DaveG’s new term of choice to smear the right seems to be “anarcho-conservatism.” It is not a statement about its electoral viability — something that we may find some common ground on — but his personal opinion about the ideology. Yes, apparently the Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck brand of conservatism is “anarchy.” That’s right: small-government, individualist conservatism — classical liberalism — is no better than anarchy. (I don’t even want to know what he thinks about libertarianism.) The kind of conservatism that opposes the stimulus, the kind of conservatism that doesn’t give in to cap-and-trade, the kind of conservatism that is angered about Obamacare and the debt — crazy anarchism! And this anarchism is perpetuated by fanatics like Sarah Palin and her stupid little slogans.
Only in the fantasy land of unwavering moderates is Sarah Palin’s only focus “Drill, Baby, Drill!” They have so bought into their own propaganda, they are so unable to look at her full record of public statements, they are so unable to orient themselves to other wings of the party, that they truly think that she has been completely disregarding anything substantive. One imagines her as a robotic drone running around the country chanting the slogan like Paul Revere: “Drill, Baby, Drill, Baby, Drill, Baby!” –
Of course, this is total nonsense. In case DaveG missed her multiple op-eds — whether in the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, or on Facebook — Sarah Palin has consistently, and with great verve, been promoting a coherent, all-of-the-above energy policy. But no matter how much substance she inserts into the op-ed, if she throws a slab of red meat to the base at the end of it in the form of “Drill, Baby, Drill!,” she’s deemed a sloganeer. She could produce a modern-day Nicomachean Ethics and conclude it with “Drill, Baby, Drill!” and DaveG and his ilk would decide that it was nothing but sloganeering.
No attempting to fire up the base with chants of “Hoffman, Baby, Hoffman!” — No! Bad! You’re not allowed to use a slogan, no matter what you surround it with, no matter what your rationale is for supporting the candidate. Sloganeering will make you look “anarchist.”
I have already given my opinion on the Hoffman race — that Hoffman was vastly superior to Scozzafava, but that it would have been much more prudent to run a safe, center-right candidate a la Chris Christie in the first place — but I cannot say that either side’s rationale was ludicrous. Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty, the NRA and Sarah Palin — all had respectable opinions in the race.
Interestingly, DaveG seems not to target Tim Pawlenty or any of the other high-ranking, national Republicans that endorsed Hoffman — ones with far less star power and, indeed, far less substance than Sarah Palin’s endorsement. The message is obvious: it’s not sloganeering that he dislikes, it’s not even “anarchy” that he dislikes. It’s just Sarah Palin.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
I guess using the front page to do your dirty work is not such a bad idea. Not very tactful but maybe it will silence your opponents.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
It was kind of implied that Pawlenty jumped on to make a statement as to where he stood on conservatism generally. I think it was a misstep but not a major one. Everyone knows Pawlenty is never going to be the one to advocate an “all or nothing” conservatism. But that’s what Palin, Club for Growth, Glenn Beck, and the rest of them were going for.
His broader point – that a national conservative movement divorced from the issues that factor into the lives of ordinary voters, while theoretically palatable to strong numbers of voters, is really no more persuasive than “libertarianism” as a movement is to the >20% of America with libertarian leanings – still stands. Voters aren’t hardly so ideological, as they are pragmatic. Our party must reflect this, and the conservative movement must take that into consideration as it seeks to govern.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Knepper. He was opposed to the tea parties before he was for them. He dismissed Acorn before he opposed them. He dismissed the town halls before he attended one. He was opposed to Palin before he was for her. He was for a big tent before he was for Palinistic dogmatism. He was opposed to Rubio before he was for him. He was a fan of Specter before he detested him. He was a moderate before he was a hardliner.
And Romney has no core. Got a little envious didn’t you?
November 6th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
“She could produce a modern-day Nicomachean Ethics…”
No, she couldn’t. But I bet you could for her couldn’t you?
November 6th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
That’s really the issue, Palin and the rest view conservatism the way the Libertarian Party views libertarianism. Libertarians too believe that the solution to America’s ills is to adopt the dogma of libertarianism, that polls show large numbers of Americans are sympathetic to. For their beliefs, which hordes of sympathetic Americans feel compelled to vote for, their party commands strong electoral majorities.
Or not.
Philosophically coherent parties, in the American two-party system, get all of nowhere. Ours is a nation of businessmen, workers, and soldiers, not philosophers.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
MPC,
You’re completely right there (except I think Pawlenty did the right thing endorsing Hoffman), and Dave is right in his larger point.
People don’t lie awake at night because some bureaucrat is violating the Constitution. In fact, I think most people still consider themselves pretty free right now (what do you want to do that you can’t do now?).
What is keeping people awake at night is the economy, jobs, the deficit, the local plant, social security, the cost of college, etc…..
But what we keep hearing from Beck, Levine, and some of the others in the media echo-chamber is how our liberties are being trampled, the storm troopers are coming, and that the only thing that matters is that we properly worship and revere the Constitution.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
DanL,
#3 LOL!
I think you can add to that gay marriage. If I recall (correct me if I’m wrong, Alex) a month or two ago he said gay marriage wasn’t a big deal. Others here said he only thought that because he’s young, not interested in marriage, and that some day he’d care. That ’some day’ came Tuesday, as we were debating Prop 1 in Maine.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
In fairness to Alex, he is young. I don’t mean that as a slight, because you are very intelligent, Alex. But it’s a fact. I think when you’ve had a few more election cycles under your belt, a few years in the “real world,” etc… things will gel a little more firmly, one way or the other.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
To my mind, “anarcho-conservatism” is what some people (Beck, Palin, Rush) are pursuing in their hell-bent desire to purge all moderates. But it’s electoral suicide – throwing the baby out with the bath.
There’s more than one path for the GOP to get on the right track. I’m getting pretty uncomfortable with these purists, and their potential to do more damage than good in their pursuit of perfect.
Those of us in blue states call ill afford such an attitude. Reality bites, I guess.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
The last thing you can paint Alex is as wishy-washy. His ideology is clear. When he’s changing his mind on issues, it’s because he’s thinking or learning.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
I think it’s natural to do a little shifting on things. Times change (the debate we are having now was totally different just a few months ago), and I myself am not much older than Alex. I know my own views have moved somewhat on the state of things, to the point where while we once converged on most issues (both even began as Giuliani guys in ‘08), we for now are on opposite sides.
I’ve probably moved something like DaveG, once on the outside of Bush-era conservatism for various reasons (hence my frequent sympathy with McCain), now fitting much more naturally back in.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
I would agree with Alex that “anarcho-conservative” is a bad descripter. But I do get what Dave is driving at- a conservatism that puts abstract theory ahead of the concerns of real people, demands homogenaeity (sp) over any local concerns, and thinks the key to electoral success is sounding like John Locke or Thomas Paine.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Heck, I even have had lots of nice words for Romney and agree with him and his supporters more often than not as of late
November 6th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
MPC,
“Heck, I even have had lots of nice words for Romney”
Just keep it to a minimum, and on your own time…..
November 6th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Alex may not be wishy or washy. But he is a flipper and a flopper. And yes, he is young and is allowed to change his mind. I was somewhat of an environmentalist when I was his age. Now environmentalism may be the single biggest hot button that sets me off against liberalism.
And yes, Alex’ ideology is clear…on a given day.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Alex doesn’t need a plowshare so much as a big vat of whipping cream for all those waffles he is churning out.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
MWS,
I’m holding out till primary season gets going in force before making any decisions. I still really like Pawlenty too. I imagine it’ll be something like last time with McCain and Rudy for me. Once the primaries really got rolling into November ‘07, it was clear McCain was rolling, and Rudy was not. It could easily have been the other way around. But I’ll be with Romney or Pawlenty for sure barring some major shakeup
November 6th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
DanL,
Maple syrup and powdered sugar are far more important for waffles!
November 6th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
“I would agree with Alex that “anarcho-conservative” is a bad descripter. But I do get what Dave is driving at- a conservatism that puts abstract theory ahead of the concerns of real people, demands homogenaeity (sp) over any local concerns, and thinks the key to electoral success is sounding like John Locke or Thomas Paine.” Haha, as our old friend, Illinoisguy might say I do not want to be too hard on a friend, MWS. However, how is it that all of a sudden so called anarcho-Conservatives (I must admit I just learned that word the other day) do not care about the concerns of real people?
November 6th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Not that they don’t care, Ohio, it’s that they don’t focus enough on the issues people in the districts have on their minds. Voters in general don’t care much about Hoffman being a “true conservative”, though he surely has their interests at heart in his opposition to Obama’s agenda.
They want leaders that can deliver. Hoffman’s conservatism had no connection to the average voter, being more a declaration of what he believes than what he’ll do.
November 6th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
This dichotomy everyone is talking about is a false one.
It’s possible to be for limited government, and present it in the context of real-world issues rather than the abstract. Rudy is good at this.
November 6th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Ohio,
“how is it that all of a sudden so called anarcho-Conservatives (I must admit I just learned that word the other day) do not care about the concerns of real people?”
Ditto what MPC said. I would add that Beck, Levin, and Co. would do well to explain HOW conservatism can help with jobs, the economy, college education, etc…. instead of fetishizing the Constitution, spending so much time on abstractions, and soaking their monologues in sarcasm and rage.
November 6th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
#14.MWS,
*snort* You do come up with some good ones.
November 6th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Absolutely. McDonnell certainly made a good case for it in VA. The same reasoning behind picking purist conservatives is often that used to pick moderates – “they disagree with us on some issues, making them a good candidate!”
November 6th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Well, it looks like Metro beat me to my second point……
But there is also the issue of Levine, Beck, etc… demanding a sort of uniformity in ideology that brooks no concern for local peculiarities. I’m certainly hard core about several issues, but for them, it’s all or nothing. They want to wage war with all the Democrats, most of the Independents, and at least half the Republican Party.
That might be good for ratings, where getting 3-5% of the electorate listening to you will make you a multi-millionaire, but it’s bad for elections.
November 6th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Personally I can never keep track of exactly what a Paleo-, Neo-, Crunchy-, Squishy-, or any other variety of Con means. Hey, I’ve seen arguments over what something as basic as being a Fi-Con means.
So I see no particular reason to get hot and bothered over who or who isn’t an Anarcho-Con — whatever that means.
November 6th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
I agree with DaveG…i am a strong conservative…i want candidates as Christie or McDonnel…and i think sometimes moderates are good…and i want to say SOMETIMES ARE GOOD IN FLORIDA…yes i am a supporter of governor Crist…on the issues, i have to admit i prefer Marco Rubio, on the issues i am on the right of Crist…but i recognize he is a loyal republican…he is a moderate leaning right not a liberal, not a leftist, but some conservatives ( some anarcho-conservatives ) want to destroy him! it’s incredible…we have a good man he can gain a senate seat for the GOP in a walk, we have a lot of liberal democratic senators to unseat…but someone thinks is better to spend money and energy to trash Crist…i am really really sorry for him…and i am really sorry for John Comryn…he is a strong conservative…he is doing an excellent job…he is recruiting top tier candidates for 2010 elections…but some in the party are saying he is out of the touch…the war in GOP party is a big gift to the left…remember…
November 6th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Certainly. If Crist is going to lose, I’d prefer they let Rubio take him down rather than bring in everyone else. It hurts Rubio more than it helps him – conservatives already know where Rubio stands on the issues to not need reminding and with Crist’s flipflopping of late Rubio should be able to win pretty easily and coast into the Senate on his own merits.
Italian maybe you guys can loan us Berlusconi for a bit. Help to charm the female voters, you know?
Just joking of course
November 6th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Sarah may get it. Mitt may get it. Tim may get it. Yes, even Mike might get it. What???
It’s called momentum, but deep down, you ALL know that … so here’s some preachin’ to the choir -
Without Michigan jumping up there so early, the calendar has Iowa, then New Hampshire, then South Carolina & Nevada, then Florida, then Super Tuesday:
Nevada is over-shadowed by South Carolina and forgotten. If Huckabee gets on a roll and takes Iowa, loses New Hampshire (but gets 2nd place there), wins South Carolina, wins Florida, then wins Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Tennessee on Super Tuesday he’ll WRAP IT UP then and there. If there’s any doubt after that, the next primary is Louisiana, then Virginia, both favorable states. And, Texas is talkin’ about moving up!
M-O-M-E-N-T-U-M …and ALL Palin, Pawlenty and Romney voters ARE welcome! (Cabinet posts for Sarah & Mit?? Tim, VP? Hmmm…)
Unite and BEAT Obama, good folks.
November 6th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
DaveG might not the the only one. At least two newly minted Gov’s from the east told Palin ‘thanks, but no thanks’.
Pawlenty would be better served to find his own voice, and not try to take on the voice of others.
November 6th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
I like …. We can only win if we put up smart and better candidates. Not if we only want the ’she/he is just like me’ candidates. We need crazy smart. That certainly limits the playing field, doesnt it.
November 6th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
MPC in fact here in Italy female voters are more on the right than male voters ( no joke it’s true )…i think it’s for Silvio Berlusconi charme!
November 6th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
You guys crack me up. I drop by every now and then, just to see what’s going on. If I didn’t know better, I would think I’m at Daily Kos.
I don’t know how old Alex is, but I’ve read several of his posts….and unlike many of you, he seems open to consider a person based on facts, rather than media-spun-drivel. Who knows what will happen in a couple of years? Or, even who is running? All I see around here, is slapping anyone who disagrees with your chosen candidate.
We have a giant to slay (Obama). Why not concentrate on the damage he’s doing to this country, for now?
November 6th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Well said, SGraham. Some on here, probably post their anti-Repubs thoughts at the Daily Kobama, as well.
November 6th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
I don’t get all the infighting. We won on Tuesday and the circular firing squad is out in force, this is how some of you celebrate a win? Also I’ve never known Knepper to defend Beck or Limbaugh.
November 6th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Sean M, I remember a few months ago Knepper calling Beck a rabble rouser.
November 6th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Sean M — First of all, I have always defended Limbaugh. I’m a Rush fan.
I like Beck’s ideology. I don’t like his approach. I’ll defend his ideology to the core, even while attacking his theatrics. Same thing might apply to Rush at times, although Beck is worse.
When I hear his ideology called “anarcho-conservatism” and “sloganeering,” then yes, it gets me riled up.
I have in no way “flip-flopped” on anything except that I now have a favorable impression of Sarah Palin. I don’t support her for the presidency and I don’t think she’s brilliant or a “voice for conservatism,” — necessarily. But I do have an overall positive impression of her at this point. And it’s just flat-out wrong to say that she’s been contributing nothing of substance to the energy debate.
November 6th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Knepper. He was opposed to the tea parties before he was for them.
I have always been ambivalent toward the tea parties.
He dismissed Acorn before he opposed them.
Same; I’ve always been ambivalent. I always have opposed ACORN, I just don’t see why it’s such a major issue.
He dismissed the town halls before he attended one.
I attended it, but I did not “attend it.” I thought that they were mostly embarrassing spectacles.
He was opposed to Palin before he was for her.
Yes, this is true.
He was for a big tent before he was for Palinistic dogmatism.
I am not for “dogmatism.” I supported Specter over Toomey for pragmatic purposes, for instance, despite the fact that Toomey would make a better senator. Now that Specter flew the coop — I’m with Toomey. I am very excited about our center-right revival, from Castle and Kirk to Ayotte and Whitman.
He was opposed to Rubio before he was for him.
True, but not for long. Once I figured he was viable, I changed my mind. Toomey, on the other hand, never showed that.
He was a fan of Specter before he detested him. He was a moderate before he was a hardliner.
I never have been a “fan” of Specter. I always took a “he’s a bastard, but he’s our bastard” approach.
And I have absolutely never been a “moderate.” And I am currently not a “hardliner.” I always have been, in my first principles, a classical liberal — laissez-faire capitalism, individualism, secularism, reason, and a strong foreign policy — and a pragmatist in practice.
November 6th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
By the way, I still support Rudy for 2012 until he says he’s out.
November 6th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Alex probably i understand what you mean…in fact in italy liberal = centre-right on fiscal and foreign…moderate on social issues…but in USA liberal = leftist…correct me if i am wrong…
November 6th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
I like Mike and Tim – Romney will win New Hampshire and Nevada and Florida (he got more than twice Huckabee’s vote there in 2008) and effectively win the nonination on Super Tuesday by winning New York, Illinois and California even if it does take a few more months to be confirmed. Unlike Hillary in 2008 he will also wrap up more of the caucus states too in the Plains States and mountain west.
November 6th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Christie hopes to get along well with Obama
http://whyy.org/cms/news/government-politics/2009/11/06/christie-hopes-to-get-along-well-with-obama/22138
November 6th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Chris Christie says education is a top priority
http://whyy.org/cms/news/government-politics/2009/11/05/chris-christie-says-education-is-a-top-priority/21975
November 6th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
A sore winner he’s not
http://www.nj.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news-15/125747250889190.xml&coll=1
November 6th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Christie NJ victory tour
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/christie_nj_victory_tour_5ZoD1o2AbCp9pKMs2shzrL
November 6th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
What I never will be able to figure out why there is not more outrage for Dede turning Benedict Arnold and basically handing the election to Owens.
What is the word “traitor” that you do not understand?
And is Reagan conservatism akin anarcho-conservatism? Because if it is then be prepared for generations of Democrats winning the WH.
And if district 23 was not that important to reaffirming the grassroots belief that the GOP has to become more conservative why has Steele put the RINO’s on notice? Follow the money.
November 6th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
It’s going to be ironic if the socialistic health care bill passes by the Owens vote. Dede had said she would vote against it as it stood, and it has only gotten worse sense then.
November 6th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
No 3 nails it in one! AK was a laughing stock in 2008, redeemed himself with some great posts from early – mid 2009, and now has gone the full circle.
I understand when the flocks support Palin but when an intelligent young person does it’s just plain sad.
November 6th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Alex was also demonstrably against Rubio before he was for him.
Which is all fine but hypocritical after calling the great Mitt Romney a flip flopper for years.
November 6th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
DaveG was right. Anarcho Conservatives are exactly what Palin, Rush, Beck and Levine are.
They have turned their radio shows into battle cries, and they don’t feel like they failed in NY-23 by causing the loss of a Republican Congressional seat, afterall as Palin wrote on her Face Book the day after the Hoffman loss, “it is for the cause”…..I think that this just might be the beginning for them.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Alex- I don’t see Rudy running for President, however I do see him running for governor of NY or for the U.S. Senate.
November 7th, 2009 at 1:16 am
Crist denies flip-flopping on stimulus
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/governor-crist-defends-stimulus-position-110609
November 7th, 2009 at 1:19 am
Palin to speak at Gridiron dinner
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=CAD1E0C8-18FE-70B2-A885BD353348B551
November 7th, 2009 at 1:35 am
How Sarah Palin and Tea Partiers are blowing up the GOP
http://blog.mlive.com/capitolchronicles/2009/11/how_sarah_palin_and_tea_partie.html
Palin lauds state’s anti-abortion activists
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/69442907.html
ABC’s Stephanopoulos Spins NY 23 as a ‘Big Loss’ for Sarah Palin, Hits GOP ‘Civil War’
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2009/11/04/abc-s-stephanopoulos-spins-ny-23-big-loss-sarah-palin-hits-gop-civil
November 7th, 2009 at 2:35 am
Crist is fast becoming a very disappointing politician.
Not a future president!
November 7th, 2009 at 9:54 am
The inherrent issue of Dave’s article is that the definiton of anarcho-conservatism doesn’t fit his thesis. So let’s please stop using this ridiculous word in the wrong context.
I understand by adding the word anarcho implies it is both anarchistic and conservative but in the case of the word anarcho-conservatism a philosopher has already used this word to mean something slightly different.
http://thinkingreed.wordpress.com/2006/12/22/stephen-rl-clarks-anarcho-conservatism/
“Clark adopts what he calls “anarcho-conservatism,” an anti-revolutionary commitment to expanding the organization of the civil or economic means of social cooperation, side-by-side with, and gradually replacing coercive means. He concedes that such a conservative stance risks being insufficiently sensitive to present injustice, but argues that change which grows organically out of a people’s past is preferable to the kind of sharp break with it that revolution often brings.
Nevertheless, he admits that the anarcho-conservative requires a certain kind of patience.”
I understand DaveG’s point, even if he used poor word choice while attempting to be uber smart, but I don’t see how his article even outlines enough incidents to make his thesis remotely true. I think he and others on this site are reading far too much into some endorsements based on conservative values.