced” that he doesn’t even know what he would do. Thinking that you know what John Kerry wouldn’t do seems…well…impossible too. As far as incompetence is concerned, he’s arguably as dumb as Bush. They both went to the same school and got the same grades. They both went into politics because they couldn't hold a real job.

 

[Trantor]

Who is that question posed to?

His policies, as far as I can tell, have changed not one whit. One thing GW has going for him, for better and worse, is steadfastedness of purpose. Stubborn. Frequently wrong, but never in doubt.

DR

Good analysis. Reminds me of an excellent documentary on Hitler that I saw about a year ago. It featured extended color film footage of a speech that he gave just after Germany captured France, when Hitler was at the peak of his power. I've seen parts of this speech before, but this documentary featured a much longer version than I've ever seen. The speech was delivered before a huge crowd, and had a soundtrack that was very clean.

I was totally impressed by the power and forcefulness of Hitler's words, as this speech was subtitled and you only heard Hitler's voice. This was a man who at this point, was completely confident of his purpose. His goal was clear and he had no doubt that he was right. The camera showed close-ups of the people in the crowd and they were totally mezmerized by his words. Young women were shown crying. He was like a God.

And yet Hitler was completely wrong; taking his country toward destruction, even as he dreamed of greatness.
The appearance of confidence and steadfastness does not signal intelligence.

Of course Bush is nowhere near as powerful a speaker as Hitler was. Generally when I listen to a Bush speech, I have to hold back my own tears - of laughter.