Will Power
February 28, 2009
The Rest of the Story
February 28, 2009
Legendary radio broadcaster Paul Harvey passes away at 90.
A Choice, Not An Echo
February 28, 2009
Analyze This
February 27, 2009
Remember Henry Hill, the organized crime figure whose life story was the basis of the 1990 classic Goodfellas? Hill was a loyal soldier for the Mob, but he could never become a “made man” because he was not a full-blooded Italian-American.
The conservative movement is not the Mob (despite what progressives believe). Yet it does seem like there’s a similar pecking order on the right these days: evidently, it’s not possible to be a member in good standing unless one is a full-blooded conservative.
It’s well-known that moderates–Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Arlen Specter, etc.—are at the bottom of the right’s totem pole. In the middle are those who are largely conservative, but who have disagreements with doctrinaire conservatives on certain policy and strategy issues. Michael Steele, David Frum, Peggy Noonan, Tim Pawlenty, William Kristol, Ryan Sager, Fred Barnes, Ross Douthat, Charles Krauthammer and George Will are members of this group.
Then there are the full-blooded conservatives, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Eric Cantor and Mike Pence. These figures are considered pure and true in their beliefs, the template for what a “real” member of the right should be.
One of the biggest problems facing the right today is the (accurate) perception that, unless one’s views correspond line-for-line with those of Limbaugh, Hannity, Palin, Cantor and Pence, one will only be tolerated, not accepted, by the conservative movement. It’s one thing for the Snowe-Collins-Specter crowd to be held in contempt by full-blooded conservatives; the “FBCs” would argue that members of this faction invite such negativity with their own actions and statements. It’s quite another thing for the “FBCs” to have a problem with the center-right coalition of which Steele, Frum, etc. are members.
There aren’t many people in this country who would consider themselves full-blooded conservatives. A number of folks who voted for Ronald Reagan nearly three decades ago opposed certain elements of his political vision; in fact, many so-called “Reagan Democrats” voted for the 40th President because they were tired of the Democrats’ handling of such issues of crime and education, not because they were for supply-side economics.
Steele has argued that the GOP must be open to those who agree with most of the party’s conservative positions, but who might have disagreements on one or two issues. He is right. Being wrong (from a conservative perspective) on one or two issues does not make one a “dogmatic dissenter.”
It used to be that a “dogmatic dissenter” was someone who disagreed with the conservative movement on a majority of the issues; former Massachusetts Governor William Weld, a nominal Republican, was a good example of someone clearly out of step with the American right. Now, it seems the definition of a “dogmatic dissenter” has been expanded to include anyone who deviates from the conservative platform even slightly.
The antagonism between full-blooded conservatives and the center-right coalition is profoundly foolish. Where does such antagonism come from? Is it left over from the right’s anti-Communism days, when certain conservatives became a bit too vehement in their quest to root out American Communist sympathizers? Perhaps full-blooded conservatives feel that those who disagree with even one element of the conservative/Republican platform are susceptible to being swayed by progressive arguments on other issues. Isn’t this a little bit paranoid?
There’s no reason for full-blooded conservatives to be suspicious of the center-right crowd. Center-righters and full-blooded conservatives are equally staunch in their opposition to President Obama’s government-centric vision. Both factions believe in a strong national defense. Both factions believe in a vibrant middle class. Even when it comes to social issues, both factions generally agree that abortions for birth-control purposes should be reduced, and that the American family is the country’s bedrock.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting to thin the ranks of true “dogmatic dissenters.” After all, if the left thinks it’s fine to ostracize Joe Lieberman because of his sharp disagreements with progressives, why shouldn’t the right do the same to its malcontents? However, it is wrong to classify center-right Republicans as being no different from the Snowe-Collins-Specter crowd.
Just because one is not from the South or a fan of Ann Coulter doesn’t mean one shouldn’t be considered a legitimate member of the conservative club. If the full-blooded conservative Godfathers of the right insist upon blurring the line between a “dogmatic dissenter” and a center-right conservative, sooner or later the right as a whole will get whacked.
Style
February 26, 2009
Tough Crowd
February 25, 2009
Why?
February 24, 2009
I wish I knew what happened to Alan Keyes.
It wasn’t that long ago when Keyes was considered the most articulate and forceful advocate of socially conservative principles on the right. At times, Keyes seemed to be the only honest conservative in the 1996 and 2000 Republican primaries; his commitment to limited government and social traditionalism was remarkable and unquestionable.
Keyes was a universally admired figure in the conservative movement. I remember a 1996 Rolling Stone article about that year’s Republican primary; the author noted that Keyes was considered a rock star by the GOP base, and that many on the right wanted him to become the country’s first African-American President instead of Colin Powell.
Keyes was no hypocritical moralist. He lived his beliefs; he was a loving husband and caring father, a man who felt strongly that the country’s moral strength was every bit as important as the country’s fiscal and military strength. Keyes was great on television, great in his op-eds and books, great in his courage and wisdom.
Or so it seemed.
Somewhere along the line, something happened to Keyes. It’s unclear when the transition from intellectual to ideologue took place; clearly, it occurred sometime in the 2000s, but it’s difficult to pinpoint the exact moment when he lost control. However, it’s clear that Keyes’ intellectual discipline has now declined.
How else does one explain his intemperate remarks at a pro-life rally in Nebraska last Friday? Keyes labeled President Obama a “radical Communist” who plans to “destroy this country”, further stating that “…we are either going to stop him or the United States of America is going to cease to exist.”
Keyes continued: “I’m not sure he’s even [legally] President of the United States, neither are many of our military people now who are now going to court to ask the question, ‘Do we have to obey a man who is not qualified under the constitution?’ We are in the midst of the greatest crisis this nation has ever seen, and if we don’t stop laughing about it and deal with it, we’re going to find ourselves in the midst of chaos, confusion and civil war.”
Is Keyes struggling with mental illness? Does he seriously believe that Obama is not legally qualified to be President? If Obama were not legally qualified, surely the Clinton campaign would have discovered this salient fact, no?
Despite my philosophical disagreement with Obama’s big-government vision, I must ask: How could anyone in his or her right mind declare the President “…somebody who is kind of an alleged usurper, who is alleged to be someone who is occupying that office without constitutional warrant to do so?” Why has Keyes adopted this demented belief that Obama is somehow not legally qualified to be President?
Keyes has made controversial statements before, but even those statements could be defended as being in accord with his firm moral views. It may not have been polite to characterize former Vice President Cheney’s daughter Mary as someone who enjoyed “selfish hedonism”, but there are plenty of social conservatives who share Keyes’ view of the younger Cheney. (One hopes they also feel the same way about a certain conservative talk-radio star who adopted a child as a single parent, but that’s another story for another day.)
However, there’s something borderline immoral about Keyes’ recent remarks. They are counterproductive to conservatism and demonstrate reckless disregard for the truth. It appears that Keyes cannot come to grips with the fact that a majority of voters supported Obama instead of him in the 2004 Illinois US Senate race—and supported Obama instead of John McCain in the Presidential election four years later.
Keyes has always come across as a man shocked by the extent to which America has departed from its moral foundations. Perhaps the shock has become too much psychologically, causing Keyes to lash out in this repellent fashion. It’s one thing not to like certain sociopolitical changes. It’s quite another thing to demonize such changes in this way.
Remember “Any Major Dude (Will Tell You)”, the Steely Dan song from the 1970s about someone whose “super-fine mind has come undone?” Apparently, this is what happened to Alan Keyes. What was once eloquence has become extremism. What was once morality has become madness. What was once virtue has become viciousness. This is a sad development, not only for Keyes, but also for those of us who once admired him.
Present & Future
February 23, 2009
Weekend Box Office: Jailbait
February 22, 2009
Mucking Around
February 22, 2009
Performance Review
February 21, 2009
Get Votes or Die Tryin’
February 20, 2009
Whether you like Michael Steele or not, you have to admit the dude is fearless.
In an interview published in the February 19 Washington Times, the newly elected chairman of the Republican National Committee reiterated his desire to have the GOP compete for votes in every section of the country—and announced plans for a massive public-relations campaign to revive the GOP’s long-damaged image. While he emphasized that he does not plan to abandon the party’s core conservative principles, he also stated that the party must rid itself of its old-Southern-guy aura. To achieve this goal, Steele said, “We need messengers to really capture [the support of the] young, Hispanic, black, a cross section…We want to convey that the modern-day GOP looks like the conservative party that stands on principles. But we want to apply them to urban-suburban hip-hop settings.”
Further, he noted: “Where we have fallen down in delivering a message is in having something to say, particularly to young people and moms of all shapes—soccer moms, hockey moms…We don’t offer one image for 18-year-olds and another for soccer moms but one that shows who we are for the 21st century.”
I’d like to think that Steele will receive support from high-profile members of the GOP as he endeavors to freshen up the party’s way-past-the-sell-by-date image. Yet I can’t shake the feeling that he’ll run into resistance from Republicans who don’t want to change the way things are done.
With his statements, Steele is now firmly on the side of the party’s reformers, those who recognize that 2009 is not 1979 and conservative principles now have to be communicated in ways that a more educated, more diverse America will not find off-putting. These reformers are not “moderates”; they are clearly to the right of the Olympia Snowe-Susan Collins-Arlen Specter wing of the party. However, they understand that recycling old Reagan lines won’t cut it in the Facebook-Youtube-Twitter-Myspace era.
These “reformers” (many of whom are prominent in the conservative blogosphere) are despised by the old-school faction of the GOP. This faction believes, among other questionable notions, that the United States is actually a conservative (or “center-right”) country, and that all it will take for the GOP to return to power is the discovery of a Reagan clone. This faction feels there’s no real need to alter the presentation of the Republican message to reflect changes in the country’s demographics and culture; as far as this element is concerned, the old stuff just needs to be tried again.
Today, the Republican Party is like a church divided by a power struggle between older and younger clergy. Younger members of the church’s ministerial staff propose new ways of delivering the Gospel, ways that may attract younger people alienated by the dated, decades-old songs and sermons; their proposals are met with scorn from their older colleagues, who insist that the “old-time religion” is the way things ought to be, and that changing the way the church does business would dilute the power of the Word.
Of course, what usually happens in this scenario is that the church’s older members die off, and their children and grandchildren, repelled by the played-out preaching and stagnant spirituals, either find another place to worship, or don’t bother worshipping at all. Then the church shuts down.
This will be the unholy future for the GOP if Steele isn’t allowed to get the party’s message out his way. At bottom, Steele simply wants Republicans to engage the popular culture. What is so wrong with that? Some of the country’s most beloved conservative/Republican figures—John Wayne, Ronald Reagan, Charlton Heston—were affiliated with the popular culture. Why shouldn’t the GOP try to compete for the minds and hearts of those who enjoy modern popular culture? We have so-called South Park Republicans, don’t we? Well, why can’t we have 106 & Park Republicans?
Despite the old-guard GOP’s wishes and hopes, there will never be another Reagan. The Republican Party’s principles are timeless, but those principles must be presented in a way that suits the times. That’s all Michael Steele is saying.
Republicans who were against Steele’s election as RNC Chairman viewed him as a “big-tent” thinker, someone who was willing to dilute the GOP’s values in order to win elections. There’s no question that Steele has mouthed “big-tent” platitudes in the past. However, it’s now clear that Steele is actually a big-picture thinker. This is a value to some Republicans. Will it be a vexation to others?
