I, So-Called Conservative

Over on Autonomist, my friend Rocco DiPippo — to whom I am tremendously indebted for non-blog-related reasons — writes:

…politically speaking it was idiotic for Republicans to showboat over the Foley matter. And incredibly, after the Foley revelations, Republican pundits lined up to publish a self-flagellating stream of articles saying how it might be “good” to lose the Congress, since that would teach Republicans how to be Republicans again.
Well that might be a reasonable strategy in peacetime, but it is madness during war, especially when you are willing to risk having people with a demonstrable, 40-year- long track record of appeasement coupled with an aversion to things military, attain power. So, in essence, though the Republicans rightly stressed that America’s first order of business is successfully waging war against a particularly virulent, widespread enemy, some of those same Republicans were willing to jeopardize this country’s safety by handing power over to a group of people who, in their adolescent haze, do not think we are actually involved in a war. These so-called conservatives and so-called Republicans are plain stupid, or utterly hypocritical. …
Now, there’s a good chance that the War on Islamist Terror will be lost, a million Iraqis will die and endless investigations aimed at impeaching Bush and Cheney will soon commence. Aren’t you glad you stayed home instead of voting?

Although my motivation had nothing whatsoever to do with the Foley matter — to which I paid almost no attention — I am not timid in the least to admit that, not only did I not stay home, I voted for Sheldon Whitehouse. If that makes me a “so called” whatever, so be it.
Here’s my bottom line: As soon as the national GOP began acting under the rationale of “what are they going to do, vote for Democrats?” — which they’ve been doing for longer than most of us would like to admit — the party became a detriment to the war on terror and, perhaps even more importantly, to everything that makes this country worth defending against terrorists. They became a detriment even to those social causes that they sought to leverage (e.g., same-sex marriage and abortion), and they became a detriment to the economic causes that are supposed to be the sine qua non of Republicanism.
If conservatives intended to assert themselves on this broad, self-defining slate of issues, it had to be with this election. These are, all of them, long-term issues, and the rapid slip among the “right” party required equally rapid correction: proving the possibility of defeat to the Republicans and the reality of responsibility to the Democrats. Doing so was neither stupid nor hypocritical, but considered and consistent. As to whether it will prove correct and effective, we can only pray.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom W
Tom W
17 years ago

I did not vote for Sheldon Whitehouse – though I pondered it – but I did write-in “George H. Bush.”
If there is blame, it is not to be laid at the feet of Republican voters (or voting abstainers) who made a principled stand.
Rather, the blame lies with the Republican officeholders, and their enablers at the Republican National Committee, that for years have been thumbing their noses at Republican ideals, and those of us who adhere to them.

17 years ago

Tom W,
If you had genuine Republican ideals in mind you’d have written in Ronald Reagans name not George H Bush.
Let’s try a little honesty here Tom.

Tom W
Tom W
17 years ago

>>If you had genuine Republican ideals in mind you’d have written in Ronald Reagans name not George H Bush.
Let’s try a little honesty here Tom.
You (understandably) misconstrued my motives.
Neither Bush is / was a true Republican. Ronald Reagan was. We agree on that.
My reason for writing-in what I did was to thumb my nose at Lincoln Chafee – as well as what he stands for (whatever that is) and his supporters.
I merely mirrored what Mr. Chafee so publicly took pride in doing in the 2004 Presidential race. And by so doing (and hoping that others did the same) I was hoping that there would be no mistaking the message.

17 years ago

Okay, I’ll say it.
A decision was made to commence waging the war on islamic terrorism by invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam Hussein. I have no comment on that original decision.
However, once that decision was made, the next decision needed to be not to allow George Bush, Richard Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld to orchestrate the invasion. Because for reasons still not made clear, they ignored recent US history (i.e., Vietnam), the known fact that Hussein kept order in Iraq through brutal force and the advice of their own generals and conducted the invasion with half the required troops.
By doing so, they botched it.
This was smmtheory’s response on a prior post:
“I don’t know why some people buy into the notion that everything would be peachy if we just had more troops in Iraq. It’s not an occupation force, and it was never intended to be. Even an occupation force would have trouble quelling all insurgency. It doesn’t equal a failure in strategy.”
1.) How do you figure it wasn’t an occupation force?
2.) While we didn’t need to quell “all” insurgency, we needed to quell much more than we were prepared for.
3.) This was a clear failure in strategy in what they themselves characterized as an important operation.
Our leaders made a controversial decision but then failed to stand behind it by doing what was needed to achieve even moderate success.

Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.