What conservatives have become, and will continue to be, if McCain wins

A commenter at Lucianne.com writes:

Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Chris Plante, Monica Crowley, Sean Hannity all saying Republicans should cross over and vote Hillary Clinton in Texas and Ohio to keep her in the race.

So it’s not just Limbaugh (as I discussed last week), but the whole panoply of conservative hosts who are telling their listeners to do this unethical thing. And why? To help elect John “Open Borders” McCain.

Another L-dotter says:

I did my duty, pimped myself out for Herself today in Ohio. I’ve been in the shower all morning and still don’t feel clean.

You’ve trashed democracy and sullied yourself, not in order to achieve something good, but to help elect McCain.

This will be the future of conservatism if McCain is elected, a continuation of the last seven years under Busherino, only worse. Anything must be done, anything—give up your beliefs, your principles, give up national sovereignty, not in order to advance some “higher good,” but in order to elect a Republican traitor who will keep our country open to sharia spreaders instead of a Democratic traitor who will do the same. That’s all the “conservatives” stand for any more. And if McCain it elected, it will be sealed.

And at least the Democratic president won’t be telling us we’re “in a global war against radical Islamic extremism,” even as he welcomes the sharia spreaders to the White House. At least the Democratic president, as he welcomes Al Sharpton to the White House, won’t be giving us lectures on “true conservatism.”

The ONLY chance for these Orwellian lies to come to an end is for the Democrats to win the White House.

- end of initial entry -

Richard W. writes:

You wrote:

This will be the future of conservatism if McCain is elected, a continuation of the last seven years under Busherino, only worse. Anything must be done, anything—give up your beliefs, your principles, give up national sovereignty, not in order to advance some “higher good,” but in order to elect a Republican traitor who will keep our country open to sharia spreaders instead of a Democratic traitor who will do the same. That’s all the “conservatives” stand for any more. And if McCain it elected, it will be sealed.

I’m starting to see your point. And I’m getting really depressed. I’m starting to think that Hillary is our best choice for President. I can’t believe I just wrote that.

However, when I read this, “Patient Conyers hopes to move slavery bill during an Obama administration,” I still think I’d have to vote, reluctantly, for McCain over Obama.

James W. writes:

There is one very good reason for major Republican crossover voting. If it causes enough grief, people may finally get the idea that the very concept of crossover voting is utterly corrupt, and no state should permit it, much less encourage it. It is a disgusting expression of faux democratic inclusiveness. That is why, of course, we have McCain left standing, which is mission accomplished for the liberal. Turnabout is fair play, and perhaps the only thing that can get the attention of the public to end this practice.

I agree completely that it is very important for the immediate future of conservatism, and so America, that McCain not be elected president. Interestingly, even Ann Coulter, who took the most unequivocal stand on that issue, has given indication she will cave. All of the talk-show hosts have shown that their price for getting back into that marital bed is only a promise he won’t beat them again, but clearly they will settle for even less.

Intrade.com futures betting has Obama at 52 for the Presidency, McCain at 36, and Hillary at 12, with well over 100.000 contracts on, and these markets have a history of being accurate.

It occurs to me that Obama and liberalism may well crash and burn in the real world challenges over the next four years. Not that we can look forward to that experience. But to restate your point, McCain would only mean an accelerated descent for conservatism, and with his (one) term done we would undoubtedly face instead eight years of a more sophisticated Obama and his fainting voters, and with an even more enervated Republican base.

Steven H. writes:

I would vote for Hillary in the primary because if she gets the nomination, she would be the worst thing that could enter the White House next year. Republicans with their legion of talk show hosts would go at her full tilt and we’d probably would “just” wind up losing the Supreme Court for my lifetime and have slightly higher taxes.

With Obama, we’d have a black racist couple lecturing America about our “souls” and how we “white America” would need healing. Lord only knows the end of that road. The Republicans would cower in fear and applaud his “brilliance” and give muted criticism of his leftward lurch. Their would be zero accountability. Talk show hosts would also cower with fear of charges of racism. Rush and Laura would giggle with their jabs saying it’s all in good cheer. Remember, we conservatives are lovable fuzzballs.

Obama’s policies would kill small business. His foreign policy would leave us beyond repair.

Sorry. I have little faith in conservatives to rise up until it’s almost the end. The movement that you dream of will occur only if we are in the throes of a terrible depression or some other catastrophe.

Vote for McCain. Even some talk show hosts have the courage to criticize him.

Jake J. writes:

In particular I’m responding to this from Steven H.:

“[Obama’s] foreign policy would leave us beyond repair.”

Nonsense! Would Obama’s policies be horrific from a conservative/traditionalist perspective? Of course they would! Would they damage this country? You bet!

But if Jimmy Carter couldn’t damage this nation beyond repair why grant Obama this capability? It is not true, any more than electing John McCain will assure the passage of an amnesty. McCain is no more an open borders supporter than President Bush and we’ve defeated President Bush soundly several times now and we’ll keep on beating them like drums for however long it takes.

For goodness sake, people, Man up a little bit! We’re in the fight for our country’s life, not every battle will go to our tastes but that doesn’t mean we’ve lost.

LA replies:

I tend to agree with Jake.

“Would Obama’s policies be horrific from a conservative/traditionalist perspective? Of course they would! Would they damage this country? You bet!”

I enjoy Jake’s channeling of Donald Rumsfeld. But let’s hope his evaluation of reality is more sound.

Lydia M. writes:

I hate to be adding downer unto downer, but it’s my opinion that if Obama wins conservatives may appear to be unified, to have rediscovered what they stand for and so forth in the course of opposing him, but this won’t really be the case. In fact, I think that the pattern will be the same one we saw from the Clinton presidency: Conservatives seemed to be pulling together in their opposition to his policies, but after eight years of him, conservatives were so disgusted with him and so horrified at his presidency that they were *more than ever* willing to compromise to get the Democrats out. In other words, a Democrat presidency wore down conservatives in the long run and made them more willing than they had ever been before the Clinton years to abandon their principles. That’s why, for example, the major pro-life organization (NRLC) quietly dropped its opposition to candidates who believe that abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest, so that they could support George W. Bush. After Clinton, that looked like a very small compromise to make. Paul Weyrich explicitly said in the first months of Bush, Jr.’s presidency (when some conservatives were already feeling uneasy) that he wasn’t going to be so quick to criticize W., because when he did that to Bush, Sr., look what it got us.

LA replies

That’s an original and disturbing analysis, and I also think it adds to an old theme of mine:

The more left the left gets, the more left the right gets.

What you’re saying is, the more threatening the left becomes in conservatives’ eyes, the more the conservatives feel the left must be defeated at all costs. This leads conservatives to abandon every conservative stand which they think will weaken their own president or candidate. The only thing that matters is beating the Democrats.

I obviously think this position is mistaken and wrongheaded. I didn’t buy it in 2000 or 2004. I refused to vote for Bush. I didn’t allow my disgust with the Democrats to lead me to vote for Bush no matter what.

The key variable is principle. If the main thing driving the conservatives is fear of the left, there is no room for principle. And that’s going to be the case whether Bush is president, and conservatives feel they must support him out of fear of the left, or, as in your scenario, a Democrat is president, and Republicans get so desperate they feel they must defeat him no matter what, and so they must support a Bush-like candidate. The only way out of this dilemma is having principles and staying with them and building up a politics and finding candidates based on them.

In this connection, see John Podhoretz’ lead article in the March Commentary (it’s long and can be skimmed), in which the only thing that matters is whether the GOP is beating the Democrats, and the only thing determining whether the GOP beats the Democrats is whether the U.S. is “winning” in Iraq. All other political goods are subordinated to those two things.

Van Wijk writes:

Steven H. wrote: “Sorry. I have little faith in conservatives to rise up until it’s almost the end. The movement that you dream of will occur only if we are in the throes of a terrible depression or some other catastrophe.”

I have largely kept out of the debate on our next president because, frankly, I have no hope for the survival of the United States of America. I know that LA is optimistic about our chances of a comeback, and if history proves him right, no one will be happier than I. However, I think the U.S. is doomed.

My hope is that a New Nation will rise phoenix-like from the ashes of the old; a nation that is from its founding explicitely pro-European culture, pro-Christian, anti-free trade and anti-immigration. The longer we wait the more time our enemies will have to replace us through open immigration and demographics. The sooner we can bring issues to a head, the better our chances of survival.

I say Bring It Down.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 04, 2008 09:59 AM | Send