Saturday, February 06, 2010

The Conscience of a Conservative

"If America made abortion illegal but it was legal in Canada and Americans could cross the borders to get abortions paid for by the Canadian government, would you support invading Canada to end the practice?"This is via a friend who recently remade the acquaintance of a college classmate through Facebook. The gomer, who was so dim then that he was commonly referred to in college as "Joe Zero", has started laying gems like this and "Fanaticism is inherently contradictory with conservatism" on his unsuspecting FB pals.

"Fanaticism is inherently contradictory with conservatism"?


I've heard wingnuts come out with this stuff before. Somehow they seem to think that runing around screaming about Canadian abortion butchers, Islamofascist terror boogiemen and Medicare death panels makes them some sort of latter-day Edmund Burke instead of the hillbillie version of the sorority girl from a Wes Craven movie.

And as for this goober's smug little fairy tales...if there ever was anything intellectually coherent to the modern American "conservative movement" other than fear of the darkies, christopathic dominionism, and a pithecanthropicene panic at the thought of paying taxes for ANYthing, it was lost when Ronnie Reagan took office and proceeded to prove that he really WAS unlike the "tax-and-spend" Democrats - he spent like a drunken sailor on his first leave in Manila but refused to raise any revenue at all.

"Fanaticism"? Hell, I'd settle for a little fanaticism if it'd help the stupid bastards attain some level of intellectual coherence. Instead of "fanaticism" all these poor dumb prokes have is a complete refusal of the 20th Century, guns, homos, abortion and a flag-burning amendment. Oh, and trashing the New Deal so my father-in-law can end up living in my fucking garden shed.Movement Conservatism; the Place Where Brain Cells Go To Die.


Lisa said...

"pithecanthropicene panic at the thought of paying taxes for ANYthing"

Indeed. I can never understand their idolization of Uncle Ronnie, who ushered in so many bad things that should be anathema to any self-respecting conservative.

Pluto said...

If you'll pardon a moment of cynicism, I think I can answer Lisa's question.

During the long period in the wilderness when the Republicans were ALWAYS the minority party (1932-1980) the R's slowly came to the conclusion that control is better than anything else and needs to be maintained, regardless of the cost.

Dear Saint Ronnie simply showed them the way to achieve their goals. His combination of charm instead of substance, sound bites instead of strategy, combined with reasonably good (by 2010 standards) government have made them the permanent government. And for a while it seemed good to them.

It's only when the R's reached the ultimate expression of Ronnie's bad habits in the form of his Veep's wayward stubborn son that the cracks in the foundation became so obvious that no self-respecting conservative will now have anything to do with the party.

However the R's addiction to control has become so great that they now have no conscience and will probably do great indignities to the Constitution if (when?) they get back into power in 2012.

The things that scare me the most about the R's are:
1) Their total belief in their right to govern as the please, regardless of the consequences

2) Their absolute disbelieving fury when the voters knock them out of office for bad conduct

3) The clever but totally immoral tactics they use to win elections

4) The Dem's total inability to sound halfway intelligent when the R's come up with something unutterably stupid like the theory that closing Guantanamo will threaten the existence of the US

Lisa said...

Thank you, Pluto.

Control is so seductive to so many, and of course is the name of the game in politics. Ronnie, in his Hollywood vapidity, was the apotheosis of the nattering nabobs. A totally photogenic bobble head.

FDChief said...

Lisa, Pluto: What I find really discouraging is that:

1. The R's so clearly have nothing at this point. If the last 8 years haven't completely destroyed the notion of associating the words "Republican" and "competent governance" again, you were sleeping through the whole damn time.

2. The D's refuse to accept that. They still want "bipartisanship", they still play the Republican games; cut taxes, cut services, fight wars, buy arms, throw money at boomers and the Greatest Generation (i.e. the Big Three entitlement programs). As Pluto points out, when the R's lie, they don't kick the R's in the nuts and comment "That's for lying, asshole.", they run around going hommina hommina until everyone watching realizes what fools they are.

So what's left?

I really wonder if we haven't gone past the political bingo point?

Lisa said...


Yes, the game, blindness, that all play. There is nothing to partner with, which is what bipartisanship implies, no?

The education game comes to mind: Let's level everyone; there'll be no excellence, but no bottom-crawlers, either (theoretically).

So instead of any self-respecting Democrat saying, "You've got no game" (and we're not showing much of one, either) they all limp along and act like they're trying to play well. It is a scrum.

(Well, there out on snow-break this week, and real break next week, so there's a breathing space.)