Sunday, October 23, 2022

Addlepated Conservative Pundit Keeps Throwing Around the Term “Thoughtful Conservative” as if It Means Something


A thousand pardons for using a back issue of the award-adjacent "True Conservative" magazine to illustrate this post, but there was no!time!no!time to rush another one into print before I wrote about Mr. David French and the Exciting!Tale! of True Conservatism that The Atlantic magazine just paid him to write.    

You may know Mr. French as either as the saccharine-pious stiff that Bill Kristol once conjured out of the anonymous depths of the pre-Trump Conserative punditocracy and offered up as an alternative to voting for Trump since voting for the Democrat was to horrifying for him to contemplate...

...or as one of the many Never Trump conservatives who write for The Bulwark, are frequently on The Bulwark podcast, and who's advice to Democrats never changes: that we need to stop being Democrats and remake our party into one that lets Never Trumpers -- who fucked up their own party so badly that they got run out by the racist mob they created -- call the shots.

Yeah, that goof also has a regular column in The Atlantic because of course he does.  And today, his dire warning to Democrats is...

 Herschel Walker and the Plight of the True Conservative Voter  
 
There's no good option for conservative voters in Georgia this election.

Yeah, it is definitely time to get another issue of the award-ready True Conserative magazine into print as soon as possible.

Mr. French begins his, "But the Democrats..." apologia for Republican fascism as all of his species do.  By acknowledging that Republicans may -- if you look at it in a certain light -- have a problem with, y'know, violent, brain-dead lunatics running for office.

If ever there were a time and place for a thoughtful, patriotic conservative to vote third party or perhaps even vote for a reasonable Democrat, it’s the 2022 election in Georgia. Herschel Walker’s past is, if possible, even more checkered than Donald Trump’s. After all, no one ever claimed that Trump threatened one of his ex-wives with a gun.

Recent evidence that Walker paid for an abortion is just one more...

Yet personal scandal is hardly the only problem with Walker...

Then comes the turn...

Moreover, Walker’s personal failings aside, there is an overwhelming case that these are not ordinary times, and that the 2022 election is not an ordinary election. So thoughtful, patriotic conservatives should swallow hard, forsake the policy victories they hope for with a Republican Congress, and either stay home or vote Democratic, right?

Then comes the predictable "Democrats are to blame for Republicans being monsters"

If that’s the argument, someone needs to tell the Democratic Party what’s at stake. Because right now, it’s making an unsustainable demand of Republican voters: You sacrifice the policies that you believe are best for our nation and its people; we sacrifice nothing...

French goes on the define "thoughtful Conservatives" as hard-line, right wing Christians for whom abortion is the only issue.

Right now the message to conservative anti-abortion voters is that they should risk a potential policy loss on what is for many of them their single most important issue, because the republic could be at risk. Yet, key Democrats—sensing opportunity in the weakness of Walker, or of Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania—are refusing to compromise on that same issue.

Hey asshole.  Roe was the fucking compromise.  And your "thoughtful Conserative" Christopath fanatics mounted a 40 years campaign to seize the courts and turn them into a tool for establishing your dream of Republican Gilead.  And the first trophy on their wall was stripping women of their basic rights, so how's about you just fuck right off, n'kay?

They’re even using the moment to push an unpopular position on the most contentious issue in the culture wars. They see the Republican crisis as more of an opportunity than a risk to our national union.

By now we should all be familiar with the Never Trumper's sniveling whine that its somehow the Democrats who refuse to take the Republican threat to our democracy seriously.

Then, predictably, the Both Siderist dagger comes fully out of its sheath.

There is no moral standing to scorn Republicans for refusing to risk their preferred policies for the sake of democracy if prominent Democrats are doing the exact same thing. 

Opposition to Trump or concerns about election conspiracies don’t make them any less anti-abortion, and the unwillingness of Democrats to compromise tears conscientious conservatives in two...

Goofs like Mr. French -- carefully cultivated hothouse Conservative Big Thinkers who wouldn't last five minutes in a debate out in the real world with Liberal packing receipts -- will never stop being a permanent feature of the mainstream media.   

Never, ever.



I Am The Liberal Media!

7 comments:

Neo Tuxedo said...

"A masterful system! Closed-circuit propaganda! The truth couldn't even get into it edgewise! So that was how the Rockecenters had remained in control so long and now owned so much! That and chicanery, of course. Totally controlled free enterprise!"
-- L. Ron Hubbard, The Enemy Within [Mission Earth drekalogy*, volume 3]. Los Angeles: Bridge, 1986

* drekalogy: a group of ten volumes, mostly (but not absolutely) crap.

pagan in repose said...

No matter what they do or what they say behind the "I'm a conservative" line of feeling morally superior, there always remains the same true feeling: conservatism can never fail, only you can fail conservatism. Sort of like conservatism is the word of their god, and only the morally good are conservative. Until they spit up on themselves and then the "Both sides" bullshit comes out.

I wonder if they'll ever get to the point when they say Trump was really a Democrat trying to make conservatives look bad.

Cheez Whiz said...

That's some argument: the Republican Party is so dysfunctional the Democratic Party has no choice but to embrace Republican policies that will guarantee its permanent status as a minority party. Didn't these guys have, y'know, some influence in the Republican Party? Wha' happened?

Robt said...

A political ideology in search of its identity is being admitted.

the wealthy's paid envoys of the GOP ideology can only fool some of the people some of the time.

Sadly, some of those fooled people end up as Jim Jones fodder.
For them, it is not about winning hearts and minds.

It is about brain washing masses into deployable defenders of the Jim Jones or the oligarchy class.
The English language can be limiting on communicating and expressing things. Conservatism has never defined republican that I am aware of.
What would you name a political party that claims it loves the U.S. constitution but wants to repeal it?
That will accept donor money to work to remove in our constitution's preamble all references to , "We the People".. "Justice for all", Government shall not establish religion and freedom of religion?

Fascism comes close. But they do not have the discipline to adhere to that as a principle.
This would have to take much consideration and research for words to identify a tick without a core or conscience.
Sole endeavor in life is gouging itself on the blood life of others. The Vector party?




dinthebeast said...

Steve Benen is right. The goddamn Republicans are a post-policy party. And like Mr. French, when they do talk policy, it's really about politics, not policy.
Policy concessions can sometimes be a tool for rational compromise, but are not a virtue in and of themselves, especially when the policies themselves are measurably good or evil.
I don't have to eat any of your rat poison because you don't think you'd like my apple juice.

-Doug in Sugar Pine

Neo Tuxedo said...

It is about brain washing masses into deployable defenders of the Jim Jones or the oligarchy class.

"There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.
"There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
"There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
"There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
"For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. 'The king can do no wrong.' In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual."

(There are debates over who should be the in-group and who the out-group, but Wilhoit would probably argue that these are just quibbles over details.)

"As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.
"So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
"Then the appearance arises that the task is to map 'liberalism', or 'progressivism', or 'socialism', or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.
"No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:
"The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone."

Robt said...

Conservatism is actually based in Dictator elements. Like the King and some of his closest.

Conservatism borrows from Libertarianism in which I make these laws for you to abide so I have a world that fits me where you soiled unworthy have a set of laws to guide you and if broken, be punished to learn your lesson.

Then borrowing for religion, When I sin/break laws. I am special and deserve forgiveness for my superiority can make mistakes.