/ jaebrysonblog ************** REMOVE THIS TO UNHIDE THE BLOGGER NAVBAR **************** **/ #b-navbar {height:0px;visibility:hidden;display:none} /** *************************************************************************

Rant. Muse. Eat. Sleep. Recycle.

Monday, November 21, 2005


I have not posted for some time and part of the reason is that I wanted to see what's going on with this conservative movement that has swept the nation. I read a little Coulter, Will, Williams... the ususal cast of characters. I read and re-read my friend CB's blogs.

And, I am confused. My poor analogy is that this must be the 1960s for conservatives; we're talkin' 'bout a revolution. But, when I scratch the surface of the revolution, I find reactionaries. They dislike judges who take the law into their own hands; they dislike abortions; they dislike peace demonstrators; they dislike anti-capital punishment demonstrators, but, with the exception of abortion and Affirmative Action, the solution most often offered by conservatives is: 'Leave it alone.'

Leave the Constitution alone; leave the war alone; leave capital punishment alone. It is a mindset diametrically opposed to the 1960s when the mantra was 'change.'

I won't get into the last days of Rome scenario, but I am befuddled that reasonable people can think the world will stand still and allow them to truly be conservatives.

A big theme among conservatives -- now that Bush et al are looking to be caught pretty red-handed -- is that conservatism has nothing to do with politics. That is truly pathetic reasoning when so much of their power lies in political action. Conservatives say: 'I don't want this federal debt -- but the politicians are creating it,' or, 'I don't want the government spying on me via the Patriot Act, but the politicians are doing it to us.'

My overarching belief about conservatism is a that there is a tremendous disconnect between what these people say they want and what they really want. Why? Because there is power in the mob mentality. There is comfort in having something taken away from another group in your name.

The obvious inanities are there. When Ann Coulter protects the reputation of Condoleeza Rice from fellow African Americans, she hasn't a leg to stand on. I doubt (and I could be wrong) that Coulter has ever been privy to the intricacies of black culture. When conservatives fault Democrats for being fiscally irresponsible and then silently watch the deficit quadruple, that is an absurdity. When non-scientists decree there is such a thing as 'intelligent design' and that global warming is a myth, it is dumbfounding.

Let's call it what it is: it is a power grab. Conservatives want the power to tell people they disagree with that they are wrong with the force of law behind them. Sound similar to any other historical epoch?

Just as a big deficit was a bad thing for Clinton, yet became a good thing for Bush, truth is irrelevant. Notice how Republicans are questioning the planning for the Iraq War as election season nears? Conservatives haven't budged on the issue, but they will certainly vote again for the person they elected in the last election, why? Power.

I am stating the obvious because there is a real difference between debating someone ideologically and debating someone who simply wants to be right. Ideologically, conservatives have mere moments to keep. Society doesn't hold still for anyone. Free love and wildspread drug use didn't make it much beyond the 1960s as example... and that was some really fun stuff.

How long do you think we will be able to hold onto Hummers? What about a white-run country? How about using 30% of the world's energy capacity with 3% of the population? And, schools that fail approximately half of its children of color? Conservatism is the myth that a moment can endure forever.

I'm sure the typewriter industry had lobbyists employed and laws targeted, but its time had come. I love the myth of the nuclear family probably more than most, but the fact of the matter is... it hasn't endured in the same form. It wasn't my experience and it isn't the experience of millions of others.

I sincerely hope nuclear families do well and I hope that men and women keep bonding emotionally, but let's not ignore it when reality slaps us in the face. What about making sure that there is love and security in the families that do exist?

All of this leads me to a nagging thought of personal accountability -- how much do I want to do to make sure conservatism doesn't win the day? It is a revolutionary idea and revolutions are hard work with very few people seeing the benefit. I think that is the very uncomfortable thought process that anyone who opposes knee-jerk conservatives must engage in.

link | posted by Jae at 8:45 AM |


Blogger Renegade Eye commented at 4:43 PM~  

You were examining the old conservatives. I think they are best presented by the philosophies of Pat Buchanon. Coulter is just an entertainer. This group is reactionary, protetionist, and generally antiwar. They are relics.

Much more interesting is the neoconservatives. They are not in alignment with the old guard. Many of them were at one time Trotskyist. They don't give a darn about abortion or evolution. They have the idealism, you were looking for, in the reactionary of the conservative movement.

Liberals are in line with the old guard. They have nationalist arguments against intervention in Iraq as; "Do you want money for your local police, going to Bagdhad police"?

I think you should examine Richard Perlman instead of Ann Coulter. Neocons have more to say.

It is nice to see you blogging again. You have great insights, that deserve a voice online.


Blogger Renegade Eye commented at 4:47 PM~  

Oops I meant regards. I also spelled protectionist wrong. Someday I'll learn to proofread, before posting.

Want to Post a Comment?

powered by Blogger | designed by mela