← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Avalanche
Thread ID: 9184 | Posts: 4 | Started: 2003-08-21
2003-08-21 04:05 | User Profile
Commentary by Bob Whitaker
The Red Herring is Dead, Long Live the Red Herring!
For decades the crime rate rocketed upward and liberals were openly the friends of "the so-called criminals." Did conservatives use this fact to make the public realize that liberals were their enemies? No way.
Every time crime was mentioned liberals screamed "Gun Control!" So instead of saying liberals were openly pro-criminal, conservatives debated what liberals wanted to talk about, which was gun control.
If any conservative pointed out that liberals always took the side of criminals against the public, respectable conservatives insisted that liberals loved the people dearly and were good people.
So nobody blamed liberals for the crime rate everybody was afraid of and the only people who got blamed for anything was the conservatives who got blame for all the guns out there.
Even liberals are now aware of how many leftists just plain hate Americans. Everybody knows liberals have been pro-criminal and anti-American for decades. Even Bill Press recently said it was good the leading Democratic candidate, the former governor of Vermont, was not "one of the anti-gun nuts."
So the red herring that prevented conservatives from mentioning the leftist pro-criminal record has gone down. So what is the red herring now?
The death penalty is the new liberal red herring. That's what the left wants to talk about, so that's what the right talks about.
The Most Important Liberal Victories are the Ones Conservatives Never Saw Happening
Decades ago, conservatives never blamed liberals for being openly pro-criminal. The liberal media wanted to talk about gun control, so conservatives who became media spokesmen talked about two things: 1) gun control and 2) what nice people the liberals were.
But somebody did use the crime issue the right way. Someone did attack politicians for being pro-criminal. Guess who?
The left, of course.
Criminals never had a greater friend in public life than New York Congresswoman Bella Abzug. She fought as hard to get as many repeat felons back on the streets as any other liberal ever did.
One day in the early 1970s Bella Abzug and some other leftist women decided they would become The Women's Movement. So they held a press conference and declared they represented Women's Rights. One thing they denounced was all the rapes that were being committed by repeat rapists who were being putting back on the streets. They said, and I am not joking here, that repeat rapists were on the streets because men were to blame.
One day Bella Abzug was fighting to get every repeat felon back on the streets and the next day she was screaming about all these repeat rapists who were on the streets. So did conservatives make a laughing stock of that?
Of course not. Not a single conservative spokesman even mentioned it. Abzug was a leftist and she wanted to talk about an Equal Rights Amendment, so what conservatives, ALL the conservatives, talked about was the Equal Rights Amendment. Abzug's pro-criminal record never came up.
Early in the Viet-Nam War, Bella Abzug had gone down to Cuba to worship Castro. While she was there the Cubans showed films of American planes being shot down over North Viet Nam. Abzug and her fellow Patriotic Liberals cheered and clapped loudly.
National Review mentioned that Bella had worshipped Castro and cheered at the death of America pilots, but it stopped there. Every conservative spokesman will tell you that Bella may have made some honest mistakes, but she was a True Patriot, like all liberals.
Respectable conservatives gave the crime issue to the liberals from the word go. They surrendered the whole battle before the argument started.
Conservatives Led the Fight to Make California Liberal
I have to keep repeating points until some dumbass conservative spokesman finally realizes how useful they are. Let me give you an example.
Pat Buchanan used to support open borders. He joined all the other conservatives in saying that that "free enterprise means the free movement of goods AND LABOR."
But the reason labor moves out of Mexico is because Mexico is a political disaster. If those laborers move to a country which is not a political disaster, they become the people of their new country. So they turn the country they move into into the same political disaster they came from.
I tried desperately to get conservatives to face this obvious fact. But they kept repeating, "free enterprise requires the free movement of goods AND LABOR." Open borders forever! I wanted to grab them by ears and shout into their faces, "You idiot, labor VOTES!"
So conservatives talked about free enterprise and worked to bring in all the anti-free enterprise immigrants they could.
I tried for years to talked to those morons about reality. I gave a paper at a major economic conference with a Nobel Prize-winning economist in the audience in which I pointed out, in more technical language, that if politically stupid people come up, they ruin the economy. No one disagreed.
Conservatives kept repeating that "free enterprise means the free movement of goods AND LABOR."
In 1982 I put together "The New Right Papers" for the world's third largest publisher just so I could make this one point in it. I finally got the respectable conservatives' attention. Free enterprise finally had a good argument against the "Free enterprise requires the free movement of goods AND LABOR" argument. This helped a lot in making National Review and other respectable conservatives oppose immigration.
Being against importing leftists always made political sense, but the argument was needed. Arguments matter. Ideas matter. And there is nothing that is as hard as getting conservatives to accept a good idea.
Conservatives take all their arguments from what liberals say. And liberals never approve anything that would be a good idea for conservatives.
So conservatives fought for open borders for decades. Again they surrendered the real fight without conservatives even knowing it was going on, and now the biggest state in the Union is a leftist bastion and the left's minority base is large and growing.
Respectable Conservatives Quietly Gave the Supreme Court to Liberals
In 1968 the Supreme Court struck down all state intermarriage laws and the Catholic bishops and main line conservatives . all applauded wildly. All of the states that had adopted the Constitution enforced laws against miscegenation.
In order to strike down all state anti-miscegenation laws the Court just openly ignored what the Founding Fathers intended and everybody knew it.
Conservatives and Catholic bishops were in their glory when they praised the Supreme Court for its decision striking down miscegenation laws. Every time they praised that decision, liberals patted them on the head and told them what great anti-racists they were. Conservative live for liberal praise.
Liberal praise is also what Catholics who have an inferiority complex live for.
So in 1973 the Supreme Court invented the right to abortion. Bishops went ballistic. Conservatives went ballistic.
This year the Supreme Court struck down all state sodomy laws and conservatives went ballistic. "What happened," they screamed, "To the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers?"
I want to grab them by the ears and shout in their faces, "YOU happened to it!"
Conservatives gave up original intent so they could get liberals praise for being anti-racist. They also gave up their constitutional principles without a fight.
They also gave up on the membership of the Supreme Court without a fight. Now they are asking what happened there, too.
Conservatives blindly backed Bush Senior for President. He put the most liberal member on the Supreme Court, Justice Souter.
The Court is split with four conservatives against four solid liberals, one of whom is Justice Souter.
And who is the one who votes half liberal and half conservative? Bush Senior's other appointee, Justice O'Connor.
Conservatives gave up the Supreme Court without a fight, and now they are whining and crying.
======== Read more of Bob Whitaker's columns at www.WhitakerOnline.org.
2003-08-21 04:49 | User Profile
A good article. This Whitaker is a good writer.
Conservatives used to be known as the "stupid party."
Now that conservatives (like Limbaugh, the National Review, etc.) have
fully hooked up with the Jews, they are now not only the "the stupid
party", they are also the "vicious and violent party."
2003-08-21 07:04 | User Profile
For practical purposes conservatism doesn't exist in the states beyond a few holds like my old compatriot FWI. Basically, what passes for conservativism is a fraud because they don't attempt to conserve anything of real value because doing so requires real courage and noting that they have been losing steadily for over two generations. Instead, they complain about the products of societal decay and pretend that tax cuts will take care of fundimental problems, that culture is some how able exist seperately from the race that created it and that legal doctrines matter outside the societal/racial conditions that gave birth to the principles they champion. Given such basic flaws it's obvious why they keep losing and why even the neo-cons will vanish from the national stage within 10 years.
2003-08-21 08:25 | User Profile
Originally posted by triskelion@Aug 21 2003, 01:04 * even the neo-cons will vanish from the national stage within 10 years.*
Quite possibly but the individual cells which compose that particular cancer will have mutated into a new horror. It's clear we are living in a post-conservative era that is already decades old.