The Freak Show: Where Have The Real Conservatives Gone? Hal B. Selzer August 9, 2011 Columns 4 “We don’t seek to aid the rich but those lower and middle income families who are most strapped by taxes and the recession.” Sounds like a typical statement made by President Obama, or Democratic Congressional leaders. No, that was the patron saint of conservatism, Ronald Reagan. Many of today’s Republican politicians quote Reagan liberally (no pun intended), and point to him as a forerunner of what they want to accomplish. But if he were running today, he would be considered on the far left of the Republican Party. Federal employment grew under his watch. And rather than shrink the size of government, he actually increased it by creating a new department, the Department of Veterans Affairs. He also realized that the deficit was getting out of hand, and raised taxes 11 times after his initial tax cut. I am not trying to disparage President Reagan, but rather point out that conservatism has lost its way. It used to be a pragmatic, organized system of beliefs that led to making the capitalist system and democratic system work as it was supposed to. It has turned into a cut-taxes-on–the-wealthy-at-all-costs, cut government at all costs, single-minded machine that doesn’t allow rational thought or disagreement. If you aren’t conservative enough, you’re out of the party, with no chance of any support in an election. In fact, not only would President Reagan not qualify for today’s Republican Party, but his successor, the first President Bush, would have no chance. He actually proposed the first “cap and trade” concept to try and stem the problem of acid rain. He felt that by putting economic incentives in place, corporations would act in their best interest and curtail emissions and pollution to benefit them and their shareholders financially. He was using the free market to get the desired result. He even overruled his advisors, who suggested an eight million ton cut in emissions in favor of ten million. And good things happened when we were able to harness the power of the market to solve an environmental problem. The program was a tremendous success, accomplishing its goal with a minimal impact on costs. Today, of course, the biggest environmental issue is climate change. And the proposed solution, once again, is the conservative, market-based “cap-and-trade” system. Strangely, however, it’s conservative, market-based Republicans who are the loudest and most damning opponents of “cap-and-trade,” while Democrats have become its biggest proponents. My point is that the conservatives won that battle; now Democrats are proponents of a Republican idea; that of using the market to achieve desired results. Instead of utilizing that victory, the Republicans now call it an overreaching government program, or even socialism, and condemn the idea. Another thing that the first President Bush did was go back on his pledge of “Read my lips, no new taxes.” He was smart enough to realize that we were getting into dangerous fiscal territory, and needed revenue. And what of today’s conservatives? They wouldn’t even consider that when we were about to be unable to pay bills we had incurred. Let people not get their social security and Medicare checks, don’t pay our veterans, let the United States credit rating go to hell and cause a large increase in the deficit due to the higher interest rates it would cause; all of that is not important compared to raising a rich person’s taxes, or getting rid of loopholes that enable millionaires to pay less tax than you or I. President Clinton is vilified by conservatives. Yet, he passed what has long been a Republican ideal, that of free trade, going against the wishes of much of his party and their union supporters. He also oversaw an expanding economy and ran budget surpluses. Shouldn’t he be seen as a guiding light in those areas? Yet today’s Republicans see him as the devil. I would guess it’s political expediency that rules in that case, rather than an examination of the issues. Since last year’s election brought a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, the idea that a new conservative era has come upon us has fast taken hold. Tea Party activists have hijacked enough of the Republican Party to make them accountable to their hardcore ideas of lower spending and taxes, but other traditionally conservative ideas, especially in the area of social policy, have been getting a prominent push as well. The idea of social policy has always been at odds with conservative thinking. The anti-abortion crusaders and anti-gay rights positions of many conservatives doesn’t make any sense when coupled with their limited government aspirations. It seems like they want limited government when it comes to things they don’t like, but when it comes to your personal life, they want expanded government; they want to make laws controlling what you can do with your body, who you can marry, what drugs you can put into your body, etc. If they want limited government, they should be espousing it all the way around, not in a “pick and choose” fashion. In fact, the Republican governor of South Dakota just passed a bill stating that women who are seeking abortions must first attend a consultation at “pregnancy help centers,” to learn what assistance is available “to help the mother keep and care for her child.” It requires a three-day period of consultation, and it makes an exception for medical emergencies, but not for rape or incest. Is that smaller, less-intrusive government? Obviously not. In this instance, those conservative ideas go out the window in order to push their personal beliefs onto others. We need to see consistency from our conservative friends. And some sense of pragmatism and competence. I am by no means saying the Democrats have the answers, but they have shown the ability to compromise and work toward reasonable solutions. The conservative movement has morphed into a radical, unreasonable and non-pragmatic diatribe of bluster. It won’t last. 4 Responses Sterk Zwillig August 9, 2011 The only thing that is more annoying than partisan ranging are posturing pseudo moderates who launch off of some out of context quote from a Conservative icon to defend a basically Liberal policy decision, and explain how Conservatives should think like Liberals to. Mr Selzer did you love Reagan this much in the 80’s? You don’t really want me to begin laying out a list of the kind of arch Conservative quotes from Ronald Reagan that made him the boogeyman of 90’s Liberalism before he died and was granted a bipartisan beatification? I wonder, if the Libs had caved instead, would it have been they and the president who had refused to compromise? Reply Sterk Zwillig August 9, 2011 The only thing that is more annoying than partisan rangling are posturing pseudo moderates who launch off of some out of context quote from a Conservative icon to defend a basically Liberal policy decision, then explain how all “real” Conservatives should think like Liberals too. Mr Selzer did you love Reagan this much in the 80′s? You don’t really want me to begin laying out a list of the kind of arch Conservative quotes from Ronald Reagan that made him the boogeyman of 1990′s Liberalism before he died and was granted a bipartisan beatification? Reply John Lofton, Recovering Republican August 9, 2011 Forget, please, “conservatism.” It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson’s Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago: “[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth.” Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2). John Lofton, Editor, Archive.TheAmericanView.com Recovering Republican JLof@aol.com Reply Bill Schmalfeldt (@ParkyBill) August 30, 2011 A tiny central government? How about NO central government? What could POSSIBLY go wrong. It worked QUITE well in Somalia and Afghanistan! http://bit.ly/onK0PH Reply Leave a Reply Cancel ReplyYour email address will not be published.CommentName* Email* Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.