Eliot Sherman: New conservative agenda: Iraq at home

Modern conservatives have been extremely successful at defining themselves by what they are not (i.e. liberal). I have concluded this based on an exhaustive scientific study which consisted of reading several conservative magazines and noting that the word "liberal" appears about seven billion times. I'd like to implement this strategy and turn it around, by offering a perspective on conservatives from the other side of the aisle.

Conservatives are all the rage right now, more popular than reality television and Red Bull. And like it or not, they are making their presence felt.

They have sent the normally steadfast American media scurrying into hiding with cries of "liberal media". On college campuses, they have made professors think twice with accusations of liberal bias in grading. And all over the country, by wrapping themselves in the flag and redefining patriotism as not the virtue of the vicious but the litmus test for how "real" of an American you are, they have effectively stifled dissent on almost all issues.

Liberals, meanwhile, appear content to sit back and get pounded.

Polls consistently reflect that many Americans greet this massive ideological shift to the right with a mixture of reprehension and lukewarm support. Everyone admits the economy is tanking, everyone knows that tax cuts do more to hurt than help the "average" American, but Americans in general seem content to sit back and let it all happen. Granted, some of this is due to a leadership vacuum in the opposition party, and the fact that regardless of whether or not he actually makes the country safer (he doesn't) our President appears to make people feel safer, which is all that really matters. But it still has an eerie, inexorable feel to it, as if this ideological shift is destined to continue until the crack of doom.

Normally I wouldn't get too aggravated about this situation. But there is something very different about these guys. These are definitely not your father's conservatives.

Never before has a starve-the-government mentality been embraced so thoroughly by those in the government. Even Reagan raised taxes in the face of an overwhelming deficit; one gets the feeling that Bush would rather surrender a limb than do the same.

But the difference runs deeper than the tax cut debate and the fact that fiscal sanity, a traditional mainstay of the conservative agenda, appears to have gone the way of the Democrat (much to the resentment of men like Senator Charles Grassley, who seems just as confused as I am). The government is being run by a group of people who have absolutely no use for government, who don't believe in the idea or the reality of public programs.

This is the most essential difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives have forgotten that government is liberating, not stifling, and that we formed it in the first place to get out of that state of nature.

In a conservative paradise, everyone is armed. The one dominant religion is not fundamentalist, simply because there is nothing else to oppose it, as much as factions within that religion may quibble. Everyone keeps all of their income because they earned it fair and square. There are no troublesome regulations on the private sector, and pesky environmental activists don't exist.

Sound at all familiar? It should. This conservative paradise exists in the world, and in fact, America made it that way. It's called post-war Iraq.

Iraq has all those things, because there is a complete absence of government. There is also no one to fix the roads, maintain electricity, heal the sick, or regulate the roving gangs of marauders, rapists and thieves. Get the picture?

Never before has the basic sanctity of government been rejected by the government. It would be a mildly amusing metaphysical crisis if it did not represent a clear and present danger to everything this country stands for and has stood for through peace and war, troubled times and economic prosperity.

I keep waiting for America to notice, wake up and throw the bums out. I keep waiting for the Democrats to do something. I keep waiting for a Bush official to say "Fooled you! We were for rich white guys all along!" Whether or not it happens, I'm not fooled. Class warfare? Maybe. You say class warfare like it's a bad thing. I say come get some.

Comments (8)

Let's not forget that the current regime in the US wasn't in any sense "elected," by the constitionally-prescribed electoral process or otherwise. I'm surprised that anyone who identifies himself as a lawyer would suggest such a thing. No one (other than Dennis Kmiec, I suppose) has suggested that there is a whit of jurisprudential legitimacy in the supreme court's opinion in Bush v. Gore which ended the 2000 election process. Scalia himself admitted as much by declaring that the decision would have no precedential value, although I suppose he might revisit that assertion in 2008 when legal sleight-of-hand is necessary to put Jebbie -- or Tom DeLay -- in dubya's warmed chair. The current US regime is a fraud, certainly, and the American people are enslaved in an uber-comsumer society bounded by McDonalds, SUV commercials, Fox "News" and federal tax refund checks just coincidentially drawn on the IRS office in Austin, Texas. The good news is that our Darwinian qualities being what they are, all dysfunctional human systems ultimately sow the seeds of their own destruction. Of course, that process is oftentimes messy, but, hey, natural selection isn't just a good idea, it's the law! David Martin, retired lawyer new york demartin@pipeline.com

I am afraid those in power will never be so blatant as to name their agenda aloud tho for those of us with our eyes open it is clear that it is the wealthy few who are benefiting from the draconian changes George II is making in both foreign and domestic policies. It is also clear that the vulnerable, such as children, homeless people, the unemployed and downsized, the elderly, the young people who enlisted in the armed forces because of it was the best employment opportunity in their small towns, and people of color as a class simply are not on the radar screen of this administration, or apparently the Congress either. And, of we don't name this as a perversion of justice, it is obviously not on our radar screen either. But Elliot, this is not about the political right or left or liberals and conservatives. This is about whether we as a culture give a damn about about one another. Or, will we just continue the trajectory that it is "each man for himself" until "only the strong survive"? Is this the kind of world we want?Can complacency about the plight of one's neighbor be the basis for a sound democracy? Or can it develop a compassionate human ethic? The choice is ours and we had better make it quickly. The future of our children and our children's children depend upon it. Rev Bev Beverly Dale CA House 118 S. 37th St revbev@pobox.upenn.edu

I'm afraid I can't discern your thesis, Mr. Sherman. Are you decrying the fact that our government is currently propelled by a conservative majority, or are you lamenting the fact that Iraq's early, post-war status represents (in your view) some stark, conservative ideal? If the former is true, allow me to point out that Americans have choices in electing leaders. We are free to be represented by whomever we feel best represents our vision of how our society should be run. You seem to blame the elected leaders for the fact that they were elected, and for the fact that they are doing precisely that which a majority of Americans elected them to do. Indeed, all polling over the last six months has demonstrated that the support for conservatives in government has INCREASED in light of their policies. If the latter was your true point, I am compelled to call it out as a straw man. You suggest that the current state of Iraq's "government" represents the finished product that our administration intended to produce. That contention is unsupportable. First, it is belied by the fact that governmental institutions have not even been installed yet. Moreover, if you believe that the President wants Iraq to be a country united under fundamentalist Islam, you are simply naive. If you believe the President wants the Iraqi people to be armed to the teeth, you are not paying attention. The efforts to DISarm the Iraqi civilians have been well chronicled. As for Reverend Dale's outcry over "George II" and his "Draconian Changes," I would simply challenge the Democratic Party to provide better, feasible alternatives. Present them to the American public, and let us vote again in the next election cycle. If Rev. Dale is correct, then the makeup of our government will shift dramatically back to the Left. But I think the evidence is clear that the recent success of the Right is attributable largely to the complete failure of liberal policies to satisfy Americans. Erik Naft, Attorney Pittsburgh, PA enaft@yahoo.com

Well Erik I see that you have conveniently forgotten that the current administration in fact did not receive the majority of the vote, the are in office now because of an antiquated electoral college. A revived Democrat, Fixed Income Analyst Chicago

Thank you Eliot for articulating what I've long thought about this administration and the business it's pulling in Iraq. To Erik, two things. 1. Bush ran as a moderate, touting bipartisanship, and making himself out to be middle-of-the-road. For the less than half of the people who cast their votes for him, the vast majority believed that he meant what he said. His psychotic and rabid conservatism wasn't unleashed until he used September 11th as an excuse to gut the government, the constitution and the bipartisanship he spoke so much about. I would also add that for an administration that claims to believe in reducing government, it certainly has expanded its own powers (the so-called Patriot Act and Rumsfeld moving into the Pentagon are but a few examples), and ignored states' rights (as in the DEA raid of a man hired by the state of California to grow marijuana). But, he is certainly doing his best to shrink government; after all, he destroyed a Clinton plan to put 100,000 more policemen on the streets, his starving of the government has led to the closing of firestations in NY (and don't say that that's a state issue, as he categorically refuses to offer states much needed aid) and he's draining federal reserve of much needed funds for social security and other services as the baby boomers age. I guess anything that's government funded that helps or empowers anyone else, be it individuals or states, is bad, but expanding the administration's own draconian powers is good. I'm so glad we didn't elect him as our president! You rock, Eliot!

You, [sic], Eliot!, I would like to comment on a couple things you said. Firstly, you use diction to load your argument. You say, Bush's horrible "conservatism was UNLEASHED after Sept. 11th". You make a strong accusation based upon interpolation. Is it possible that September 11th actually DID change the way the U.S. would conduct relations within its borders as well as outside of them? I doubt you think so. But, then again, 1898 is probably just another number to you without any special significance. Quit being so burgeosie, people want to kill you....... for where you live. Furthermore, your statement about "I'm glad we didn't elect him president" is absurd. Since you clearly didn't read my first post, or did but don't know what the "Constitution" is, I am providing you with a link. www.theconstitutionformoronswhothinkthatthiscountryelectspeoplebyamajorityvoteineverycircumstance.org also, for more information see www.wanttochangetheelectoralcollegewellthentrytobutdontsaythepresidentwasntelectedbytheconstitutionandifyoudosaythatyouareanidiot.net Dillon Kuehn dmkuehn@sas.upenn.edu

Well "A revived Democrat" I see that you have forgotten that whether or not old, the electoral college system is indeed our method of electing presidents (see the Constitution.... I can give you a link if you've never heard of that document). Want to change it??? Try convincing enough electing officials that it is antiquated (I can also give you a link on how our government works regarding amendments). Until then, maybe you should take some political science classes and then come back to me listing five pros and five cons regarding such a system. Way to go buddy, you added nothing to the conversation........ you should be proud. Dillon Kuehn dmkuehn@sas.upenn.edu

Once again, Democrats have chosen to whine about the last election, instead of discussing the present and the future (which, if you'll review my prior post, was the focus of my message). Let's assume, for argument's sake, that everything "Revived Democrat" and "You Rock, Eliot" stated is true. Let's assume Bush was installed as President by a shadowy conspiracy and that his administration has done nothing but eviscerate civil liberties and torture the poor. And now let's talk about the present and the near future. If all of the accusations against the President are true, then doesn't it stand to reason his support would be waning right now, and that his prospects for reelection should be widely considered to be slim? Yes, it would stand to reason. But that's not the state of things, is it? President Bush enjoys a healthy approval rating, and the Democrats are quite publicly floundering in their efforts to produce a palatable alternative for the Oval Office. Of course, Republican gains in Congress during the last election further belie the notion that the politics of the White House are unpopular and an unwelcome departure from what the electorate expected. As for the trevails of the poor, I am perpetually amused by the charge that the Bush administration is pro-rich and anti-poor. Indeed, Democrats lament that Bush's tax cuts and other fiscal policies only help "the richest 1% of the country." Well, gee, if that's true, then why does more than 1% of the country support him? Quite a conundrum. More to the point: that would truly be a novice political move, wouldn't it -- guaranteeing that your policies will alienate 99% of the public? Look, there's nothing wrong with fair criticism of the President -- and I would certainly agree that Mr. Bush deserves his fair share. The problem Dems are having is that they eschew reasoned and deserved criticism in favor or hyperbole and whining (the "vast, right-wing conspiracy" drivel persist to this day!). I'll say it again: If Democrats think the President's policies are harmful, then they should put together a package of superior alternatives. They should nominate candidates for both legislative and executive offices who espouse, support, and will persist in implementing those policies. If the American electorate agrees with you, then the next few elections ought to bring about a very serious shift in the political makeup of all facets of the U.S. government. Time is running out, though. So please stop hurling overstated charges of abuse and show me your alternatives. Show me how better to protect the U.S. against terrorist attacks. Show me how better to improve domestic consumer confidence. Show me how better to improve immigration policy. Show me how better to stop nuclear proliferation. I know what your position is on the policy preferences of my party. Show me yours. Erik Naft, Attorney Pittsburgh, PA enaft@yahoo.com

Comments are closed for this item.