« | »

NYT: “What Is Left Of” Conservatism

From a perpetually sneering New York Times:


G.O.P. Checks for a Pulse, and Finds One

By ADAM NAGOURNEY

September 19, 2009

WASHINGTON — Less than a year after an election that nearly wiped them out politically, conservatives are showing signs of life.

They are still searching for new leaders and new ideas. Their victories have been more about taking advantage of President Obama’s missteps than advancing an agenda that can recapture large numbers of voters.

But they have shown in recent weeks that they can have at least some influence as the voice of the opposition — and in the process energize what remains of their movement

Whatever problems the conservative movement has encountered — a string of electoral defeats, evidence that its membership is getting smaller and older, the demands of coming up with a new ideological agenda to meet changing times — these recent victories have given new hope to this formerly dispirited base of the Republican Party that it can still command public attention and influence policy in Washington…

It is not so much that the political climate is shifting to the right; it is more that the conservative movement has found ways to break through and get attention — often with decidedly unorthodox methods, including combative town-hall-style meetings.

And the conservative movement has been helped by the backlash to the cost and sheer ambition of Mr. Obama’s first-year agenda: the big economic stimulus package, the intervention in the automobile industry and the effort to reshape the health care system. The argument that the White House may be overreaching has, at the very least, given conservatives an opening…

After the year that conservatives have endured, that is by any measure welcome news for them.

How the able article was teased in the RSS feed from the New York Times:

Political Memo: G.O.P. Checks for a Pulse, and Finds One

Conservatives have shown in recent weeks that they can have at least some influence as the voice of the opposition, and in the process energize what is left of their movement.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

By ADAM NAGOURNEY

“What is left of their movement”?

Mr. Obama’s victory over (the pathetic) Mr. McCain was anything but a landslide.

And numerous polls have told us that more people consider themselves conservative than liberal or even moderate.

But the New York Times is already dancing on conservatism’s grave.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Saturday, September 19th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

13 Responses to “NYT: “What Is Left Of” Conservatism”

  1. proreason

    Who would have imagined that a modern-day Lenin (after his puppetmasters were finally able to destroy the world’s economy 2 months prior to the election after valiently trying for an entire year), having won a small majority of 53%, would get this far in overthrowing the 400 year-old traditions of the greatest country of all time.

    Don’t belittle audacity.

    And if you think the game is over, don’t make the mistake of getting in the way of the coming recoil.

    You’ve only begun to see real audacity.

  2. TwilightZoned

    Conservatism is not dead, nor close to it. Had most Republican politicians not abandoned the values the party was founded on, Barry may never had been elected. It seems the conservatives, who normally are not the ones to protest, are fed up. And we are sending a very clear message to Republican politicians; return to conservative values or we will abandon you for people who will.

  3. canary

    Our paper is headed for the gutter. They refuse to accept the reason they are failing. They’d better start listening or they will be no more. I suppose a paper can sell their plant to someone else right? as to the right?

  4. You will find out just where Conservatism is next election. Gone will be the liberal whining, the liberal special interest groups and gone will be Democratic/Marxist control of the White House. Watch!

  5. VMAN

    I think the big mistake that the Marxists make is that when most kids get out of the government indoctrination and into the workforce their eyes are opened. They see how much the government is taking and DON”T like it. They were taught about evil big business stealing their money and manipulating their lives and they realize that it’s the government that does that and the business that gives them a job. I see more and more young adults who are conservative, if not socially then fiscally. They’re paying attention. Conservatism is not getting older it’s getting younger.

  6. Petronius

    Because there will always be sensible people who see the world realistically––and not in ideological terms––there is no danger of the world running out of conservatives any time soon.

    Liberals are ideologues. As a result, they tend to see conservatives through an ideological prism, and they may mistakenly attribute Liberal traits to conservatives. Thus the Liberal author of this New York Times hit-piece makes a fundamental error of treating conservatism as an ideology: “the conservative movement [must meet] the demands of coming up with a new ideological agenda to meet changing times….”

    Liberals cannot stop themselves from falling into this trap, because of their ideological view of human beings: that people––even conservatives––are plastic, equal, and fungible, like a field of daisies or a herd of cattle or swarm of flies, but of course flies that can be remolded into some Liberal utopian ideal, e.g., communist man.

    But of course this author is being stupid, because ideology and change are playthings for Liberals. They have nothing to do with us, and are simply not part of the conservative attitude. (Which is not to ignore the existence of certain conservative philosophies, such as libertarianism, Ayn Rand objectivists, et al.)

    Simply put, Liberals are radicals and utopians, whereas conservatives are people who understand and accept the world as it is … people who see that there are things outside man, things bigger than man, things such as biology or nature or God or moral causes or civilization, and who value the things that work. Thus conservatives do not view the world (as Liberals do) as a terrible place, as an endless pile of “problems” that must be corrected and overcome with an agenda for change.

    Conservatives understand and accept that there are permanent conditions of human existence that are largely beyond human control, and that tampering with them will do more harm than good. Or that, if we must tamper with them, our changes should at least be prudent, partial, piecemeal, and carried out in a competent, businesslike manner, so that the social fabric is not rent asunder in the process––whereas Liberals don’t give a damn, and in fact take delight in all manner of destruction.

    There will always be sensible, realistic, and moderate people, and they are the people we call “conservatives.”

    • proreason

      “Simply put, Liberals are radicals and utopians [insert]and lazy-asses and criminals who want something for nothing and con artists who need a framework to prey on others, and greedy bastards who see liberalism as less risky than conventional crime [end insert] , whereas”

      Well said Petro, but I did see a wee gap that need some additional words, so I corrected it for you

    • Petronius

      Good catch, Pro. Criminals, parasites, and moochers, yes, but I also believe Liberalism is a form of madness. But even in an insane world, there will always be some sensible and realistic individuals–i.e., conservatives.

    • proreason

      Petro, madness, yes, that’s insightful. The insanity theme, in the literal definition of it, is something I hadn’t thought about for liberals in general, but it’s very descriptive of their approach.

      Because they invent their own fantasy worlds inside their heads, and it has nothing to do with reality.

      And when they get to implement their fantasies,and the fantasies fail, as they always do, they are completed unaffected. They answer is never to try something else that might work. The answer is always to double down on the failed attempt, then triple down.

      I’ve always labeled them as childlike, but even children learn from their mistakes.

      Insane is a better description.

    • Rusty Shackleford

      Pro, I’ll repeat it here. “Insanity is doing the same thing, the same way, over and over, expecting different results”. It’s an old saw in the world of theoretical physics and other disciplines. It’s been attributed to Einstein but no direct link can be made. So it’s probably apocryphal.

  7. Confucius

    Perhaps the next march can be at the New York Times.

    • Rusty Shackleford

      Con, the point has been made that the next tea party should be within line-of-sight to a major news agency so that when it’s huge and they still don’t report it, the statement will be obvious that they are trying to marginalize it or that that their agenda bloomers are hanging out in the breeze, or both.

      If they failed to notice a “tens of thousands” march on DC, then they will certainly fail to notice a “few” milling about ABC news headquarters in Manhattan.




« Front Page | To Top
« | »