Our president is probably not as intelligent as his notorious predecessor, so he does not dissemble as well. His arrogant, self-righteous honesty (imagine that!) actually gives us an opportunity. HRS

One of the key developments of the last 200 years of Western politics has been the transformation from “liberal” to “leftist” among the media and political elite. One of the major dividing lines between liberal and leftist is that the liberal believed that open debate would be the friend of truth and the enemy of error, while the leftist believed that the ends of leftism justified the means of silencing debate on key issues. Hence the leftist campaign of campus speech codes, and all the rest of the Political Correctness agenda, reveal the transformation of academic leadership from liberal to Left, to take just one example.

The key weapon in the Leftist effort to stifle debate is the questioning of motivations, sidestepping whatever issue was being discussed. Thus, the constant accusations of racism, sexism, and homophobia, along with the speculations that certain people only favor conservative policies because of their self-interest (e.g. tax cuts are favored not because of principles, but because of “greed”). The impact of a policy on the country as a whole can thus be left out of the discussion.

In light of that, what can we conclude about both the private beliefs and the public rhetorical style of George W. Bush, as he talks about “resentment” and “condescension”? Have they been informed primarily by the Anglo-American conservative tradition of Burke et al., or by the 19th century classical liberal tradition, or by the style and substance of modern Leftism?

Thanks to Mr. Coleman for that excellent summary of the issue.

We could take his analysis further. A right-liberal believes in rule of law, individual rights, and security of property, and he makes at least a show of deference toward the common American identity based on our Judeo-Christian heritage. In brief, the right-liberal believes in Balint Vazsonyi’s four principles of America. Most importantly, the right-liberal believes in freedom of speech and the recourse to reason in public debate.

The left-liberal moves further and further from those right-liberal beliefs toward the leftist values of social justice, group rights, redistribution of wealth, and an openly expressed indifference or hostility toward our common culture and our Judeo-Christian heritage. What still makes the left-liberal a _liberal_, rather than a _leftist_, is his professed belief in freedom of speech and the recourse to reason in public debate. However, once the left-liberal becomes so committed to the realization of leftist goals that he seeks to shut down freedom of speech because he sees them as obstacles to that realization, he has crossed the threshold from left-liberal to leftist.

I’m not saying that Bush’s PC attempt to suppress discussion about immigration and global democratization make him a leftist. Nevertheless, the analysis helps us to identify what is at the very least a leftist tendency in Bush’s political rhetoric

By the way, I argued earlier that Bush has already turned against three of Vazsonyi’s four principles:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/002090.html

Mr. Coleman’s formulation of the difference between a leftist and a liberal is quite interesting. The liberal - what today we would call a Republican or a neocon - naively believes that adopting liberal principles right now will naturally result, ultimately, in the utopian End of History; or even that the End of History has already arrived, and all that is left to do is cleanup. The leftist has had some encounter with reality that disabuses him of that notion; thus the need to break some eggs (contra liberal principles) in order to make the big utopian omelett. The genuine alternative - unequivocal repentance from liberalism - is unthinkable.

This is a good way of expressing the fact that liberalism and leftistm are fundamentally the same ideology, but with different tactics. All political contests in the modern age are intramural. It is also a good way of highlighting the fact that today’s ‘conservatism’ is really liberalism, and today’s ‘liberalism’ is really leftism. A liberal believes that with free speech, liberalism will win out in the end; a leftist recognizes that more persuasive means are necessary in order to rid ourselves of the prejudices and tyrannies of the past to make way for the emergence of the free and equal ubermensch.

I posted my last before seeing Mr. Auster’s of 1:25 PM.

We know that when a left-liberal loses patience with reality and attempts to shut down all debate he becomes a leftist. I don’t think we have a good name for when this happens to a right-liberal like Bush. “Neocon” is about the closest thing I guess, but with its baggage it doesn’t seem quite right. Nevertheless the right-liberal thought police do seem to hang out with the neocons. Thoughts?

But Matt, if you look at my earlier article on Bush linked in my comment of 1:25 p.m., you’ll see that by abandoning three of Vazsonyi’s four principles of America, Bush is already something of a left-liberal rather than a right-liberal, which removes that particular obstacle to considering him a leftist.

However, Matt’s suggestion of a new political phenomenon, neoconservative PC, should also be considered. The utter refusal of neocons to entertain contrary argument on certain key issues definitely has a PC ring to it. (For example, look at the mindless article on immigration by the ineffable Tamar Jacoby in the current Commentary.) Of course it’s more complicated than that, since, in most areas of political discussion, neocons remain devoted to and skilled at rational argument, probably more so than any other faction in mainstream politics.

Surely Mr. Coleman was in no doubt about the answer to the last question in his 1318 post? HRS

“Surely Mr. Coleman was in no doubt about the answer to the last question in his 1318 post?” No, that was what lawyers would object to as a “leading the witness” question.

I seem to recall having read a recent discussion here about Neocons—not Mr. Auster’s superb “The Neocons Go Left” column, but another in which he (Mr. Auster) was being attacked by a liberal who had graced this chat with his presence (Not Mr. Hornak—someone else). I seem to also recall—but also not clearly—another discussion, perhaps on another site, regarding “What is a Neo-con?” and that site’s position that “it is a euphamism for a Jewish conservative”—describing Bill Kristol, his father and at least one of the lads over at NR, among others.

If in fact, “Neo-con” has NO ulterior (Semitic) meaning (and I have no reason to believe that it does), then there is no point in my trying to make the silly point that as Bush is not Jewish, he cannot therefore be considered a Neo-con.

If Mr. Auster can direct me to that VFR discussion about Neo-cons, Bill Kristol’s father, etc., I would love to revisit it!

I’m not sure which article is meant, but you could start with “Irving Kristol shows the true meaning of neoconservatism” on the right column of the main page.

“Not even Clinton was as PC as this ignorant, piously liberal, Republican president.”

Clinton wasn’t stupid enough to believe what he said. He simply lied. Bush is sincere.

Moderates are dangerous people.

The distinguished historian Forrest McDonald was asked to write the new introduction for the 2003 edition of “The Roots of American Order” by Russell Kirk. He noted that, after you see Kirk trace the development of the American political order over a 2500 year period, you will doubt that such an order can be imposed overnight in Iraq or any other such place that lacks the heritage to quickly absorb it. I guess that places Forrest McDonald on the side of the “condescending” conservatives (or is it realistic conservatives?) and thus on the wrong side of our visionary president.

The brief and readable introduction can be found online at http://www.isi.org/books/content/105intro.pdf
I recommend the book to everyone here, and the concise intro will give you a good idea of it.

Adding to Mr. Coleman’s most recent remark, I guess we can add George Will to the condescension list. His recent piece in the Opinion Journal raised doubts about the ability of Iraq to erect democratic principles out of thin air as well.

I’m going to go out on a limb a bit and call Bush a leftist. True, he’s not your garden variety socialist or Marxist like so many in the American media. He really falls into the “third way” category of Gramsci. Bush is a Tranzi, or Transnational Progressive, to borrow a phrase from John Fonte’s article. He sees the advance of corporate interests as a vehicle to bring about the ever-elusive utopia, while taking care to couch his Tranzism in Christian terms.

Like so many in the upper echelon of the corporate world, he sees all people (except for the ruling elite class) as simple interchangable economic units - limousine liberalism writ large, as it were. He thus has no moral qualms about inviting in the entire third world to bid for jobs in America. To him, a 22 year-old white kid from southern Missouri is no different than a 22 year-old illegal immigrant from the Congo. A peon is a peon is a peon. Transnational Progressivism seems to have grafted together the worst aspects of both capitalism and Marxism - truly a marriage made in hell.

For all practical reasons Bushes are an American nobility. Starting with GHWB kids they are noblemen without noblesse oblige (SP?). Neil and GWB are classic crony capitalists. Comes as no surprise that they are so close to Mexican mafia-elite.

Being a crony capitalist and, likely, not very instrospective, El Presidente probably fancies himself as a hard core free market enterprener. Surrounded by second rate economic advisors, it is not a surprise that El Presidente record in job creation is the worst since Herbert Hoover.

Bush is a stubborn, arrogant and can outplay Congress and Dems almost any time he chooses. If he is re-elected a tremedously bad immigration reform will come to pass. In light of this what difference does it make if Bush is PC-center-liberal or Neo-conservative-PC-center-liberal.

What I’m interested in is what can we do to retire El Presidente in November.

I have not one word to say in defense of bush. Nor do I intend to vote for the miserable creature in the fall. I readily agree that he must be toppled before he drags the Republican party and the country down to irretrievable ruin. However, I have a sense that many who post here may be kidding themselves about just how bad a Democratic Administration will be, especially if the Democrats regain control of Congress. I may offend many here, but I think that Clinton, for all his faults, was far from the worst the Democrats can offer, aside from the fact that he was restrained, to some extent, by opposition domination of Congress. He was, in fact, the best and most reasonable Democratic President since Truman. (Which tells you what I think of JFK, LBJ, and Carter!) With Gephardt and Lieberman out of the race completely, we will not get anyone that tolerable this time. If we are resolved to get rid of bush, we must face the fact that we are going to have an extremely unpleasant four years, at least, and plan on how to deal with that. I suspect that without this, many people who NOW condemn bush will, during the election campaign, lose their nerve, or be so disgusted by the way the Democrats will behave that they will fall back into supporting the incrumbent.

Mr. Levine and I see exactly eye to eye. A Kerry presidency would be a horror for this country. That is why I try to get people to face that reality squarely now, to recognize and assimilate beforehand the real costs of a Democratic victory, so that they will be ready to pay those costs and not be tempted at the last minute to go running back to Bush.

If the goal is to move the GOP rightward, it is not clear that a Bush defeat is mandatory. I will not vote for Bush, but I will vote for the Constitution Party. I hope that a significant swing of popular votes to the Constitution Party will turn some heads in the GOP. At the same time, I am pretty certain that Bush will carry my state of Virginia pretty easily.

Maybe it is a fool’s hope that the GOP will pay attention to popular vote totals for third parties, but maybe not. It will be trumpeted by the news media if Bush gets less than 50% of the popular vote, for example, and voting for a third party candidate has the same effect on Bush’s percentage as voting for Kerry does. It has only half the effect as far as defeating Bush, but I cannot vote for the likes of John Kerry. He and Dean and Clark were all equally bad in different ways. There is still the possibility of Bill Richardson of New Mexico being the VP nominee for the Democrats, and he is the biggest advocate of open borders among any of the politicians we have discussed.

Meanwhile, there are other ways to move the GOP rightward: writing congressmen, donating to immigration groups, public advocacy through the web and talk radio and letters to the editor, etc. It is hard to measure effectiveness of many of these things, but I want to cast a positive vote for someone I agree with. Voting for Kerry, and voting for Bush but not really liking him, are both examples of casting a calculated vote for someone you don’t like. I prefer to vote for someone I like; I am tired of doing otherwise. In order to get my vote, the GOP needs to provide candidates that I like.

I agree with Mr. Coleman. While I had earlier said I was considering voting for the Democratic candidate to help defeat Bush, I could under no circumstances vote for Kerry. I would vote for some third-party candidate I liked.

I agree that many will lose their nerve and vote for Bush out of disgust for Kerry. The thing to remember is that we are in a vicious but still nonviolent war for our country, culture, religion, and race. Bloodless sacrifice is required so that we never to get to the point of actual bloodshed; this is the key thing the South failed to see in 1861, and understandably so, in a time when war was a far more acceptable way to resolve differences than today. From that perspective, voting for Kerry is child’s play. Voting for Kerry is a baby step in what we should realize could be a very long, arduous road. No one expected the Soviet Union to collapse or the Berlin Wall to fall. But our nonviolent pressure did make them crumble, even though the collapse was swift, total, and UNEXPECTED.

It is best to put aside the idea that we are picking friends for a fraternity or to play an honorable game or to elect a dog catcher. Recall that we had to unite with one mass murderer (and maybe the biggest of all time), Stalin, to defeat another mass murderer, Hitler. We are in a vicious war with a vicious enemy, and Bush is a member of the enemy camp. His good qualities? Even the members of the Nazi SS had a code of honor and were loving husbands, dog owners, and fathers; they also loved their country. Bush is not comparable to an SS member; the point is his good qualities simply are not a decisive reason to vote for him.

What an eloquent and powerful statement by Mr. Murgos. Everyone on our side should read this.

I am very flattered by praise from Mr. Auster and appreciate it. I would like to add that I also am thinking about joining the Constitution Party so we will have a means for organizing and getting our message out and having something to work for rather than against. But when the time comes to vote and a vote for the Constitution Party cannot defeat Bush but a vote for Kerry can, I will vote for Kerry. Of course, I am willing to listen to the opposing reasons.

Another angle on this is that the polarization of the country has rendered most states firmly in one party’s camp or the other, so that, unless we live in one of the swing states that could go either way, our vote is virtually irrelevant. Thus New York’s electoral votes will go to Kerry no matter what I do. But if I lived in Pennsylvania or Michigan or Florida, I might feel that my vote, combined with those of others, could have a real impact.

As the election day approaches, I think each of us needs to pay attention to those noxious public opinion polls and see where we think our state is going to go with its popular vote. If your state is within the margin of error of the polls, and the trend in the past in your state makes it credible that your state might go either way, you have a tough choice.

If your state is definitely going for Kerry, what good does it do for you to vote for Kerry instead of the Constitution Party nominee? Ditto if your state is definitely going for Bush? Votes for Kerry in either case are not as clear a signal as votes for a third party candidate.

As between voting for the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee and voting for a principled conservative party’s candidate, I favor casting the principled vote.

The message such a vote sends is clear and unambiguous: [in the Constitution Party case, at any rate,] this is a vote for constitutional federalism and a repudiation of the Republicans because of their abandonment of any semblance of conservatism. Any vote for a Democrat can be misconstrued as a vote for the Democrats’ Leftism rather than as a disgusted repudiation of BushRovicanism (which, of course, we repudiate because of its own Leftism). Given the increasingly over-the-top Leftism of “mainstream” Democrats, we can be sure that votes for Democrats will be interpreted by the press as votes for their race-baiting socialism, not for its opposite.

Another calculation affecting how to vote is that of the vote’s weight: the possibility of its having any effect on the outcome. In states where the result of the presidential vote is a foregone conclusion, one loses nothing in ability to hurt Bush by voting third-party rather than for the Democrat. That is especially true in safely Democratic states. In states where the presidential vote will likely be close, all one loses by voting third-party is the incremental additional harm one can do Bush by voting for the other competitive candidate. (I assume that no third party candidate will be competitive in any state’s electoral college race. I hope I am wrong.)

Finally, it is easier to live with one’s conscience knowing that one has not voted for a candidate who favors abortion on demand, has adopted (as have all Democratic candidates this year) an open borders position even more anti-American than the president’s, has no idea how to defend the country and no interest in restraining the federal government.

None of this is to argue with Mr. Auster’s view, which I share, that Bush must lose if there is to be any chance either of a competitive new conservative party arising or of conservatism gaining any sway over the Republican Party. I’m not sure supporting Democrats is the best way to oppose Bush and support conservatism. HRS

Messrs. Auster, Coleman and Sutherland are thinking alike… HRS

The Coleman/Sutherland logic is unimpeachable, at least as far as “safe” Democratic or Republican states are concerned. In those states the only thing to do is vote for the Constitution Party or something like it. There is still a worm of doubt as to what to do in a close state. Mr. Murgos’s argument cannot be lightly dismissed.

“The thing to remember is that we are in a vicious but still nonviolent war for our country, culture, religion, and race. Bloodless sacrifice is required so that we never to get to the point of actual bloodshed …”

IMO, politicians will not listen until citizens pick up weapons and begin to resist. It’s just a fact. Black mobs have learned this lesson well. It’s how they get what they want: wait for an excuse to take to the streets, riot, burn, and kill, and they get everything they desire. It’s been true since the mid 60s. Things will be no different on the matter of immigration.

BTW, I’m not so sure that we are even still in a non violent conflict. Latins, in particular, have poored across our borders and engaged in unrestrained theft, murder, rape, robbery, and occupation. They have no hesitation about THEIR violence. Only the victims, American citizens, continue to act with non-violence. Sheep being slaughtered.

What form would or should or could this armed resistance take, as Paul C sees it?

Followed a link from the website of the Constitution Party of Virginia: “Why Christians Should Not Vote for George W. Bush”. See http://www.wherethetruthhurts.org/tractsbooksread.php?w=59

Mr. Auster, I’m no strategist, but I do think that only when there is a massive, violent armed resistance against immigration will it stop. It’s not a matter of what I want; it’s a matter of what is required. But, obviously, we are not yet close to that moment. Even on this board, most of the contributors have no hesitation in applying violence and force in Iraq but hesitate to do the same in defending their own homes and families within this country. (And just to set the record straight about Iraq: it’s not a *war* against Iraq that I opposed. I was all for THAT. What I feared and opposed was the *liberation* of Iraq.)

Joe Guzzardi has a column on this subject at Vdare.com titled, “It’s Coming…! Here is the link:
VDARE.com-http://vdare.com/guzzardi/the_limit.htm

David, many thanks for the link to the Guzzardi column. Especially interesting was this remark: “It would be a bitter irony if the provisions of the Patriot Act turned out to be used to suppress, not terrorists, but American patriots.” This, of course, is the scenerio envisaged in THE CAMP OF THE SAINTS almost, what, forty years ago.

Contrary to the assertion that rioters get what they want, most of them in our recent history have gotten a stereo or a TV, while also causing their neighborhoods to decline and jobs to move out, thus hurting themselves in the long run.

Some people are not assimilated into the society, so it is easy for them to be destructive. Those of us who want to preserve and improve the society have to come up with an idea better than destroying things, so rioting is out. That leaves other forms of violence.

Violence against immigrants would be a bizarre way to address the issue of immigration. Even if you throw aside all considerations of morality, the only possibly effective violence would be against open borders politicians, and that is quite difficult. Morally, I would have to ask myself, “Can I truly say that I have done everything in my power short of this?” Obviously, the answer is no for anyone whose efforts have been less than heroic. I have personally never even sent a message with my vote in a presidential election, which I plan to do for the very first time in November, so I can hardly say that I have done everything in my power short of violence.

One way that a President steers his party is by pushing one of his comrades into the chairmanship of the national party. Bush selected Mark Racicot as soon as he was elected. Here is a Constitution Party link on Racicot, written by a Montana GOP state congressman who worked with Racicot for many years: http://www.constitutionparty.com/jore/racicot_seems_right_4_gop.htm

Mr. Levine’s (Alan Levine) comments on the probability that many conservatives will opt for “the lesser of two evils” in November are right on the money. I too get the feeling from the top expose the real man, that those of us who are planning to “protest” by voting for Kerry may in the end betray their consciences and beliefs (my words, not Mr. Levine’s) instead of voting for The Constitution Party—and vote for Bush, while holding our noses and breaths. While I personally will not do so (vote for Bush), I have the distinct feeling that other conservatives will.

Mr. Coleman’s superb slant on The Constitution Party vote and how it would “not be a wasted vote” gives us yet another direction. Mr. Coleman’s mention of Marc Racicot is also important. Had many of us known what Bush was going to do in the past three years, he most certainly would not have been elected. Marc Racicot seemed like a smooth and perfect conservative to me during the fight with Gore after the election in Florida—a well-spoken man with Gary Collins’ looks. Racicot was brought in to fight for Bush. He was touted as a conservative. Later, afte the election, I found out he was pro-abortion and liberal on just about every issue. I felt betrayed. I thought he would be a future GOP leader. That should have been the key to figuring out Bush. I think many of us were simply too caught up with trying to keep Gore out of The White House to see who we were actually putting in there.

“I think many of us were simply too caught up with trying to keep Gore out of The White House to see who we were actually putting in there.”

Yes, of course. Conservatives, in their fear of the leftist Gore, put a liberal in office and so lost because the whole conservative movement and the Republican party moved to the left. Whereas, if Gore had won, conservatives would have been more energized than ever. This would especially be the case if Gore had won in the post-election crisis. Liberal columnist Richard Cohen saw that and feared that. That’s why he said in November 2000 that it would be better if Bush won. See my article on this in Newsmax, written during the Florida imbroglio:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2000/11/27/91323.shtml

John Derbyshire does a gret job of lamenting the lack of any constituency for reducing the size of government: http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire200402170920.asp

Of course, if he goes out and votes for Bush as the lesser of two evils in November, I guess he should refrain from writing any such observations during the second term of Bush, shouldn’t he?

As I have said on the forum before, GWB has to be defeated, period ! He is simply enthralled with a Mexican fetish that he will NEVER let go of. If he is re-elected he will open up the borders. If he is defeated, the new Republican minority will understand that its own base turned on it, and perhaps, perhaps, go about reforming itself.

If Mr. Hagan feels that Bush must be defeated in order to prevent him from doing the things he would otherwise do, and not just to “send a message” to the Republican party, then does Mr. Hagan suggest that we cast our votes for the Democratic candidate, as the strongest way to defeat Bush, and without consideration for how our votes would be interpreted?

Mr Auster gets right to the matter: yes, in my mind a Bush defeat is more important than letting the Democrat in office. I hope the Republicans can keep the House where they can stall immigration reform if the Democrats bring it up. Bush only won NH by some 7,000 votes, so this November I may have to vote for Kerry, God forgive me. What makes this prospect somewhat possible is that even if I voted for GWB because of the future of the courts, what would we get from him ? The guy who knee-capped Ted Olsen on the Michingan AA case ?

“Contrary to the assertion that rioters get what they want, most of them in our recent history have gotten a stereo or a TV, while also causing their neighborhoods to decline and jobs to move out, thus hurting themselves in the long run.”
******

Mr. Coleman, the decline in the quality of life in neighborhoods isn’t relevant. Power is. Following the mid 60s inner city riots, the federal government responded with affirmative action, forced busing, and inner city “voting rights” initiatives that turned over one major city after another to black mayors and their tribal enforcers.

More recently, following the 1992 L.A. riots, government and private foundations responded by giving L.A. gangs, who had been responsible for initiating most of the violence, a $1.4 billion payoff ( http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/04/28/la.riot.anniversary/ ). Remember all the stories in the aftermath of the riots about the Crips and Bloods being given “business loans” to open sneaker stores? Still, I guess it’s cheaper than affirmative action.

I’d like to register my agreement with Clark Coleman’s arguments against Paul C. For one thing, violence against immigrants has already occurred, on a small scale. I might recall the incident when two Mexican illegals were beaten, by some native-born hoodlums on Long Island two years or so ago. The incident simply became another excuse for media hysterics about racism. To be sure, if things go on as they are, there will be violence, and on both sides. We need not extend a seal of approval in advance and make things easier for our enemies.

It is commonly said by those who want to give amnesty to illegal immigrants that “there are ten million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and that we need to modify our policy to reflect that reality.” In other words, we can’t do anything to “solve” our illegal-immigration problem other than void our laws against illegal immigration.

Well, here is an anecdote that refutes that notion. In the Houston metropolitan area, many illegal immigrants have stayed away from work for the past several days because of a rumor — which the government denies — that immigration police have been raiding businesses suspected of employing illegals and establishing roadblocks on area freeways to check for valid identification. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory2/2509369

Should the U.S. Government declare something like the following many illegals would repatriate themselves, to wit: “Starting two months from now, the Federal Government will implement a change in its immigration inforcement policy from only targeting for repatriation criminal-aliens to a policy of not tolerating any illegal immigration; the inforcement of this new policy will include raids on businesses suspected of employing illegals for the purposes of arresting and deporting those illegals we find and of investigating and prosecuting employers for hiring illegals.