Brain dead?

[Bradley in DC]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/01/AR2009100103889.html?nav=hcmodule

[lynnf]

blah, blah, blah. like asking the question: if a conservative intellectual falls in the woods, does it make a sound? (or a difference?)

much ado about nothing while Obama and liberalism self-destruct right before our very eyes. at least until Obamacare passes. but then there is the sign at a tea party: shove it down our throats in January and we'll cram it up your a** in November


lynn

[Pericles]

Spot on. We have to cogently articulate why we have the right idea.

[James Madison]

Reading that article makes me wonder if the author is brain-dead. How in the hell can anybody attempting to make a semi-coherent arguement about conservatism refer to that POS Kristol as a "conservative"?

[Deborah K]

First of all to use a neo-conservative like Kristol as an example of conservatism seems really off base to me. He's actually blending conservatism with neo-conservatism and I wonder if this is on purpose.

Then, he naively asks the rhetorical question:
(Does anyone really think that if evidence existed of Obama's putative foreign birth, Hillary Rodham Clinton wouldn't have found it 18 months ago?) The real question is: Does anyone think Clinton CARES if Obama was born here or not? It's not a stretch to wonder what kind of wheeling and dealing goes on behind the scenes when a party decides to (yes that's right - as opposed to the voters) choose their front-runner.


Then he lists Michael Medved as a conservative talk-show intellectual. Hah! That guy has his head so far up......in the sand with regard to the NAU it's almost frightening.

The rest of the article is a back-handed promotional for Glenn Beck. And nowhere does he give any credence to the (Ron Paul) libertarianesk freedom movement, which is an indicator that he is out of touch.

[James Madison]

First of all to use a neo-conservative like Kristol as an example of conservatism seems really off base to me. He's actually blending conservatism with neo-conservatism and I wonder if this is on purpose.

Then, he naively asks the rhetorical question: The real question is: Does anyone think Clinton CARES if Obama was born here or not? It's not a stretch to wonder what kind of wheeling and dealing goes on behind the scenes when a party decides to (yes that's right - as opposed to the voters) choose their front-runner.


Then he lists Michael Medved as a conservative talk-show intellectual. Hah! That guy has his head so far up......in the sand with regard to the NAU it's almost frightening.

The rest of the article is a back-handed promotional for Glenn Beck. And nowhere does he give any credence to the (Ron Paul) libertarianesk freedom movement, which is an indicator that he is out of touch.

The author's a disinformant trying to equate the RP brand of conservatism with neo-conservatism. I'm sure this is designed for weak-minded liberals who already confuse the two.

[lynnf]

.

Then, he naively asks the rhetorical question: The real question is: Does anyone think Clinton CARES if Obama was born here or not? It's not a stretch to wonder what kind of wheeling and dealing goes on behind the scenes when a party decides to (yes that's right - as opposed to the voters) choose their front-runner.


.



so, was Clinton either inevitable or competent? no, as evidenced by the now obviously incompetent newcomer Obama having beaten her.

that question illustrates nothing, but is comforting for the liberals.


lynn

[Deborah K]

The author's a disinformant trying to equate the RP brand of conservatism with neo-conservatism. I'm sure this is designed for weak-minded liberals who already confuse the two.

I don't see him trying to equate RP conservatism at all. That's my point. He either dismisses it out of hand, or is ignorant of it altogether. But I agree this was a piece aimed to comfort the liberal mindset.

[James Madison]

I don't see him trying to equate RP conservatism at all. That's my point. He either dismisses it out of hand, or is ignorant of it altogether. But I agree this was a piece aimed to comfort the liberal mindset.

He does it in a very discrete manner by implying that the only form of conservatism that exists is neo-conservatism. Maybe I'm reading a bit too much into it.

[HOLLYWOOD]

This is the problem with the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/images/homepage/logos/twp_logo_300.gif

That pretty much sums it up in 3 words.

[Deborah K]

so, was Clinton either inevitable or competent? no, as evidenced by the now obviously incompetent newcomer Obama having beaten her.

that question illustrates nothing, but is comforting for the liberals.


lynn

May I ask what the point was of "have some southern comfort" ?


Your points are eluding me. His question about Hillary 'outing' Obama if there was really anything to the "birth" issue, assumes that she would even care at all about it. My point was that the two parties are well beyond caring about that silly clause in the Constitution requiring birth citizenship. If there IS wheeling and dealing that goes on behind the scenes, then the motives for making him the front man and not her probably have nothing whatever to do with "inevitability" or "competence".

[Bradley in DC]

David Boaz responds:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Brain-dead-Conservatives--63482247.html

[Deborah K]

In that regard, I’m more positive than Hayward is about the “tea party” movement. True, it is somewhat “unfocused,” without a clear “connection to a concrete ideology.” But it reflects and galvanizes the natural American antipathy to big government.

As opposed to what.... organized and controlled.... like special interest groups? These writers seem to be overlooking the grassroots aspect of what is happening in America right now.

Wonder what Dr. Paul would think of this:


And Hayek insisted that he was not a conservative:“Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place.”Now this, I can agree with:


The trick for 21st-century American conservatives, conservatives in a country founded in libertarian revolution, is to decide which traditions are worth holding on to. I would suggest as a good first rule that we allow the natural evolution of society and market, while limiting coercive intervention into those processes.

Conservatism should make its peace with natural social change, before it loses the entire younger generation, while reaffirming its commitment to freedom and limited government.