First, he points out that Coulter does receive quite a bit of criticism from conservatives--and I will concede that. And he reminded me that the National Review fired Coulter for her extreme statements. I think that was when she suggested that we invade Muslim countries and kill their leaders and convert the rest to Christianity.
He seems a bit too forgiving of someone like O'Reilly, especially given how much of a mouthpiece the man has become for the Bush administration, and he didn't address Malkin at all--who may be the more odious for defending internment in a rather transparent attempt to justify similar treatment for Muslims. (Last week, I read that film critic Michael Medved said that Indians hadn't been THAT mistreated--after all, look how many there are around now! I keep waiting for some conservative to say that slavery was both beneficial and moral.)
But we agree that what he calls the "Jerry Springer effect" allows freaks like Coulter to thrive. Couldn't agree more. In fact, the entire Fox News staff qualifies for that. Just about.
The second part of his post is devoted to defending conservatism. I left some comments over at his blog. I am not convinced. Especially since he describes conservatism as essentially agreeing with the basic liberal assumptions, just wanting less government and less welfare. I am most interested in these two statements:
Conservatives believe in multilateralism, but are more willing to adopt unilateralisism when appropriate. Conservatives believe in separation of church and state, but they do not necessarily believe that America should be a godless state or that religion is something to fear.
For the first, I would like to know when that view of unilateralism arose outside this administration. Does Gordon believe that Iraq is an "appropriate" use of unilateralism?
Second, the second sentence strikes me as a classic logical fallacy, perhaps the strawman or something like that (I always forget those). But it is definately a stretch to assume that liberals either want a "godless state" or that "religion is something to fear."
To be fair, most of us want a secular state, but that doesn't mean it is Godless (thanks Ann for that little addition to the anti-liberal mantra). Don't get me wrong, the religion of Pat Robertson and James Dobson scares the shit out of me, but that doesn't mean that I or other liberals--especially those of us who actually are Christians--see religion as something to be feared.
Gordon ends with this little gem:
Conservatives who say liberals are evil are wrong. Liberals are just misguided. Very misguided.
Absolutely. Conservatives who say that liberals are evil are wrong, and so are liberals who say that conservatives are evil.
But then to say that we are misguided? I asked him in the comments to provide a little more substance to that.
Feel free to jump into the mix. And Gordon, thanks for coming by. It is actually nice to argue a little about history and politics. Or at least, i would like to argue a little more about history (I left some other questions regarding American history in my comments as well.)
4 comments:
Ok, fair enough. But, even studying the past in depth, you still like Bush? I understand the dislike of Carter, though I don't share it. Say what you will about the man, he brought great intelligence and compassion to the job.
Let's look at it this way, and I don't mean this as a snarky comment, merely a tired one. What would you list as the best conservative contributions to our country? I can think of a couple, but I also have a pretty long list of issues that conservatives have largely fought until it became unavoidable--civil rights, feminism, and even that social safety net that you say conservatives accept in smaller amounts.
In fact, much of what you identified as conservative is not really historically connected to conservatives. They opposed any regulation of business, certainly fought tooth and nail any welfare state or even government contribution to regional development. Just witness how conservatives responded to and continue to respond to much of the New Deal.
Anyway, tired and probably cranky. Thanks for coming back. Often my commenters flee in frustration.
These are good comments, and no, I didn't take offense at your blog posting at all. Was I assuming something about your historical ability? Perhaps. My questions came from two sources: one, I am reading Dittmer's Local People and so am responding to the southern (and northern) conservative resistance to civil rights. BTW, your geography professor was an idiot, and I can completely understand your frustration there. As we all know, the southerners I am reading about are all Democrats.
Second, I am responding to some of the conservatives I actually know--and they tend to downplay racism towards blacks and Indians. So, yes, I was making an assumption based on faulty or incomplete information.
But, to be fair, your affiliation with modern conservatism also leads me there. Many of the modern conservatives came out of an opposition to civil rights--Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act, and the south became solidly Republican largely because of the same issue. That is, after all, the "southern strategy." Again, I don't mean that as an attack on you, but merely where some of my assumptions came from.
Second, I do think that many of the opponents to the New Deal were conservative, as were some of the defenders. After all, the entire 1920s was dominated by Republican administrations not unlike our own. Pro-business, anti-regulation, anti-union, anti-feminist. Many of those conservatives had to remain quiet during the depression years because politically they lacked credibility, but they certainly jumped at opportunites as they came up. For example, conservatives attempted to defund the Office of War Information because it highlighted New Deal programs. On Indians, conservatives pushed for the Termination (and relocation) program in the 50s. Were many of these conservatives liberal by comparison to Buckley and others? Perhaps.
I am intrigued by what a poli sci friend told me about shifting political trends. America trended liberal following the crash and stayed essentially liberal until the mid 70s. All the Republican administrations tended to accept the liberal assumptions of the role of government--including especially Nixon. Starting after Watergate (ironically the Republican corruption feeding the assumption that government was corrupt and helping the conservative movement), American trended Conservative and even Democratic leaders trended conservative as well. Clinton certainly accepted pro-business strategies, and even anti-tax rhetoric.
But that also feeds back into my earlier assumption, one that bothers me. The modern conservative movement has part of its roots in its opposition to even Nixon--and even back to the Dixiecrats of Wallace and Thurmond.
More later.
Wow, civil discourse on the internets! This could have been like Crossfire for historians, but so far, no one has called anyone else a "revisionist" or an "activist."
Here's a question: To what extent are the conservative or liberal movements merely constructions that bear little resemblance to the philosophies of most individual conservatives or liberals who might be associated with those movements in the minds of others?
I am not sure you are helping your case quoting Jonah Goldberg on this. :)
Especially since I don't think claiming that conservatism simply arrived in America with the National Review matches with the historical record. That seems more a convenient conceit than historical analysis that allows people like Goldberg to just dismiss entire conservative strains that preceded the NR. Are we to believe that liberalism dominated American politics up till the people at NR recieved their tablets from God in 1950? I guess if the definition is limited to people reading the magazine it works, but that is about it.
But even if I accept that, it still does not explain your defense of conservatism in the modern sense. In your initial defense, you suggested that it was actually just like liberalism, just less. Accepted the welfare state, just wanted less. Accepted government regulation of business, just wanted less.
But the conservative movement of Friedman and Goldwater represented a much more libertarian viewpoint than some kind of watered down New Deal.
And further more, while I completely accept that there are many racists among liberals, and I am not trying to tar you with that brush (seriously), I wonder why conservatives essentially attack the very framework that allowed us to gain ground on civil rights, the environment, and women's rights? After all, if the conservatives of today had their way (please correct me), we would not have an activist government daring to tell states how to determine their race laws. We would not have a regulatory state that enforces minimal (and shrinking) pollution controls. We would not have a framework to ensure that minorities and women have access to the same system. The modern conservative movement that you (and Goldberg) describe formed essentially to stop all of that.
It seems as if you want to claim conservatism as the superior political model, yet also claim partial credit and defense for many of what I consider huge gains in 20th century American history.
Please understand. I am not trying to blame conservatives for racism and environmental destruction (well, a little on that last part), but merely trying to understand how you base your defense of the movement.
Post a Comment