Comments on: Falling Down http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2008/05/falling-down Wed, 09 May 2012 10:28:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Mark http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2008/05/falling-down/comment-page-1#comment-36768 Mark Tue, 20 May 2008 13:40:00 +0000 http://commentsfromleftfield.com/?p=4199#comment-36768 1. Nixon was in no way, shape, or form a conservative, except for perhaps on "law and order" issues. On economics, he supported wage and price freezes. Although there is actually much in his foreign policy that I personally admire (e.g., detente), his foreign policy was quite the opposite of "neo-conservatism." His "contribution" to the Republican Party is ultimately what led to its destruction more than anything, which was his Solid South strategy. 2. The article makes the fundamental mistake of confusing "conservatism" as a governing philosophy with the "Republican Party." While there has long been a lot of overlap between the two, they are slightly different. The problem with the GOP these days - which I wrote about regularly back in December and January - is that in its attempt to represent all of the various strains of "conservatism" (which are really four or five entirely different governing philosophies) it has wound up pushing a sort of "pu-pu platter conservatism" that doesn't really represent anyone particularly well except for party hacks who mistakenly think that they have a coherent ideology. This was all well and good during the Cold War, when all of the various strains of "conservatism" and "libertarianism" could agree on anti-Communism as a unifying principle; after the Cold War, this coalition immediately began to break apart, resulting in the embarassing rout of the first President Bush. The coalition was able to re-unite during the Clinton years, thanks to a perfect storm of Hillary's Health Care Task Force, Newt Gingrich's ingenious "Contract with America" that managed to find common ground amongst the various forms of conservatism, as well as Bill Clinton's propensity to get himself into stupid scandals. But once he was gone, the band aid was ripped off and the fissures between the various forms of "conservatism" began to reopen. The only way for Bush to try to maintain the coalition was through a sort of top-down dictation, but this was doomed to failure and now the only people who adhere to the GOP's "pu-pu platter conservatism" are a few remaining die-hards. What I mean by all this is that "conservatism" as a philosophy is not dead - what is dead is the Republican form of "pu-pu platter conservatism." You have seen and will see a similar cycle play out in the Democratic Party over the years, though I don't have time to go into the details on that right now. 1. Nixon was in no way, shape, or form a conservative, except for perhaps on “law and order” issues. On economics, he supported wage and price freezes. Although there is actually much in his foreign policy that I personally admire (e.g., detente), his foreign policy was quite the opposite of “neo-conservatism.” His “contribution” to the Republican Party is ultimately what led to its destruction more than anything, which was his Solid South strategy.
2. The article makes the fundamental mistake of confusing “conservatism” as a governing philosophy with the “Republican Party.” While there has long been a lot of overlap between the two, they are slightly different. The problem with the GOP these days – which I wrote about regularly back in December and January – is that in its attempt to represent all of the various strains of “conservatism” (which are really four or five entirely different governing philosophies) it has wound up pushing a sort of “pu-pu platter conservatism” that doesn’t really represent anyone particularly well except for party hacks who mistakenly think that they have a coherent ideology. This was all well and good during the Cold War, when all of the various strains of “conservatism” and “libertarianism” could agree on anti-Communism as a unifying principle; after the Cold War, this coalition immediately began to break apart, resulting in the embarassing rout of the first President Bush. The coalition was able to re-unite during the Clinton years, thanks to a perfect storm of Hillary’s Health Care Task Force, Newt Gingrich’s ingenious “Contract with America” that managed to find common ground amongst the various forms of conservatism, as well as Bill Clinton’s propensity to get himself into stupid scandals. But once he was gone, the band aid was ripped off and the fissures between the various forms of “conservatism” began to reopen. The only way for Bush to try to maintain the coalition was through a sort of top-down dictation, but this was doomed to failure and now the only people who adhere to the GOP’s “pu-pu platter conservatism” are a few remaining die-hards.

What I mean by all this is that “conservatism” as a philosophy is not dead – what is dead is the Republican form of “pu-pu platter conservatism.” You have seen and will see a similar cycle play out in the Democratic Party over the years, though I don’t have time to go into the details on that right now.

]]>