I think we just have a division between the mindless and everyone else.

I think part of it too is simply that Neo-cons and the country clubber RINOs are not at all “conservative”—they just want to keep the Demos out of power at all costs, no matter WHO they”win” with. Thehate for Demos drives them in everything they do, which is why so many heed “the Party line”. Traditionalist conservatives have minds of their own and know that the longer we vote for “the lesser of two evils”, the less of a say we will have in the political arena. And that, I believe, is because of human nature—Americans don’t like to be on the losing side. They want to be “winners”. And these plaid panted Republicans are convinced that votingfor a third party candidate will give us President Kerry, and that they simply cannot accept. THIS is what Bush and Rove are counting on—the base cominghome in November out of abject fear! I don’t have that fear, but I now dislike the GOP as much as I do the Democrats!And I have a mind and conscience of my own.

Quite the opposite, Mr. Auster. Neither group are ‘mindless’. Each has it own persuasive argument and it is this only that drives them to finalize their stands with what appears to be non-argumentive positions. A certain degree of hatred accounts for throwing up this wall between them. It is easier to be defensive rather than elaborating on the issues, right or wrong. I believe they have thought out the process, made their determinations, and gone on with their own convictions.Would there be a difference otherwise?

It seems to me that JFK did get this sort of worship from some of his supporters in the early 60s — not a good precedent!

“Mindless Bush Supporters?” Is there any other kind?

There is a ranking of the Top 10 Worst Government Programs at Human Events online. I don’t necessarily agree with their list, but I thought it was interesting that 7 of the top 10 were enacted under Republican presidents, with two of those happening under George W. Bush. Most of these were under Democratic congresses, but it still gives you cause to wonder about the reflexive association of “Republican” and “conservative” in the national mind. The list is at http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=3209

I am not familiar with _Human Events_; but despite their discription of themselves as “conservative,” the list of “Top Ten Worst Government Programs” and especially, the secondary “Dishonorable Mention” list evince a certain libertarian ideology. To say that the United States Postal Service is one of the ten worst federal government programs is somewhat odd; to include the “Pentagon’s Don’t ask, Don’t tell” and “Immigration laws and inforcement” on the Dishonorable Mention list is to adovate the subversion of morals and country.

I know it’s a quaint notion, but some troglodytes actually think it’s important to show support for the Commander In Chief in time of war. (At least, a serious war.)

They’re not jailing dissidents and aliens as happened in WWI and WWII (and even the Cold War during its Korean conflict phase), but they are mindful of the fact that the “War on Terror” will go on until one side or the other capitulates. Many Bush supporters would openly rebel against him for his domestic stances (trade, aliens, Medicare), but they note that the alternative President is pretty clearly running on a platform of capitulation. And winning the war trumps pretty much any other concern.

It is not necessarily a wrong opinion that the war trumps any other concern at the moment. What is wrong is the deliberate effort to use the war to weaken every conservative position and move America to the left, all in the supposed interests of “maintaining national unity” in the war. Many Republicans and conservatives have shown that this is precisely their aim. In short, the war is being used as a Trojan Horse to destroy whatever is left of conservatism and transform America in a leftist direction. And I for one will not go along with that.

On second thought, I do object to Mr. Pittelli’s formulation. It’s one thing to say that winning the war is our most important concern. It’s another thing to say that winning the war trumps every other concern. The latter could be used to justify anything so long as it’s done in the name winning the war, and, in fact, it _is_ used to justify anything on that basis. That is a formula for mindless acquiescence in whatever the political class wants to serve up, the kind of brainless “rah rah” attitude we see among all too many conservatives today.

Second, the statement assumes that Bush really is doing everything he can to win the war, i.e., to make us safe from Moslem terrorists. But I don’t think he is. The only sure way to make us safe from Moslem terrorism is to remove all Moslem militants and supporters of Moslem militants from this country. Of course Bush is not doing that at all. In fact, he wants to make it vastly easier for people all over the world to enter America.

Thus, in exchange for defending us inadequately, in exchange for NOT DOING the things he OUGHT to be doing, Bush gets an automatic pass to DO all the things he should NOT be doing.

The danger of accepting such a position ought to be evident.

One other point. Previously, people naturally felt some qualms about not supporting Bush when the alternative was an anti-American appeasing lying leftist like Kerry. But, as I’ve said in another thread, Kerry is so transcendently objectionable that there is no realistic chance of his beating Bush. Therefore we can criticize Bush without the concern that we may be helping a dangerous leftist become president.

Well, this article makes the Constitution Party seem a lot less appealing:

http://www.citypaper.com/2004-03-17/feature.html

I have acquired some reservations about the Constitution Party myself as I learn more about it. Some of the views I’ve seen taken by State leaders in the party seem ideologically suspect, and I still can’t tell what their position on Israel is. Considering the effect of the Israeli/Arab conflict on world politics, that seems, at best, a disturbing ommission.

Still, I remain hopeful.

The Constitution Party. What a mess. It’s candidate carries a cornucopia of comedy material for all stripes. Regardless of whether Mr. Peroutka is a hapless and saintly victim, he is the perfect storm, certain to drown anyone that goes near him. I’ll stick to my strategy of voting for the awful Kerry to get rid of Bush the Mexican in the hopes that the Republican Party can be remade after defeating its Mexican leader.

Why doesn’t a nonestablishment, nonweirdo of means run and give us a chance to vote for something?

Hmmmm.
The issue with Peroutka’s daughters seems troubling. I am not as troubled by the scandal involving campaign donations over the limit, as I am morally opposed to limits on contributions.
As for the issue of Israel, I believe that the CP basically thinks that we should stay out of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
I don’t know who I will vote for, to be honest. My goal isn’t to get the 3rd-party candidate elected, but to build up a right-wing third party that will force changes in the GOP. So maybe I’ll vote for someone who is troubling to meor for a parrty I am not totally in agreement with just to try to change the terms of the debate. Or maybe I’ll find another third party. I just know I’m not voting for Bush or Kerry.

As for myself, I’ll never vote for a party that denies the right of Israel to live in peace and to defend herself in wars. We can’t fight the Muslim terror in one hand and let it to succeed in the other hand.
All free Judeo-Christian world should stand together against the Muslim threat. This is the only way to win battle.

In general, I expect that major party candidates will have major character flaws, since to believe in the combination of positions required to be electable demands that one be either stupid or evil. But when one nominates a person solely to represent a consistent, honest, conservative position, why can’t we find someone of merely average decency?

The State of Israel (Eretz Yisroel) need not worry about its defenses. Its survival is under Divine protection. The six day wars are a classic proof of this assertion. The confidence of the Israeli’s in in the Lord G-d who brought them out of the Land of Bondage and who is still today, their chief hope and joy. According to the Abrahamic Covenant..they shall survive!

If I were voting for Peroutka to put him in the White House, I don’t think I could do it. As he has no chance of winning, that is not really an issue, is it?

The City Journal quoted an SPLC hack as saying that the Constitution Party is the only destination for disaffected conservatives. It would appear that they suffer from smallness; a big donor eventually can become their candidate even with great flaws. The solution to that problem is to make the party bigger. Voting for Bush does not solve that problem. Trying to start another party will lead to exactly the same problem in duplicate, AFTER expending a ridiculous amount of effort.

I cannot believe that Peroutka’s family history would be a reason to vote for John Kerry, whose one talent in life is marrying wealthy widows (along with hating his country for more than 30 years).

I agree the idea of voting for the Constitution Party’s “candidate” rather than for Peroutka has some merit. Maybe there is an alternative. Join the Constitution Party but don’t vote for Mr. Peroutka.

Maybe someone can come up with a line by line comparison of Peroutka’s definite skeletons and the skeletons of a credible candidate of the past or present. Maybe this would prove they are similar. I suppose one can’t get much lower in character than Clinton and not be in jail, and maybe Peroutka’s problems are so shocking because they are unfamiliar. If he were a Democratic President supported by half the country, there would be time to scrutinize and to digest the problems.

Still, if traditionalists are to gain credibility, they probably need to be more pure than the usual candidate. Traditionalists would spend more time excusing Peroutka’s behavior than talking about the issues. Joining the Party but not voting for the Party’s candidate would solve these problems.

Traditionalists would only spend a lot of time excusing Peroutka’s behavior if he were to get major media attention, which is highly unlikely. Such candidates get a fraction of a percent of the vote, and less than that much media time. My goal is to increase that fraction, which will encourage the Constitution Party to keep working towards the next election cycle and perhaps generate an iota of media notice after the 2004 election, which might catch the eye of someone in the GOP. All of this is a long shot, in my opinion, but I at least want to go to bed on election night thinking that I have tried my best to send a message to the GOP that liberals like Bush are unacceptable to many of us. That is all I can hope to accomplish in the short term. In 2008, hopefully the Constitution Party will have an even better candidate than Peroutka.

While I definitely do not agree with everything that President Bush has done (or failed to do), I am determined, whenever possible, to vote for a man who fears God more than he fears man; a man who bases his actions, words and decisions on what he believes to be the heart and will of God.

An imperfect man with a Perfect God living inside of him is a far better proposition than even a man with the loftiest ideals and human wisdom.

It is my trust and hope in God that causes me to be counted among the “mindless Bush supporters.”

By the reasoning employed by “tangbang”, a pretty good case could have been made for voting for Jimmy Carter in 1980 instead of Ronald Reagan. Or, does party affiliation keep us from applying that reasoning consistently?

Tangbang evinces the same attitude I criticized at the start. As citizens and voters judging our leaders, we should be looking at the whole man and the whole picture and thinking about what is best for the country. The reduction of that calculus to the idea that “I vote for the most religious candidate” represents a loss of the American civic understanding. But, like so many other things on the right today, it is happening in _reaction_ to the mounting evils of the left and the destruction of a civilized center. Just as the loss of a patriotic consensus across both the Democratic and Republic parties, namely the transformation of the Democrats into an openly anti-American party that is not willing to defend this country, has turned Republicans perforce into mindless cheerleaders for anyone who will defend America, in the same way, the extreme secularization and decadance of the mainstream culture has turned Christian conservatives into one-note cheerleaders for the most godly candidate.

National defense used to be taken for granted and supported by everyone; now it’s not, and must be actively championed. In the same way, basic morality used to be taken for granted; now it’s not, and so people feel compelled to support whoever seems like most moral or godly candidate, regardless of other issues.

The extremism and nihilism of the left and of the “liberal” mainstream have forced conservatives into becoming cheerleaders for the basic values and beliefs that used to be taken granted (or at least deferred to) by everyone. So we don’t have politics any more. We have nihilism versus boosterism.

The below reader’s e-mail, posted at the website of America’s best-known homosexual “conservative,” is a further example of the end of politics.

From AndrewSullivan.com

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_04_04_dish_archive.html#108153351344466011

—————————-

RED-BLUE DATING: Here’s an email that’s telling about where we are:
I am a 49 year old professional classical musician and educator and not a democrat. Your quote today from Margot Mifflin of Salon in her ‘therapy’ session perfectly describes the reaction I have stirred up in a new girlfriend. Like many musicians, she is zealously left-liberal. Her heroes are Ted Kennedy and Hillary. (not Sir Edmund) We share everything in common except politics. I am able to accept and understand her values while not agreeing with them, but am perplexed by her difficulty with mine. She is like the robot on the old Lost In Space TV show. When I explain rationally that I do not think that Rush Limbaugh is ‘evil’, and that perhaps Al Qaeda might better illustrate that concept, she starts spinning around and yammers “It does not compute, It does not compute”. Furthermore, she is constantly asking questions about my views on one aspect of politics or another with every question beginning with either ‘Why’? or, ‘How could you possibly?’…….. In other words, I am viewed as some kind of double anomaly, on the one hand I am one of those neanderthal Republicans, and on the other I SEEM to be a reasonable and civilized one. This is causing her no end of confusion.

————————————-

When liberalism has become the belief that Rush Limbaugh is more evil than Osama bin Laden, then the meaning of conservativism is reduced to believing that bin Laden is more evil than Limbaugh. When liberalism has become flagrant irrationality and bottomless shocking ignorance, then the meaning of conservatism is reduced to (relative) rationality and the possession of a modicum of information. When liberalism becomes reflexive hostility to our country and support for its enemies, conservatism becomes nothing more than supporting our country against its enemies. The extremism of the left strips conservatism any distinctive meaning. It basically means not being mad. Ed Koch, the self-described “liberal with sanity” (which implied that that liberals generally were insane), is revealed as a minor prophet.

Why? Liberals always ask this of others because, as I have learned here, liberals believe rational explanations are required for action that is not liberal.

Why would a 49-year-old man have a “girlfriend”? There’s the source of the problem.

And why are they “making love”? That would be an unwise move in both their ideologies.

I left the “making love” out of my quote of the item because it wasn’t relevant to the point and was also offensive. Who wants to hear about the intimate private life of a stranger? Yet people today feel this is relevant information that they should share with everyone.

I visit the Sullivan site regularly because I often find interesting things there about Iraq, current politics, and so on, while skipping over the homosexual marriage stuff. But the fact is that Sullivan is a bad person, a cultural destroyer. He linked and recommended something at his site yesterday which was so disgusting I won’t describe it, and it makes me think of not visiting the site again.

I know that of which Mr. Auster speaks. And how about this show of typical Sullivan silliness: “All I can say is that if we cannot hear sex and fart jokes on the radio, America is a lesser place. Half a million dollar fine for a single broadcast? Where are we? Tehran?” That’s right, Andy, we’re in Tehran. Poor Howie Stern is being persecuted by theocrats.

It’s amazing how the left has managed to re-define conservatism to the point where anything or anyone who is even slightly out of step with leftist orthodoxy is a “conservative.” Sullivan is the classic example of this. The western ruling elite and their liberal culture are the real theocracy.

Another example of how bad things have gotten can be found in Max Boot’s Walter Duranty-like propaganda piece in the Weekly Standard on ANC ruled South Africa.

“[S]ex and fart jokes” does not come close to describing the grossness of the transcript. I became so repulsed while reading the first page of the transcript that I was unable to read any further. The broadcast (with sound effects) must have been even more disgusting. I am glad that the FCC has given a higher priority to the enforcement of anti-indecentcy standards.

After reading Joshua’s comment, I looked up the Stern transcript too. I hadn’t paid any attention to that controversy prior to this. I gather Stern’s defenders are saying that this kind of filth ought to be on the public airwaves?

Stern is, and always has been, an abomination. Yet because he occasionally makes fun of liberals, some conservatives have considered him a “conservative.”

This may be a stretch, but it seems that the evolution of Stern’s career demonstrates how the cult of “authenticity” inevitably leads to perpetual adolescence. He started out complaining about his personal life, and nowadays he has scripted “improvising” where he discusses things only a twelve year old with a porn habit would find humourous.

I think for some time now a distinguishing feature of left liberals has been their “anti” status: they identify themselves as outsiders and dissenters even when forming a kind of elite in a culture they have strongly influenced.

And Laurence Auster is right. Modern day “conservatives” (right liberals) are increasingly identifying themselves reactively to the left as “loyalists” versus disloyalists, but in a disturbingly thoughtless way (the description of them as “mindless cheerleaders” has also occurred to me).

I tried to make an argument on Australia’s leading “conservative” (right liberal) website (Tim Blair) recently, to the effect that not all was perfect in the West, giving as one example a breakdown in the stability of the family.

You would think this would be uncontroversial on such a site. But the webmistress and most of the posters immediately assumed that I must be a socialist and not “one of them” and to go away. In Laurence Auster’s terms, I was not a “booster” and therefore not a modern day “conservative”.

Sorry, that should have been Lawrence, not Laurence - I’ve confused you with a star of the stage.

Mr. Richardson writes: “I was not a ‘booster’ and therefore not a modern day “conservative.”

The same thing happens to me all the time.

The current controversy over the 9/11 Commission is a good example of this booster “conservatism.” The “conservative” position is that the Bush team was doing _everything_ they possibly could do to protect America (!!!), that it would have been _impossible_ to prevent the attacks (!!!), and that if they did make any mistakes, well, their failures were no worse than those of the Clintonites(!!!), and therefore they shouldn’t be judged _at all_. See the belligerent responses at Lucianne.com to the intelligence memo to the President of August 6, 2001. The title of the memo is “Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S., and it repeatedly mentions information that Al Qaeda agents are currently in U.S. and planning something. The Lucianne people are saying, “See! There’s nothing here! The left has struck out again in its effort to nail our great president! And it was all Clinton’s fault!”

http://lucianne.com/threads2.asp?artnum=130157

In general, the basic leftist view today is that everything is just awful. Leftist conversation consists of an endless whine/gripe about how terrible everything is—with no analysis, no reference to first principles, and no coherent agenda. Instead, just a bath of negativity. Watch an hour of Bill Moyers’s tv show on Friday nights to get an idea what I mean. In contrast, the basic “conservative” view is that everything is great.

“In contrast, the basic “conservative” view is that everything is great.”

Maybe I’m out of touch, but I haven’t found this to be true. As far as bitterness and negativity goes, I can’t really see much difference between mainstream conservatives and liberals, except maybe the degree of complaining and how well they back it up. The left tends to blame everything on some cabal of greedy white men, the right on the nebulous “liberals”. Al Franken, Micheal Moore, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly are all annoying gasbags that make their living by being obnoxious.

In reply to Damon, there has long been a breed of conservative that is perceived as an old grouch, a la Bill O’Reilly. There is plenty of whining among many conservatives about the biased left-wing news media, etc., without a constructive response. Such whining is found on both sides and is a lowest common denominator of human nature.

However, in recent years the most popular conservatives have been the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, whose radio shows are ranked #1 and #2, respectively, in all of radio. They have found that they can attract a large audience through optimism and positive “happy talk”. I refer to the latter as “Rah-rah Hannity” because most of his show for more than a year has been cheerleading for Bush in Iraq. The only real negativity is his counterattack against all who disagree with Bush. Hannity’s encounter with the anti-American left just makes him all the more mindless as a supporter of Bush, and this is the case for a number of conservative public figures.

Interestingly, neither Limbaugh nor Hannity particularly appreciated it when their phones started ringing off the wall after Bush proposed amnesty and open borders (disguised under other names). The optimistic booster attitude of both seemed to be that America was a great country that had absorbed immigrants before and would no doubt do so again. America can do anything, so what is there to worry about? Neither one has the intellectual depth to even follow the traditionalist arguments on the subject. I find the substitution of boundless optimism for actual understanding of issues to be frightening in men who wield influence over the masses.

Mr. Coleman anticipated my answer. I was going to say that, yes, conservatives complain, plenty, but what they complain about is whatever is explicitly the left. Everything about America is great.

“Neither one has the intellectual depth to even follow the traditionalist arguments on the subject. I find the substitution of boundless optimism for actual understanding to be frightening …”

Well put, Mr Coleman! And may I add, the logic of the situation is that once leftists win on a particular policy, it is going to be defended by “conservatives” as part of our happy state of affairs. The left only have to win once, and they can move on knowing that “conservatives” will defend the social change optimistically as some superior facet of our own political system.

Mr. Richardson wrote:

“The logic of the situation is that once leftists win on a particular policy, it is going to be defended by ‘conservatives’ as part of our happy state of affairs.”

I have nothing to add to this. But it’s so good I just wanted to quote it.

I agree that Mr. Richardson has given us a wonderful quote. It’s a great summary of the process that’s been referred to as the “Hegelian Mambo.”

The definitive case of this is the Pledge of Allegiance, authored by a Christian socialist.

What, pray tell, is a “Christian socialist”? Every week, on the front page of The Wanderer, Pius IX tells me they ain’t no such crittah.

Reverend Bellamy was a practicing socialist as well as Helen Keller. He did not preach the fundamental doctrines of the Bible to the extent of the assurance of eternal security while here upon earth and other teachings more in line with fundamentalism as we know it today. His beliefs were more centered on basic moralism.I doubt very much if he would have been accepted in the pulpit of the Conservative Baptist association after they had read his credentials and views relating to Christian beliefs.

Mr. Auster and Clark Coleman are dead on target, as usual. I think it is worth pointing out that we are dealing with some significant historical changes in outlook. The dark, whining, nasty tone of modern day liberals seems, to me, to be nothing like that of the liberals of the 1950s and even the 1960s, who were generally a more positive and likable lot. (Which is not to say anything in favor of their judgement.) By contrast, the sort of conservative associated with National Review (yes, it was once a conservative magazine) tended to be basically pessimistic in outlook, although not despairing. The “happy-talk” type of conservatism associated with Limbaugh and Hannity may be the product of neocon influence. The latter were, at least in the 1970s, divided between pessimists, such as Irving Kristol,and, in some moods, Norman Podhoretz, and “happy-talk” types like Ben Wattenberg, the former representing the more intellectually distingushed type of neocon. In recent years, the happy-talk types seem to have predominated among neocons, and, perhaps by contagion, among mainstream conservatives.