← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust
Thread ID: 18527 | Posts: 10 | Started: 2005-06-04
2005-06-04 05:26 | User Profile
The Brutal Reality
By Sean Scallon
Its dead. Dead, dead, dead. The Conservative Movement is dead. You don't believe me, ask Bill Kristol, or read Chronicles Magazine. It's dead all right, dead as Marley's ghost was, like a doorknob.
There are those on these boards who in, I believe honest sincerity, support Texas Governor George Bush because they think they have an excellent chance restoring of driving President Clinton and his administration out of office. You may be quite right, Bush may well be on his way to winning.
But it will be Clinton who will have the last laugh, you see, because defeat will not be repudiation. Instead victory will be on his terms. For you see, the Bush Campaign, indeed a Bush Admistration, will be a pale reflection of Clinton's. Not in terms of personal morality mind you, of course not unless Bush goes through a relapse in the White House and certainly not in terms of public corruption, but in terms of policy, not a whole lot is going to change.
Clinton once remarked that he had to govern like an "Eisenhower Republican" instead of a New Deal or Great Society Democrat. So how will Bush govern? Like an Eisenhower Republican, like a Nixon/Ford Republican, like second term Reagan Republican. Why?, Because many of the same people who were once in these aforementioned administrations are going to work in Bush White House. This will undoubtedly be the most advisored President in our nation's history. Power and policy will be held tightly in the reigns of such persons with their establishment connections and wall street/old money elite fortunes.
If their are any "movement" conservatives at all in the administrations, they will either be 1). In offices and jobs with no real importance (HUD, EPA, Interior, Energy) or be the flunkies working in the basement of the Old Executive Office Building. This was exactly the situation in Bush's father administration and that will be how it is in the son's. If you don't believe me ask Jack Kemp or Bill Bennett what is was like to work for a Bush. They don't like conservatives all that much.
So you're all rooting for the flunkies eh? Hoping maybe a friend or the like gets his or administration job or even a favorite conservative (Alan Keyes for Ambassador to Burkina Faso?)Fine. It won't mean a thing in the grand scheme. If you bothered to listen to what Bush has said on the campaign trail, in the debates or at the convention, you should be up in arms if you call yourselves conservatives. That your not suggests to me that the pull of patronage of this manic desire "get Clinton" is pretty strong. Aided and abetted by conservative journals and columnists who have abdicated their responsbility to cry foul when the shibboleths are violated, the whole of conservatibe thought, policy and philosphy has been subordiated to the whims and desires of the Grand Old Party. Rush Limbaugh doesn't work on the EIB network, it's the GOP network.
So everyone's a Republican now, conservatism be damned. I don't know when the two became so symbiotically attached to the other. Their used to be conservative Deomcrats and their used to be liberal Republicans. If George Wallace had not been shot and won the Democratic nomination in 1972 (which he would have), many of he new right figures of the 1970s would have been working for the Democrats. Such are the whims of history.
Unfortunatly in name of the Republican Party, much of what conservatism is or was, I should say, is gone. Forget shutting down worthless government branches like the Departments of Education, HUD, Energy, Commerce, EPA and the like, that's gone. Forget Federalism, that's gone. Forget restricting immigration, that's gone. Forget major reformation of the tax code, that's gone too. Forget eliminating social security and other governmernt entiltements like Medicare and Medicade or the National Endowment of the Arts. That's gone. Forget trying to protect US Soverignty, hey get with the New World Order. Gee, isn't that something Bush's father once said?
Once upon time, five years ago perhaps, a conservative can go up to a liberal and say "Call me a neanderthal, a trogdylite or a philistine. Call me reactionary, racisist, fascist or a bigot. I wear it with a badge of honor. I'm Politically Incorrect and damn pround of it and there's nothing you can do." Now they cower in fear, afraid of what the general public might say, their families, or most importantly, their girlfriends. "I'm Compassionate!" You scream now. "I care!, I will leave no child behind!" is it the responsibility of government to even wonder if all the children are caught up? And why are they "our children" to begin with. You hear Colin Powell and Bill Bennett talk this too much. You see that fear in the Republicans in Congress, and that fear is manifested in the GOP ticket of 2000. They would not be where they are nor campaign like they do if the fear wasn't there, in the back of their minds. "We will not let the left demonize us!"
The Conservatism of the early to mid-90s seemed to me very confrontational, very in your face. There was music in the cafes at night and revolution in the air. Now Bush says he wants to be "healer of the breach" a "uniter, not a divider." Unite with whom? Barney Frank and Maxine Waters? This was the exact same attitude that Bush's father's administration had, "Hey will work with the Congress, I know people there, I'll schmooze them over to my side." It didn't work then, and it will not work now.
The Democrats will take cruel advanatge of him and kick him the butt every chance they get. He'll find Democrats in Washington not easy to schmooze like they are in Texas, where a little mesquite, moolah and corn mash goes a long way. You may think the GOP will control all the branches of Congress after election and they may very well do so, by two or three seat majorities. Not much you can do with those. If Bush spends most of his time cutting deals with the Democrats, which I think he will, then what's the GOP supposed to do, be the party of opposition? I assure you, there will be a lot of bitterness and a lot of triangulation going on in Congress, then the Demos will take dejure control after 2002.
So with not much leverge other than a wink and a smile to go on, even the miniscule Bush agenda will be shrunk after its first year. The puny tax cut will be punier, Social Security reform will be reformed to measninglessnes, the surplus will be spent further stuffing an already bloated military and GOP consitutent groups like the farmers, the veterans, the small businessman, the elderly, will be taken care of come budget time just like they were in the Reagan Administration. Education will be moe of same, which isn't bad since school vouchers are the biggest welfare program the Republicans have ever preposed since Nixon's garunteed income proposal. And as for the Supreme Court, if there is a vacancy, do you honestly think that with a Senate divided 52-48, including many wish-washy GOP moderates in the majority, that Bush will send up another Scalia or Thomas to the court? much less a Robert Bork? Get ready for more David Souters. No wonder he had no litmus test, he knows he can't act on it.
What is "Comapssionate Conservatism" other than warmed over Kempism? Well, Kempism without Kemp, without the ill discipline, without the lack of intellectual depth, the gold standard and the other nutty ideas of Jude Wanninski, without the nasal upsate voice. There was a serious argument which path conservatives should tred during the 80s and 90s and I'm hear to say the argument is over. Kemp won, or rather I sold, say, a Bush and establishment Republican friends stolen them for themselves to use to gain the electoral success he never did. Nice legacy.
I can't quite put a fix on when Conservatism died, maybe it was in 1991 when the Cold War ended, certainly it was given a mortal wound during the government shutdown when they lost their nerve and spent the rest of the 1990s acting like a bunch sissies and whiners, cursing like shrill babies whenever Clinton outmanueverd them, hating but always fearing, carping but always cowering, just like liberals during the 1980s. But the death agony certainly came in 1998-99, when the Republicans became the first poltical part in U.S. to lose seats in the mid-term election of a second term and when they failed to impeach the most filthly corrupt and depraved President in U.S. history and instead watched its own leadership leave in disgrace. Tell me, if you hate Clinton because he's a philanderer and liar, do you hate Newt Gingrich or Bob Livingston just as much because they are the same? Or does party loyalty prevent that?
Of course the final burial came at Philadephia this year. 11 or more Republicans ran for President this year, about nine were more conservative than Bush, and they all lost. So what does that say? Three Cheers for establishment Republicans! They finally rode out Reagan and won the battle, let the conservatives divide themselevs, co-opt a few positions like abortion and spend plenty of soft coporate money, that's the ticket. Conservatives get into the basement and don't be seen. Just make sure that when election day rolls around, you're all out picken the votes and delivering them up to the big house. If you pick enough, maybe will let you have Sundays off. Even Pat Robertson called the convention a sham, but he has no credibility. He knows all about selling out, taking the network he built with his own two hands and selling it to the international pornographer Rupert Murdoch. You can see dirty movies and sex innuendo on Fox Family now (or what coems close to it by Family Channel standards) but God forbid we miss the 700 Club, the religious equivalent of the Jerry Lewis Telethon, instead this one's on all year long!
So much for the moral majority. If anything conservatives were the most naive persons on earth as to the true nature of the American people. Clinton knew all too well. And that's why, ultimately why Gore will lose, becasue if American's hate know-it-all, they also hate a goody-goody too. The American people do not want someone who thinks he's more perfect than they are. That's why Jimmy Carter lasted one term and Bill Clnton got two. Carter, whatever you think of him, would have never boinked an intern, raised money from Communist China, instructed people to lie in front of grand juries or lie under oath. Neither would have George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis. Yet what do they all have in common compared to Clinton? Only one of them got to serve in the White House.
I will argue that every time Gore kisses his wife he loses votes. I don't think people haven't forgotten that it was Tipper and him who tried to pevent people from exercising their God given right to listen to smutty music lyrics. Gore may have gone to Vietnam but Bush will the win votes from the ones that didn't go and found creative ways of staying out despite suporting the war, like himself, and I'll bet he'll even get the support of the those who went to Canada or protested the war in resentment of Gore doing his patriotic duty. Americans, I argue, like the idea that Bush spent the 70s getting drunk and snorting coke, because that's what many of them were doing too, so they can relate to him. Prince Al, meanwhile, basically acted like a stuck up Congressman for much of that time, no votes in that.
That's why I don't want to even associate myself with the word conservative anymore. It's too trite, too meaningless and too contradictory, too pop for my tatses. Too many people call themselves conservative without even knowing what to conserve! Popular culture? The right to look at someone as ugly as Ann Coulter (are there neck reduction operations?)Does Matt Drudge understand that the No. 1 threat to the U.S. is not Iraq but the globalists? Does Ollie North that U.S engaged in an illegal war against a Christian nation for 78 days? Does Lucianne Golberg believe in English as our national language? Does Linda Tripp call for not restrictions but an all out moratorium on all immigration? Does Rush Limbaugh support charging with treason those coporate barons who export jobs from hardworking Americans to Mexican, Haitians, Indonesians and Vietmanese? I'm dying to know, or maybe they're all just worried about lining up their next TV or radio gig.
Actualy they all should be worried about a Bush Presidency. If he's out kissing up to the Democrats and the liberals, what the hell are they supposed to talk about for four years? If there's no revolution to support, then what's really their purpose? Bash Bill Clinton in retirement? Even that will get old after awhile. Conservatives are in a far weaker position to challenge Bush the younger than Bush the elder. Don't expect and primary fights 2004. Who will be there to lead it?
I know one thing that won't be conserved too much in a Bush Adminsitration, America's Western Civilization and European Heritage.After all isn't he going to open all the border and let all the foreigners in to share American Dream they don't deserve, while they are already setting up ghettos and mini-states in the American Southwest and in our cities? American, the Austo-Hungarian Empire of the 21st Century.
No, I'm not a conservative, I'm a nationalist, I'm a Patriot and I'm voting for Pat Buchanan, because he understands that old conservative world is dead when George Bush plants a kiss on Oprah Winfrey's cheek, and chit chats on her couch. Bash me all you want but it's the truth and you know it. But you rather be president than be right, so hope enjoy the trappings power, whatever little you get from it. I hope you get orgasmic from the Inauguration. Once upon a time at the 1944 Republican Convention, a man from Wisconsin voted for Douglas MacArthur rather than Tom Dewey, who won every other vote. When asked why he said "BECAUSE I"M A MAN NOT A JELLYFISH!" Bump.
Pat Buchanan bravely stood up for what he believed in and his principals while you abandon yours in the name of expidency. He's leading a new movement even in the tattered remains of the Reform Party while you cling in fear to Bush like the two little children under the robe of the Ghost of Christmas Present, afraid if you let go, you'll be abandoned. You'll get nothing anyway but yet you still vainly hope. I know I will sleep better having voted for Buchanan than to truly waste my vote on a me-too Republican.
I need not remind you that Washignton's tattered columns were laughed and scorned at by the British and their Empire, and you, the collaborators of the New World Order and evil globalists, can laugh at Buchanan now. I assure it will not be funny if you wake up Wednesday morning if Bush loses. Then you'll blame Buchanan, you'll curse his name and the Reform Party to high heaven, how else could Bush lose? he had all the money, all the support, all the acquiescene of so called conservatives ready to kiss his rear at his beck and call. Yet you will have no one to blame but yourselves. The Reform Party is the creation of the Republican Party. Its members, once a part of the Reagan Coalition in 1980, 84 and 88, left in 1992 disgusted by a Republican Party and a Conservative Movement that had completely lost the idea of what it meant to be an American. They stayed around because the GOP still doesn't know.
But Buchanan knows, he knows that all that matters now is blood and soil, our land and our people. That's what were're trying to concern. It's an idea best expressed in the cause of the White Armies of the Russian Civil War, who bravely resisted the tide of godless and murderous Bolshevism and are martyrs to God and Civilization. The White Idea: GOD, COUNTRY, FREEDOM. "As simple and as true as the heart of any patriot who loves his Motherland." Pat Buchanan left the Republican Party and watched the Conservative Movement die in front of him because it adopted the unholy Jacobin trinity of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. GOD, COUNTRY, FREEDOM. If you want to know what the Reform Party will stand for, there you have it. You may recognize it, it's what the Republicans and Conservatives used to stand for.
2005-06-04 06:54 | User Profile
Do you have a reference link for this and the other articles you have? If I'm not mistaken they're rather old.
2005-06-04 15:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Do you have a reference link for this and the other articles you have? If I'm not mistaken they're rather old.[/QUOTE] It may have been old, but wasn't it prescient? (I guess 2000 vintage.)
[QUOTE]And as for the Supreme Court, if there is a vacancy, do you honestly think that with a Senate divided 52-48, including many wish-washy GOP moderates in the majority, that Bush will send up another Scalia or Thomas to the court? much less a Robert Bork? Get ready for more David Souters. No wonder he had no litmus test, he knows he can't act on it. [/QUOTE]
2005-06-04 16:43 | User Profile
The Conservative Movement is dead indeed. Although I no longer use that term to describe myself (I am a species of Nationalist now) there was a time when Conservatism was very much a movement based upon ideas that had a certain degree of intellectual legitimacy. There was a time, back in the early eighties, when I used to look forward to getting my copy of National Review and reading the thoughts of intelligent cultured gentlemen on the issues of the day.
Now, those who call themselves conservative are just a bunch of hateful, spiteful, truly nasty people who do the Jews bidding without a moment's reflection. They get their marching orders from Free Republic and the Fox News Network and they just do as they are told. There used to be such things as currents of thought. Conservatives used to have polite arguments with each other, usually between those more Libertarian and others more Traditionalist. There were actually areas of disagreement because they were thinking people. Now, they are just brainwashed automotons chanting stupid slogans.
2005-06-04 18:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]It may have been old, but wasn't it prescient? (I guess 2000 vintage.)[/QUOTE]Reading it carefully it dates right back I think to after the 2000 election.
Its hard to say what makes a movement "dead" but as an establishment movement, capable of doing anything concretely conservative or anything period other than invade Iraq, it certainly is in remission right now. I think Francis termed the direction conservatism was taking "back to the catacombs" in one of his last Chronicles pieces.
2005-06-05 01:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=CornCod]The Conservative Movement is dead indeed. Although I no longer use that term to describe myself (I am a species of Nationalist now) there was a time when Conservatism was very much a movement based upon ideas that had a certain degree of intellectual legitimacy. There was a time, back in the early eighties, when I used to look forward to getting my copy of National Review and reading the thoughts of intelligent cultured gentlemen on the issues of the day.
[/QUOTE] How interesting, I cancelled my NR subscription in 92.
I spent the 90's watching the games in Washington for amusement while I got on with my life.
2005-06-07 15:21 | User Profile
Okiereddust,
I got this from one of my old hard drive back ups I was looking over a few day ago. I thought it was worth looking over. It was one of my Samuel Francis Forum Posts. [QUOTE]Reading it carefully it dates right back I think to after the 2000 election.[/QUOTE]
2005-06-07 15:48 | User Profile
"Now, those who call themselves conservative are just a bunch of hateful, spiteful, truly nasty people who do the Jews bidding without a moment's reflection." - CornCod
It's not just Conservative administrations either the Liberals are even worse. In Europe socialism is increasingly distancing it's self from liberalism and the radical Left is expanding it's influence on mainstream parties. The European media have effectively been censored and are no longer critical of the US's support for Israels expansion policy or ZOG's war in Iraq.
Whilst Nationalists are weaker numerically and are some what less coherent than other groups. Christian Nationalists are the only credible political opposition to the present "global" order.
2005-06-07 17:13 | User Profile
If by "conservative movement" you refer to the political activities associated with Goldwater-Reagan-Buckley etc., it was never conservative to begin with. The purpose was militarism, i.e., confronting the Soviets on the military level. In so doing, "conservatives" actually paved the way for the whole kit-and-kaboodle of the welfare state. But as a conservative movement, it isn't dead because it was never alive. Or if it was it was still-born.
Today, of course, what passes as "conservatism" is a joke--Bush, Gingrich, Limbaugh, National Review, etc. It's hard to find meaningful political activity anymore. I'm not motivated at all, beyond sending a few dollars to a few nationalist or racialist activists. Maybe something meaningful can happen in Europe sometime soon, but I don't see anything in the U.S. worth following or listening to.
2005-06-07 18:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Once upon time, five years ago perhaps, a conservative can go up to a liberal and say "Call me a neanderthal, a trogdylite or a philistine. Call me reactionary, racisist, fascist or a bigot. I wear it with a badge of honor. I'm Politically Incorrect and damn pround of it and there's nothing you can do." Now they cower in fear, afraid of what the general public might say, their families, or most importantly, their girlfriends. "I'm Compassionate!" You scream now. "I care!"[/QUOTE]
What's so pathetic about these bumpersticker conservatives at my work and elswhere is how slovenly Politically Correct they are while totally thinking they're such Politically Incorrect Radicals. What a joke. If it wasn't so appallingly pathetic, it would be absolutely hilarious how stupid these people are. Rush Limbitch says jump, they respond "how high, sire!"