As we observe Republicans wandering in the wilderness searching for their new identity, now is a good time to reread one of the most brilliant editorials to grace the pages of dailykos: The Great Conservative Walkback: Res Ipsa Loquitur Edition, by Hunter. Hunter's brilliant editorial
I return to this piece frequently for its excellent and pertinent discussion of conservatism. Maybe Hunter will tweak and return his editorial (written in 1996) to the front page for its application to the current debate on health care; and to the Republican party’s recent purity manifesto: Only conservatives need apply
Whenever I read or hear from the right wingers the same old tired criticism of “big government” applying to any and all Democratic reforms, including a recent healthcare television ad here in Texas by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, I revisit Hunter’s brilliant work which blows that meme right out of the water.
Claiming to be champions of “small government,” conservatives have never in their history made government smaller and have in fact grown government, blown budgets, and ruined economies. Even with the House, Senate, White House, the majority of judges on the Supreme Court, an entire Republican News channel and dominance of right wing radio--- for eight years, the epitome of extreme conservatism, George W. Bush and his conservative ideologues, failed miserably. Well, they succeeded in making themselves and their cronies uber-wealthy but failed the rest of us, ruining the entire U.S. and world economy and throwing millions into poverty and homelessness.
“They shuffle the tasks of government around, yes; they close so called "liberal" governmental tasks such as environmental protections and citizen welfare and safety programs, while hyper-boosting "conservative" governmental tasks such as defense spending and business-based "incentives" and other sops, and they outsource basic government tasks from government to for-profit industry without actually removing those tasks from the mandates (or budgets) of government, but post-Nixon conservatives have been remarkably consistent in their actual actions: increase spending; increase deficits; increase government; increase interference in citizen lives under banners of "religion" and "morality". At no point in the modern-day movement have conservative adherents actually implemented this notion of small government or fiscal responsibility that they supposedly carry around with them as guiding force. It's the label on the package, yes: but it's not in the candy bar.”
As it relates to the GOP’s litmus test in determining which candidates Republicans will support, Hunter’s piece is particularly pertinent and timely:
“In other words, purity of ideology quite specifically trumps substance or experience, in "conservative" staffing efforts from academia to the White House; incompetence follows soon after as expertise is cast aside in favor of loyalty to the movement.”
Sarah Palin comes to mind here. No matter how shallow, how incompetent, inexperienced, or unwise---because she represents the most extreme brand of conservatism, ex-governor Palin is the future of the Republican party.
“...it's an explicitly endorsed ideological litmus test required for any job in a conservative government, and insofar as it is praised, endorsed, and demanded as absolutely necessary by conservatives, I'd say it's a core part of the movement. So the obvious and necessary outcome of that is also a core part of the movement: general incompetence. Incompetence dictated by an almost religious devotion to the purity of the ideology -- and I hesitate to even put that "almost" in there.”
Hunter further defines conservatives and the Republicans who adhere to this ideology as a collection of the wealthy and the tax averse (tea baggers), simple bigots (Limbaugh, Buchanan, Beck, etc...); and religious fundamentalists (Ralph Reed, Sarah Palin, etc...)
But no matter how they try to repackage their failed brand, as the Cons appear to be taking an even sharper turn to the right, searching for some new and improved identity that will stick, they will not succeed, because conservatism in practice simply doesn’t work. Although it is slow and difficult to see, humanity does in fact evolve. (with the exception of a few loudmouths like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and other neanderthals who suffer from a case of extreme arrested development.) Which is why Democrat Bill Owens won the special election for New York's 23rd district, winning a House seat that Republicans had controlled since 1872.
In a lame exercise in rewording, the party of “no” cannot state their goals without resorting to the use of the word “oppose” in their latest iteration of what you have to be FOR, but most importantly-- AGAINST-- to be a true blue Republican. Hunter puts it best in describing how opposition and conservatism are one in the same.
“What I'm saying here is that, long term, conservatism can't particularly "win", as two of its most basic planks are simply reactions to progressivism, any more than communism could win against basic premises of social and economic freedoms. Except as momentary brake, (emphasis mine) it is a failure in basic premise.”
There is so much for to Hunter's essay, and I would encourage everyone to revisit it. You'll be nodding your head and shouting "Amen!" because no one says it better than Hunter.