Wednesday, September 26, 2012

The American Conservative Catches Fire!

Daniel McCarthy over at The American Conservative, a centre-right magazine fighting  ideological rigidity in the 21st century Republican Party, argues that the GOP may no longer be a national party:

 Because conservatives over-identify with the GOP, and the GOP’s identity is determined by factional and regional ideologies, the result is that conservatives take their definition of conservatism from the party and that definition is more regional- and interest-based than philosophical. This accounts for the spectacle of the GOP periodically getting worked up about “big government” while in fact expanding government — welfare state, warfare state, banning internet gambling, you name it — whenever it’s in power. The blue state/red state psychological divide is more fundamental to the party’s understanding of the world than is any consistent view of the proper extent and uses of government.

The words I bolded help me to grasp the quasi-tribal mindset that allows a group of people to have supported the spend-but-don't-tax financial madness of Bush/Cheney for EIGHT long years but then launch a mad Tea-Party the second Obama took the Oath of Office.

But maybe that's just me.

Update here's Red State man himslef Erick, Ericskon on Romney ten months ago:

    Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is a man devoid of any principles other than getting himself elected. As much as the American public does not like Barack Obama, they loath a man so fueled with ambition that he will say or do anything to get himself elected. Mitt Romney is that man.
    I’ve been reading the 200 pages of single spaced opposition research from the John McCain campaign on Mitt Romney. There is no issue I can find on which Mitt Romney has not taken both sides. He is neither liberal nor conservative. He is simply unprincipled. The man has no core beliefs other than in himself.

Now here is Erickson today gamely wrestling with skull-crushing levels of cognitive dissonance:

The staggering irony is that those of us who did not want Romney are now the ones defending him to the hilt while the elitist jerks are distancing themselves from Romney as quickly as possible — both upset at what their media friends tell them is to come and upset that Mitt Romney might not actually listen to their sweet whispers as much as they originally presumed.
Mitt Romney can win. He needs to hone his message.


If you haven't read that same magazine's 'The Revolt of the Rich', you're missing a fascinating piece that should make a few Best-of-the -year lists.


  1. You're creating your own sense of bafflement to fuel your sense of superiority. Conservatives were very displeased with Bush's financial policies during his last four years. A lot of the basis of the Tea Party was formed during that time. Obama could've really made a difference, but, instead, he quickly proved himself to be even worse than Bush, despite claims that Obama had made during the campaign. There was certainly no sudden transition to outrage.

  2. "You're creating your own sense of bafflement to fuel your sense of superiority"
    So you're trying some psychological analysis, eh? Let's see it that works out any better then your political analysis.

    "Conservatives were very displeased with Bush's financial policies during his last four years."
    Ah displeased were they? No massive rallies, no apocalyptic pronouncements just a four-year long silent sulk.

    "Even worse than Bush"
    I hate to shred the gossamer threads of your denial, but starting TWO unfunded wars (while delivering massive tax cuts etc. etc.) sets the bar so high, no recent president, never mind Obama, can really compete.

    "There was certainly no sudden transition to outrage"
    Are you from The Onion? Really, no one date? How about Rick Santelli, February 19, 2009, ONE MONTH after Obama's inauguration?

    I'm forced to conclude that both your psychological analysis and your political analysis are lacking

  3. "he quickly proved himself to be even worse than Bush"

    Really? Do you have any specific examples? Please discuss, because I don't see how anyone, except Romney & Ryan, could possibly be worse than Bush. I don't intend to give them the chance to prove it.

    1. And given a chance to they will make Bush look like a piker.

  4. No one is more bigoted, intolerant or hateful than the average (excuse me, "above average"-all of you are allegedly Phi Beta Kappa's) liberal

    1. Why the hate, Rev?
      The attacks here are focused on the machinations of The Republican Party elite, a group dominated by Phi Beta Kappa types.
      I don't hate conservatives, hell this articles are from a magazine called THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE.

    2. Evil Rev, do you have specific examples for us? Or is it just part of the same anti-Obama propaganda campaign that started the day he was inaugerated?

  5. Obama lies, Rice lies. Not a spontaneous attack, a planned one. Obama stop blaming that "film". He is weak, period. It's okay to torture & murder our ambassador. Where is his "strong backbone" response? It certainly wasn't at the UN. Vote this loser out.

    1. "It's okay to torture & murder our ambassador."

      What the hell are you talking about??

      "Where is his "strong backbone" response?"

      What sort of response are you looking for? I suspect it'll be the same response given to Osama bin Laden. Or were you hoping he'd make faces and froth on camera like a pro wrestler?

  6. give me give me give me!September 27, 2012 at 4:21 PM

    1. God how desperate can you get.
      You take a video of a woman, who as at best misinformed (the FCC Lifeline program is a Bush-era initiative) and try to damn the president by her ignorance.
      Then you claim you're not being racist, even though you get a standing ovation from Stromfront?

    2. give me give me give me!September 30, 2012 at 9:52 AM

      You're the one who's pathetic. just like a libtard to play the race card. Video says it all. Actually it started under Reagan, you fat ass fool.

  7. Where to start?

    "Libtard"? Seriously? In an actual attempt to discuss ideas you use this crude, ignorant, insulting piece of verbal garbage? You should be ashamed of yourself just on that alone.

    Trying to find the ideas among the insults, I'll point to the so-called 'race card', which if such a metaphor is actually workable was first played by the avowed racists at Stromfront (who LOVED the video) and not by me.

    Wait the video 'says it all' (says what?) and then you try to say more by adding historical context? And that context is Reagen? The Republican's greatest hero started this system. Well, even if I accept that, it takes nothing away from the point that this program is a Republican-initiative and hardly justifies the the next barrage of cheap shots (calling someone you've never a "fat ass fool" indicates you've been spending way too much time with your fellow travellers and have had too little contact with actual people here in the real world).


    1. Great link and one which partly informed my response above.


Thanks for clicking the COMMENTS link.
Now that you're here,I should mentions that
without reader feedback blogs slowly wither and die