The Republican Collapse

[midcan5]

The Republican Collapse By David Brooks

"...The world is too complex, the Burkean conservative believes, for rapid reform. Existing arrangements contain latent functions that can be neither seen nor replaced by the reformer. The temperamental conservative prizes epistemological modesty, the awareness of the limitations on what we do and can know, what we can and cannot plan.

Over the past six years, the Bush administration has operated on the assumption that if you change the political institutions in Iraq, the society will follow. But the Burkean conservative believes that society is an organism; that custom, tradition and habit are the prime movers of that organism; and that successful government institutions grow gradually from each nation’s unique network of moral and social restraints.

Over the past few years, the vice president and the former attorney general have sought to expand executive power as much as possible in the name of protecting Americans from terror. But the temperamental conservative believes that power must always be clothed in constitutionalism. The dispositional conservative is often more interested in means than ends (the reverse of President Bush) and asks how power is divided before asking for what purpose it is used."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

 

[jreeves]

The Republican Collapse By David Brooks

"...The world is too complex, the Burkean conservative believes, for rapid reform. Existing arrangements contain latent functions that can be neither seen nor replaced by the reformer. The temperamental conservative prizes epistemological modesty, the awareness of the limitations on what we do and can know, what we can and cannot plan.

Over the past six years, the Bush administration has operated on the assumption that if you change the political institutions in Iraq, the society will follow. But the Burkean conservative believes that society is an organism; that custom, tradition and habit are the prime movers of that organism; and that successful government institutions grow gradually from each nation’s unique network of moral and social restraints.

Over the past few years, the vice president and the former attorney general have sought to expand executive power as much as possible in the name of protecting Americans from terror. But the temperamental conservative believes that power must always be clothed in constitutionalism. The dispositional conservative is often more interested in means than ends (the reverse of President Bush) and asks how power is divided before asking for what purpose it is used."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Wow big suprise you mean the New York Times thinks conservative policies are wrong.

 

[Gunny]

The Republican Collapse By David Brooks

"...The world is too complex, the Burkean conservative believes, for rapid reform. Existing arrangements contain latent functions that can be neither seen nor replaced by the reformer. The temperamental conservative prizes epistemological modesty, the awareness of the limitations on what we do and can know, what we can and cannot plan.

Over the past six years, the Bush administration has operated on the assumption that if you change the political institutions in Iraq, the society will follow. But the Burkean conservative believes that society is an organism; that custom, tradition and habit are the prime movers of that organism; and that successful government institutions grow gradually from each nation’s unique network of moral and social restraints.

Over the past few years, the vice president and the former attorney general have sought to expand executive power as much as possible in the name of protecting Americans from terror. But the temperamental conservative believes that power must always be clothed in constitutionalism. The dispositional conservative is often more interested in means than ends (the reverse of President Bush) and asks how power is divided before asking for what purpose it is used."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

What I find interesting here is the title states "Republican collapse;" yet, the article takes a shot at conservatives. And I disagree with the author's assumption that conservatives ask how power is divided before asking for what purpose it is to be used.

Actual conservative thinking would ask first and foremost "Does he/the government need the power to begin with?"

I also have a hard time reconciling the accusation of accumulation of power by the President when I can think of no clearer example of doing such as the "line-item veto." I don't recall THAT one being Bush's.

Note that I am not arguing against the fact that the accumulation of power by the executive branch has not been taking place. I am merely pointing out that it didn't just start with the current President, nor even his predecessor.

 

[midcan5]

Jreeves, Gunny,

The columnist is a conservative writing for the NYT, remember liberals are tolerant even of bad ideas as sometimes we need to understand bad ideas. Where they come from and why.

Bush is a conservative who has grown government and yet made it operate as a partisan corporation full of flunkies. The idea that because conservatism has failed, most admit that now, does not excuse the republicans who espouse conservative principles from what they have wrought.

 

[jreeves]

Jreeves, Gunny,

The columnist is a conservative writing for the NYT, remember liberals are tolerant even of bad ideas as sometimes we need to understand bad ideas. Where they come from and why.

Bush is a conservative who has grown government and yet made it operate as a partisan corporation full of flunkies. The idea that because conservatism has failed, most admit that now, does not excuse the republicans who espouse conservative principles from what they have wrought.

But American conservatism is only successful when it’s in tension — when the ambition of its creeds is restrained by the caution of its Burkean roots.
http://topics.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/BROOKS-BIO.html

I do think that Bush hasn't espoused these ideas, that doesn't mean that conservatism as a whole has failed.

 

[midcan5]

I have a large problem when the only blame assigned for any failure real or imagined is assigned to liberal ideas. Sure everyone is running from the Cheney Bush administration but it is based on conservatism, it primary architect Rove is a conservative, all it support comes from conservatives, so if it is a failure so is conservatism. Sorry, time you guys faced that fact.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_06/009015.php

"For the first time since 1932, conservatives have controlled every branch of government. They had a chance to show they had a real governing ideology, and it turned out they didn't."

 

[Diuretic]

That should be nailed to the forehead of everyone who says they are "conservative" when what they are is just nutty. Now the reactionaries will be frothing. They need to read the article carefully. I have to say it's an impressive piece and while I don't like conservatism I appreciate its place as a bona fide political theory that deserves its place in society as an anchor, helping to guard against the over-enthusiastic excesses of progressivism.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Both systems are broke imo. The two ideologies will remain but the candidates on either side will continue to distort the ideology. Classical liberalism, 1700's, is in no way comparable to what the dems are trotting out today. It's criminal considering the tax first, no solution method that is completely devoid of critical thought. Conservatism today, at least among the candidates, looks more like the 50, 60's liberalism. And of course the founders would look down upon what it has become in terms of spending.

 

[Diuretic]

Both systems are broke imo. The two ideologies will remain but the candidates on either side will continue to distort the ideology. Classical liberalism, 1700's, is in no way comparable to what the dems are trotting out today. It's criminal considering the tax first, no solution method that is completely devoid of critical thought. Conservatism today, at least among the candidates, looks more like the 50, 60's liberalism. And of course the founders would look down upon what it has become in terms of spending.

Nah, problem is capitalism is on its last legs LBT. You won't like it but it is. Best to try and cut a deal rather than continue in denialism. You're obfuscating, sue for peace

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Nah, problem is capitalism is on its last legs LBT. You won't like it but it is. Best to try and cut a deal rather than continue in denialism. You're obfuscating, sue for peace

Hmmmm, what makes you say that, Diuretic? And you're right, I do like capitalism, especially small business.

 

[Gunny]

Jreeves, Gunny,

The columnist is a conservative writing for the NYT, remember liberals are tolerant even of bad ideas as sometimes we need to understand bad ideas. Where they come from and why.

Hard to remember something that isn't true. If you speak for yourself, that's one thing. Speaking for "liberals" who are by and large intolerant of anything they disagree with doesn't cut it.

Bush is a conservative who has grown government and yet made it operate as a partisan corporation full of flunkies. The idea that because conservatism has failed, most admit that now, does not excuse the republicans who espouse conservative principles from what they have wrought.

The entire premise of this statement is flawed. One, in calling Bush a conservative. He is not.

Two, stating that conservatism has failed as fact would be incorrect since conservatism is not being practiced.

Third, you're identifying only one group that you are attempting to hold responsible for anything Bush has done -- Republicans who espouse conservative principles.

Conservatives period, and moderates voted for Bush because the Democrats didn't put anything but a couple of circus monkeys up against him. So before you go pointing your finger at everyone else, look in the mirror. Democrats/liberals and their lack of presenting viable candidates in 2000 and 2004 are just as responsible for Bush's election as if they had voted for him themselves.

And if McCain is elected President thsi time around, it will be for the same reason.

 

[Gunny]

That should be nailed to the forehead of everyone who says they are "conservative" when what they are is just nutty. Now the reactionaries will be frothing. They need to read the article carefully. I have to say it's an impressive piece and while I don't like conservatism I appreciate its place as a bona fide political theory that deserves its place in society as an anchor, helping to guard against the over-enthusiastic excesses of progressivism.

 

[Gunny]

Nah, problem is capitalism is on its last legs LBT. You won't like it but it is. Best to try and cut a deal rather than continue in denialism. You're obfuscating, sue for peace

You probably need to wake up to a good dose of reality.

 

[Gunny]

Hmmmm, what makes you say that, Diuretic? And you're right, I do like capitalism, especially small business.

Wait ... he'll present some examples of how socialism has prospered ....

 

[DeadCanDance]

Wow big suprise you mean the New York Times thinks conservative policies are wrong.

Well, you don't follow politics and political punditry much. Its no wonder you are so often wrong about so many things.

David Brooks is a well known, very conservative opinion columnist, and noted Bush apologist.

 

[jillian]

Hard to remember something that isn't true. If you speak for yourself, that's one thing. Speaking for "liberals" who are by and large intolerant of anything they disagree with doesn't cut it.

Can you really say that with a straight face after all these years of rush, coultergeist and the other rabid righties?

The entire premise of this statement is flawed. One, in calling Bush a conservative. He is not.

I agree...but nor is he liberal. He's just stupid.

Two, stating that conservatism has failed as fact would be incorrect since conservatism is not being practiced.

You can say taht, but the people who made policy for most of the last 7 years claimed they were conservatives and sure had a lot to say about "liberals".

Third, you're identifying only one group that you are attempting to hold responsible for anything Bush has done -- Republicans who espouse conservative principles.

Because the loonies who still apologize for Bush, again, like Rush and coultergeist, keep saying they're conservative.

Conservatives period, and moderates voted for Bush because the Democrats didn't put anything but a couple of circus monkeys up against him. So before you go pointing your finger at everyone else, look in the mirror. Democrats/liberals and their lack of presenting viable candidates in 2000 and 2004 are just as responsible for Bush's election as if they had voted for him themselves.

And if McCain is elected President thsi time around, it will be for the same reason.

Just want to point out that Bush didn't win the popular vote in 2000.

 

[Bern80]

I have a large problem when the only blame assigned for any failure real or imagined is assigned to liberal ideas. Sure everyone is running from the Cheney Bush administration but it is based on conservatism, it primary architect Rove is a conservative, all it support comes from conservatives, so if it is a failure so is conservatism. Sorry, time you guys faced that fact.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_06/009015.php

"For the first time since 1932, conservatives have controlled every branch of government. They had a chance to show they had a real governing ideology, and it turned out they didn't."

The distinction you fail to make is that corrupt does not equal conservative.

 

[Gunny]

Can you really say that with a straight face after all these years of rush, coultergeist and the other rabid righties?

I should counter with Stuart Smally, Jaeneanne Garafalo, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Murtha ... et al? Each and every one foaming at the mouth.

And again, I made it individual. And individually speaking, I do not listen to Rush or Ann Coulter, nor anyone else I consider a "rabid rightie." I'm quite sure I listen to some YOU consider rabid right, but that's to be expected.

I agree...but nor is he liberal. He's just stupid.

He is far from stupid, but to the contrary of your opinion, he has liberal tendencies.

You can say taht, but the people who made policy for most of the last 7 years claimed they were conservatives and sure had a lot to say about "liberals".

I don't have to claim anything. Do their actions fit the definition of "conservative?" No, they don't.

Because the loonies who still apologize for Bush, again, like Rush and coultergeist, keep saying they're conservative.

Just as the loonies that keep making bullshit accusations against Bush and label anyone that calls "bullshit" on bullshit accusations "apologists keep calling them conservatives.

Not by definition.

Just want to point out that Bush didn't win the popular vote in 2000.

Based on current law, that is irrelevant. Of course, it blows my freakin mind ANYONE would vote for Al Gore. The dude is a kook extraordinnaire.

 

[midcan5]

The distinction you fail to make is that corrupt does not equal conservative.

You need to qualify that slightly given this administration's record.

"The reason most frequently cited by voters in exit polls for turning on Bush and the Republicans was "corruption.""

http://www.counterpunch.org/garcia11092006.html

 

[AllieBaba]

We're not the ones who have two primary candidates meticulously polarizing the party and assuring it's doom in the election.