OPINION & EDITORIAL
Conservative betrayal
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Zach Stern:
- Conservative betrayal (April 14, 2005)
- Freedom and responsibility (May 5, 2005)
- For everything else, there's bankruptcy (March 17, 2005)
- The revolution continues (March 3, 2005)
- Voter apathy with reason (February 17, 2005)
Related Stories:
- Republicans must find conservatism (March 7, 2007)
- GOP still has shot at salvation (May 9, 2007)
- Conservatism growing on college campuses (September 24, 2003)
- Bush contradicts conservatism (October 12, 2004)
- Worst. Campaign. Ever. (September 30, 2004)
by Zach Stern
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Conservatism is under attack in America, its precepts being pulled out from under it by the very same people who claim to uphold its tenets. Republicans, buoyed by Bush’s victory over Sen. Kerry in November, would seem to be in an excellent position to improve the GOP’s hold over the reigns of our federal government.
However, looming battles surrounding the very core of what it means to be a conservative threaten this fragile alliance’s stability, opening up the possibility for this recently conceived majority to prove stillborn. If the Republicans wish to maintain the power they have been granted by the citizens of this nation, they must maintain, both in practice and in preaching, a big tent party.
Zealous Christians, whose belief in evangelism is deeply held and of primary importance toward their identities, no doubt feel a perhaps well-earned sense of entitlement over the recent Republican electoral victories.
Nevertheless, this has had the alarming effect of threatening to ostracize both the libertarian and the moderate wings of the GOP. By effectively hijacking much of the leadership of the Republican Party, these primarily social conservatives threaten to betray much of the political philosophy espoused by conservatives over much of the recent past.
The Republican Party since Ronald Reagan has been, in a very simplistic and generalized description, comprised of mainly a coalition of social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. Social conservatives generally include devoutly Christian people, as alluded to above, the source of the theory behind their politics stemming from those of a more Christian neo-Platonic bent, perhaps along the lines of Leo Strauss, perhaps along the lines of St. Augustine. Fiscal conservatives, however, are more likely to find their philosophical basis in the political theories of Milton Friedman, Robert Nozick or more famously the neo-Nietzschian Ayn Rand. Of course, to every supposed rule there are obligatory exceptions, but the general theory is sound, so long as it is appreciated merely as such.
These differences are far greater than skin deep — not all Republicans are alike, and any argument to the contrary is as false as the accusation that all Democrats are alike. Just ask Democrats who like Joe Lieberman how much they appreciate Michael Moore, and you’ll get the idea of how disparate and non-homogenous the factions that run our nation truly are.
Perhaps ironically, or perhaps due to fate, just as the Democrats are facing a bit of a “spiritual crisis” following their recent defeats, so too are the Republicans following their recent victories.
Alliances are formed upon common ground, and for much of the past 20 years, conservatives could all claim a commitment to federalism, smaller government, low taxes and an aggressive, decisive foreign policy based on a respect for natural and inalienable human rights. Again, exceptions abound, but the general rule stands. However, in light of recent events as well as complacency with holding power, this tenuous bond is being threatened. For much of the past election season, many moderate or libertarian Republicans were willing to turn a blind eye to certain kinks in the armor of the GOP-controlled government’s policies. With Bush’s victory secured, such willful negligence is beginning to fade, only to be displaced with dismay at the betrayal of these points of agreement held by conservatives, social and fiscal alike.
Take the bloated federal budget. If anything, George Bush’s domestic legacy, barring success in reforming Social Security or a major overhaul of the overly complex and burdening tax code, will be the return of big government Republicanism. Conservatives are supposed to make government smaller, not bigger, but having passed and advocated his prescription drug plan, Bush has imposed yet another massive entitlement upon the increasingly stressed taxpayer. Cutting taxes is generally always a good thing — coupled with decreases in spending. Instead, Bush has simply traded current debt for political capital. His legacy as a fiscal conservative, sadly, will largely be relegated to the tax cuts of his first term and likely to be forgotten in the grand scheme of history.
Take the Terri Schiavo affair. Much (likely too much) has been said over whether or not she ought to have been fed or not, but regardless of your personal opinion on the matter, the U.S. Congress had no place in acting in any substantial capacity. A resolution supporting Terri’s “right-to-life” would have been one thing, a comforting gesture by a sympathetic party toward a large group of its constituency who felt passionately about her fate. Instead, congressional Republicans did what they felt was right, rather than following the rules. Strange, considering that traditionally this has been precisely the charge leveled against liberals by conservatives.
Not so strange, however, given the increasing “Christianization” of conservative politicians.
The GOP is treading dangerous water, risking its majority status to appease the demands of a minority of its party. Continuing along this path will destine a sorry future for what could be a great time for the reformation of the federal government, top to bottom. Instead, conservatism is being supplanted by Christianity as the primary tenets of the Republican Party — a move that will no doubt lead toward Democratic victory where it shouldn’t otherwise, leading toward a worse state of affairs than a more moderate GOP could provide.
If Republicans are serious about maintaining their majority, they will have to reassure the more moderate members of their party that they are indeed still welcome. A party of social conservatives will not be able to stand on its own.
Zach Stern (zstern@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in political science.
Anonymous (April 14, 2005 @ 7:29am):
The majority should not act like the minority in order to maintain the majority.
Use a sports analogy - football teams don't emulate the Bears to win Super Bowls.
Anonymous (April 14, 2005 @ 7:47am):
bears will be better than packers next year...
Anonymous (April 14, 2005 @ 7:51am):
Everybody will be better than the packers next year. They don't have an offensive line left and favre is going to need a walker soon.
Anonymous (April 14, 2005 @ 7:52am):
To use another sports analogy; Super Bowl teams don't usually give up football to pursue radical fundamental religious totalitarian states.
Anonymous (April 14, 2005 @ 8:23am):
The best defense is a good offense.
Anonymous (April 14, 2005 @ 9:44am):
Where are all the so called conservatives defending their precious party leadership?
I am not a Republican, but I would be a whole lot less pissed off if the people running our country were actually conservatives rather than the corporate elite.
Espouse conservative philosophy all you want. I'm open to it, even agree with some of it, but there is no way in hell that this administration and the Senate and House that support it are remotely fiscally or socially conservative. They had trodden on state's rights and are ballooning our debt to such a level that we will all be paying it off for years- if we don't go bankrupt completely as a country.
Americans are starting to figure this out. look at the Schaivo case. True conservatives don't lesgislate morality. They are for smaller gov't and state/local control. That simply is not what this administration is about.
For once I agree with Stern, the majority will become a minority if this path continues. The difference is that I don't see that as a bad thing...
Anonymous (April 14, 2005 @ 10:40am):
the country has NEVER been more secular...and that is alarming. also, john kerry now uses "the onion" to discover news....Lurch actually thinks that democRATS were told to vote on nov. 3rd.
Anonymous (April 14, 2005 @ 10:55am):
WE NEED TO GO BACK TO A TIME WHEN WARREN G. HARDING WAS KING.
Anonymous (April 14, 2005 @ 11:38am):
"[Kerry] actually thinks that democ[rats]were told to vote on nov. 3rd."
Maybe because they were. Stop watching faux news and listening to Rush.
----------------------
October 29, 2004)
Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato is alerting residents that a false and deliberately misleading notice is circulating in Allegheny County that urges Republicans to vote on Nov. 2 and Democrats to vote on Nov. 3 to avoid lines at the polls.
"I am very concerned about this attempt to disrupt the most basic democratic right to vote," Onorato says. "I have directed law enforcement authorities to investigate this matter."
The counterfeit notice is on fake Allegheny County letterhead and is reportedly being circulated in the North Hills and other areas. It incorrectly tells voters that "due to the immense voter turnout that is expected on Tuesday, November 2, the state of Pennsylvania has requested an extended voting period."
It further states that polls may not be open "in the event of an emergency" and includes a Tampa, Fl., telephone number to call and confirm that polls are open.
Allegheny County residents should be on alert for any false or misleading
http://www.county.allegheny.pa.us/welcome/news/ce241029.asp
Truth: 1
Republican spin and disinformation: 0
Anonymous (April 14, 2005 @ 11:57am):
What Democrat likes Joe Lieberman?
Anonymous (April 14, 2005 @ 12:15pm):
Let's get something clear: the whackos screwing around with the Republican party/this country are Republicans first, Christians last.
I can't be the only Christian in this place who takes offense when people say, "The Religious Wing of the Party is based on Christian principles, yadda yadda."
Christian principles include grace, love for our neighbors, following God's Law, etc. Exactly where are these principles being deployed?
If you're going to be political and religious, super. Just don't wrap your political ideas in religion- other religious pepole get upset when the supremecy of Christ is compromised.
Anonymous (April 14, 2005 @ 1:31pm):
Amen, Amen.
I am an evangelical Christian and yet the way the Republican Party is moving frightens me also. While you can believe that abortion (most cases) is wrong and believe in traditional marriage, having the government dictate morality is controlling. Recent evidence like the government getting involved with Terry Shiavo, denying gays health/other benefits, and looking the other way to scientifice evidence all point towards the religious right gaining too strong a hold on the Republican Party. The thing is you can disagree with homosexual sex, euthanasia, smoking weed, etc. but the government should not be dictating and punishing people for many of their individual actions. They will pay for their actions and God will judge them. Let him judge all people, not us.
Anonymous (April 14, 2005 @ 2:00pm):
I am a conservative and I am unbelievably pissed at the whole Schiavo affair. I am pissed at the Republicans passing that joke of a bill, but I am more pissed at the Democrats for not even showing up! One of the few times I really needed a Democrat to moderate the extreme far fight, and none were to be found. Where were Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxter, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to shoot it down? They love to grandstand on issues that are moot, but when they actualy have the power to call a vote in the senate (none was taken because only 3 senators were present), they were no where to be found. 110 Democratic representatives managed to vote on it, but where were Kohl and Feingold? They are as much to blame in this fiasco as the Republicans who passed it.
Anonymous (April 14, 2005 @ 2:06pm):
"What Democrat likes Joe Lieberman?"
You mean aside from the good people of Connecticut who elected him?
Count me, for one.
Anonymous (April 14, 2005 @ 2:07pm):
"really needed a Democrat to moderate the extreme far fight, and none were to be found. Where were Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxter, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to shoot it down? They love to grandstand on issues that are moot, but when they actualy have the power to call a vote in the senate (none was taken because only 3 senators were present), they were no where to be found."
You have your own Republican attack machine and idiotic voter base to thank for this. Imagine the campaign ads:
"Hillary Clinton is for killing people on life support" etc.
It's the bed you made. Thank the Swifties and Karl Rove they're your bedfellows now.
Anonymous (April 14, 2005 @ 2:38pm):
Besides, voting against some legislation in this case might have been seen as recognizing its legitimacy as an issue. Since the point was that the issue shouldn't have been blown out of proportion, no one wanted to pour gas on the fire.
Also, you have to save your political ass.
Anonymous (April 14, 2005 @ 3:19pm):
Da Bears Da Bears Da Bears Da Bears. Da Bears
Anonymous (April 14, 2005 @ 5:57pm):
John Kerry, the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam*, showed up yesterday at a Boston event, where he was "using crutches as he recovers from knee surgery," reports the Associated Press. He was also using emotional crutches as he recovers from last year's election:
"Last year too many people were denied their right to vote, too many who tried to vote were intimidated," the Massachusetts senator said at an event sponsored by the state League of Women Voters. . . .
Kerry also cited examples Sunday of how people were duped into not voting.
"Leaflets are handed out saying Democrats vote on Wednesday, Republicans vote on Tuesday. People are told in telephone calls that if you've ever had a parking ticket, you're not allowed to vote," he said.
Where did Kerry come up with that idea about leaflets saying "Democrats on Wednesday"? Probably from this story, which appeared a week before the election:
With the knowledge that the minority vote will be crucial in the upcoming presidential election, Republican Party officials are urging blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities to make their presence felt at the polls on Wednesday, Nov. 3. . . .
"You can't walk through a black neighborhood here in Miami without seeing our 'Don't Forget Big Wednesday!' message up on a billboard, tacked to a phone booth, or taped to a bus shelter," Monreal added. "The Republican Party has spared no expense in this endeavor."
Before Kerry embarrasses himself further, someone ought to take him aside and explain to him that the Onion is a satirical publication--as is ScrappleFace.com, which came up with the idea first.
* And who by the way promised 71 days ago to release his military records.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006544
Anonymous (April 14, 2005 @ 5:57pm):
"You have your own Republican attack machine and idiotic voter base to thank for this."
I said I am a conservative, not a Republican. There is a difference between the two. I voted almost 50:50 Rep:Dem last election. I actually vote on the issues and the candidate's voting history, not party lines. You should try it sometime.
PS I hope Hillary votes her conscience. That is what the people of New York elected her to do. Are you suggesting that whe doesn't? That she takes the easy way out? If she is afraid of the attack adds, she should get out now. I don't think that will be a problem for her. I hope her personal convictions and integrety would prevent that from happening.
Also, does this mean the 110 House Democrats have more balls than the Senators?
Anonymous (April 14, 2005 @ 6:03pm):
Yesterday we noted that John Kerry* appeared to have fallen for an Onion joke (derived from a ScrappleFace joke) about Republicans encouraging Democrats to "vote on Wednesday." It turns out, however, that the gag originated at least four years earlier, but in 2000 it was a Democratic joke. On Oct. 31, 2000, the Hampton Union reported on an appearance in the New Hampshire town by Angry Left comic Al Franken:
Then he ended his brief talk by reminding all Democrats to inform their Republican friends to remember to vote.
"If your friends say I'm voting for Bush, just remind them of the rule change. That Republicans get to vote on Wednesday, Nov. 8. Democrats vote on Tuesday and Republicans on Wednesday. That's what I'm tell my Republican friends, and I think they believe me," Franken ended.
And it seems that someone called Bruce Vilanch had the same idea. From the Nov. 7, 2000, Variety:
"All you Democrats, vote on Tuesday; you Republicans, vote on Wednesday!" Those were the words (written by Bruce Vilanch) with which Whoopi Goldberg was to have greeted attendees at BAFTA-LA's tribute to Steven Spielberg, Saturday at the Century Plaza Hotel. But only a few hours before the event, Whoopi phoned BAFTA-LA exec director Donald Haber to report she was flu-felled, running a fever and unable to appear. Opening speaker, thesp Ian Abercrombie was quickly asked to deliver some of Goldberg's/Vilanch's remarks, including the above.
How dense must Kerry be if he doesn't even get his own side's jokes?
* Haughty, French-looking, Vietnam, 72 days ago. You know the drill.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006548
Anonymous (April 14, 2005 @ 6:07pm):
PS. Do you think Kerry will EVER authorize release of his military records. This would sure show those Swift Boat Vets up, well it would if the records supported Kerry anyway. I'm not thinking that's likely or Kerry would have signged the form before the eletion.
Anonymous (April 14, 2005 @ 6:09pm):
People too stupid and ignorant to know that every presidential election is held on a Tuesday may not be making a particularly informed choice when they vote.
Anonymous (April 14, 2005 @ 6:45pm):
See the thing is, that I cited the evidence right up there proving that Kerry did not get his info from the Onion and yet, and the conservative-corporate run media insist that he did.
Facts are no longer in play for Bush supporters.
Anonymous (April 14, 2005 @ 7:06pm):
No, they just don't like to admit they're wrong. It's systemic. Remember when Bush was asked to name one mistake he'd made and couldn't come up with one besides being late to a few meetings?
Anonymous (April 14, 2005 @ 7:19pm):
Here's the real conservative betrayal: 9-11 was an inside job. The buildings were blown up with explosives.
Let's not forget that even before the Supreme Court appointed Bush, the PNAC said that they needed "another Pearl Harbor" in order to get public support for invading the Middle East.
Don't believe me?
See for yourself: http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/index.html
Anonymous (April 14, 2005 @ 7:23pm):
I hear if you wear tinfoil on your head, the aliens can't read your thoughts.
Anonymous (April 14, 2005 @ 7:52pm):
"I hear if you wear tinfoil on your head, the aliens can't read your thoughts."
You don't want to believe it. Refute it if you can. It has happened before...Remember the Maine
Anonymous (April 14, 2005 @ 8:35pm):
Somehow I find it completely credible that Kerry has never even heard of the Onion - and that does not recommend Kerry to me.
Anonymous (April 14, 2005 @ 8:36pm):
Speaking of facts, do you think Kerry will EVER authorize release of his military records?
Anonymous (April 14, 2005 @ 8:38pm):
Maybe Kerry's military records would refute the rumor that Bush scored higher on the intelligence tests?
Anonymous (April 14, 2005 @ 9:45pm):
"You don't want to believe it. Refute it if you can. It has happened before...Remember the Maine"
Refute it if I can? How about all the investigations into it? 9-11 Commissions and the like. Video surveillance of the towers falling, all that.
But I can't refute it to you. You've already made up your mind on the subject, and I'm not going to convince you with facts or logic- you're too far off the deep end to care. Still, I validate your existance. You've made a difference. You're important.
