CDZ The fight for the ethical and intellectual fiber of the GOP

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Xelor, Aug 16, 2017.

  1. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    8,096
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,193
    On matters of racially motivated hatred, some Republicans "get it" and some don't. The remarks coming and not coming from various quarters of the GOP make that clear.




    Surprisingly, the divide doesn't appear to be politically founded. It's, quite simply, a matter of intellect and rationally derived ethics.

    It's been well documented and understood that the GOP long ago lost its intellectual way.
    I shared the video of that debate not for the policy stances either individual took, but rather because cast in high relief the differences between Buckley and the so-called New Right. Since founding National Review in 1955, Buckley and his colleagues had been the spokesmen of an intellectual and philosophical critique of democratic mass society as well as the domestic and foreign policies of American liberalism. Beginning with the Republican nomination of Barry Goldwater (whom Buckley supported) in 1964, however, and accelerating in the tumultuous 1970s, the National Review crowd found itself challenged by a group of activists, journalists, and politicians whose criticism of the elite was populist, vehement, bipartisan, and anti-corporate. The question of how these anti-Establishment newcomers from the South and West fit into the conservative movement and the Republican Party, the question of where to strike the balance between populism and conservatism, has bedeviled conservative intellectuals and pro-business GOP officials ever since. [1]

    This is the crisis of the conservative intellectual. After years of aligning with, trying to explain, sympathizing with the causes, and occasionally ignoring the worst aspects of populism, he finds that populism has exiled him from his political home. He finds the détente between conservatism and populism abrogated. His models-- Buckley, Burnham, Will, Charles Murray, Yuval Levin -- are forgotten, attacked, or ignored by a large part of the conservative infrastructure they helped to build. He finds the prospect of a reform conservatism that adds to the GOP's strengths while also, with partisan fealty, obligingly exacerbating its weaknesses to be remarkably dim.

    From the Panama Canal to the Tea Party, from Phyllis Schlafly to Sarah Palin, the conservative intellectual has viewed the New Right as a sometimes annoying but ultimately worthy friend. New Right activists supplied the institutions, dollars and votes that helped the conservative intellectual reform tax, crime, welfare, and legal policy. But that is no longer the case. Donald Trump is the vehicle by which the New Right went from one part of the conservative coalition to the dominant ideological plurality of the Grand Old Party.

    With the New Right's newfound primacy in the GOP, the dilemma of conservative intellectuals, and their liberal opponents, is how to reform the party into one that that understands "conservative" and "contemptible" need not, as Trump has made them, be synonymous. Failing to do so augurs doom for conservative legislation and policies.



    Note:
    1. It is noteworthy, for example, that Reagan sided with Buchanan and the populists in the debate over the Panama Canal. If he hadn't done so he would have alienated an increasingly important Republican constituency. "I think, ironically, that Reagan would not have been nominated [in 1980] if he had favored the Panama Canal Treaty, and that he wouldn't have been elected if it hadn't passed. He'd have lost the conservatives if he had backed the treaty, and lost the election if we'd subsequently faced, in Panama, insurrection, as in my opinion we would have."
     

    Attached Files:

    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. TNHarley
    Online

    TNHarley Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2012
    Messages:
    45,961
    Thanks Received:
    6,842
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +44,101
    Violence is only acceptable coming from people that didnt get a permit to assemble. Violence is only acceptable if they are fighting for the right cause. The right cause is subjective and changes daily. Depending on what our agenda for the day is.
    Dont you DARE call out the other sides intolerance and violence!
    Gotta love partisan hacks!
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. task0778
    Online

    task0778 Silver Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    1,848
    Thanks Received:
    401
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Location:
    Texas hill country
    Ratings:
    +1,690
    I don't think violence is acceptable for any cause. A just cause will eventually get changed, it's only a question of finding the smartest way to get it done in the shortest amount of time. To resort to violence is essentially admitting that either your cause isn't that just or you ain't smart enough or patient enough to effect change any other way, and that says something about you and your side. And yes, there's too much intolerance on both sides of the political spectrum.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. PredFan
    Offline

    PredFan Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2011
    Messages:
    35,000
    Thanks Received:
    5,206
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    In Liberal minds, rent free.
    Ratings:
    +17,473
    Ha ha, a lying liberal proggie trying to tell us what's wrong with our party and how to fix it.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. koshergrl
    Offline

    koshergrl Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    70,318
    Thanks Received:
    10,841
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +31,911
    I know. It's like when atheists try to tell us who is a *good* Christian, who isn't, and What the Bible Means. Or when a racist pig tells us how racist we are.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    8,096
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,193
    Actually, it's not at all like that, but I've seen enough of your posts to know better than think you'd recognize that it's not.
     

Share This Page