Spoken like a true right wing idealist.
Th articles have worth in the fact that they just perfectly illustrate what a load of bollocks politics is, and the futility of wasting breath on it.
Conservative movement ??? Replace a few of your words and it is a heart felt plea by a British left winger rallying against the social democratic sell out (or something).
The only movements worth a shit are bowel movements.

Karol, Permit to take a more optimistic tone than "Urbane." The fact is, politics does matter, and it matters more than anything else in our nation. This IS perhaps the most important election of our lives, and not just for President. We have the opportunity with this election to drive a spike through the heart of the Democrat Party at the federal, state and local levels. Great essay, Karol.

So many misconceptions, so little time...

1) Conservatism isn't a movement, Karol. It has never been a movement. It's a loose collection of self-centered people who may sometimes band together around a charismatic leader but ultimately care only about themselves and/or their single signature issue.

2) Eight years of peace and prosperity under Clinton didn't lead to a squeaker by Bush. Eight years of peace and prosperity under Clinton lead to Bush getting 500,000 fewer votes than Gore. Fraud and the Supreme Court lead to a squeaker by Bush.

What...did you think we'd forgotten?

3) It isn't those "little slivers of blue" you need to be afraid of, Karol. It's the will of the majority of Americans you need to be afraid of.

As a piece of writing - you ever thought of speech writing ? No doubting that you give a shit, and it comes through. Must be many Republicans with a need to put the unity message across in the coming weeks.Can't say I agree with it like, but your election is none of my business.....
And okay Matt, I guess the election does matter - it is more the definitions like left,right,con,lib etc etc that are increasingly meaningless.

Karol,

Conservatism has ceased to be a movement on a lot of levels. Too many people put party over principles and embraced big government, internationalism, massive immigration and so on for the mere chimera of power. I do not think the Republican party can or will tackle the issues that matter the most to me so I guess I don't know it. The issues that interest me the most: the moral restoration of our society, drastic reductions in the size and power of the government, excellent standards in our schools, preservation of a uniquely American culture, an unyielding defense of life, preservation of religion in the public square, secure borders and a secure defense strike me as more important than any party. Granted, I agree with Buchanan's column that Bush should be elected and as I have said countless times if I were in a close state I would vote for the president. But for you to tell people to abandon their principles in order to put your party ahead is absurd.

I'm not a hug fan of the American Conservative but I do subscribe to it (as well as NR, Chronicles, TNR, Weekly Standard, First Things, City Journal and the Nation). The postman has to wonder WTF I'm sure. Still, I do not think it is "incomprehensible." While I do not agree with Scott McConnell's backing of Kerry or Justin Ramodiao's of Nader, I think that Buchanan's of Bush, Taki's of Peroutka and the old go fishing argument are all valid. I have yet to read the libertarian one but I suspect I will not buy into it.

You say "it is not what Reagan intended for us." No, probably not. But it is what Washington, Jefferson and Madison intended. American conservatism goes back much further than 1980 or even 1964. It goes back very far indeed. I think one of the foundations of American conservatism goes back almost 3000 years." Put not your trust in princes." Psalms 146:3. Put not your trust in princes even, maybe especially, those who you think you put on the throne. There has been very little to suggest to me that the Republican party can solve all the nation's problems or even attempt to tackle them. So what is one to do ? While I am not a huge fan of Voltaire, his last scene of Candide has wisdom in it. Tend your own garden and let it grow; good advice to advance conservatism that will do more than whoever sits behind the desk in the Oval Office.

"I'm saying this as a Third-Party voter... I'm saying: stop it. Stop with the splintering. Stop with the exaggerated principles that will lead to the election of a president, or of other candidates, who match none of yours, instead of some of them."

That's almost spot on (pardon the pun) with what I wrote a few days ago about the Libertarian party. Good essay, Karol.

Don... I take exception with your assessment of conservatism being a "loose collection of self-centered people..." Maybe conservatism isn't a true "movement," but it's the ones on the Left that traditionally have been the band of coalitions, each looking for someone to pander to their needs.

Karol:

What's that a map of? How counties voted in 2000?

I tend to think who got the majority of votes is more important than who got the majority of counties. Doesn't mean Gore should be president, though it does mean more than the county-by-county canard.

I'm with you on not liking American Conservative, though I used to love Taki's unintentionally hilarious New York Press columns.

Yeah, Taki is neither American or conservative but the guy is pretty funny sometimes. I'll never forget his column on drunk driving and the bust of Mussolini.

Yeah, Don,
People become conservative because they only care about themselves. Priceless! Please give us more of your genius. And please tell us how selfless the Lefties are. How much they CARE about the little man, and how much respect they have for the poor uneducated blue collar workers, who go to church on Sunday. Tell us how tolerant of other points of view the Lefties are. Tell us how much they are willing to hear people disagree with them, and how on our campuses they selflessly spread the seeds of selflessness. Go for it, baby. Show us the love.

Von Beck makes a good point about growing own garden, and "princes" are not saints that you should put your trust in or worship. That applies to Washington and Jefferson, too. Politics is not religion, Von Beck. You don't save your soul by voting - you hire people to manage things. And the choices you have to make depend not only on your precious principles, but also on our ugly reality. Good morning!

Those little slivers don't control - it's the higher concentration of people in those slivers that does (and should). Aside from that, if I were conservative, I'd agree with you completely.

Slivers. Slivers full of people. Why let the majority of people control the fate of the country when we can instead allow the majority of land mass or local government subdivisions be our guide?

Very convincing map, Karol

Since you wrote your thesis on parties, I'm curious to know your justification for promoting a system that presents most voters with two candidates who fail to represent a majority of their issues.

To the extent your plea to conservatives is to vote for Bush because he is closer to their ideals than Kerry, that makes sense (as a conceptual argument -- in reality, I don't think it is true).

To the extent your plea to conservatives is not to abandon the Republican party, I'd like to see you elaborate on that, because most voters I talk to of any party or persuasion (myself included) feel let down by the party system. Certainly neither party represents my political views accurately or even adequately, and neither is likely to produce a candidate that wins me over. The only reason I support Kerry is because Bush has so effectively convinced me he is not the right man for the job.

To the extent your plea to conservatives is not to abandon "the movement", because it is not moving in the direction "Reagan intended for us", you are venturing into a demagoguery reminiscent of, among others, the socialists. In fact, if you were to look no further than the comments on this blog, you would see that a large number of self-styled 'conservatives' tend to follow the same pattern: derisively mocking "the communists" or "the socialists", and then acting just like them.

Oh, and, I know you hate this article, but it really does fit nicely into this discussion.

This is quite similar to the transition I went through a couple years ago. I've always been a single issue voter ... how much money the government took from my paycheck. Up until now, I mostly voted Libertarian (except in the 1996 Republican primaries).

I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but once I really saw how serious he seemed about scrapping the IRS, lowering capital gains taxes, and at least privitazing a sliver of Social Security, I knew I had to vote for him. Even if I don't agree with Bush on everything, I'll take a tax cut when I can get one.

RB, your link is broken.

Karol:

I have been a subscriber to the American Conservative and have to say that I find it the best conservative magazine out there. It certainly is not incomprehensible. The fact is that the Bush administration has not been a conservative one. It has been neither fiscally conservative nor conservative on foreign policy. I do not want to encourage the Republican party to continue to move away from conservatism so I will not give them my vote.

Last night at the Fabiani Society, one of the speakers was Robert A. George who recently wrote an article on why he, as a conservative, could not vote for Bush. One of his arguments in his article was the lack of accountability in the Bush administration. Conservatives are supposed to believe that government should be held accountable for their actions.

I am not sure who I will vote for yet, but I know that I cannot vote to re-elect a president who has been irresponsible on both domestic and foreign policy. That would not be the conservative thing to do. I hope enough other conservatives do the same.

Don:

Conservatives are not any more self-centered than anybody else. You just do not happen to like the issues that they support.

Stephen:

What makes you think Taki was unintentionally funny?

Thanks, Shawn, here it is again.

I'm not a movement type and I probably wouldn't want to be part of any movement that would have me. I'm basically a very boring, non-ideological suburban moderate Republican, the type of person that people like Von Bek hate more than anyone else on earth, hate more than communists. I generally think that terms like "liberal" and "conservative" as applied to American politics today are junk terms with no real meaning. In this endorsement season over and over again people will use those words to bully people into voting for so and so or not voting for so and so or not voting at all; the point being that they represent true [fill in the blank] and everyone else has moved away from it.

A more basic rhetorical bullying technique is the one that Von Bek used in this thread: bring the Founding Fathers into it. Just mention some or all of them and say that your movement as you envision it best represents their wishes as trasnferred to today. Everybody does it: leftists, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, anarcho-syndicalists.

Ivan Lenin's more pragamatic approach is what's needed. Vote Bush. Even if you're not in a battleground state. Since 2000 the Democrats have created this new standard where if you don't win the popular vote you're somehow "illegitimate" so every vote really does count.

Mr. Deamer,

It is hypocritical to say the least for you to accuse me of a "basic rhetorical bullying technique" while then feeling free to use one of your own in your absurd claim to be "the type of person that people like Von Bek hate more than anyone else on earth, hate more than communists." Don't whine about cheap shots when you are throwing low blows. You have done this before previously when you hinted that my dislike of neoconservatism made me an anti-Semite. Based on what I have read of your comments, you are the Andrew Golota of blogging. You foul and then you quit.

While I agree with you thta people to bring up the founders all the time but in this case they really did right a great deal about putting principles ahead of party or faction. I would suggest the writings of James Madison, namely the Federalist papers and the biography of him done by William C. Rives, himself one of the great Madisonians of the 19th century.

I'm with Urbane all the way at the top. I've emailed several astronomers in the past few days and all of them have assured me that the Earth won't crash into the sun if John Kerry is elected President.

Von Bek:

I really don't think that was a "cheap-shot". I'm sorry if you do, but the reason I think it was a defensible comment is that a large part of your comment output here consists of railing against moderate (or liberal or centrist or whatever your preferred nomenclature is) Republicans. Maybe I should have personalized it less by saying "the people who Pat Buchanan hates" instead, but the general point, I think, still stands and is a fair one. Social/Religious conservatives, in general, in my experience, really don't like socially liberal Republicans because they feel that they dilute the value of the Party on social/cultural issues. Am I wrong about this? If so, please tell me what your conception is of socially liberal Republicans?

On the Founding Fathers, again everyone thinks that they validate whatever they think. This gets us nowhere.

"Neo-conservative", IMO, is a junk term, that is used to mean so many different things by so many different people that I think one should be wary of using it. Also, undeniably, some people (notably the Arab and European press and some far-left American publications) do use it as an anti-Semitic slur. It isn't used that way all the time of course, but if you insist on using it then you have to deal with those connotations.

In general I find it more convincing to argue the merits of a specific policy than to simply associate it with "neo-conservatives" and therefore dismiss it out of hand.

No one has an absolute claim to conservatism. Everyone from Pat Buchanan to some crackpot Libertarians to Andrew Sullivan to George W. Bush thinks that they are following the legacy of Reagan. The claims to originalism and greater purity that paleo-cons make are tiresome and unconvincing, to me at least. They fight between isolationism and internationalism amongst conservatives has been going on for a long time, since the 30's at least.

I think the President sums it up best. From Alex Brunk at http://alexbrunk.blogspot.com/2004/10/ill-bet-bushs-speechwriters-had-fun.html

"The conservative movement has become the dominant intellectual force in American politics, on the strength of writers and thinkers like Whitaker Chambers and Bill Buckley and Russell Kirk. The movement has inspired many hundreds of fine Americans to run for office and to serve in government. It's easy to understand why. On the fundamental issues of our times, conservatives have been right. Conservatives were right that the Cold War was a contest of good and evil. And behind the Iron Curtain people did not want containment, they awaited for liberation. Conservatives were right that the free enterprise system is the path to prosperity, and that free enterprise is the economic system consistent with human freedom and human dignity. Conservatives were right that a free society is sustained by the character of its people, which means we must honor the moral and religious heritage of our great nation."

"These convictions, once defended by a few, are now broadly shared by Americans. And I am proud to advance these convictions and these principles as I stand for reelection in 2004."

Since neoconservatives use the term to describe themselves, from Kristol patria and his circle to present day ones, I feel free to use that phrase with no penalty. While there it is often used by those with an anti-Semetic agenda, it is more often used by the neocons themselves. Since they cheerfully define themeslves with that phrase, I think we should use it even with the unfortunate connotations you mentioned. Or do you think the neocons should use a different phrase to describe themselves ?

"Social/Religious conservatives, in general, in my experience, really don't like socially liberal Republicans because they feel that they dilute the value of the Party on social/cultural issues. Am I wrong about this? If so, please tell me what your conception is of socially liberal Republicans?"

I will not speak for social conservatives who belong to a party in which I am not a member of. That social conservatives and economic conservatives are often clashing with each other can not be denied; one of the reasons I want Bush to beat Kerry is I think the two sides are going to beat the living crap out of each other if Bush loses to the determinet of all sides.

You see social conservatives as not liking socially liberal conservatives. I think both sides do not really understand each other. Part of that is geography and culture. I suspect it is hard for social conservatives in the heartland to understand Rockefeller Republicans in NYC and vice versa. While there is much that unites them, there is also much that divides them on issues of abortion and homosexuality.

I essentially see socially liberal Republicans as out of touch with a lot of mainstream America. Part of that is the map Karol shows up above. I suspect most socially liberal Republicans live in the blue areas; it is easy to see why say a writer for the National Review on Lexington Avenue or the Weekly Standard inside the Beltway would not understand why the social right would be up in arms on the Mel Gibson film for example.

On the otherhand, social conservatives often do not get the social liberal conservatives. I think free trade (which I happen to support) and government aid to corporations are an example of this.

The question of isolation and internationalism is an old one indeed; conservatives were split even on the League of Nations with the William Howard Tafts of the world supporting it while Henry Cabot Lodge did not. Even here the social right is not united; clearly Buchanan and most paleocons are isolationists, most in the Christian Right are not.

As for purity, I think all sides (including me) are guilty on this one. It was not the American Conservative labeling its foes "Unpatriotic Conservatives."

Eric,

PS-Sincerest apologies for the Golota insult. My temper got the best of me but I did take some of your previous comments personally. Again, sorry.

Von Beck,
As somebody who proudly calls himself a neocon, I want to tell you that Irving Kristol represents only so much of what *I* call the neocon ideology. Kristol did not really originate many neocon ideas; he merely spread them, and perhaps shaped the way they were presented to a wide public. If anyone wants to know about neocon ideas, they should read some Strauss, who did much to defend American traditional values. I find his work really, really important, and seeing neocoons as internationalists (let alone Trotskites) is superficial and partisan.

As far as being out of touch... I think social conservatives are in touch with America as they would like it to be. They are not in touch with America as it is That requires interaction with people they don't want to interact with. Their purism put them out of touch with the America we actually have to deal with, where education is falling apart, where moral relativism is in full bloom, where the media are so corrupt, they can compete with the political parties in crookedness. Neocons address these issues, whereas social conservatives are too pure to soil their hands.

Karol - where is the picture from? A link with explanation/analysis, perhaps?

Von Bek:

Thank you for your incredibly gracious apology. I also owe you an apology, as I see how you could take personally some of my previous comments and I need to work more on not being so snarky in these little boxes.

Some of those who are called neocons today do indeed use the label proudly themselves, but those people comprise only a tiny subset of those who are called, usually pejoratively, "neocons". I've seen "neocon" in various contexts in various publications used to describe any of the following:

1. A Socially Liberal Republican

2. A Liberal Hawk

3. Anyone who is remotely pro-Israel in any way

4. Somone who moved from left to right at some point in their adult life (so Ronald Reagan was a neocon I suppose.)

5. Any hawk.

6. In Jonah Goldberg's memorable phrase, "A bagel-snarfing war-monger". (Forgive me, I'm a simple man and I find that funny and somewhat accurate.)

7. Someone who was associated with Trotskyism at some point. (Which would include Hitchens who is very anti-Israel. See how some of the definitions are mutually exclusive?)

8. Anyone who had anything negative to say about The Passion of the Christ.

9. Anyone who is or was associated with a handful of think-tanks and publications (you know the ones). This includes, at most, 100 or so people, who somehow where able to indidiously manipulate the media and government of the US into following their nefarious schemes.

10. Anyone who supported toppling Saddam Hussein, which means a narrow majority of all Americans (again, 10 is mutually exclusive from 9.)

11. Any supporter of George W. Bush. (Again, probably a narrow majority of Americans.)

And this is not even to mention the junk conspiracy-theories about "Straussians" etc. I don't have time to look up cites for each usage, but I'm sure you've seen at least most of these before. This is why I say it's a junk term that needs to be abandoned.

I'm not so sure Comrade Ivan. While I have read Strauss and Jaffa, I think their take on American history is to questionable to say the least.

I think social conservatives are out of touch with your backyard America as you are out of touch with theirs. I think social conservatives remain very active in poltics and education; getting their hands dirty on school boards and local matters across the republic for example. And yes, they have an alternative media (if one I do not always get-Pat Robinson's comments about God, Bush and Iraq casualties still do not make much sense) from TBN to the 700 Club.

Ugarte - if you do a google search for a map of the popular vote by county, it should be easy to find (by electoral district on the other hand, good luck).

Eric,

Thank you for your gracious reply though I think you owe me a dollar sixty five since I just had some prime Starbucks come out my nose at your quote from Jonah G. While I do not always agree with him (and have taken a lot of shots at his intellect), he is a funny guy with a great heart.

Awwwwwwwww, I love the comments between Eric and Von Bek. Seriously, you guys have embodied the whole point of my post.

The map is the 2000 election results by county. Yes, there are more people in cities and Democrats do better there but they are not even remotely representative of the rest of this mostly rural and suburban country.

I just think judging the "representativeness" of an area based on land area is unwise. The cities may not be representative of the country, but they don't have to be. One of the things a republic does is promote majority rule while maintaining built-in protections for minorities. Do you contend that the majority of people in this country (who choose to vote) should not decide what becomes of the country? That people happen to be concentrated in urban areas (for the most part, there's some interesting blue swaths out there) should not affect the ability of those people to govern if they help to form that majority.

(And this is not a liberal call for direct elections. I think the electoral college has done a good job of protecting the small states. I do wonder if reform is necessary, for I am not sure how good of a job it does in protecting the interest of minority-party voters - particularly in large, closely contested states).

I'd like to see the map done with a continuous range of color tones. As it stands, this one doesn't reflect the margin of majority within each county. Overall, I think the gist would be similar (colder tones emanating from the coasts and cities, warmer tones from the sparser regions), but it would be much more interesting.

It would also be a lot less misleading.

Some of those blue swaths are Indian reservations.

My friend Mary just left this in the comments on my blog:

According to Salon (in their own words), Democrats are so terrified by
this
election, and by the neo-con cabal, that they're getting
the shingles:

"It's true, politics is completely freaking me out. I have shingles. I
am
30 years old, in otherwise fine health, and I have shingles. This
election
has totally taken over my brain"

"I have heard it argued that if the neocon cycle is short-circuited by
a
Kerry victory, then the neocons will simply go back underground to
nurse
their wounds and reemerge with a newer and even more attractive, subtle
and
utterly destructive plot in four years, and people will believe them
because they weren't fully exposed."

I guess they deal with their tensions by verbally abusing
conservatives.
Sometimes, they try to kill them with their cars. As one Salonite says:

"What really disturbs me is when I am driving and I see Bush/Cheney
bumper
stickers, I actually have to remind myself that while ramming into the
back
of the SUV would be wholly satisfying, it would hurt me physically and
throw my financial life into chaos -- two things I can ill afford in
this
political atmosphere"

The neocons are giving people shingles. Shingles!

The link was in there originally but I messed up the HTML somehow. I love this part:

"I have heard it argued that if the neocon cycle is short-circuited by
a
Kerry victory, then the neocons will simply go back underground to
nurse
their wounds and reemerge with a newer and even more attractive, subtle
and
utterly destructive plot in four years, and people will believe them
because they weren't fully exposed."

The neocons are like a Spiderman villain or some shit dude.

See, I think neocons are not really a Spiderman bad guy but more like the bad guys in Star Wars. Really organized and all clones. Libertarians are more like Jabba the Hut and his gang; really into sex and money. Paleocons are the Tuskan raiders. Everyone else is in space and these guys are in the desert with giant sticks and banthas. Me ? I'm the Bobba Fett of the American right, working with all factions but at the same time going my own way. And I'm going to die by being eaten by a giant worm thing in the desert. Which makes me glad I left Nevada for Illinois since there is no desert here.

The free market demands that not only do we employ smugglers who can make the Kessel run, but encase them in carbonite if they screw us over.

Von Bek and Shawn:

Liberals? Liberals are totally the Rebel Alliance, dude.

We're multi-racial, enjoy ceremonies and dancing with little teddy bears, and we serve the Light Side of the Force.

And we WIN...

Neocons - all clones? I do not know a more ideologically diverse crowd than neocons. There are big differences between Krautmaher and Fukuyama and Kristol and Frum. They are quite different in how they approach culture, history, and policy. The main reason for their success, I think, is that they've set the kind of intellectual standard for themselves that allows them to produce new realistic ideas. The kind of standard that makes liberals and paleocons look like second-graders by comparison. They've been successful not because they are organized, or because they are smarter, but because they try harder. To them, it's not just fancy exercises. They beleive that ideas matter. And when someone like Irving Kristol transforms from a Trotskite into a conservative after fighting WWII, I know that it's not just talk. It's actual people's experiences, multiplied by solid scholarship - something that their bitter opponents should look into.

Whoops, I guess my little joke was taken seriously. Sorry Ivan, I agree with you that there is a diversity among neocons. I was going to say that Kristol shot lighting out of his fingers like the Emperor and perhaps should have gone with it.

Don:

Yeah but the bad guys look cooler. Except for Princess Leia when she is held hostage by Jabba the Hutt, a scene that totally ruined me for the seminary.

That is the biggest crock of BS propoganda I have ever seen. Too bad you are brainwashed.