Those sad conservatives

A friend sent me this article by Jonah Goldberg of The National Review: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2Q4NDkzZTVmZjkxYjlmMzExYTBlNTI2ODI3MjI5OTk=

(article is below, with my response below the article): ------------------

Obama Finds the Bush Center

Hypocrite, statesman, or both?

By Jonah Goldberg

Here’s something President Obama’s biggest fans may need to hear: He’s just not that into you.

Recall that, during the primaries, Obama was probably second only to Dennis Kucinich as an anti-Iraq war and anti-Bush candidate. But he has kept President Bush’s defense secretary and appointed a secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who voted for the war. His vice president, Joe Biden, also voted for the war. Obama himself seems to be in less of a hurry to leave Iraq than we might have expected from listening to him over the last couple of years.

The new president has ordered that his predecessor’s rendition policies remain largely intact, even to the point of using the "state secrets" privilege to block a rendition lawsuit. Obama may have stated categorically that America "will not torture," but outsourcing it is still OK. And Leon Panetta, the new head of the CIA, has said there might be wiggle room on interrogation policy here at home.

The White House also defends the Bush policy of imprisoning, without trial, enemy combatants captured abroad. Obama’s lawyers argued in a court case brought by Afghan prisoners at the U.S. Air Force base at Bagram, Afghanistan, that the "government adheres to its previously articulated position"--the one articulated by those evil Bush lawyers.

Meanwhile, a new Pentagon study commissioned by Obama has found that the prison at Guantanamo Bay meets the standards of the Geneva Conventions. One can only guess how the White House will make use of that finding. At the least, it should provide cover while the administration looks for alternatives to Gitmo that might not be all that alternative.

On the domestic front, Education Secretary Arne Duncan has decided that Bush’s signature No Child Left Behind Act should be retained and moderately reformed. His boldest suggestion so far? "Let’s rebrand it. Give it a new name." Now that’s change even cynics can believe in.

And why not? That strategy worked with Bush’s Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, now known as Obama’s Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

There are many lessons one could draw from Obama’s actions. You might conclude that the self-proclaimed pragmatist recognizes that this is a center-right country after all. Or that he is a hypocrite, a statesman, or both, now that the buck stops with him.

You could say this all shows that Bush’s war-on-terrorism policies weren’t nearly as outrageous as his opponents, Obama included, claimed. Some conservatives might argue that it demonstrates how centrist, even liberal, Bush’s domestic policies were. Obama supporters might claim it proves that conservative fears that Obama was a crazy left-winger were always unfounded. And reasonable people in all parties might suspect that Obama is simply winging it.

But how do Obama’s biggest fans reconcile his contradictions? The slickest approach is to chalk up every about-face and inexplicable decision to Obama’s abiding genius.

"Mr. Obama is like a championship chess player, always several moves ahead of friend and foe alike," explained New York Times columnist Bob Herbert. Translation: The One may move in mysterious ways, but that’s no reason to doubt him.

Self-described conservatives who supported Obama in the election have made a similarly non-falsifiable argument about his qualifications (given that his record was patently unconservative): He simply has a superior presidential "temperament."

Such rationalizations reveal more continuity between Bush and Obama. Their biggest fans and foes seem driven by emotion rather than reason. We’ve seen this before. Bill Clinton moved his party to the right, but a lot of conservatives and liberals couldn’t stomach acknowledging it. Bush was mostly a moderate Republican, but his liberal enemies hated him, and anything they hated had to be "right-wing." Even Republicans who admired Bush couldn’t bring themselves to admit that the subject of their adoration might not in fact be a true-blue conservative.

Indeed, thanks in part to the lazy framing by the media and the pressure cooker of partisan Washington, conservatism became defined as Bushism, liberalism as not-Bushism, even though Bush had campaigned as a "different kind of Republican" and said over and over that "compassionate conservatism" was a sharp break from conventional conservatism.

It’s early yet, but I think we’re seeing with Obama what happened with Bush. The chess master is really just a man who’s figuring it out as he goes along. Sometimes he’ll be right; other times, horribly wrong. But whether he’s right or wrong, left-wing or centrist, liberalism will likely mean whatever Barack Obama says it means.

--Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and the author of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.

© 2009 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

------------------------- My response below:

How weird that you sent that. My friend Tim and I were just talking over the weekend about how The National Review used to be a reliable source for intelligent conservative thought, but how it has degenerated in recent years, culminating in their dismal of William F. Buckley’s son, Christopher (soon after his father’s death no less). This article is no exception to that deterioration.

The first half is basically fact: he nailed the areas in which Obama has NOT brought change, and I’ve been disappointed in all of them. I predict that most, if not all of those areas Goldberg identified as Obama not changing from the Bush era--will be abject failures (including the troop surge in Afghanistan). Just like when Clinton tried to appease his right-wing critics (and look what it got him--they still treated him like garbage).

Over the years, I’ve developed a track record of successfully predicting what policies will work in the long run and which won’t. As a 19 year-old, I was in front of the student center opposing, among other things, Reagan’s trickle down economic policies. As a 20 or 21 year-old, I was in front of the student center opposing Reagan’s covert wars in Central America. I even opposed lame Bush I’s anti-flag-burning policy (only because it was a cynical attempt for Bush I to garner cheap political support). I opposed Clinton’s support for NAFTA and other policies. I opposed Bush II’s...., well, you name it, I opposed it. In my view, the last eight years have been this strange reverie, an alternate reality worthy of a science fiction novel. I told people that every day was a variation of the children’s game called "Opposite Day"--whatever should have been done (improving the lives of Americans), was not done..., and whatever should not have been done (war, torture, violations of the Bill of Rights), was done.

In February 2003, as the Bush clods were gearing up for war with Iraq, I was one of lone voices in the wilderness, showing people U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter’s reports that confirmed there were no WMDs or related programs in Iraq. People mocked me and said, "Wait and see--they’ll find them." (like they would know more than the professional weapons hunters who spent nine years scouring Iraq!). Well. . . ? I’m still waiting. Not Bush. He gave up pretty quickly, acted surprised and then, in consonance with his sociopathic nature, blamed others for it. "Faulty intelligence," I think he said. Either he didn't access to same non-classifed information I had or he is a liar. I'd bet on the latter. It's another behavior common with sociopaths.

Some people also argued with me when I told them how the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen. You’d think I’d get tired of being right about everything, but..., look at everyone who was wrong: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2842 And most of those clowns still have jobs.

Do I claim to be freakin’ genius? Not at all. I just learned a long time ago not to trust information dispensed by those in power, whether it was the Soviet’s Communists Party’s Pravda or the flying circus that comprises the U.S. mainstream media, which is owned and advertiser-supported by the richest corporations in the world. So of course they’re going to present a conservative viewpoint. They use our systems (political, economic, military, media) to further tilt the playing field in their favor and they will refuse to air any viewpoint that doesn’t advocate them being able to "conserve" their hold on power. A defense contractor (G.E.) owns one of our major channels, for god’s sake! How warped is that? Do you think they’ll consistently allow viewpoints on the air that are not favorable to their bottom line, such as ending wars or cutting defense spending? Hello?

But the second half of the Goldberg article is filled with simplistic assumptions, revisionism and overgeneralizations.

Goldberg claims that, because Obama isn’t changing certain Bush policies "it demonstrates how centrist, even liberal, Bush’s domestic policies were." Huh?!?!? Gee, I thought it instead shows where Obama has moved to the Right, where he lacks courage and is, without success, trying to please the GOP stalwarts in a hopeless attempt to appear "bipartisan." I doubt there is any thoughtful, informed person who describes Bush’s domestic policies as being even remotely close to centrist (not to mention liberal). I don’t seem to remember liberal organizations like the ACLU or Amnesty International being happy with Bush’s so-called "liberal" domestic policies. "Bush was mostly a moderate Republican." Huh?!?!? Does Goldberg even understand basic political identities such as "liberal" or "moderate" or "left-wing" or "right-wing?" I wonder what the old Goldwater Republicans would think about Goldberg’s supposition that "Bush was mostly a moderate Republican." Wait. I have someone here who wants to type the next sentence: "Bob Dole here thinks that Bob Dole was a moderate Republican--not W. Signed, Bob Dole."

Whatever Goldberg is selling, I’m not buying. Goldberg even swallows Bush’s ancient campaign line that he was a "compassionate conservative." Bush, more than any politician in recent history, is utterly lacking in compassion. Articles--in fact, entire books--have been written about Bush’s sociopathic traits. One obvious example of this: http://www.slate.com/id/2131451/ But maybe his alleged compassion manifests in his self-proclaimed "sanctity of life": http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bushs-lethal-legacy-more-executions-461610.html

President Bush has always been a death penalty enthusiast. The 152 prisoners he dispatched to their deaths in his eight years as governor of Texas set a high-water mark unmatched before or since.

At no time has Mr Bush seen any contradiction with his avowed commitment to the sanctity of life. As President he has even instituted a National Sanctity of Human Life Day, which, he has said, "serves as a reminder we must value human life in all its forms, not just those considered healthy, wanted, or convenient".

Say, let’s review the trail of death, injuries, maiming and torture Bush has left behind: American soldiers, victims of 9/11 (which he did NOTHING to prevent despite clear warnings given personally to him), coalition forces, Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, people from all over the Middle East jailed and tortured, the victims of his and Clinton’s extraordinary rendition program (almost all innocent civilians from Canada, Germany, Italy). But perhaps the greatest harm came from Bush’s clandestine "War on Non-Wealthy Americans," in which he left another trail of less noticeable victims by harming domestic programs, such as social services, health, housing and education. He used two typical Republican mechanisms to render needed government programs less effective: 1) de-funding; and 2) filling the top levels with incompetent, partisan lackeys (who Bush thought did "a heck of a job"). One of Bush’s early strategists and famous NeoCon, Grover Norquist, is famous for this quote: "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." He still wants to abolish the F.D.A., despite the rise in corporate and Chinese poisonings.

I like this quote better: "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln

One quick look around the American landscape these days and there is no denying that conservatism has laid waste to our once great nation--and Bush II is to blame for much of that.

Yeah, Bush was a real compassionate soul.

Want to try again, Goldberg?

Not a single one of Bush’s policies (or GOP policies since 1981) ever did any good for non-wealthy Americans--at least none of which I’m aware. How’s that for "compassion?" I’m sure Jesus (supposedly Bush’s "favorite philosopher") would be quite pleased with Bush’s performance.

I know why Bush aped the line "compassionate conservative." Did you know that Karl Rove had only two major tactics, and he used them repeatedly (to the detriment of our nation)? First, you identify the weakest aspect of your candidate and then 1) advertise that aspect as one of your candidate’s strengths; and 2) advertise that aspect as one of your opponent’s weaknesses. And, of course, this is Karl Rove we’re talking about, so neither assertion even has to be true! What a great gig Karl had. And he gets to continue it by being a full-time liar on FauxNews!

Back to the silly Goldberg article. "Liberalism will likely mean whatever Barack Obama says it means." I actually laughed out loud at that. Jonah Goldberg, of all people, and only one month into the Obama presidency, is trying to tell us how liberalism will be defined? And he says it will be defined by a centrist, or slightly left-of-center Obama? Did Bill Clinton "define" liberalism? No. If you recall, liberals did and still dislike him because he was a Republican Lite and a D.I.N.O. (a Democrat In Name Only) and sold us out repeatedly. Mike Malloy, a liberal commentator, calls Clinton "the best Republican president in recent history."

"Obama is simply winging it" Again, HUH??? Come on! Really? He honestly believes there’s no thought, planning, researching, evaluation or discussions in Obama’s actions??? Obama thoughtlessly looks at each decision he has to make and just "wings it?" That sounds more like In-Curious George, who bragged about not preparing or being briefed but instead he went with his "gut": http://outfoxingkarlrove.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/woodward-bush-%E2%80%98doesn%E2%80%99t-like-homework%E2%80%99-which-means-%E2%80%98reading%E2%80%99-%E2%80%98getting-briefed%E2%80%99-or-%E2%80%98having-a-debate%E2%80%99/ Sounds like "winging it" to me. And it also sounds goddamn frightening that someone with such an obvious lack of thoughtfulness ever got to play with the highest levers of power in our society.

Goldberg continues: "You might conclude that the self-proclaimed pragmatist (he’s referring to Obama here) recognizes that this is a center-right country after all." It’s a center-right country?!?! Again, I’m laughing as I’m typing this. Is Goldberg referring to country that just voted in large numbers for a guy who shrieking right-wingers accused of being a raging liberal (although Obama is NOT a liberal)? Pssst! Here’s a dirty little secret conservatives don’t want Americans to know: on issue after issue, Americans are more liberal than even they themselves know. When polled simply about their political affiliation, generally 40% described themselves as conservatives, 40% say they are moderates and 20% say they’re liberal (only because people like Oxy-Rush have pounded the drum for the past few decades that "liberal" is a dirty word). However, when polled on their specific stances on specific issues, we have a nation of liberals: http://mediamatters.org/progmaj/report and http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/02/02/cbs-cites-poll-numbers-show-americans-more-liberal and http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/03/alterman_book.html

So, nice try, Goldberg. You and your conservative lapdogs can keep trying all you want to fool Americans. You can keep revising history in a lame attempt to do a makeover on Bush’s horrid legacy and to persuade the more gullible among us that the Republicans’ foot print on America has NOT been disastrous. Keep desperately throwing those race and wedge issues at us. But it would seem that you are now coming face to face with the truism at the back end of that famous Lincoln quote: you can’t fool ALL of the people, ALL of the time.

And there are many of us who know better and will never forgive or forget what harm the GOP has done to this nation we love. And, despite the lack of backbone displayed by Democratic politicians, there are REAL liberals out here with a lot of fire in our bellies who continue to fight the good fight against the evils perpetrated by the GOP.

Goldberg’s sad article is just one more example of misguided conservatives desperately trying to save their ragged little party that, frankly, just needs to go away. Since January 20, 1981, with the exception of the 9/11 attacks, the Republican Party has been more damaging to America than any terrorists or other enemies, foreign and domestic. They are unable to produce a simple list of accomplishments (that have helped non-wealthy Americans). I’d welcome the emergence of a real opposition party that would go toe-to-toe with Obama and present a series of ideas that would actually help instead of harm ordinary Americans. Such a true opposition party already exists but, unfortunately, the Green Party has been kept out of the political debate by the Republicrats. The Republicans tired old "more tax cuts" along with their standard "god, guns and blastocysts" isn’t a strong enough platform to sustain a national politic party. Their current crop of destructive obstructionists in Congress will only continue to further marginalize themselves. I shake my head in disbelieve as I watch Boehner, McCain, Cantor and McConnell call Obama’s stimulus plan proposal to be "irresponsible spending," after they just presided over the biggest drain in on the U.S. Treasury in history--and with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT except for death and fat government contractors! When the stimulus plan money is spent, we’ll have millions of jobs that are doing productive activities. We’ll have new schools, roads, bridges, hospitals--infrastructures that will serve all Americans.

How dumb do they think we are? A lot of us don’t have short-term memory problems. We remember you guys rubber-stamping (along with your compliant post-2006 election Democratic colleagues) the god awful Bush administrations policies. And you start complaining now? It’s so obvious you’re doing this out of pure partisanship, not out of principles, as you would have your base believe.

And as I watch them position Palin, Jindal, Limbaugh and Joe the fucking lying unlicensed plumber as their future party leaders, I simply rub my hands together with excitement and joy and say, with that phony Bush gusto in my voice, "Bring it on!"