There are the biological ones:
Judge scolds Rep. Joe Walsh in child-support case with ex-wife
A Chicago judge issued a preliminary ruling Wednesday against U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) in his child-support dispute with his ex-wife, ordering the Tea Party favorite to explain why he appears to be $100,000 behind in child-support payments.
Cook County Circuit Judge Raul Vega also wanted to know why Walsh wasn’t in court Wednesday — the McHenry Republican’s ex-wife, Laura Walsh, was there — and initially said he expected him to show up for the next hearing.
...
And there are ideological ones
From here:
Why Do We Call These Radicals Conservatives?
PM Carpenter:Why, then, do modern commentators persist in referring to modern conservatism as "conservatism"? While Krugman's statement is perversely unimpeachable -- "modern conservatism is actually a deeply radical movement" -- it also contains a colossally unconcealed contradiction, which is way overdue for journalistic retirement.
But that would require MSM journalists and editors exercising their own judgment against the propaganda of one political party. And that we know they will not do. They couldn't even call torture by its proper name, for Pete's sake.
While I freely confess that I find it especially hilarious when one of the Conservative progenitors of our modern political disaster goes all "Henry Fitz-Empress" (beard and all, in this case)
when confronted with the stink of their own ideological DNA reeking from every pore of their bastard race of Rightwads, these vicious little homunculi did not spring from the head of Zeus, Mr. Sullivan.
Nor did they arise spontaneously out of the elemental humors of the universe, nor (so far as I know) were you and those like you roofied by a building full of octogenarian Satanists
so that Lucifer use you in his very special electoral breeding program.
Of course you had lots and lots of help -- after all it takes a Movement to raise a Monster -- but these depraved goony fucks are all yours, Mr. Sullivan.
And however many times you change your political wardrobe,
change your name, change their name, and otherwise deny them, they will still be yours.
All yours.
For the rest of your life.
2 comments:
Hilarious use of the "I deny you!!1!" video to illustrate the point. :-)
Thanks for fighting the good fight on this, DG. I left a long comment over at PM Carpenter's. I don't disagree with all of his analysis, but I think the semantic issue is very important, because "conservatism" should not be exonerated as some pure thing that was recently corrupted. I wrote:
Of course they're not people who live up to the ideals of Burke, but how many of them ever did? Eisenhower Republicans believed in the Social Contract, and if you look very hard, you can find some of those people, or other decent people who identify as conservatives. However, few, if any, of those people are in office or any position of power – and some, like Bruce Bartlett, have been drummed out of conservative institutions.
This is a feature, not a bug. Conservatism as a whole has *always* had a regressive or revanchist strain, and in America, that strain has been dominant for a long time now. They've never truly bought into key classical liberal concepts such as equality, and that rejection is one of the things that defines them as conservatives. Conservatism can be defined in different ways, and has different strains, but generally centers on protecting the status quo, which is considered preferable or even the natural order. Sometimes doing nothing, as on segregation, is a major moral failing. Let's recall that while socially liberal Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act, movement conservative Barry Goldwater opposed it, and "reasonable" conservative William F. Buckley and his National Review opposed de-segregation (these days, the NR crew tries to claim that MLK, the man they consistently denounced virulently, was really a conservative). Movement conservatives, feeling they represent the natural order, have always sought further power and privilege. The worst of them – and certainly the plutocrats – are essentially neo-feudalists, championing conservative ideas from past eras (or their modern iterations). Call them right-wing reactionaries if you prefer, but their "radicalism" has always been backwards-looking (sometimes counterfactually so) along *conservative* lines. The "fiction" is that it has ever been otherwise.
Andrew Sullivan (who quoted your piece) likes to pretend that conservatism is some pure thing that was only recently corrupted, but it's always had some element of rot in it, and Sullivan himself cheered much of it on. Similarly, David Brooks will always defend the aristocracy, pretend that "both sides do it" and try to minimize the awful sins of his chosen team. Reaganomics have been regressive and plutocratic - as intended - and have increased wealth inequity in America back to Gilded Age levels. The middle class has been increasingly squeezed and assaulted by American conservatives. If decent, self-described conservatives want to reclaim the Republican Party, I'll cheer them on. (America really needs two functioning political parties, and the Dems have a fair amount of corruption as well.) But our current state of affairs is hardly some accident. It's the conservative id (or right-wing id, if you prefer) unleashed. Don't believe the hype.
That's what I wrote – adding links to the Cole and Hilzoy pieces I've linked here before, and mentioned that he should check out your series on Sullivan and Brooks here, including (of course) this post... Cheers.
Post a Comment