Right Wing Nut House



Filed under: Decision '08 — Rick Moran @ 7:20 pm

This election should be a cakewalk for the left. I mean the GOP is handing this contest to liberals on a silver platter.

Dispirited, disorganized, hating their choices for president, wrangling over whether the Reagan coalition is dead, many conservatives threatening to stay home on election day - what more could a political party ask for when it comes to an opponent? From the looks of things, they might as well start measuring curtains for the Lincoln bedroom right now, save themselves the trouble.

The Democrats should also be trumpeting their ideas to the skies, speaking in glowing terms about how their liberal agenda will turn the economy around, end the wars, make the US respected in the world again, promise health insurance for all, a college education for anyone who wants it, a chicken in every pot and a Studebaker in every garage…

Got a little carried away there…heh.

But they’re not doing that, are they. They are being very, very cautious in proposing anything at all that would reveal their ideology. Why? Because they are ashamed of being liberals:

One possibility is that Obama would get everyone inspired, but not inspired about a specifically progressive agenda. That would be bad. A second possibility, however, is that he’d manage to convince the public that his liberal agenda isn’t really “liberal” — a word that’s been successfully demonized by the right — but just common sense. So he gets the public support he wants, but he gets it by repositioning liberal ideas not as ideology, but as post-partisan problem solving. That would be good. The question is, will it work? Or is the direct approach more effective?

“Liberal” being “demonized” by the right? I hate to inform Mr. Drum but the fact of the matter is liberals did very well all by themselves in demonizing that word. They didn’t need any help from conservatives to destroy black families, devastate the inner cities, create towers of hopelessness in public housing, expand the size of the federal government until it became a behemoth, run away from international challenges, destory federalism, poison the culture, and generally make an absolute mess of this country.

Conservatives were out of power and in the wilderness during the 1950’s, 60’s, and 70’s when liberalism, triumphant and drunk with power destroyed the national polity by creating identity politics and cataloged people according to their age, race, sex, national origin, cultural heritage, and sexual orientation. They demonized white males as the perpetrators of all evil. They destroyed our heroes, denigrated our myths, belittled patriotism, and promoted and made amorality acceptable.

And Drum is saying that conservatives “demonized” liberalism?

No wonder Kevin wants Obama to hide his liberalism. No wonder they can’t even call themselves liberals any more. And that’s why Democrats may win this election but there will be no “realignment” to the left. Any ideology with which its adherents are ashamed to associate is not a successful ideology.

They don’t even try to hide the attempted subterfuge:

But I think it’s increasingly clear what Obama is actually trying to do — put a moderate face on a liberal platform, in the hopes of expanding the Democratic pie. Maybe that can work, maybe not, but I think the suggestions that he’s some kind of triangulating, Gingrich-loving closet-Reaganite are misguided.

Why not try to “expand the Democratic pie” by standing up and proudly proclaiming your liberal principles? Why not try to further define those principles so that all of America knows exactly who you are and what you stand for?

Instead, what we have in Obama is a candidate willing to sneak around, hiding his true ideology while packaging his agenda in vapid platitudes so that no one can glean his true intent.

Strategy is one thing. Lying to the people and trying to fool them into thinking you’re something you’re not is something entirely different. Conservatism may be in disarray. It may be exhausted and suffering from poor leadership. But if the day ever comes I write something like Kevin Drum wrote above I would hope some liberal calls me out for such incredible cynicism.


  1. Democrat = liberal = progressive = SOCIALIST.

    It’s as simple as that and has been coming for 20 years. Now here it is…..on open display in this election. They won’t show their true colors, disregard what Hillary said about income reallocation…..

    And that’s why it is so tough for conservatives this election, because the socialist agenda is already ingrained in our society and Republicans don’t want to take the bottle away from the baby……

    True Conservatives would……for the sake of the baby

    Comment by Marv — 1/23/2008 @ 12:27 am

  2. I want to know why are you conservatives so hateful. Your party has ruined this country so bad that it is impossible to fix the hurt. a war we don’t need, a national debt in the trillions, ruining the atmosphere,made neighbors around the world hate us, sent jobs overseas, give money to the rich. What more harm can you do.

    Comment by Billy Ray — 1/23/2008 @ 2:07 am

  3. It is a bit odd that a black minister in the Methodist Church is endorsing a black politican in the Democrat party who voted to support Margaret Sanger’s “Negro Project”.

    Comment by syn — 1/23/2008 @ 8:18 am

  4. ‘war we don’t need’ and ‘ruining the atmosphere’ and ‘neighbors around the world’?

    Billy Ray, I see you have those mercury toxic light-bulbs screwed in tight.

    Comment by syn — 1/23/2008 @ 8:22 am

  5. If Conservative Republicans refuse to face up to the 21st. Century; refuse to face up to reform of the platform; refuse to accept that Rush isn’t always Right; refuse to vote because the Republican Candidate isn’t Ronald Reagan Redux…then we are digging our own grave, and the Clintons will happily shovel in the dirt to bury us!

    Let’s stop mumbling “No, we won’t…!” and start yelling “Yes, we will…!”

    Comment by eliXelx — 1/23/2008 @ 9:13 am

  6. Billy Ray,

    I think you have forgotten some of your history, or maybe you are too you to have been taught American political history.

    It was the democrats that gave Americans social security/medicare/ssi and the Great Society to end poverty. How many TRILLIONS of dollars have we spent and still we have poverty.

    Oh yes, and while we are at it, which political group is soooo concerned about tolerance that they have created speech codes on campuses across this country?

    Also why is it that when a conservative did something in the distant past that he/she gets toasted by the MSM and the is vilified as thought it happened yesterday, while the same thing will never happen to a liberal. We just need to ‘move on’ because that’s history and they are different now. How convenient for us that its OK for Robert Byrd can get past his association with the ‘klan’, but George Allen get ambushed for something that may or may not have occurred decades ago.

    Yes there are a lot of problems in this country and there is plenty of blame to go around for everyone. The biggest problem we have in this country lies in the fact that the foundations of this great nation are not being taught in the government schools. If people were exposed to the founding fathers and the reasons they acted as they did, we could all be better off.

    You have tried to make this a finger-pointing exercise to justify your lack of history and a poor example at that.

    Comment by DaleB — 1/23/2008 @ 10:01 am

  7. “Conservatives were out of power and in the wilderness during the 1950’s, 60’s, and 70’s when liberalism, triumphant and drunk with power destroyed the national polity by creating identity politics and cataloged people according to their age, race, sex, national origin, cultural heritage, and sexual orientation”

    Hmm… this is the first time I’ve heard Nixon being called a liberal…

    Comment by anon — 1/23/2008 @ 11:49 am

  8. From Wikpedia:

    During the Nixon Administration, the United States established many government agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Supplemental Security Income program, and the Office of Minority Business Enterprise; the Post Office Department was abolished as a cabinet department and reorganized as a government-owned corporation: the U.S. Postal Service. Nixon proposed in 1971 to create four new government departments superseding the current structure: departments organized for the goal of efficient and effective public service as opposed the thematic bases of Commerce, Labor, Transportation, Agriculture, et al. Departments like State, Treasury, Defense and Justice would remain under this proposal.[22] Nixon also suspended the converting of the US dollar into gold, a central point of the Bretton Woods system, allowing its value to float in world markets.

    In international affairs, President Nixon normalized diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China, enacted détente, or the peaceful pause in the Cold War, with the Soviet Union (later abolished by President Ronald Reagan). He signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, following the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (also known as SALT I).

    Not as liberal as Humphrey or McGovern but by any standard you want to use, he was no conservative.

    Comment by Rick Moran — 1/23/2008 @ 11:54 am

  9. The 1950’s a liberal time? I don’t think so.The Eisenhower years were a time of stultifying conservatism especially for women and blacks.The years 1960-63 in contrast were a golden age of enthusiasm,prosperity where America stood tall in pride in the country and its President.Nixon and the Republicans destroyed all that Kennedy had built up.

    Comment by mike — 1/23/2008 @ 1:43 pm

  10. Sorry, just a guest poster here, usually read the moderate blogs. “liberal=Socialist?”

    Well, we can crunch history all day long but how about the last 7 years? Those are most immediately in most of our minds…

    I’m really a bloody fish in shark-infested waters and don’t want to particularly offend anyone here but is there any, remote chance, there’ll be some effort to be supportive of the next president, whoever that might be?

    My hope is that there will be less mud-slinging, name-calling, political “certainty” and that we’ll be able to put down the gloves for awhile and figure out what we need to do over the next few years. Yep, plenty of blame to go around, but recently we know where to assign the blame.

    Dale do you really think those programs (Social Security, Medicare, SSI, etc) are some evil invention of a liberal mind? I don’t know about you but I’ve been paying into them for my whole life, and I damn sure hope they’re around when I might need some of them. What are you suggesting?

    Finally, Rick what do you think can be accomplished with the next administration? Where do you think we need to spend our energies? Do you seriously think we need more of the same? “Stay the course..?” I’ve seen expressions where people just seem to glee when Bush f..ks up again, but what’s so different about this post that, in essense, says “…well we may have lost this upcoming election but I’m sure gonna have a damn good time watching the ‘liberal’ losers screw us up even more…”

    When I read these blogs sometimes I lose hope for all of us.

    Comment by Jeff P — 1/23/2008 @ 8:30 pm

  11. And just why should Republicans be dispirited and disorganized? They had Congress and the presidency for most of eight years, surely enough to accomplish, what…(crickets chirping)? So enamored, the voters responded!

    During those years the Democrats have been Republican enablers, so I’m no fan of the D’s. Any parade, they’ll jump in front of it. May they rot in hell.

    Meanwhile, the next administration will inherit vast, deep, stinking piles of shit, and although Republicans will be buried neck deep (along with everyone else) in excrement largely of their own creation, don’t fail to ignore their smug grins. Just pinch your noses, make it all go away.

    Comment by bobwire — 1/23/2008 @ 10:49 pm

  12. Gee Rick, as far as the Right demonizing liberals goes, your first commenter couldn’t have been a more perfect example. As far as I’m aware, socialism has more to do with the government taking over industry, and less to do with things like universal health care..yes Liberals want to create some sort of safety net for the poor, but nobody in the democratic party is calling for an end to private property as we know it. So what possible reasons could the righties have for equating Democrats with Communists and Socialists? Oh yeah, thats right: Demonization.

    You may not have personally contributed to this discourse, or you may have. But the Right has a long history of trying to convince the public that Democrats are somehow agents of the Communist menace.

    Back in 04 when Bush was calling Kerry a “Liberal” time and again, I’m pretty sure he didn’t mean that as a compliment.

    Comment by Jake — 1/23/2008 @ 11:40 pm

  13. Thanks, Jake good point.

    Also, anyone here remember “compassionate conservative”? Bush spent 2000 convincing people that he was a new type of conservative, then tacked hard right the instant he took office. Either he had some “Road to Damascus” style epiphany, or he was being deceptive for the entirety of his campaign. Rick is fretting over something most mainstream candidates do: hide the extremities of their ideology. Hunter, Tancredo, Sharpton, Keyes, and Paul can all be honest about who they are because they won’t win.

    And Rick, you have to be blind and deaf not to hear the vitriol from conservatives over the word liberal. Go conservative book publishers and count the titles with “liberal” used in some derogatory fashion. We on the left (broad brush alert) attack people: Bush, Rummy, Gonzales, etc. You on the right attack the entire movement of your political enemies.

    As for Nixon, he was a conservative. You guys say you’re for small government, fiscal responsibility, and strong defense. You had total control over the federal government for 6 years. How fiscally responsible were you? How much did you shrink the federal government? And you threw a lot of money at defense contractors, but how much did you give to the soldiers themselves? Walter Reed, body armor, raising their meager salaries? Hell, George Bush threatened to veto a raise to the soldiers, because he thought it was more than they needed. I understand why you conservatives keep the rose colored glasses on. The unvarnished view isn’t pretty.

    Comment by IanY77 — 1/24/2008 @ 11:46 am

  14. We on the left (broad brush alert) attack people: Bush, Rummy, Gonzales, etc. You on the right attack the entire movement of your political enemies.

    That simply isn’t factual.

    Authoritarianism = conservatism? John Dean.

    And how about this from Matt Stoller just recently:

    “There’s no such thing as a good conservative leader, period. It is a fundamentally bankrupt, corrupt, and fraudulent ideology, and there is nothing laudable about people like Reagan who tap into the worst of America.”

    Then there’s conservatism = racism, fascism, etc. These memes are promoted on lefty blogs every single day.

    Conservatives have been hearing this crap since the 1950’s. Your statement about “broad brush” just doesn’t hold up to the facts.

    Comment by Rick Moran — 1/24/2008 @ 11:52 am

  15. Matt Stoller is one individual inside of a much, much larger movement.

    No one statement can flawlessly categorize a movement made up of hundreds of millions of people worldwide (aside from carbon-based, bipedal life forms requiring oxygen to survive). Hence the “broad brush” remark. In general, our focus is on people, in general, your focus is on the ideology of your political enemies.

    Comment by IanY77 — 1/24/2008 @ 12:16 pm

  16. Rick you have not answered Ian’s last paragraph where he clearly states the truth of the record of the last six years.How,on reading what he says can you justify voting republican?

    Comment by mike — 1/24/2008 @ 6:21 pm

  17. #2

    More anecdotal evidence that hatred of Bush causes people to think and write the stupidest things.

    Comment by Chip — 1/25/2008 @ 9:29 pm

  18. #15

    Agreed, liberals generally tend toward the fallacious ad hominem style in “proving” their points.

    Liberals => Argumentum ad Hominem
    Conservatives => Argumentum ad Informatio

    Comment by Chip — 1/25/2008 @ 10:26 pm

  19. Enron, oops, another errant child of an enterprise gone tumorous. thank goodness we had a benevolent government to look the other way, otherwise we might get govt regulation!
    And just whom might desire that, after witnessing the Katrina response?
    Is it any wonder people are perplexed about the next Republican leader? Where is Rove when we need him most. A whispering campaign, the man’s a genius.
    I can’t get behind the stimulus package. Enough of these bailouts. We haven’t seen this kind of intervention since Reagan and the Savings and Loans. Was that not $500 billion? Was that not in 1980’s dollars?

    Comment by bobwire — 1/26/2008 @ 5:54 am

  20. Ashamed to be known as liberal? Demonstrates the degree to which your extremism blinds you. The overractive, simplistic unthinking conclusion that liberal governments are, by definition, socialistic, has sparked the most shameful moments in the history of the world’s self-proclaimed greatest democracy. Hence, our murderous incursions into Latin American countries: Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama, Mexico, Chile, Argentina. I lived in Latin America for many years and witnessed this extension of conservative paranoia in the US. To call these policies misguided is a gross understatement. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Latin Americans have been murdered as a result of the simplistic, uninformed policies driven by paranoid conservatives who equate a foreign President’s desire to raise the standard of living among the poor in his country with communism. Hence, our assasination of Arbenz in Guatemala, of Allende in Chile, and of the democratically-elected President of the Republic of Iran, and our installation of the brutal dictatorship of Shah Reza Pahlavi.

    I am an Academy grad (USAFA), and served this great country during the Vietnam war. The new conservatism bears no resemblance to that of one of the greatest political leaders of the twentieth century, Barry Goldwater. No, the new conservatism is characterized by arrogance, antagonism, along with an intolerant attitude toward those who challenge their extreme thinking. The norm is incivility. Even AEI, a foundational nexus of conservative thought, acknowledges the rush to extremism. “We lost it under Clinton, when conservatives relentlesly attacked him. Then, the present President Bush chose a strategy of being a divider, rather than a uniter.” (Direct quote from Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute.)

    As to your penchant for labelling, if I could pass the physical, I would still be flying missions. But, I despise your hateful, petty tactics. Most of all, I am sickened that you dare call it conservatism. Barry Goldwater is restless in his grave, as are patriots such as Thomas Paine. Have you read, “The Rights of Man” recently, or “Common Sense?”

    Show those independent voters that conservatism is a traditional and worthy doctrine, not a haven for extremists. Do it quickly. Or November will be a sad month.


    Comment by Joshua — 2/8/2008 @ 4:16 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress