MS Fowler - 10/9/2005 7:45 AM
To tell the truth, I am more than a little mystified by this nomination and the resulting furror.
It seems than some "conservatives" are disturbed that the nominee is not sufficiently doctrinaire. yet they want to maintain that political ideaology should not be a consideration in the confirmation process.
In truth, these people are not truly conservatives but people who want a larger government to do what they want it to. Where do people who really want a down-sized federal government go? They surely are not welcome in the democrat party. It seems as if the is a single party of big, and bigger governemnt which has two wings- dems and repubs.
I am sure KV is really enjoying this, but there is no joy in watching a once-great country slide into oblivion.
MS Fowler, if you think about this, you will realize as I have that some people who call themselves "conservative" are actually people who have gone so far right, they have become far-far-leftists. The entire "conservative" block has been in a total state of idealogical confusion for years, and the confused have been easy pickings for the Neo-con fascists, who are taking great advantage of the situation to build a working system that maintains them and the big internationalist corporations they represent, in power. The Miers nomination, a major misstep by a President who I seriously think is drinking again, threatens to blow the system apart. It is of "Dred Scott" level importance - one of those innocous seeming events in US history that is going to have far reaching effects.
My understanding of what I would call "real conservatism" can be summed up in two words: state's rights. The original intent of the founders of this country was to have a nation made up independent states that existed under a national defense umbrella. That's it. The national government's job was to do two things: protect from internal enemies, and "guarantee the states maintained a republican (small r) form of government" - in other words, it's job was to maintain a military establishment to protect the borders and to surpress totalitarian insurrections within any state, and it was to pay for it by collecting customs duties on foreign commerce, and leave the states and it's people the hell alone when it came to asking for money. It was, and still is, a magnificient idea, where each state would be a "laboratory of democracy", free to come up with any form of government it wished as long as it maintained the equal rights of it's citizens. If it could ever be achieved, I'd be all in favor of it - Texas could arrest any man with a lisp and a limp wrist, while Vermonters could marry farm animals and do public abortions. Fine with me. 50 societies for us to pick and choose from. Great.
It never happened because the germ of trouble was planted by Mr. Jefferson. He introduced the Bill of Rights, which introduced a new concept - national solutions for social and cultural problems, in this case, the guarantee of a uniform set of human rights throughout, and even more importantly, within, a state. In other words, a national solution to a state problem, that would apply uniformly throughout the states.
That was the beginning of the modern Democratic Party, or more precisely "Liberalism". It is the essence of the Democratic Party of today, and a recurring philosophy in American political history, represented at one time or the other by either the Republican or the Democratic Party. On the other side of the fence, is the other recurring theme of American political history, the State's Rightists, also represented one time or another by both parties. They simply say the opposite - that this country was founded as a union of mini-nations, and that each state should be free to solve it's own cultural and human right's problems, and that national solutions expand the Federal government beyond what the Founder's envisioned, and this threatens our liberty. It is a valid, and many times, commendable position. This was the political philosophy that dominated American politics from 1776 until 1865. It lead the nation to utter disaster when the idea was taken to the extreme - that a state had a right to rape, murder, whip and enslave particular classes of human beings based upon some criteria decided by the state (yes Mr. Botnst, the essence of Nazism, whether you like it or not) that existed in the Southern States. It tore this country apart due to the utter barbarity of those who practiced State's Rights to its extreme conclusion, that conclusion being American Nazism (called "Confederatism" by those who are afraid of the real words, like some people I know). The cataclysm of the American Civil War, still the worst and bloodiest war in our history even though our population has increased 10 fold, made national solutions for state problems the order of the day for the next 100 years, and set the stage for the rise of a true single American nation. But the State's Rightist did not cease to exist - they simply lost political power.
In the 1940s and 1950s, these groups were distributed among both parties - there were nationalist Republicans and State's Rights Democrats, representing conservative and liberal wings of each party. During the 1960s, Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon began a campaign to consolidate all State's Rights idealogues, who at this point were mostly Westerners and Southerners who were fed up with Federal intrusion in civil right's issues and land use issues, with the super-patriots, the political ancestors of our current nut case class. This caused a major realignment in American politics. Those who believed in national solutions ("Liberals"), consolidated under the Democrats, while those who believed in the supremecy of the will of the majority within a state and State's Rights ("conservatives") moved to the Republicans, setting the political balance of this country on its head, eventually resulting in the end of total Democrat rule of the US that had gone on since the 1930s. Everybody loves a winner. Suddenly, evry group with an agenda not directly associated with the Democrats was a "conservative". Because the Democrats had been "The Government" for so long, everyone who hated government became a "conservative". Because Democrats tend to not want God in the public arena, everyone who had a religious agenda was a "conservative". The problem is, many of these groups are simply not. The religionists are more properly part of The Know Nothings (an actual political party at one time, google it). They are not "conservative" - they advocate national solutions for state problems, and there is nothing new about them. Pat Robertson is not a conservative, historically speaking he is a Know Nothing Radical:
They have become allied with the bastard children of the original State's Rights movement, who go under various labels, such as "Libertarians" and "Republicans". They hate everything government does, they hate the people who run the government, they hate the entire idea of national government. This downright mentally ill strain of anti-everything, all-government-sucks confused bastards who call themselves "conservatives" are really actually anarchists who are proposing mob rule under the nicely sounding name of "libertarianism". In general, they have become a confused, ugly mix, whose commonality is hatred of the status quo and a desire for revolutionary change beyond what the founders of this country intended - revolutionaries, not conservatives.
Nowadays The Know Nothings and the Libero-anarchists have allied themselves closely together. They call themselves "Movement Conservatives". I call them "totally confused". These guys, who are represented by our new branch of government, the Radio Talk Show Hosts, are going to split over the fact that one bunch, the Know Nothings, are no different from traditional Liberals in their core belief - that cultural and social problems are national problems to be solved on a national level.
Religious "conservatives" call themselves "conservatives", but they are not - they wish to impose their will on all the states, whether they like it or not, gay marriage prohibitions vs gay marriage, "pledge" issues, abortion, various forms of Thought Control they call "sedition" or "unpatriotic" or "blasphemous art" - all of this stuff is anti-states rights. At heart, they are no different from the Nanny States democrats, they just want a nanny who spanks, instead of one who hands out candy. Again, there is nothing new about them, they had their zenith with the passage of Prohibition.
Next, we get to the smart guys, the Neo-conservatives. Again, they are not conservatives at all. They are international corporatists who have one desire - to use the US Government, and especially its military, to advance the interests of the very,very, rich and the huge multi-national corporations, entities that have become governments and states unto themselves that recognize no borders. Since nobody would vote for the crap they want, which is essentially the right to eliminate the American Middle Class by flooding this country with cheap foreign labor, and the right to hijack our military to invade countries for their own purposes, they have become skillful at manipulating the Know Nothing Movement Conservatives by getting them all in a hot lather over the fact that some guys like to fuck each other in the ass. They get the Libo-anarchists all in a sweat over good old fashioned military murder. They feed them a steady diet of Talk Radio and Fox News bullshit, to convince them they are the "Anti-government Party", when in fact, they are the fucking government, a government getting bigger and bigger with one aim - to keep the corporatists in power.
Using their paid squadren of "Radio Hosts" and "Pundits" over their vast corporate media resources, they have learned how to use fear, outrage, and manipulation to make vast numbers of guilable Americans think that the country will collapse if those guys who like to fuck each other in the ass get married on the one hand, and how dem bad ole democrats are out to get those guns on the other, and for the most part, they are people who enjoy slash and burn politics ala Coulter and Michael Savage, where hate an vitriol masquarades as intelligent discussion.
Finally, we have the Paleo-conservatives, who actually stand for what Goldwater originally stood for - a small Federal government that did a few things on a national scale, like banking or retirement insurance, but not through government run bureaus, but by nationally chartered corporations. This in fact is what the current Federal Reserve is - an independent entity that can have its "charter" revoked by Congress if it doesn't behave. This was a compromise that dates back to the 1840's, and if we could ever get back to the days when it was just State's Rights conservatives and National Solution Democrats, we could probably solve the problems of National Health Insurance the same way, as the Nationalists and the State's Rightists have done over and over, with home mortgages and SSI for just a couple of examples.
So what am I concluding? There is no way this group can hold together. They are causing enormous confusion in the body politic, because of all the competeing interests and inherently conflicted idealogy in so-called "conservatism". The Miers nomination is busting all of this wide open for simple reasons: The Movement Conservatives, routinely suckered by the Neo-cons, are having a Neo-con Supreme Court nominee, who is in reality a corporate lawyer being put on the court, like Roberts was, to carry out the will of the international corporatists and could care less about guys fucking each other in the ass while they help sell out this country to Murdoch and his gang, and the Movement guys are waking up to the fact they have been chumps for years. The Paleos are finally getting their licks in by pointing out to the Movement guys that the Neo-cons have been pissing in their ears while telling them its raining out for years, and it is time to wake up and smell the urine. Since the election of the Neo-cons depends on keeping this charade alive, they are in a quandry. With a little luck, the bastards will eat each other alive, and the more reasonable traditional conservative block will emerge, and we can end this vicious slide into corporate "Friendly Fascism" that Bush and his Neo-con pals have brought to this country. By the way, do you smell any pee in your ear?