Matthew Yglesias » The Dream Shall Never Die

Oct 28th, 2008 at 7:39 am

The Dream Shall Never Die

It seems to me that any talk of the end of conservatism is not only premature, but fundamentally misguided. It’s in the nature of things that politicians and intellectuals whose ideas tend toward the preservation of existing wealth and privilege are going to manage to find money and institutions to support them. The right sequence of events could push such a movement out of power for a while, but any incumbent regime is bound to be tripped up by bad luck or mistakes soon enough. And when it does, people turn to the alternative.

At the moment, the incumbent regime is conservative and it’s made bade mistakes. So now here comes a progressive opportunity. But sooner or later the right will come back, and come back strong.

Comments
85

85 Responses to “The Dream Shall Never Die”

gregor Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 7:43 am
Not to mention that the incumbent regime has made bad
mistakes as well.
Ted Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Absolutely. But Matt’s way of putting this adds another level of meaning — the point being that the administration bade its minions to make some bad mistakes.
Roger Travis Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Ah, but you haven’t seen the secret provision in the Obama health plan to remove the left brain of every American at the age of ten. That oughta do it!
superdestroyer Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 8:01 am
the changing demographics of the U.S. make most Democratic candidates immune to failures. Look at the number of Democrats running unopposed versus Repubicans. As the black and Hispanic population grows, that number will increase.

Does anyone really think that the Repulbicans or conservative ideas can make a comeback in a country where less than half the children in kindergarten are white?

The more likely scenerio is that the U.S. becomes a one party state where ethnic and regional groups fight over the largess of the government not in election but in backroom deals.
rapier Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 8:18 am
The absolutely dumbest thing conservatives have done is to fight for 40 years to centralize political power in the executive. As #4 says the demographics bode ill for the GOP going forward at the national level.

The absolutists and authoritarians of the right are now in full panic as probabilities of them regaining that power now seem slim going forward.

I won’t say there will be but there could be blood.
Ed Smithe Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 8:22 am
I think there’s little evidence to support the charge that the current administration is “conservative”

Spending more money than LBJ on government is most certainly not conservative.

Trying to socially engineer a large section of the planet using democracy as the vehicle is not conservative either.

One could potentially argue that the regulatory environment inheritaed and instituted by this administration had some conservative leanings, but Sarbanes Oxley was most certainly not conservative.

Again, let’s get the philosophy right here. I understand that there’s a desire to lump us all together for political reasons, but as you pointed out, we will be in power again and what folks on the left should rather see is conservatives rather than a collection of neocons and religious nuts.
Ed Smithe Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 8:27 am
particularly on foreign policy Matthew, to push forward anything lasting, this administration is going to need conservative realists (similar to what Truman and Eisenhower did with regard to containment). The time to begin to solidify realism once again is in the wake of the Obama landslide. To leave realists/Obamacons twisting in the wind is to give the neocons another opportunity. No one wants that.
El Cid Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 8:39 am
At my most optimistic, the “end of conservatism” just means the end of the particular set of conservative movements and ideologies that dominated U.S. politics for the last 30 – 40 years.

It doesn’t mean that there will be no ‘conservative’ / right wing political movements and ideologies; they just have to begin somewhat anew, and in a different form than the mostly “Southern Strategy” based awfulness we’ve endured.
Teh Editas Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Ed Smithe, and no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.
msw Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 8:49 am
I’d be happy if we killed Rove/Bushism, National Reviewism, Limbaughism, etc. Conservatism can stick around.
rm Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 8:52 am
But you see, conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed (and not by any true Scotsman).

Or, perhaps, Ed, conservative philosophy leads to consequences which are the opposite of what a conservative believer might have hoped for, and perhaps that is the definition of failure.
Ed Smithe Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Fair enough, but to cite an example, I think we’ve seen the ramifications of lumping different Muslims sects together because ‘they’re all terrorists.’ It might seem picky, but it matters when you lump realists and neocons under the “conservative” tent.

What I’m suggesting is that the responsible members of the Democratic foreign policy establishment (not Richard Holbrooke) recognize that there is a group of conservatives that should be brought into the fold when it comes to a sustained foreign policy strategy for the 21st Century (and beyond). That’s why an individual like Chuck Hagel should get the nod at Secretary of State…Not because he’s against Iraq, but WHY he’s against Iraq.

From what I’ve seen, Senator Obama’s instincts are realist. That should be carried through in his policies–what’s needed is a collection of Democratic and Republican realists to cement it.

As for being a “true Scotsman,” you’ve got me there Teh.
petr Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 8:56 am
I think there’s little evidence to support the charge that the current administration is “conservative”

Other than the fact that they, you know, called themselves “conservatives”.

Spending more money than LBJ on government is most certainly not conservative.

Trying to socially engineer a large section of the planet using democracy as the vehicle is not conservative either.

Where were you the past 8 years? It’s difficult to swallow the notion that lockstep republicanism had it’s dissenters…
Ed Smithe Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 8:58 am
rm,

And just what philosophies coupled with what consequences would you be referring to? I gave you the summary of the Bush administration’s policies. Very few were conservative…indeed more were left of center. They all failed…What was that again about the definition of failure?

Examples would be helpful if you’d like to debate this point.
superdestroyer Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 8:59 am
True conservatism cannot make a comeback because the U.S. has reached the point where more than half the voters are willing to use the government for personal benefits. They number will grow and thus political fights will be over who wins the fight for increased government resources and who pays the bill.

The idea that the government should do less cannot compete against politicians will to pass out rewards to favored groups.
Njorl Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 8:59 am
I agree with El Cid. There will be a conservative political movement. While conservative economic poloicies are discredited now, they will make a comeback.

What I think is more significant is how the non-economic conservative movement has failed politically. Pandering to them is no longer very useful. While you get votes, you lose other votes. I think this may cause the next conservative resurgence to ease up on the pandering. The decline in the usefulness of the religious right will mean that economic conservatives will not be able to be as extreme as they would like to be. Combined with the lingering memory of “Bush II”, I think this means the next time the pendulum swings right, it won’t go nearly as far as it did in the last 8 years.
Ed Smithe Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 9:01 am
petr,

Have you read 1984? You should, because that will answer your question.

Just because a collection of Republicans called themselves conservatives doesn’t make them conservative. When those neo nazis that just got caught called themselves patriots, should we assume that they are patriots?

Perhaps this is a left-minded thing where one simply accepts what another tells them about themselves…a live and let live philosophy that totally divorces principles from actions.
Colatina Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 9:03 am
“But sooner or later the right will come back, and come back strong.”

This is probably a pretty trival point. Some people remarked after the civil war that the South would rise again. They probably meant a few different things by that, but in a sense it did, since the South later came to have a lot more political clout than they had under federal occupation. But the policy goals of the South–namely white supremacy–have fallen on hard times and aren’t coming back.

I’m sure there will be some candidate in the future who is a lot more appealing than Bush and who will be to the right of say Pelosi in some way. But I do think it’s a completely open question whether this resurgent right wing will be just as bent on the same Gingrich-Delay-Bush menu of policy priorities. It’s not as if the laws of history doom us to implement Bill Kristol’s favorite ideas every 20 years.
petr Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 9:05 am
M saysIt’s in the nature of things that politicians and intellectuals whose ideas tend toward the preservation of existing wealth and privilege are going to manage to find money and institutions to support them.

True enough, and the continued slow crawl towards obscurity and oblivion for the British Monarchy (as well as the Japanese emperor) is a testament to the pernicious nature of this dynamic.

But it should be noted that we are the country that shouted a definitive no to monarchy. The long tumble away from, and as a result of, that break continues; sometimes turning too, but mostly turning away from concentrations of power.

The are of history is long. But it does bend toward justice.
p Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Have you read 1984? You should, because that will answer your question

You should read “on shooting an elephant.” Same author, much deeper critique.

Just because a collection of Republicans called themselves conservatives doesn’t make them conservative.

Surely, this is so.

Not my point.

My point is this: why wait til now to make these distinctions? Not one peep did I hear from anybody these last eight years.

You had your chance to stand up and fight for your true(er) conservatism.

You missed your chance.
stefan Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Some people remarked after the civil war that the South would rise again. They probably meant a few different things by that, but in a sense it did, since the South later came to have a lot more political clout than they had under federal occupation. But the policy goals of the South–namely white supremacy–have fallen on hard times and aren’t coming back.

That seems like a pretty odd claim. White supremacy in the South lasted a good solid time, from the 1880s to the 1950s at least. You need a better analogy…
Ed Smithe Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Colatina,

The thing you have to remember is that the neoconservatives have an ace up their sleeves…fear. The next time there is a major terrorist attack, people are going to be looking for blood–and what better place to look is to the neocons to satisfy that rage.

This is why we have to make sure that they are out of the picture NOW. If the Democratic party is unable to solidify a bipartisan foreign policy coalition, they will be there waiting for the next bad thing to happen. You’ll never be rid of them, but you may be able to mitigate their rise.

On domestic affairs on the other hand…there are just so few areas of agreement. I’m more or less in line with superdestroyer’s point. Conservatism is slowing but surely dying when it comes to domestic policy.
elle loco Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Is there any possibility that we as a nation could bundle up the corrupt GOP, wrap the torture regime and Gitmo apologetics, the doctrine of the unitary executive and plebescitary dictatorship, Cheney’s conspiracy to destroy constitutional government, unwarranted (literally) wiretapping of soldiers’ phone sex with their long-suffering wives–wrap the whole kit and kaboodle up and launch it into the sun (or the ash can of history)?

Might (real) conservatives be willing to start afresh, with a new party, and let racism, upper-class warfare against productive America, and paranoid antimodernism just go the way of the dodo? Pretty please?

Scapegoating can have a truly therapeutic effect on a society infected, as ours has been, with such toxins as I have mentioned above. Let the GOP be buried at sea, and we can all move on.
Ed Smithe Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 9:17 am
P,

Then you haven’t been paying attention. Just take a gander at George Will’s writings over the last eight years…See a pattern? He’s only one of the most well-known and respected conservative writers in the U.S. Prior to his brain tumor, Robert Novak was one as well. Again, just because your frame of reference is off, doesn’t mean that objective reality matches it. 1984 explores this most human of conditions.

You can go ahead and try to run the country by yourselves, but as this administration demonstrated, that will eventually fail. As for “on shooting an Elephant,” I don’t think I’ve seen that one, but I stick with my 1984 reference.

You said, “Other than the fact that they, you know, called themselves “conservatives.”

I don’t think I missed your point.
Colatina Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 9:23 am
“Just because a collection of Republicans called themselves conservatives doesn’t make them conservative.”

It’s not just a “collection of Republicans”. It’s millions of Americans who called themselves conservatives and who overwhelmingly strongly supported Bush in 2004. Strongly–it was not about being anti-Kerry, it was strong support for Bush in poll after poll. You still see it to some degree today. It’s not a “left-wing thing” at all.

What is a *right wing* thing is this enormous gulf between conservative intellectual types who make these arcane references to some pure largely unknown conservatism, and ordinary conservative voters who think Bush and Cheney were pretty good. These right-wing pundit types who want to say that the great mass of conservative voters are horribly wrong about what conservatism is are the biggest elitists around. They’re also delusional, since they act as though it’s liberals who invented this connection between Bush and conservatism.
cube Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 9:26 am
There’s a fair amount of talk among conservatives that the origin of their mistake was going with McCain and trying to court middle-of-the-road voters. So, there is a possibility the the Republican party may turn hard(er) right and force-out the “moderates”. At any rate, there will likely be some sort of blood bath in the Republican party.

I’d love to see the republicans become a fringe party. One possible next step would be the development of a substantial 3rd party centrist or populist movement, something of like the Ross Perot movement (what was that about?). Bloomberg would surely think along these lines, and would invite Lieberman as an assistant.

Anyway, there is no reason to assume that the Republican party will behave rationally.

This is, of course, fantasy.
petr Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Robert Novak? George Will? The George Will who said this:

“Bush sometimes confuses certitude with certainty, but he understands that to govern is to choose, and that some choices must make one lonely”

In his endorsement of Bush??

And Robert Novak? The Novak who carried water for the Bush Adminstrations outing of a CIA agent? That Robert Novak? If there were any true conservatives remaining, that guy’d been fragged the day after.

You must be joking? Or a troll…

Your assignment is to read “On Shooting an Elephant”
jb Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Indeed, with any luck, the years of unrestrained progressive feeding at the government trough will lead to:
1) A massive, unsustainable welfare state
2) Tremendous centralized power invested in the (ever so charismatic) president
3) A significant increase in voluntary unemployment (based on the convenience of the massive welfare state)
4) A significant slowdown in GDP growth over time relative to historic levels (because of the lack of incentives for starting new business, because of prohibitive tax burdens)

Combine all of those together, and once the welfare state collapses, some sort of charismatic thug will end up as President. He will be able to use his incredibly vast executive powers (given to his predecessors by a well-meaning but myopic congress) to essentially take over the country. A few tens of millions dead (or purged) later, there will be a revolution.

So it’s all looking up. At least we’ll have closure.
duBois Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Trying to socially engineer a large section of the planet using democracy as the vehicle is not conservative either.

Maybe not, but it hasn’t been tried, either. Currently they’re using the military as the vehicle.
superdestroyer Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 9:56 am
jb,

Those living in large urban areas have been living for decades with an unsustainable welfare state, massive concentration of political power, and a poor level of government services. they still vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.

What the few remaining Republicans do not seem to be able to understand is that about 45% of the U.S. population will vote Democratic no matter what and that portion of the population is growing.

Conservatism is unsustainable in the U.S. because there are not enough people who want smaller government and decentralized political power.
LaFollette Progressive Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Let’s not tempt fate by arguing over the fallen corpse of the vampire before we’ve driven a stake through its heart.

Regardless of what happens next week, the Republican Party will eventually come back strong and some group of people who call themselves “conservatives” will once again run the country.

The question is how many years of purges, circular firing squads, desperate flailing, dead-end kool-aid drinking, and vicious arguments over the nature of “true conservatism”, will it take for them to rally around their David Cameron?

I’d set the over/under at 12.
Ed Smithe Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 9:59 am
P,

Rather than cherry-picking a single quote why not read an entire piece:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will050504.asp

BTW, I found that one after looking through Democratic Underground–surprisingly all of the posters agreed with it. Democratic underground? They’re not conservative are they?

Oh and they reminded me of Pat Buchanan. He hasn’t been a big fan of the administration either…Unless of course you can find me a sentence in one of a thousand columns (or books) that says “Bush was good on X.”

With respect to Robert Novak, do you really think that someone like Keith Olbermann wouldn’t have reported something of this nature? Given the TOTALITY of his work over the past 8 years, I don’t think that anyone remotely serious would describe him as “holding water” for the administration. Again, objective reality…you’re pushing yourself in neocon territory here (not surprising since they were former dems).

I’ll be sure to pick up On Shooting an Elephant. But it would behoove you to reexamine your Manichean view of the world and accept the reality that there are shades of gray.

Colatina, if you’re going to argue that, then you’re going to have to explain to me how increasing the size of government and spreading democracy around the world is “conservative.” Is passing welfare reform and NAFTA and capital gains cuts progressive?
sherifffruitfly Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Just as stupid as talk of “a permanent republican majority”.

Americans really don’t differ all that much – they’re all stupid.
Ed Smithe Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Du Bois,

Going to have to disagree with you there.

1. Palestinian elections
2. Pakistani elections

Neither one of those worked out too well either after U.S. pressure. I’d throw in Ukraine, Lebanon and Georgia…but we really didn’t have too much pressure there.

Wilsonianism minus the steroids is less dangerous, but equally utopian. We need to make sure that they don’t come back either.
demisod Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Much will depend on how successful an Obama administration turns out to be. If life for the middle class improves appreciably under progressive leadership, conservatism will have a harder time clawing back. If things continue to head South, the next election will be one ugly contest.

We’re at an interesting place as a country. The GOP has been far, far more successful at marketing “conservative” as a brand, while “liberal” is pretty much assigned to the dustbin. But while many people may self-identify as “conservative,” their support for programs like Medicare and Social Security place them no further right than the center.
LaFollette Progressive Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Those living in large urban areas have been living for decades with an unsustainable welfare state, massive concentration of political power, and a poor level of government services. they still vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.

I’m sorry, have you ever visited a large urban area?

It’s really quite simple. People in big cities vote Democratic because Republicans say asinine things like that, instead of addressing the actual day-to-day needs of people who live in cities.
petr Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Rather than cherry-picking a single quote why not read an entire piece:

Because the single quote illustrates all you need to know about Will and his approach to conservativism. Every last true conservative I’ve ever met or read has indeed used the core principle of ‘to govern is to choose‘. Conservatives pride themselves on their ruthless ability to make the choices no one else will. It’s the central fallacy of their argument. That Will applies this to Bush turns your argument that Bush isn’t a conservative on it’s ear.

I’ll be sure to pick up On Shooting an Elephant. But it would behoove you to reexamine your Manichean view of the world and accept the reality that there are shades of gray.

You don’t have to ‘pick it up’. It’s available online. I linked to it. It’s an essay. It’ll take you all of 20 minutes to read. You should actually read it twice, or more. Then ponder deeply.

As for ‘manichean’… I don’t think that word means what you think it means. I can’t possibly see where it applies to anything I’ve said. Maybe it’s something you think I said.
superdestroyer Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 10:24 am
laF Progressive,

Please explain how voting Democratic for fifty years has been good for Balitmore, Detroit, Washington, DC, Camden, St Louis, Cleveland, etc.

they have a large city government filled with make work jobs, the schools are horrible, the taxes high, and their number one product of those cities is creating white suburbanites who had to evacuate the disasters. Yet, those cities are some of the bluest cities in the U.S. Why? Because the politicians in the Democratic Party promise to tax whites and spend the money on them.
Brad Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 10:26 am
And Democrats have done just a bang up job of addressing the needs of people who live in cities for the past 30 years haven’t they? Why, just look at the twin paradises of Baltimore and Washington, DC. And certainly Chicago is a bastion of peace, prosperity, and equality among all citizens.
petr Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Much will depend on how successful an Obama administration turns out to be. If life for the middle class improves appreciably under progressive leadership, conservatism will have a harder time clawing back. If things continue to head South, the next election will be one ugly contest.

Minimal bog standard competence will be enough to improve things appreciably, I should think. Obama isn’t required to be superman. He’s just required to show up for work and put in an actual effort. Any area in which he may show excellence will be a bonus.

What will tell the tail is, ultimately, Democratic and Liberal willingness to pursue the Bush Administration for their various malfeasance. If we take a ‘bygones be bygones’ approach, then the Cons will be back and they’ll muck things up again.

However, if we take a principled stand for sunlight and the truth, in order to expose the criminals, incompetents and just plain mean-old nasties, both the Republic and the Republican party could be stronger for it…
Ed Smithe Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Petr,

Your view is that there are conservatives and progressives. All conservatives appear to bad based upon your posts…that is a binary view…that would fall under manichaenism.

And your view of Will is an interesting one. So one quote defines a person’s views despite a body of work. Boy, I’d hate to get a hold of some of the papers you wrote as a kid.

With respect to governing and choices, I’m not entirely sure what you mean by that. If you mean that I (and most conservatives) don’t believe in post-modernism, then yes. I’m not really sure how that’s a problem in your philosophy…it’s not that we’re making choices that no one else will, it’s that we make choices when we need to make choices. That’s part of being an adult. You’ll need to elaborate because I think that your view of a conservative is fundamentally flawed thanks to the fools currently running this country.
esaud Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 10:33 am
I agree with msw above. The conservative movement has always been by and for the big money boyz. It used to have broad appeal down to the middle class.

But after Nixon, when they began picking up the right wing authoritarian vote in the racist backlash “southern strategy” they no longer had to appeal broadly to middle class voters on economic issues, and so were able to enact laws that benefit only a tiny fraction of the population.

I am sick to death of the milage the Republican party gets out of the likes of Rove, Limbaugh, Hagee, Coulter, O’Reilly, etc. And they never have to pay a political price. Our illustrious media goes into a fainting spell whenever Democrats cross some imaginary line (Petraeus Betray Us!!!! How dasterdly!!!) but let oceans of crap go below the radar screen when it benefits republicans (Hitlery Clinton? Yawn).
Ed Smithe Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Let me give you an example with regard to the latter. You’ve got this problem, Iran, where there are no good choices. If you try and prevent them from acquiring a nuke militarily, you risk almost certain failure, innocent lives, and a melt-down of the Middle East. On the other hand, if you try and bargain with them, you again risk almost certain failure and the proliferation of nuclear weapons across the Middle East.

Those are your choices in the real world. I choose the latter, not because I think it’s going to work, but because my cost-benefit analysis tells me that it’s the least bad option.

What would you choose?…Or would you choose at all?
Cyrus Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 11:05 am
I think there’s little evidence to support the charge that the current administration is “conservative”

Again, let’s get the philosophy right here. I understand that there’s a desire to lump us all together for political reasons, but…

The philosophical justification of something matters, but I think what most people actually believe and how they act is more important. And if the general definition of a term doesn’t describe most people who call themselves it, then that general meaning changes on its own whether we want it to or not.

Ed, of all the non-conservative policies you mention practiced by Bush and the current Republican Party – big spending, social engineering, etc. – which of them were not apparent well before the 2004 elections? I think they all were. And yet millions of self-described conservative voters supported Bush by wide margins. For the most part, they agreed with his policies. Saying “Kerry would have been worse” doesn’t cut it, either. There’s genuinely no reason to think he would have been worse about foreign policy, and unlike Bush, his objectionable domestic priorities would have had to get through a very hostile Congress.

English evolves. The word “conservative” no longer means what it meant in Eisenhower’s day. You can try to reclaim it, if you want. You will have people like Andrew Sullivan on your side, but you’ll have a lot of the new conservatives against you too.

Or you can call yourself something else. (You mention the problem with calling all Muslims terrorists, and you’re right, but if Wahhabiism was as pervasive and influential in Islam as neocons and Bush Republicanism are in the Republican Party, the moderate Muslims would probably start calling themselves something else too.) Maybe try to fight the negative connotations of “reactionary” and turn the label into something to be proud of? Maybe try to broaden and moderate the word “libertarian”?

I agree with the rest of what you’re saying here, so I don’t want this to come off as completely condescending. But realize that making your “no true conservatives” argument will be a lot more difficult than just pushing back against Democratic Party talking points.
mpowell Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 11:22 am
It has been quite amusing to read the rantings of conservatives hysterics lately. It is quite clear that they suffer from an incomprehension of how anyone could really vote for Democrats.

What the few remaining Republicans do not seem to be able to understand is that about 45% of the U.S. population will vote Democratic no matter what and that portion of the population is growing.

It’s kind of like the panic that Dems felt after Kerry lost in 2004. What are Americans thinking??!! Except that this time, it’s a lot funnier, b/c it should be a lot easier to see why people would want to support Dems after the great *success* of the last 8 years.

Now it’s true that it would be very difficult for the Republican party to actually court black voters. It would take an irrationally long time, in all likelihood, b/c of previous experience. But if the Republican party developed a policy platform that actually benefited a decent number of Americans, instead of a strategy of using culture war rhetoric to appeal to a certain brand of white American while pushing economic policy that would turn the US into a banana republic, they could easily pick up hispanic and other minority voters. I think and hope they’ll get there eventually. Until they do we are kind of stuck with either a one party state or a fear-based resurgence of a fascist Republican party; neither would be a desirable outcome, obviously.
Ed Smithe Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Cyrus,

I understand what you’re saying, and I think that you’ve raised some crucial sociological points–but we need to help one another on this. Split the neocons and the religious nuts from the Republican/Conservative movement by bringing the realists into a bipartisan fold. Only the Dems have the power to do this now (the Republicans pissed it away six years ago). Believe it or not, the number of Republicans that continue to support the war in Iraq is about half of the party…that leaves another half of folks that would like to see a more restrained foreign policy.

As I said before, domestic policy is a lost cause. What we’re talking about here is foreign policy solely. If the Dem realists single out the Republican realists to work with, that will effectively split the neocons and the nuts off. Hopefully we can do what Truman and Ike did and make this permanent by building support through successful policy implementation and results.
tomemos Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 11:31 am
On Real/True conservativism, see Digby: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114703227156158114

As for the sorry state of American (Democratic) cities, let’s turn it around: how has consistent red-ness helped Alabama, Mississippi, Idaho, and Wyoming? Meanwhile, one can name any number of successful Democratic cities–New York, San Francisco, Boston, and, yes, Chicago come to mind. It would seem that there are more important factors in the success of an urban area than the party in charge there, yes?
Terry Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Whereas I agree, considering it foolish to count conservatives out, based on history and their power and dough, it makes me a little nauseous to have the point framed in such great words by Ted Kennedy.

Why don’t you have a good Will Rogers quote re “the conservatives shall rise again?” Everyone remembers his witty words about the Democratic Party, but seldom is his Republican Party comment mentioned: “Take it, boys, no one is looking now.”
petr Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Your view is that there are conservatives and progressives. All conservatives appear to bad based upon your posts…that is a binary view…that would fall under manichaenism.

You’ll have to point out where I said anything about progressives (whatever you think I think it is…) And I didn’t say that all conservatives are bad. I do say that all conservatives share responsibility for the past 8 years. It’s way way too late to excommunicate George W. Bush.
duBois Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Of course the current admin is conservative. Until there was a peek at electoral defeat, none of the current crop of bellyachers voiced any concern at all. Acts define what their words meant, and George W gave us deficits, wars, and torture. That’s what “conservatism” means. Deficits, wars, and torture.
Matthew Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 11:52 am
I don’t know, they seem to be responding to Tuesday’s upcoming drubbing by purging the remainder of the sane people from the party and uniting behind a nationally unpopular woman who makes Bush look like the world’s most intellectually curious Rhodes Scholar. “End” might be putting it lightly, they could negate it from existence.

http://thesebastards.blogspot.com/
LaFollette Progressive Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
“…they have a large city government filled with make work jobs, the schools are horrible, the taxes high, and their number one product of those cities is creating white suburbanites who had to evacuate the disasters. Yet, those cities are some of the bluest cities in the U.S. Why? Because the politicians in the Democratic Party promise to tax whites and spend the money on them.”

That’s beautiful, superdestroyer. That’s exactly the campaign message that will appeal to working-class voters and win you elections. Keep up the good work.

In all seriousness, even if one maintains the illusion that your dystopian, openly racist view of urban life is accurate… and it’s certainly true that our large cities have difficult, systemic problems stemming from the decline of the manufacturing economy and the loss of their tax base to white flight… put yourself in the shoes of someone trying to squeeze out a living in one of those cities. And then pitch them on your brilliant plan to improve their lives — cutting city jobs, cutting their health care, cutting the budget for the public transportation they use and maintaining their streets, closing their neighborhood school and giving them a check to drive their kids out to the suburbs where people like you don’t want your kids mixing with their kids.

Hell, don’t even build stadiums and riverfront shopping districts to attract conventions and tourists and young people and improve the business climate, like modern-day Democratic mayors do. Instead, just cut taxes and cut public services and tell them their suffering will be short-lived. The market will work it all out in the long run… fersure. Just like it has under Republican policies on a national scale.

Oh, wait…

It might be that urban voters are not laboring under some sort of false consciousness that blinds them to the genius of American conservatism. It might be that the Republicans have absolutely nothing to offer them, and in fact actually view them primarily as Halloween props to frighten suburban voters into supporting Republicans. It might even be that suburban voters are starting to notice that Republicans have nothing to offer them except Halloween props.
superdestroyer Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
LaF Progressive,

Thank you for noticing that many urban areas have a low quality of life. You should also note that they have had a low quality for decades through a large number of Democratic Administration and through all of the stadiums, schooling proposals, and tourist attraction building. How much has having government funded stadiums help the people in west Baltimore or Detroit. It just gives the suburbanites a place to play super high ticket prices.

I do not believe that the Republicans or any conservatives can ever appeal to those who live in urban areas. There is no way that the Republicans can ever out do the Democrat’s “We will tax whites and give the money to you” campaign promise.

the real question is what will the U.S. be like when national politics works the same as current day city politices in places like LA, Baltimore, or Chicago.
LaFollette Progressive Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
the real question is what will the U.S. be like when national politics works the same as current day city politices in places like LA, Baltimore, or Chicago.

What, you mean that most of our tax base will all move to enclaves in Canada and Mexico and commute back into the US during business hours, and refuse to move back under any political circumstances because they prefer the Canadian/Mexican lifestyle, thus forcing the federal government to make difficult choices between a variety of bad options?

Frankly, I’m not too worried about that. But if you want to trot out that Halloween costume, throw in a few completely out-of-touch and insulting wisecracks about large and growing demographic groups, and try to scare up some votes… more power to you.
nick Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
it’s just amazing how gop talking points get simpler and simpler: they now span the emotional spectrum, from hate and fear to fear and hate.

those who project a split in the current “right” configuration (rich folks party vs crazy fundy party?) certainly may be on to something…as for Republican racism, the “Southern strategy” might be abandoned, but the fears of poor whites that the world is leaving them behind are gonna need some political outlet….
will Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Petr,

If all conservatives deserve the blame for the last 8 years, then what distinguishes us from one another?

And, if you’re not a conservative, then what are you?

Fair enough, you didn’t use the term “progressive,” but are you going to answer that there’s a whole range of different political philosophies outside of conservatism?
superdestroyer Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
LaF Progressive,

when middle class whites could no longer affect the political process with their votes, the voted with feet and left. Now that they no longer can vote with their feet even though there will probably be more internal migration in the U.S. as the remaining middle class whites try to find places in the U.S. where they can survive (see the outmigration of whites from California as a good example).

What the left should be asking is what other coping mechanisms are there for middle class whites. I suspect cheating on taxes to skyrocket as the U.S. becomes a one party state. I would also see people trying to find ways to cope such as home schooling, barter instead of cash, and the develop of social groups that replace things that the government is horrible at delivering.
mpowell Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 1:03 pm

when middle class whites could no longer affect the political process with their votes, the voted with feet and left. Now that they no longer can vote with their feet even though there will probably be more internal migration in the U.S. as the remaining middle class whites try to find places in the U.S. where they can survive (see the outmigration of whites from California as a good example).

What the left should be asking is what other coping mechanisms are there for middle class whites. I suspect cheating on taxes to skyrocket as the U.S. becomes a one party state. I would also see people trying to find ways to cope such as home schooling, barter instead of cash, and the develop of social groups that replace things that the government is horrible at delivering.

One thing is clear: these guys are not just trolling. Their fear of Democratic policy-making is quite genuine. Their dedication to Republican principles of (mis)government is astonishing.
LaFollette Progressive Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
“One thing is clear: these guys are not just trolling. Their fear of Democratic policy-making is quite genuine. Their dedication to Republican principles of (mis)government is astonishing.”

Yep. Like I said, I strongly encourage these people to keep shouting this stuff from the rooftops. It’s like magic Obama-electing pixie dust.
superdestroyer Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
LaF Progressive,

So what is a middle class white family who works in the private sector suppose to do if they do not want to pay higher taxes or their children bussed across the county or for the government to tell them what to drive and where to drive. Fiscal conservatives are now totally cut off from the political process. Small government propoents are now totaly cut off from the political process. They can have no effect on future government policy by either organizing or voting.
mpowell Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
60: First, they won’t be paying higher taxes. Second, their kids will not be bussed across the country. Third, I’m sure they will be fine driving a smaller eco-friendly car. They may not know it, but they’ll probably be safer on the road. Also, the extra income they’ll make as the economy improves and demand-side policies take effect will be appreciate, I’m sure.

This has been another edition to: simple answer to simple questions.
petr Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
If all conservatives deserve the blame for the last 8 years, then what distinguishes us from one another?

My point exactly. Duh. I’m not the one making the distinctions. If George Bush isn’t a conservative (as the claim here has been made) he’s sure been doing a bang-up impression of one.

If conservatives had said “wait just one minute…” some 7 years ago… instead of making common cause with somebody they now are saying they’ve always been uncomfortable with we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But the did. And we are.

And, if you’re not a conservative, then what are you?

Sane?
superdestroyer Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Mpowell,

There is not way that the Obama Administration can delivery trillions of new entitlements while cutting taxes on 95% of the public. And since you mentioned Keynesian economics, it requires very high taxes during the good times to pay off the government’s debts. It is the middle class that pays off those debts. Also, it was Democrats standing in front of the Supreme Court demanding forced busing in Seattle and Louisville. The Democrats always invited Kozol to their retreats to talk about returing to forced busing.

Also, it is bordering of Voodoo economics to believe that the government can start new regulatory programs on energy and carbon emissions while incresing labor/business unrest, while starting new minority set aside programs, and while maintaining open borders and unlimited immigration while promising an increased in real wages and new government entitlements.
LaFollette Progressive Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Superdestroyer — what mpowell said.

I myself am a middle class white person who lives in a large urban area governed by Democrats, which makes this entire exchange all the more ridiculous. I appreciate your concern for my well-being, but I’ll be okay. Really.
Chasm Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
What Ross, and most other right commentators fail to see is that the Death of Conservatism as a majority force was set by the end of Reagan’s term and was only delayed because GHWB was not so ideologically rigid, and Clinton allowed them to fume, focus, and regroup. By 2000, alot of people had forgotten what so-called conservative/GOP economic policies really meant (the homeless disappeared from view). While I would never count out a return to the Presidency, I’d be surprised if they were to regain a majority within 20 years.
AlanC9 Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
All this talk about low quality of life in the cities has me really confused. Everyone I know who leaves New York leaves because the place is so popular that they can’t afford to live here anymore. If the quality of life got any higher here we’d have the whole damn country beating on the door to get in.
superdestroyer Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
alanc9,

By New York, I assume you mean Manhatten which is becoming less black due to the high costs but one of the reasons that people leave is that either cannot afford $30K a year for private school or their children did not get into the magnet programs. The entire NYC Public Schools are only 14% white.
mpowell Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
63: There is a limit to the use of engaging each of these points, but I’ll offer a few responses. First, trillions in new entitlements? Let’s just move on. Huge tax increases to balance the budget in good time? You mean, like what we saw in the Clinton years? As for forced bussing, it is unfortunate that the noise-machine has really gotten this message to sink into your head, but really, that is an issue that has come and gone.

Your last paragraph is not particularly clear, but I will grant you one point: it will be challenging to continue to grow economically while the price of energy goes up as cheap oil runs out. The best way to address this challenge is to invest in alternative energy sources that will be cheaper, healthier and more stable in the long run. The Republicans offer us, “drill baby, drill!” It’s truly bizarre that you think that is the party that can deliver a healthy economic future for this country.
superdestroyer Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
mpowell,

The Democrats would sound lie Repulbicans if they ran of Clinton’s actual performance. No new taxes for six years. No new entitlement programs, no major overhauls of the tax laws. No new regulatory programs. Free Trade, welfare reform, and cuts in government spending.

The Clinton Administration was about as close as the U.S. is ever going to get to a Libertarian president. He did very little and he did it well.

However, the Obama Adminisration is probably not going to be the next Clinton Administration. New Educational entitlements. New Health entitlements. New grants to urban areas. The only thing that the Obama Administration will have with the Clinton Administration is large cuts in the military. However, the Obama Administration will be making defense cuts during a recession while Clinton did it during a boom cycle.

If alternative energy was going to be cheaper, we would be much further along in development. It will more expensive than current energy sources but may be cheaper than current sources in the future.

Look at how Obama claims to support charter schools while his policy proposal is for tougher federal regulations on charter schools. Also, are you really going to deny that the Seattle and Louisville Public Schools were operating discriminatory forced busing programs.
http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/edu/31236lgl20070628.html

Also, did you skip the Keynesian economic class where taxes have to go up during the boom times to pay down the debts incurred from all of the pump priming. Also, you must have skipped the political science class where the inertia of government programs was discussed. Those temporary government economic programs never go away even during the boom times.
mpowell Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Also, did you skip the Keynesian economic class where taxes have to go up during the boom times to pay down the debts incurred from all of the pump priming.

It is quite clear that you only pay attention to the things that reinforce your views. On the one hand, you grant that Clinton did not have very high taxes. But there appears to be no recognition of this as you fail to recognize the budget surplus during that time period.
tomemos Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
I did it myself so I shouldn’t talk, but let’s stop engaging superdestroyer. His concern for the fate of White America suggests that in three years he’s just going to be in a bunker filled with canned goods anyway. Let’s let him go.
putnam Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
It’s amazing that conservatives are now trying to say that Bush administration policies were largely left-of-center.

This is done by thinking in cartoon images of left-of-center politics. In this strange view, “big spending” necessarily means left-of-center. So, leftists support anything that spends lots of money? Really? And therefore, leftists supported the Bush prescription drug plan giveaway of billions to drug companies? And the war in Iraq?

Invading Iraq was not a “left-of-center” policy, no matter how someone tries to shove it into a box of pretexts labeled “social engineering.” Huh? Because it was supposedly “social engineering” the war was popular on the left, and denounced on the right? Who knew?

Conservatism IS the Bush administration, the Bush era. It has failed.
tammanycall Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
spoilsport.
battery Says:
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:56 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
Haraye Says:
February 28th, 2009 at 7:26 am
Hey very nice blog!! Man .. Beautiful .. Amazing .. I will bookmark your blog and take the feeds also…
cialis Says:
March 1st, 2009 at 8:14 pm
cialis
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
viagra Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 5:39 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
zyban Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 12:41 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
tramadol Says:
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:43 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
buy viagra online Says:
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:48 am
buy viagra online
I want to say – thank you for this!
cheap viagra Says:
April 9th, 2009 at 11:24 am
It is the coolest site,keep so! viagra
Prescription Drug Ads Says:
April 11th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
I would love to write and say what a great job you did on this, as you have put a lot of work into it.
seostarman4 Says:
April 15th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
My lawyer got my DUI charges dropped (Driving under the Influence of Alcohol) so I promised I’d pimped his services ( http://ticketvoid.com ).
Pam Says:
April 16th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Thank you for the resources. Keep up the good work!.
I am from Liberia and learning to write in English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: “Flights, not selected flights, hotels, selected.”

Thanks . Pam.
seostarman1 Says:
April 18th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
I got a DUI ticket and my lawyers ( http://ticketvoid.com ) convinced the judge that the police don’t know how to administer the drinking test.

Matt Yglesias

The Dream Shall Never Die

85 Responses to “The Dream Shall Never Die”

Blogroll