June 28, 2010
Rolling the Conservative Movement: Seduction on the Right
By Jay Valentine
There are “movement conservatives,” and there are politicians who change their stripes for every occasion. Right now, the conservative movement is getting rolled by the latter.
Let us remember another day. Health care was all the rage (at least in the press), and leading “conservatives” were leading the third way. Newt Gingrich was working with Hillary Clinton on a more gradual route to universal health care, according to the New York Times and other sources.
“Conservative” Mitt Romney was building the Massachusetts universal health care along “business” principles fresh from saving the Olympics.
Now what? Well, Obama, the Tea Party, and Sarah Palin have lit a fire in the country, and every politician of every stripe has taken notice. And guess what: Newt Gingrich is all about repealing universal health care. Mitt Romney is all about anything other than what happened in Massachusetts.
Another example? Take Karl Rove. We now hear him every week on Fox News talking about the minutiae of how Obama has overreached. His book is titled Courage and Consequence. Again, let us hearken back a few years.
Karl Rove and George Bush gave us Obama and Democratic majorities in both houses. They rolled the conservatives by touting George Bush as a “compassionate conservative.” Has anyone forgotten the greatest spending spree until Obama? Has anyone forgotten the prescription drug benefit — pushed through Congress with muscle foretelling what was later to come from Rahm and Obama?
What courage? Just look at the consequences — and conservatives are buying that book?
Remember the “no new taxes” George Bush, sold as the “conservative” successor to President Reagan. One recalls “a kinder, gentler” conservative. Conservatives got rolled again.
Conservatives always get rolled with modifiers.
Well, here we are again.
We movement conservatives and the Tea Party are about to get rolled. We are going to get sucked in by candidates like Huckabee, who just realized the error of his ways in pardoning a criminal who murdered four Seattle police officers; Romney, who is a perfect reflection of whatever is going on in the body politic; and Gingrich, who uses every technical buzzword to convince people he is some kind of new idea machine.
Yet each, when the winds came in from the west, was quite different. Moderate, perhaps? Or nonpartisan? Or just a reflection of what they thought might get them elected.
Critical thinking demands that we remember these people in their milieu — what were they in different times? When times were liberal, they were, well, less conservative. When the press said people demanded less partisanship, Newt and Hillary traveled and spoke together, almost holding hands.
It is time we realize that there are “movement conservatives” and there are opportunistic conservatives. Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Steve King, Jim Demint, and a host of emerging new candidates are movement conservatives.
What is different about them is they are conservative in their core, not in their clothing. When times get tough for conservatives, nothing changes. So when times get better, they aren’t likely to compromise.
People amazingly recall Reagan today as a “great president.” Not Bush, not Nixon, just Reagan. Well, let us recall why — he was the only movement conservative elected in the last fifty years. Reagan was great because he was a movement conservative; he never did anything just to get along or get elected.
The changes needed in America today are not a matter of degree; they are a matter of kind. The entire American mindset must fundamentally change away from democratic socialism and toward individual self-reliance.
That mindset is changing. The political class, however, is not, at least if at all – not enough.
The changes needed in America require saying “no” in a big way and being vilified in the press. Our leaders need to be able to stand up to massive left-wing media resistance and not compromise the core.
This can be done only by a movement conservative.
Repeal ObamaCare, not reduce it. Stop long-term welfare dependency, not alleviate it. Change the tax system so everyone participates, not just reduce top rates. Embrace free enterprise, not just regulate it less. End the dominance of the NEA. Vouchers everywhere, not just in Cleveland. Get rid of the Departments of Energy, Education, and Commerce, and then get started reducing government.
Gingrich, Romney, Rove, and Huckabee are trying to seduce the conservative movement into another dance with a newly found conservatism. If any of their ilk get elected, we will have “socialism, more slowly.”
We will lose the greatest opportunity in a political lifetime to change the direction of the country.
Palin, the Tea Party, Bachmann and others are the real deal.
We must always remember how we got here — looking at national bankruptcy. It was with “compassionate,” “kinder, gentler” modifier conservatives who found conservatism when the wind blew that way.
Jay Valentine was the Field Director for the Jim Buckley for Senate campaign in Connecticut in the 1980s and ran the primary against U.S. Rep. Nancy Johnson in the Connecticut 6th District. Johnson was a RINO
June 25, 2010
The Leftist ‘Purification’ Movement
(and why that ought to scare the hell out of you)
By Andrew Thomas
To the contemporary conservative, progressive ideology is often murky and incomprehensible. It is very difficult for some on the right to understand the apparently illogical and unrealistic machinations of the radical leftist mindset. Their political objectives, if achieved, inevitably lead to further demands for concessions toward an ever-greater ideological purity.
Something even darker and more malevolent is happening, however. The various radical leftist factions and special interest groups are rapidly coalescing into a global movement.
A comprehensive and enlightening treatise on this topic was recently published in Orbis, the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s journal of world affairs, written by University of Buffalo professor Ernest Sternberg. The article is titled, “Purifying the World: What the New Radical Ideology Stands For.” It will open your eyes and scare you to death.
In Steinberg’s analysis, from the historical ashes of failed fascist and communist regimes, a new totalitarian ideology is emerging.
Though a mouthful, world purificationism would do well in expressing what the movement wants. It wants to achieve a grand historical vision: the anticipated defeat of imperial capitalist power in favor of a global network of beneficent culture-communities, which will empower themselves through grassroots participatory democracy, and maintain consistency across movements through the rectifying power of NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations), thereby bringing into being a new era of global social justice and sustainable development, in which the diverse communities can harmoniously share an earth that has been saved from destruction and remade pristine.
The sworn enemy of the purifiers is simply referred to as “Empire” (preceding it with “the Evil” is not necessary, apparently). Empire’s evil manifestations are capitalism and Zionism. The geographical focus of purificationism’s hatred is the United States and Israel.
Steinberg compares the new movement to previous anti-capitalist and anti-Zionist movements:
Unmentionable for decades in progressive scholarly company, the similarity between totalitarianisms has once again received academic attention, in part because of interest in comparing Soviet, Maoist, Khmer, and Nazi genocides. The new work has renewed appreciation that fascism and communism did not just have similar regimes. They also shared parallel ideologies. [...]
Convinced that they have this unique mission, they must motivate hatred of opponents. They carry out or at least legitimize ruthless violence. And they assert the privilege to shape life’s purpose and meaning for millions.
The purificationist dream is a world without borders, governed by a global network of NGOs. Almost all current activist organizations containing the words “green,” “justice,” “peace,” or “solidarity” would find a position in the ruling structure. These NGOs would gravitate toward forming a totalitarian regime since, as Steinberg points out, they are “unaccountable to an electorate and escape political checks and balances[.]“
Even more disturbing is the strengthening coalition between progressivism and radical Islam. Steinberg’s piece includes a quote from George Galloway, a progressive British parliamentarian, when asked if Muslims and progressives could unite in a common cause.
Not only do I think it’s possible but I think it is vitally necessary and I think it is happening already. It is possible because the progressive movement around the world and the Muslims have the same enemies… They have the same interest in opposing savage capitalist globalization which is intent upon homogenizing the entire world turning us basically into factory chickens which can be forced fed the American diet of everything from food to Coca-Cola to movies and TV culture… So on the very grave[,] big issues of the day — issues of war, occupation, justice, opposition to globalization — the Muslims and the progressives are on the same side.
To me, this sounds like a coalition between factory chickens and poultry butchers. But it exemplifies the unreality in the strategic thinking of progressives. They visualize a world of communities living in perfect harmony with nature and each other, with minimal industrial activity, no profit motive, and no greed. Everyone is tolerant of other’s beliefs (unless one is a capitalist or conservative). How they intend to deal with the violent intolerance of Islam toward other religions and cultures is not considered.
It is imperative to thoroughly understand this evolving ideological movement in order to effectively resist it. The socialist ideology is so pervasive that it will probably never be completely defeated. Time after time, it has been seemingly destroyed and discredited, only to rise again in a new incarnation. Its adherents play by no rules (other than Alinsky’s), and their ends justify any means required.
One issue that Steinberg does not address is the pervasive, unrelenting propaganda machine that constitutes the progressive mainstream media. As long as free-thinking individuals are misled and kept ignorant of the purificationist agenda, the infiltration of our institutions and the destruction of our freedoms and values will continue.
We who believe in capitalism, the U.S. Constitution, and individual liberty must do everything possible to educate others and disrupt this movement. Otherwise, the sweet dreams of the purifiers will inevitably result in an unending totalitarian nightmare of global proportions.
Andrew Thomas blogs at darkangelpolitics.com.
Che Guevara was an international terrorist and mass murderer. During his vicious campaigns to impose Communism on countries throughout Latin America, Che Guevara trained and motivated the Castro regime’s firing squads that executed thousands of men, women, and children.
John Holdren, President Obama’s “science czar,” served on the board of editors of a magazine whose personnel were accused of providing vital nuclear information that helped the Soviet Union build an atom bomb.
So they say; Nazis (and by implication all “right- wingers,” past and present) were inherently wicked. Their agenda was evil from A to Z, their methods along with their goals.
