Reality: America Isn’t Conservative
MORE
Joe Conason
As Karl Rove exits stage right with his ruined dreams of rightist hegemony, all the political signs and portents tell us that America is turning the other way. No doubt the departing “boy genius” would dispute that assertion as liberal wishful thinking, as would many on the right. But they cannot so easily dismiss The Economist, an avowedly conservative voice that is among the oldest and most respected periodicals in the world.
Framing the shift on the cover of its Aug. 11 issue with a question—“Is America turning left?”—the magazine’s editors conclude in their lead essay that the answer is yes, probably.
“Having recaptured Congress last year, the Democrats are on course to retake the presidency in 2008,” says the venerable British weekly, which blames the destruction of the vaunted Republican machine on the ideological excess and breathtaking incompetence of the Bush administration, as well as the sleaziness of the G.O.P. leadership in Congress.
The editorial warns fellow conservatives against claiming that George W. Bush failed to fulfill their agenda. The president is a lame duck but not a good scapegoat, because “rather than betraying the right, he has given it virtually everything it craved, from humongous tax cuts to conservative judges.” The worst political errors of the Bush regime, from its ruinous war in Iraq to the awful Terri Schiavo intervention, sprang directly from the brilliant minds of the religious right and the neoconservatives.
“Now the American people seem to be reacting to conservative over-reach by turning left. More want universal health insurance; more distrust force as a way to bring about peace; more like greenery; ever more dislike intolerance on social issues.” The magazine also presents a thorough briefing and even more gloomy analysis of the current condition of the American right, noting that conservative activists are openly angry and depressed while Republican officials privately anticipate a “catastrophe” next November.
The Economist’s doomsaying is still more persuasive because its top staffers predicted only a few years ago that the Republican right would fulfill the dreams of Mr. Rove. Back in 2004, Economist editor John Micklethwait and Washington bureau chief Adrian Wooldridge published The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America, a best-selling book that insisted that the United States is an inherently conservative country that was only growing more so under the tutelage of a powerful coalition allied with the Republican Party—and that the remnant of American liberals should simply acknowledge their status as a permanent minority relegated to irrelevance. Right-wingers themselves, the authors predicted that the Republicans could expect a bright and boundless future thanks to favorable demographic trends, bolstered by young people who supposedly leaned right regardless of ethnicity, geography, education or profession.
Happily, neither Mr. Micklethwait nor Mr. Wooldridge has paid much for their bad bet. Indeed, the latter is now the magazine’s Washington bureau chief and featured columnist; the former has been promoted to editor in chief. They deserve to be congratulated not only for climbing the professional ladder, but for confronting the political realities that may now be somewhat embarrassing to both of them.
The Economist’s editors—and all their once triumphal comrades—might have avoided such foolish predictions if they had paid more attention to the nuances of American politics and less to the self-serving propaganda of the Republican noise machine. They might have noticed, for instance, that despite the outcome of the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore and Ralph Nader together decisively outperformed Mr. Bush. Or that Republican power in the Senate owes more to the outsize clout of small states than to a true electoral majority.
Opinion surveys have provided copious evidence that contradicted the conventional wisdom about the nation’s political outlook. Astute analysts at Media Matters for America, a liberal watchdog group, recently released “The Progressive Majority: Why a Conservative America Is a Myth,” an exhaustive study of reams of polling data from nonpartisan sources that shows that American voters are not just now becoming more progressive, as 2008 approaches. (See http://mediamatters.org/progmaj/ for the full study.)
On salient issues, despite the plurality of respondents who always identify themselves as “conservative,” the American people have favored progressive policies for many years. With all due respect to The Economist, favorable attitudes toward universal health care, environmental stewardship, economic fairness and social tolerance did not suddenly arrive from nowhere this year or even last year. Support for increasing the minimum wage, keeping abortion legal, strong environmental and consumer protections and higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations are among the most durable results in polls from one decade to the next.
Joe,
Good points as always. Kind of reminds me of the first couple chapters of Big Lies. :) If there were any justice at all in the world, your column would be in the NYT, WaPo or LA Times....
-- Joel
What bubble world do you live in? Oh yeah, NY.
I disagree with your statements that the majority wants socialized medicine, higher taxes, and government mandates for environmental protection. I think the majority of America is skeptical of turning the U.S. into the next France or Germany, with high unemployment, stagnant incomes, and huge funding deficits in their social programs. Those governments recently elected conservative governments to cure the ill effects of left-wing policy failures. We don't need to wonder what the effects of your policy hopes will be - there is plenty of empirical evidence. It's a shame you choose to ignore it and perpetuate a lack of knowledge on the subject.
NY John states, "I disagree with your statements that the majority wants socialized medicine, higher taxes, and government mandates for environmental protection." Will you provide we readers with any links that back-up your disagreement" or is that just your "gut feeling?"
yes, Joe, you are right. this is what the people want, but hearing the rhetoric from the front dem candidates does not jibe. have any of the top tier candidates talked about taxing the corporations or the rich, decreasing defense spending or increasing environmental protections? what we have is a rift the size if the grand canyon between what the people want and what the politicians are saying. there is a an appalling lack of leadership.
If the American people truly wanted socialized medicine, higher taxes, more environmental regulation and protection for minorites, then Dennis Kucinich's campaign would be in the stratosphere by now. Of course, he's in the stratosphere but that's not what I'm talking about. This op-ed is almost laughable.
The absurd premise of this piece is:
The Economist’s doomsaying is still more persuasive because its top staffers predicted only a few years ago that the Republican right would fulfill the dreams of Mr. Rove.
How does their being dead wrong before make their case more persuasive now? This only illustrates how silly and worthless all of these political predictions really are.
Well, that was uplifting. Thank you, Joe. I believe middle America is awakening to the un-Christian tactics used on them to gain power.
The Schaivo episode was such a vulgar manipulation of the Christian right that the puppeteer's strings were visible.
http://www.light-to-dark.com/schiavo.html
I think the country is moving away from that sort of con and that which is truly scary, even denial-inducing: The betrayal of country.
http://www.light-to-dark.com/yellowcake_tango_0.html
Yes, the Right has stepped way over the line and attacked our nation's institutions like there would be no price to pay. That price, as you point out is being paid.
Hey guys,
I've searched the above article and see no specific mention of "socialized medicine and government mandates for environmental protection."
I do see "higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations" - that's in line with the current polls on the matter - and it's only fair that those who use more government services should pay a fee for them. (Most of government legal matters involve corporate issues that we the people have to pay for - and who do you think needs the services of government agencies like the SEC, and most of the other alphabet soup groups - not we the peons)
So now that the high rollers have felt the effects of their risky business, who is asking for government aid.. these capitalists, suddenly turned socialist!
This is not merely a Republican versus Democrat or Conservative versus Liberal/Progressive dichotomy anymore.
It's the old 'Loyalists of the Unitary Executive' versus the rest of us, of the US, America - the side traditionally known as the 'Patriots of America', who wish to uphold the Constitution and our laws. The Loyalist side is dwindling down below 30%. We the Patriots are destined to win, as we always have won, throughout the history of our great country.
I can hardly ever get past the headline. The headline of this column is almost always reflexively anti-conservative. I wonder if you have you ever actually been outside the island of Manhattan? I enjoy reading about both sides of almost every issue. I respect alternative views that I disagree with. For instance the concept of socialism vs. capitalism. Socialized medicine versus free market medicine (which we do not have.However, your columns are almost always badly argued and very hard to get past the undercurrents of your emotional views that continuallyt seep out. I wonder if you thought any conservative ideas have any merit and if so you could admit it to yourself.
Just about as much of a "gut feeling" as the author of this article has that everyone agrees with him. He doesn't have any statistics to back up his arguments, and the NY Observer published him.
Actually, I have lots of statistics to back up my assertions -- and they can most easily be found in the Media Matters study that I reference in the column. In fact, the link is above. I realize that at least some of the conservatives complaining about my argument can't get past the headline, but I love their comments anyway. Annoying them always makes me laugh.
My suggestion that the Economist editors are more persuasive because they used to predict permanent Republican hegemony was not meant as a testimonial to their accuracy -- only that they seem to have learned something from their mistakes...
My suggestion that the Economist editors are more persuasive because they used to predict permanent Republican hegemony was not meant as a testimonial to their accuracy -- only that they seem to have learned something from their mistakes...
Their mistake of being wrong? I suppose it's always good to learn not to be wrong! And, of course, now that they predict the resurgence of the Democrats, they're right! Hardly, a daring prediction given the current political climate - but this, too, will be fleeting - and this author and the author of this op-ed know this to be true.
The Democrats dominated for 40 years (1954 to 1994) and achieved virtually everything they set out to achieve. But instead of acting like winners, they continued to whine incessantly about America's shortfalls. This, of course, set the stage for the resurgence of the Republican Party which began in 1981 with Ronald Reagan. And continues even with current poll numbers being where they are.
Most Democrats I know can't stand to hear any good news about Iraq for fear they will melt or something - it is bizarre that any Party would stakes its future on America losing.
" ...the destruction of the vaunted Republican machine on the ideological excess and breathtaking incompetence of the Bush administration."
I agree completely ...but not for the reasons cited above:
" More want universal health insurance; more distrust force as a way to bring about peace; more like greenery; ever more dislike intolerance on social issues.”
These are issues that matter only to the left.
Republicans are losing it's because they aren't conservative enough and are reacting to the propaganda they hear every single day from the media and the left!
The onslaught of criticism has worked. No one came to the rescue of this war against terror...not even the White House.
America is not turning left....It is turning away from the Republican Party...not the Right....because there is no Right...
Yes, mistakes by the Republicans.
Like allowing essentially alien parasites called Neo Cons to suckle away the party's identity and transform it into a corrupt, fascist beast. It lost it's American identity and caved to militant corporatists on a mission to satisfy insatiable greed and lust for power.
That's a large mistake-an ideological tragedy. Our nation's bedrock was built by Liberal minds. It's pillars of democracy were constructed not by ruthless profiteers with big guns and a preemptive attitude, but thoughtful, informed citizens who aimed to create a living, healing, adaptable, fair, and free nation-basically a poisonous concoction to the totalitarian elements the Republican Party hosts today.
http://www.light-to-dark.com/suicide_by_neo_con.html
.
From your mouth to God's ear! ;-)
As usual, Joe Conason has the vision of a myopic gnat. What "The Economist" and Karl Rove predicted, but have yet to see come to pass a few short years ago, is described as "failure" by Mr. Conason.
The 21st century fight between a free market and a Karl Marxian economy, that Conason favors (let's call it what it is, folks), is ongoing and slowly moving to the right - Viva Capitalism! Have we forgotten what cataclysmic failures socialism/communism have proven to be? Conason seems oblivious to the historical facts. Rather than disprove my assertion that these systems were/are failures, Conason calls the same thing "progressiveness" as if its something new, better, improved, and enlightened. The battle lies in unmasking this "Dorian Gray" painting of socialism/communism being "progressive" as just that - a silly historically disproven myth. Truth is the antidote to Conasonism or Communism (what's the difference?). Sheesh, are we doomed to repeat the same ancesterol mistakes of the past?
It will probably take another generation or two to expunge the destructive influences of the Sheehans, the Ward Churchills, the Maxine Waters, the Joe Conasons, the NY Times, CBS/CNN/NBC/ABC News, etc. from the apathetic myopic nodding approval of the easily led masses.
For heaven's sake, who wouldn't want free health care, guaranteed incomes, no war, free housing, free food, etc. But, accepting handouts does little for an individual's character. Do the Democrats care about that? All they say to the American people is, "Eat, drink, and be merry! We'll cater the party for you free of charge!"
The conservative movement Conason so readily dismisses as a failure has only just begun. I think "The Economist" is alerting conservatives of the true socialistic/communistic threat from Conason's cronies in the Democrat party. So what if the Democrats win the presidency in 2008. That doesn't mean that the Republicans are permanently pushed up to the cheap seats. Winning the 2008 presidency and the culture war will take decades of diligent fortitude. Conservaties can not be idle.
Steve G.
Steve G.
The Conservative movement has only just begun? Really? Conservatives don't get that the reason people are turning against the Republican Party(I know of four ex Republicans myself)is because of all the anti-Gay, anti-Hispanic, anti-Muslim, ant-Liberal, anti-affirmative action, anti-choice, anti-anything outside of the right's bigoted ideologies.
I understand the conservative viewpoint of smaller government but it's the Right's social intolerances thats costing them everything. Just turn on talk Radio sometime and you can here all the bile that Conservatives constantly spew. How nice!
I'm glad Hannity, Limbaugh, Boortz and Savage on on the air spewing their Conservative hate. It let's the rest of us know where you lunatics stand.
The Republican party (or the party of White men) won't be a majority party very much longer. Republicans have successfully alienated Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, and quite a few women voters. Who's left? White conservative males and females.
Wow. What an inclusive party those Republicans are. Gimme a break.
Bush and Co. showed us what Republicans are all about and I think the people of this great country get it now.
I think what this country needs is a Government that truly represents the people (black, white, Hispanic, Muslim, Asian, gay, straight etc. and not just a group of white guys.
To prove my point tune into the next GOP convention and then count the number of minorities (if you can find any) in attendance. I think I've proved my point.
Yeah you enjoy the start...I mean end of the conservative movement.
Joe,
We have survived only because of great journalists like yourself. Do you think Bush will allow a peace transition
of government.
Naw, we don't need no stinkin'socialistic, un-American gummint health care that'll make us all have stand in line or wait for elective surgery like all them furriners in Europe do. Better to wave Old Glory with tear in eye and feel truly patriotic by staying at home as do the millions of other working Americans with medical problems but with no affordable coverage. Just think how content all of us will be knowing that the free market is alive and well and that it's every strong, self-reliant American fending for him/herself within our system of freedom that all the rest of the World population hates about us.
"But they cannot so easily dismiss The Economist, an avowedly conservative voice that is among the oldest and most respected periodicals in the world."
Since when is the economist a "conservative voice"? It is more like a neo-liberal European voice. Sometimes the articles are insightful, but more often they just echo the latest fashionable ideas among wealthy Europeans. Naturally, that includes a healthy dose of America bashing.
I sincerely hope that America charts its own course regarding healthcare. Europe and Canada are models to learn from, but certainly not to emulate.
Listen Joe, wishful thinking (on both our parts) aside its gonna be a close election, 51/49, unless Mike runs as an independent. Either way, the left is dead, died years ago, I think it was the day the weathermen bombed Dustin's place in the village. Since then, we all work, and try to be hedge fund managers or actors, or entrepeneurs or doctors or writers. Some have sympathy for the poor or gays or minorities, especially those who rely on their support to get elected. That doesn't make them lefties, but political entrepeneurs. This is a capitalist country. The business of America is business. Our political culture democratic and everyone can vote. Some advocate the tax revenues go to the government to give to their constituents be they welfare ladies, or depreciation allowance ho's. Where is the left in all this drama? Dead with the Rosenberg's, gone away like Alger Hiss. Good Riddance.
although conason has never met a muslim dick he would not suck, I think here he might be right. And the economist is a left wing rag.
Mr. Conason,
Good!
Mr. Conason,
Good!
All of this argument about right vs. left, capitalism vs. socialism is absurd.
The fact remains that we are on a pendulum, that swings one way, then another. During the 60s-70s liberals were ascendant, the 80s the right, then the 90s a tossup, then in 2000 the right again, now the left.
Things change. Intelligent societies conduct experiments to see what works. That which works, hopefully remains. That which doesn't is abandoned.
I would love to hear conservatives here decry the awful interference by big government in building the Interstate Highway System, for example. Oh wait, that was a success, a good thing. (And spearheaded by Ike, a Republican no less!) How about federally mandated standards regarding food quality or education? Oh wait, we need those.
Rather than getting into who's right and who's left we need to make an effort to dispassionately determine what's right and what's wrong, what works and what doesn't. As long as we're a slave to our ideologies then liberals will rant against conservatives and vice versa, all on a knee-jerk basis.
I agree with Mr. Conason's posts because they make sense, not because he's a liberal. If you want a real eye opener, find intelligent, compassionate and fair representatives of both the left and right and put them in a room for a good long talk. I wager you'd be amazed at what they come up with.
http://bimplebean.blogspot.com
NY John: You must have missed the link to the Media Matters web site. There are years, if not decades of polling numbers from that study to more than adequately bolster Mr. Conason's claims.
Or did you not see that?
http://bimplebean.blogspot.com
GOP lost in 2006 not because of Iraq or because of Katrina but because GW moved to the left on immagration and on spending. GW has never been a conservative, was no child left behind conservative? or the perscription drug plan? or even creating the silly Homeland security department? GW is a very traditional moderate republican on most issues. Liberals and the media cant seem to get past GW oppostion to abortion and support of death penalty so they think he is a conservative. Harry Ried is pro life and pro death penalty and it does not make him a conservative. Media is wrong as usual. Connason needs to get out of NY.
Joe, Joe, Joe,
My what in the world are you smoking. Go to the heartland of this country and try to explain to the people there how the government will take care of them. The government has nothing without the people and the taxes they pay. Now it possible to tax 100% which seems to be the level that liberals think would be fair, but just remember what down through history has happened to nations that went in that direction, they no longer exist. As a tax payer in the top bracket, how long do you think I will work for nothing, its a lt eaiser to just sit back and collect my benifits and let someone else do it. I for one have spent a lifetime of work building a business, and making things happen. I have benenfited my community, my employee's, and of course myself. Did I start with a lot as you seem to imply at times. No I grew up in three rooms and a path, not running water, no electricity, and about a 30 yards march in the dead of winter to go to the bathroom. The one thing that my parents taught me though, was work hard, dream big, get an education and the world would be mine, or if not the world, at least a share of it. Oh, one other thing they taught me, don't rely on the government for anything.
I know the liberals like to feel good about giving others money away, making equal outcomes, and then patting themselves on the back, but the truth is you are leading the country down a path of destruction and shame and someday if in fact you do get all you want, then people will detest the likes of you for what you destroyed.
chuck
Bad news for the people using the bogus term"Conservative". Even by today's standards the Constitution is considered a Liberal interpretation of government. By the standards of the time in which it was written ,and for the first 100 years or so, it was considered a crazy,cuckoo,OH boy that'll never work idea watched closely by every King and despot in the world.All hoping for it's failure. That's right simpletons! The America you wear on your lapel and which you feel so proud of was conceived in a Liberal governmental structure. Therefore the most you can be is a "conservatively minded" Liberal.If your not ,then you must not like our system of government.Ergo, to you I (an old Boy Scout ,Altar Boy and Viet-Nam vet) say,"America, love it or leave it".
Jim, thanks lesson you must really stun the kids at the student union with that bit of irrelevant Poli sci 101 knowledge.
Terms change over time. Today in the USA the term liberal means something different then it did 230 years ago. Just as the term "democracy" means something different then it did 230 years ago. Democracy 230 years ago was every land owning white male being allowed to vote. We wouldnt consider that very democratic in 2007 but in 1776 it was considered the height of "democracy".
"universal healthcare, environmental stewardship, economic fairness, social tolerance"....all conservative values. "Progressives" simply favor a different more socialist definition of these (no reasonable person can disagree with) terms. Arrogant morons.