Conservatives debate the war in Libya

April 1, 2011 By 22 Comments

Here is a good summary of the debate among conservatives about whether or not to support the war in Libya:

Ron Radosh » Our Libyan War: What Position Should Skeptical Conservatives Take?.

Neoconservative William Kristol is calling the president Barack H. Reagan and saying conservatives should back off in their criticism and support the president in war time.  He believes that America should always be on the side of freedom and that protecting the Libyan rebels and working to overthrow Gaddafi is something that Americans should just do as a matter of principle.  All Kristol is saying, according to his turn of phrase, is “give war a chance.”

Some Congressional conservatives, such as Florida Senator Marco Rubio says that congress should pass a resolution not only authorizing the war but taking it further, making it official policy that our goal is to remove Gaddafi, which would permit sending in troops if necessary.

Meanwhile, paleoconservatives and libertarians are arguing that we should not intervene in other countries, that we have no national interest in Libya and that we cannot be the world’s policeman.  Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is articulating that position, making this argument:

Intervening in a civil war in a tribal society in which our government admits we have no vital interests to help people we do not know, simply does not make any sense. Libyan society is complicated, and we simply do not know enough about the potential outcomes or leaders to know if this will end up in the interests of the United States, or if we are in fact helping to install a radical Islamic government in the place of a secular dictatorship.

Consider the various arguments.  What do you conclude?  (Though this post focuses on the different conservative positions, liberals may weigh in too, saying which kind of conservative they agree with.)

Filed Under: war Tagged With: , 22 Comments

The views on Egypt

February 4, 2011 By 74 Comments

So neoconservatives are supporting the uprising in Egypt as evidence of the universal yearning for democratic values.  Pro-Israel conservatives, though, are hoping Mubarak holds on to power, since a democratic government might turn against Israel and support jihadi terrorists.  Paleo-conservatives are thinking the revolution doesn’t concern us one way or the other.  Most mainstream Republicans are supporting the President, in the name of that once-honored principle of politics stopping at the border and the need to show a united front in international affairs.

And the President is. . . .let’s see.  It’s hard to tell.  He’s supporting the protesters in their desire for freedom, but he is not saying Mubarak must go.  That may be the best course for now, since events really are out of our control.  But it’s hard to see the philosophy behind the policy.

Do Democrats and liberals in general have a foreign policy policy that shapes their position on what is going on in Egypt?  I could find the different conservative takes–confirming what I have often say about how conservatives, far from being a monolithic faction, actually have more ideological diversity in their ranks than liberals do.  But I can’t find a distinct liberal position on this.  Can any liberals in the audience help me?  Or is there the same ambivalence and range of positions that the conservatives have?

In backing change in Egypt, U.S. neoconservatives split with Israeli allies.

Filed Under: Government, International, Islam, Politics Tagged With: , 74 Comments

A dance of death

November 5, 2010 By 216 Comments

The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a statesman of the old school.  The Senator from New York was a Democrat, but he also served loyally in Republican administrations.  He was liberal politically, but he articulated positions that would now be called socially conservative (such as the horrific consequences of having children out of wedlock).  Steven Pearlstein reviews a collection of his letters and cites this haunting warning:

In a resignation letter he never sent to Nixon, Moynihan complains that “the extremes of left and right have joined in a dance of death” around “the presidency and every other institution of order and reason in American society,” exploiting society’s divisions for “short-term, narrow, shallow purposes.”

“The extremists of the left and right need each other, complement each other, strengthen each other,” he wrote, creating a symbiotic relationship that threatened “the quality, and ultimately the survival of the American democracy.”

via Steven Pearlstein – A short reading list for the congressional Class of 2010.

He’s right, isn’t he, about the way the far right and the far left feed off of each other?  And, whether you are a conservative or a liberal, can you see how the extreme ends of both spectrums, playing off of each other, can endanger the country?

Filed Under: Politics Tagged With: , , , 216 Comments

Lessons for Conservatives

November 4, 2010 By 52 Comments

Republicans won big in the 2010 elections on a conservative wave.  But there are also lessons conservatives could take away from their victory.

They have a genuine popular movement in the Tea Party.  But Tea Partiers must remember that they have to field good candidates.  A person who just has the right beliefs or even the person who leads the local organization is not necessarily going to be a good candidate or an effective office-holder.  The Tea Party brought some new blood into the political scene, and some of their candidates–I think of Marco Rubio–are quite talented and have bright futures.  But when the Tea Parties fielded candidates whose only qualification was their zeal, they lost.

What are some other lessons conservatives can learn from the elections?

Filed Under: Government, Politics Tagged With: , , 52 Comments

Conservatives for Gay Marriage

September 3, 2010 By 42 Comments

According to the Huffington Post, so many conservatives are embracing gay marriage that many Democrats are worried that their issue is being taken away from them:

The notion that the gay rights community would abandon the Obama White House over its unwillingness to fully embrace their legislative priorities may seem absurd to the casual political observer. But the recent embrace of same-sex marriage by prominent conservatives, most notably former RNC Chair Ken Mehlman, has some Democratic operatives concerned.

On Monday, former McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt argued that there was a “strong conservative case to be made in favor of gay marriage” and that more and more Republicans are dropping their opposition to the cause. Shortly thereafter, a prominent Democratic consultant got in touch with the Huffington Post to make the case that the Obama administration risks losing the gay rights community (or at least depressing their votes) with its tepid embrace of their priorities.

“I think they have been put in a tough place by these conservatives and they should be,” the consultant said. “There are a whole group of people who are to the left of them on gay rights. And they are Republicans. It should make them feel uncomfortable.”

LBGT voters are not, of course, monolithic. And on a host of other fronts, they are repulsed by the GOP’s policies. Talk about abandoning Obama and the Democrats, in some respects, has been driven more by a desire to scare the party into action than sincere intent to vote Republican.

But that doesn’t mean it’s impossible for an electoral shift to take place or that there aren’t those in the GOP who welcome siphoning off the LBGT vote. Though hardly a barometer for the Republican Party’s collective psyche, John McCain’s daughter, Meghan, made overtures along these lines on Tuesday night.

“We get the bad rap as Republicans being against gay marriage,” she told Fox News. “[Obama] isn’t doing anything for the gay community.”

Indeed, even in the Democratic tent there is some marvel, concern and even a twinge of envy at the changes taking place within the GOP.

“There has always been this libertarian segment of the Republican Party who thinks the government ought to get out of your life, and that group has, for various reasons, become more emboldened,” said Steve Emeldorf, an aide to former House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, who is fundraising with Mehlman in support of same-sex marriage. “Maybe ten years ago they were scared of this issue, but as it becomes more acceptable the libertarians are like, yeah, this is our philosophy.”

“You had the most conservative vice president in the history of the world [Dick Cheney] with a lesbian daughter who over the last couple years has signaled he is for gay rights and marriage,” Elmendorf added. “And if you have this guy who is the icon of the right wing there… It sort of snowballs.”

via Obama Should Feel ‘Uncomfortable’ That Conservatives Are Co-opting Gay Rights Issues: Top Dem.

Let’s see. . . in addition to the ones mentioned, there is Ted Olsen and the new leader of religious revival Glenn Beck.  Who else?

As I understand it, there are three “conservative” arguments for gay marriage:  the libertarian view that the state should not restrict what consenting adults desire to do; the related view that the state should “get out of the marriage business” altogether; the social conservative view that letting homosexuals marry is a better alternative than gay promiscuity and that marriage is always a social good.

Can you answer–or defend–these?  (In regards to #2, Luther and the Reformation worked mightily to insist that marriage IS properly the state’s business, and tried to get the Church, with its stultifying canon laws, out of the marriage business!)

Filed Under: Family, Law Tagged With: , 42 Comments

Liberals and conservatives finding common ground?

May 5, 2010 By 46 Comments

I was struck by the comments on yesterday’s post about a law being considered by the Senate that would require all food producers to be registered and regulated by the federal government, something many people fear would devastate the local foods movement in favor of the big agribusiness corporations. I noticed that known liberals and known conservatives who read this blog both AGREED that this would be a bad law.

DonS, reliably on the conservative side of most issues, put it this way:

As for the larger impact of this bill, maybe it will cause liberals to wake up a bit as to the effect of runaway government regulation. Though it often seems like something which reins in those nasty, greedy businesses, most often it is the result of an unholy cabal of big government and big business, erecting every higher barriers of entry for a particular market to keep smaller competitors out.

He’s showing his conservatism, of course, but it occurred to me that liberals tend to fear big business, while conservatives tend to fear big government. But the prospect of “an unholy cabal of big government and big business” is something that both sides would decry. Could the problem be “bigness” in general, that huge institutions of every kind tend to become dehumanizing, taking on a life of their own and running slipshod over ordinary individuals, and just getting too powerful for everyone’s own good? (Perhaps there are exceptions, safeguards, and checks and balances. But still. . . .)

What would be some other common ground that conservatives and liberals might be able to agree on? Maybe we can solve our nation’s polarized politics right here on this blog. (The idea is not to compromise either ideology or to “just get along.” Let’s let liberals and conservatives both be that way, continuing their opposition to each other. What I’d like for us to do is to find areas in which they already, if we look closely, might agree.)

Filed Under: Politics Tagged With: , , , 46 Comments

When conservatives eat their own

April 16, 2010 By 44 Comments

Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is one of the heroes of the legislature, in my opinion, the scourge of earmarks and the Scrooge of fiscal responsibility.  More than that, he is a strong pro-lifer.  And yet now he’s in trouble with his fellow conservatives:

Coburn has said he favors the death penalty for “abortionists.” He opposes “any and all efforts to mandate gun control on law-abiding citizens.” During the debate over health-care reform, Coburn said that “what the American people ought to pray is that somebody can’t make the vote tonight.” He is the Senate’s “Dr. No,” leading the charge this week against extending unemployment benefits. I could go on — but Coburn doesn’t need me to vouch for his conservative bona fides. Except for these alleged transgressions: At a recent town hall meeting, Coburn called House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “a nice lady” — in the course of criticizing the speaker for telling him she did not want to set a “precedent” by paying for the extension of unemployment benefits. In my world, “nice lady” borders on dismissive with a slight, if unintended, tinge of sexism. In Conservative World, that description of Pelosi apparently is heretical. Coburn's comment was greeted with jeers and hisses, but he stuck to his, well, guns. “Come on now. She is a nice — how many of you all have met her? She's a nice person,” Coburn said. “Let me give you a little lesson here. I hope you will listen to me. Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't mean they’re not a good person.” When a woman said she worried about the health-reform law because the Internal Revenue Service would be empowered to put people in jail, Coburn politely — and accurately — disagreed. “The intention is not to put anybody in jail,” he said. “That makes for good TV news on Fox, but that isn’t the intention.” Coburn went on: “What we have to have is make sure we have a debate in this country so that you can see what’s going on and make a determination yourself. So don't catch yourself being biased by Fox News that somebody is no good. The people in Washington are good. They just don't know what they don’t know.” The howling was swift. Rush Limbaugh: “Well, who cares if she’ nice? . . . Al Capone was a nice guy. Hitler had friends, for crying out loud. . . . So Coburn says, “There’s no intention of putting anybody in jail.' No, no, no. . . . Somebody tell Tom Coburn she was specifically asked about possible jail time, and she said “the legislation is very fair in this respect.' ” Glenn Beck: “The Republican that I”m supposed to defend because he's so unlike Nancy Pelosi was defending Nancy Pelosi.” Mark Levin, who manages to make Limbaugh and Beck sound like calm voices of reason: “We don’t need you hack, detestable politicians telling us a damn thing. Most of you are a bunch of pathetic, unethical morons. And so, no, Mr. Coburn, we won’t be told to sit down and be quiet. We won’t be told by you to watch CNN to balance off Fox. You got that, pal? Who the hell do you think you are? You sound like a jerk, to be perfectly honest about it. You, the jerk, who backed John McCain.”

via Ruth Marcus – Vilifying Tom Coburn for a moment of civility. Might conservatives blow their big chance by scaring or just putting off the general public?

Filed Under: Politics Tagged With: , 44 Comments

The four ways liberals think about conservatives

February 8, 2010 By 96 Comments

Gerard Alexander, associate professor of politics at the University of Virginia, has studied the phenomenon of how the left has a habit of simply dismissing conservatives–not taking their ideas seriously even when they are presented with factual evidence, condescending to non-liberal voters, and refusing to learn from conservative successes.  He found that the liberal worldview is governed by four narratives that determine their assumptions and rhetoric about conservatives

The first is the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” a narrative made famous by Hillary Rodham Clinton but hardly limited to her. This vision maintains that conservatives win elections and policy debates not because they triumph in the open battle of ideas but because they deploy brilliant and sinister campaign tactics. A dense network of professional political strategists such as Karl Rove, think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and industry groups allegedly manipulate information and mislead the public. . . .

But, if conservative leaders are crass manipulators, then the rank-and-file Americans who support them must be manipulated at best, or stupid at worst. This is the second variety of liberal condescension, exemplified in Thomas Frank’s best-selling 2004 book, “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” Frank argued that working-class voters were so distracted by issues such as abortion that they were induced into voting against their own economic interests. Then-Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, later chairman of the Democratic National Committee, echoed that theme in his 2004 presidential run, when he said Republicans had succeeded in getting Southern whites to focus on “guns, God and gays” instead of economic redistribution. . . .

The third version of liberal condescension points to something more sinister. In his 2008 book, “Nixonland,” progressive writer Rick Perlstein argued that Richard Nixon created an enduring Republican strategy of mobilizing the ethnic and other resentments of some Americans against others. Similarly, in their 1992 book, “Chain Reaction,” Thomas Byrne Edsall and Mary D. Edsall argued that Nixon and Reagan talked up crime control, low taxes and welfare reform to cloak racial animus and help make it mainstream. It is now an article of faith among many liberals that Republicans win elections because they tap into white prejudice against blacks and immigrants. . . .

Finally, liberals condescend to the rest of us when they say conservatives are driven purely by emotion and anxiety — including fear of change — whereas liberals have the harder task of appealing to evidence and logic. Former vice president Al Gore made this case in his 2007 book, “The Assault on Reason,” in which he expressed fear that American politics was under siege from a coalition of religious fundamentalists, foreign policy extremists and industry groups opposed to “any reasoning process that threatens their economic goals.” This right-wing politics involves a gradual “abandonment of concern for reason or evidence” and relies on propaganda to maintain public support, he wrote.

Read the whole article, which details and accounts for each of these paradigms. Watch for them. They even show up in our discussions on this blog.

via Why are liberals so condescending? – washingtonpost.com.

Filed Under: Politics Tagged With: , , 96 Comments

Conservatives vs. Republicans

November 5, 2009 By 70 Comments

Politico.com reports that conservatives are gearing up to launch primary challenges against a dozen moderate or liberal incumbent Republicans in next year’s House and Senate elections:

In what could be a nightmare scenario for Republican Party officials, conservative activists are gearing up to challenge leading GOP candidates in more than a dozen key House and Senate races in 2010.

Conservatives and tea party activists had already set their sights on some of the GOP’s top Senate recruits — a list that includes Gov. Charlie Crist in Florida, former Rep. Rob Simmons in Connecticut and Rep. Mark Kirk in Illinois, among others.

But their success in Tuesday’s upstate New York special election, where grass-roots efforts pushed GOP nominee Dede Scozzafava to drop out of the race and helped Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman surge into the lead on the eve of Election Day, has generated more money and enthusiasm than organizers ever imagined.

Activists predict a wave that could roll from California to Kentucky to New Hampshire and that could leave even some GOP incumbents — Utah Sen. Bob Bennett is one — facing unexpectedly fierce challenges from their right flank.

“I would say it’s the tip of the spear,” said Dick Armey, the former GOP House majority leader who now serves as chairman of FreedomWorks, an organization that has been closely aligned with the tea party movement. “We are the biggest source of energy in American politics today.”

“What you’re going to see,” said Armey, “is moderates and conservatives across the country in primaries.”

These high-stakes primaries, pitting the activist wing of the party against the establishment wing, stand to have a profound impact on the 2010 election landscape since they will create significant problems for moderate candidates recruited by the national party precisely because they appear well-suited to win in places that are not easily — or even plausibly — won by conservative candidates.

Some liberal pundits are saying, “Good! This will ensure that Republicans are the party of the right, which will alienate voters and cement liberal dominance.” Some conservative pundits are saying, “Good! This will ensure that Republicans are the party of the right, which will give voters a choice against failed liberal policies.”

But this didn’t seem to work very well in New York’s 23 district, did it?

What do you think?

Filed Under: Government, Politics Tagged With: , , , , 70 Comments