Conservatives distinguishing themselves from Bush/Republicans

[Actual God]

Glenn Greenwald writes:

Of all the dishonesty and political manipulation to which we have been subjected over the last five years, a good argument can be made that this is the most dishonest yet:


Since the election, a chorus from the right has been noisily distinguishing between conservative and Republican, blaming deviation from conservative principles for the election losses. From George Will to Rush Limbaugh, conservatives cut loose with criticisms of the Republicans for spending too much at home and getting bogged down in Iraq.


"Conservatism" -- like "communism" -- has only one real definition, only one definition that matters: "that which 'conservatives' and the leaders they support do when in power." Conservatism is a set of principles about how government ought to function and the policies which political leaders should implement. And those principles can be known not by how they exist in some Platonic form, abstractly enshrined by think tank groups or in textbooks. One knows it by how its proponents -- "conservatives" -- actually govern and by who and what they support.

And what "conservatives" have supported for the past six years -- vigorously, loyally, unambiguously -- is George W. Bush and the Republicans who have controlled the Congress. "Conservatism," in its only meaningful sense, is that which they have done. Just like Fidel Castro and Leonid Brezhnev and Pol Pot and Mao Tse-Tung and Josef Stalin and the whole array of Communist regimes can't be extricated from "Communism," George Bush and his Congressional servants can't be removed from "conservatism." They, and what they have done, are "conservatism" by definition...

If you want to read the rest, visit Glenn Greenwald's website.

[BluffTHIS!]

So the logic of his argument is that assuming we agree on a definition of conservative principles, and the repub party gets elected on same, and then the repub party doesn't stay true to those principles in its actions once in power, that the principles themselves are thus proved flawed by a faulty or non-existant application of same?

Not.

[rubbrband]

Bush conservative ism promises everything in a financial aspect tries to deliver everything including tax cuts and leaves American people with the debt to worry about. Oh yeah Regan did the same thing.

[Freerollin`]

I am a fascist. Therefore, anything I do in the future, including attending pro-peace rallies and anti-death penalty demonstrations shall be associated with, and defining of, fascism.

A bit of a stretch, but the same type of ridiculous logic.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush conservative ism promises everything in a financial aspect tries to deliver everything including tax cuts and leaves American people with the debt to worry about. Oh yeah Regan did the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]


And the reason you and other libs most dislike that isn't for the same reasons as fiscal conservatitves. It is because such massive debt acquired for other purposes like defense spending, effectively defunded the welfare state.

[rubbrband]

Nope, These are fine with me.

"defense spending, effectively defunded the welfare state."

Defense spending is fine although the war is clearly a waste.

[BriMc]

[ QUOTE ]
So the logic of his argument is that assuming we agree on a definition of conservative principles, and the repub party gets elected on same, and then the repub party doesn't stay true to those principles in its actions once in power, that the principles themselves are thus proved flawed by a faulty or non-existant application of same?

Not.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the logic behind Glen's reasoning goes like this: The policies of Bush Administration were strongly supported by leading members of the Mainstream Conservative Movement (Limbaugh, O'Reily, TNR, FOX News, PNAC, ect.) since thier inception. It is disengenuous for those same Conservatives to suggest, after those policies have been rejected by the majority of the American Electorate, the rejection occured because they weren't "conservative" enough. The policies a movement supports become the things the movement stands for, regardles of weather or not they concur with originally stated ideology.

The fact of the matter is that in taking these actions, the current Mainstream Conservative Movement has come to stand for the accumulation of power at all costs, the selling off of the public sphere to the highest bigger, manipulation of the mass media through propoganda and the politics of fear. This is no longer the movement of Russel Kirk or Ludwig Mises, these are scoundrels pure and simple. There's no ideology here to call into question, just the character and motivation of the members of the Mainstream Conservative Movement.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bush conservative ism promises everything in a financial aspect tries to deliver everything including tax cuts and leaves American people with the debt to worry about. Oh yeah Regan did the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]


And the reason you and other libs most dislike that isn't for the same reasons as fiscal conservatitves. It is because such massive debt acquired for other purposes like defense spending, effectively defunded the welfare state.

[/ QUOTE ]



Bluff, exactly where do you get this supposed defunding of the welfare state? He's not substituting defense spending for welfare. He's just printing money for defense spending and not reigning in much else. Thanks, Bush!