A Voice in the Wilderness In Defense of "Mere Conservatism"

A View From The Left: E.J. Dionne

From time to time I post the column of a prominent liberal commentator so as to give you, my readers, a view from the Left of the political spectrum.  This is, un-apologetically, a conservative website, but I am a firm believer in the idea that when once the average American has heard the best arguments each side has to offer, the conservative case will rise to the top every time.

E.J. Dionne is a columnist for The Washington Post and his latest effort is scathing critique of the current conservative movement in the United States.  Dionne beings by pointing out that the Democrats' mantra that the GOP is the "party of no" may not work as well as it has in the past.  Even a committed progressive liberal like old E.J. can read the "stop spending us into oblivion" writing on the wall.  However, the logic Dionne employs to explain why this is so is, shall we say, lacking.

With more than a third of conservative Republicans declaring that our Christian president is a Muslim, just saying no to him is a more than adequate motivation to spend a few minutes with a ballot.

And "no" is certainly more powerful than the mixed messages Democrats are putting forward. In their sweeping victories of 2006 and 2008, Democrats picked up dozens of seats in very conservative districts. Many of these incumbents don't want to be associated in the least with the remarkable record their party has built in this Congress for fear of tying themselves to Obama or the party's congressional leadership, or both. But this means that Democrats are defending their achievements half-heartedly, while Republicans are assailing them without mercy and, often enough, without much concern for accuracy.

No evidence cited for the claim that "more than a third" of Republicans believe President Obama is a Muslim, but why get bogged down in the messy details when their is a great opportunity to bash conservatives, right?

Notice also the tone-deaf nature of Dionne's praise for "the remarkable record their party (the Democrats) has built."  I understand that someone on the far-Left would look at the unprecedented levels of spending, debt/deficit accumulation, and political chicanery to ram through 2,000 page bills that the majority of Americans do not want that have typified this Congress since the beginning of 2009 and be pleased, but is he joking when he condemns moderate Democrats for running as far and as fast as they can from a president with a hovering-around-40% approval record and a congress with a 16% one?

Here is the thrust of Dionne's piece:

The principled case that must be made is that the brand of conservatism seeking power this year is irresponsible, incoherent and untrue to the best of its own traditions. That's clear enough at the most basic level of policy: Conservatives can say that they are deeply worried about deficits, or they can insist that tax cuts matter most. But when they say they can reduce taxes and trim deficits at the same time, they are either deluded or deceptive, and they are playing voters for fools.

But there is something far more troubling at work: the rise of an angry, irrational extremism -- the sort that says Obama is a Muslim socialist who wasn't born in the U.S. -- that was not part of Ronald Reagan's buoyant conservative creed. Do Republican politicians believe in the elaborate conspiracy theories being spun by Glenn Beck and parts of the Tea Party movement? If not, why won't they say so?

He concludes with:

What the current right has on offer is far worse than anything Bush put forward, which means that this election isn't even about whether we'll go back into the ditch. It's about whether a movement that's gone over a cliff will be rewarded for doing so. A victory for this style of conservatism will be a defeat for the kind of conservatism the country needs. And that's a worthy matter to put to the voters.

The brand of conservatism seeking power is "dangerous" and "incoherent"?  Which part?  The "Let's get back to the adhering to the Constitution" part, or maybe the "Let's stop spending irresponsibly" part, or could it be the "Let's protect our borders" aspect of the modern conservative movement that frets E.J. so much?  I know that most conservatives (and many Democrat-voting Americans) want to see marriage remain the same institution it has always been (one man-one woman), so it might be that "radical" view that keeps progressive liberals like Dionne up at night.

I agree with him though when he says we need to put this entire matter to the voters.  I'm sure he'll have a wonderful excuse why it is the Democrats take a wood-shed beating come November, something about how the Right has "tapped into the anger" of Americans and how the surge in support for conservatives and Republicans will be short-lived.  But for now, we can agree that November is very important to the fate of the nation and to the very different, divergent worldviews liberals and conservatives have.