If there is one thing that drives me nuts, it is the term RINO and its callous use by people who claim they love America, but clearly cannot stand Americans.
RINO for those who don’t know its meaning stands for Republican in Name Only and is used as a derisive term for anyone who has not bought into the current Republican orthodoxy as epitomized by Saint Sarah. Over at Playground Politics, the Recess Supervisor has captured the feeling of frustration that has driven us past the end of toleration any more:
Of course, there are also no Republicans who support gay marriage or oppose the teaching of creationism. Because those folks aren’t really Republicans, they’re just RINOs – God-hating RINOs who are trying to ruin America……
There was a time when a real conservative, someone who believed in government staying out of people’s lives, would’ve opposed amendments that discriminate against homosexuals because it was government intruding into things it didn’t need to intrude in. Remember that even the political messiah of social conservatives, Ronald Reagan, publicly opposed a California ballot initiative in 1978 that would have prevented homosexuals from teaching in public schools.
But sadly, what President Bush has taught these people is that they should depend on the federal government to legislate their own religious mores as matters of public policy. So now, we get gay marriage amendments, and ridiculous faith-based initiatives, and Terri Schiavo, and abstinence-only sex education, and school boards trying to teach creationism in science class. Remember back when this insanity wasn’t the defining characteristic of the Republican Party? I do. It wasn’t so long ago.
To social conservatives, the power of government used to be something to fear, to oppose. Now, it’s just something to be used to bludgeon others into submission. Their belief in limited government is conveniently set aside whenever government can help them get what they want. They are every bit as, if not more activist than the very people they profess to be saving America from – and the hypocrisy is nauseating.
That, by the way, is exactly the same thing so may people criticize the other side for. And that’s why so many of the things that gets the right so excited, Ayers, ACORN, Obama’s aunt, Joe the Plumber, have had ZERO traction with the majority of the American electorate. Because its just minor distractions from what is in fact the real problem that needs to be dealt with:
Republican President George W. Bush has not been a conservative at all, either in domestic policy or in foreign policy. He invaded Iraq on the basis of abstract theory, the very thing Burke warned against. Bush aimed to turn Iraq into a democracy, “a beacon of liberty in the Middle East,” as he explained in a radio address in April 2006.
I do not recall any “conservative” publication mentioning those now memorable words “Sunni,” “Shia,” or “Kurds.” Burke would have been appalled at the blindness to history and to social facts that characterized the writing of those so-called conservatives.
Obama did understand. In his now famous 2002 speech, while he was still a state senator in Illinois, he said: “I know that a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, of undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without international support will fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda. I’m not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.”
Burke would have agreed entirely, and admired the cogency of so few words. And one thing I know is that both Nixon and Reagan would have agreed. Both were prudential and successful conservatives. But all the organs of the conservative movement followed Bush over the cliff—as did John McCain.
Sometimes the village has to be totally destroyed in order to rebuild it. If the polls are right-that will be the case with the Republican party come Wednesday:
Sadly, the party of William F. Buckley, Ronald Reagan, and Newt Gingrich is dead. And what is left in its wake are a bunch of anti-intellectual populists who will pander to downtrodden voters by attempting to exploit their worst fears (Obama “pals around” with terrorists… one party rule will be disastrous…). There is no positive message. There is no Contract with America. There are no ideas. Just fear.
And American voters aren’t buying it anymore.
http://www.realclearworld.com,,,came across this site the other day for a plethora of diverse views on the state of the world etc etc.
I was talking with some people here at work the other day about the election and what it means for the current generation of neo-conservative thought. I apologize in advance (to anyone that cares) for violating my own oath to publicly say nothing political during the election season. I however speak now as a private citizen and not as a member of the United States military (with requisite apologies to Adm. Mullen).
Probably (in my humble opinion) the most salient depiction of Bush-Cheney neo-conservative thought was supplied by Stephen Colbert who likened it to Frankenstien. Meaning, we have a trunk of (supposedly) Goldwater-esque fiscal conservatism. Attached to that are limbs of faith-based initiatives, thinly veiled conservative Christian ideology, and foriegn policy more oriented toward business than common good. All of this is powered by a brain by Cheney and given voice by G. W. Bush.
It is my most sincere hope that the coming election will be a repudiation of Bush-Cheney neo-conservative thought and political philosophy. I am rather enamored by the idea of a Republican party that is moved, perhaps shoved, toward a more centrist position in terms of their policy. Furthermore, I did like Reagan for his charisma and his ability to surround himself with some tremendously smart people (speaking in retrospect here – I wasn’t of voting age at the time.)
In contrast, the current occupant of the White House did not follow Reagan’s path when ascending to office – instead allowing partisainship and nepotism to dictate the contents of his cabinet. Further distancing himself from Reagan (and from classical neo-conservative thought), the administration cultivated a culture of fear (specifically the whole notion “you support the President or you support the terrorists”), and distraction over non-issues such as gay marriage and Terri Schaivo.
Had McCain his way and chose Lieberman (or better yet Powell) as his Vice President, the choice I made some weeks ago insofar as who to vote for would have been far more difficult. However, it wasn’t. The enormous gulf between Palin’s espoused viewpoints on religion and it’s role in the political sphere is for me one which cannot be bridged. Her ongoing distinct lack of credibility, her (at times hateful) rhetoric, her inability to provide answers to questions that show a minimum of rational thought are
the beginning of my list of things that I do not like.
A friend of mine made a comment about Palin a couple of weeks ago that nearly sent me to the floor laughing: “Give her a hair cut, a suit and tie, and a penis. What’ya get out of that? Dan Quayle.”
For the sake of full disclosure, I’m not particularly pleased with Biden either. If it were left to me I would have chosen Richardson, especially in light of his foriegn policy experience and previous tenure as Secretary of Energy (not to mention his governorship of New Mexico.) I however do understand that an Obama-Richardson ticket would have been far more threatening to some American voters (the morons unable to separate the issue of race from qualification) and a gold mine for anti-immigration sentiment among the far right wing.
I’m sorry GOP, but you burned me bad in 2000 when you chose to slander the man you’re now punting as the next president. Your departure from the principles of small government and fiscal conservatism over the last eight years have lost the faith of this particular voter.
Granted, you had six years where it was your ship. You chose to hazard said vessel as you saw fit; now I find us beset with storms and dangerously close to a rocky shore. I can blame no one else save the captain, and hope that things change in the next 48 hours.
Whether those changes are for the better? Time will tell. At least this time the lot I’ve cast will count.