Why the right fights

[Quantum Windbag]

Damn good column in today's NYT. It should be required reading for all the self declared experts on people like me.

So what you’re seeing motivating the House Intransigents today, what’s driving their willingness to engage in probably-pointless brinksmanship, is not just anger at a specific Democratic administration, or opposition to a specific program, or disappointment over a single electoral defeat. Rather, it’s a revolt against the long term pattern I’ve just described: Against what these conservatives, and many on the right, see as forty years of failure, in which first Reagan and then Gingrich and now the Tea Party wave have all failed to deliver on the promise of an actual right-wing answer to the big left-wing victories of the 1930s and 1960s — and now, with Obamacare, of Obama’s first two years as well.
“They didn’t dare,” Frum wrote of the Intransigents’ Reagan-era predecessors, “and they realized that they didn’t dare.” Well, this time, no matter the risks and costs and polls, there are small-government conservatives who intend to dare — because only through a kind of wild daring, they believe, can the long-term, post-New Deal disadvantage that the cause of limited government labors under finally be overcome.
And if this attitude sounds more like a foolish romanticism than a prudent, responsible, grounded-in-reality conservatism — well, yes, unfortunately I think it pretty clearly is.

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/02/why-the-right-fights/?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0

Fucking right it is foolish, but it is better than the alternative.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's about friggun time the GOP grew a set.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not foolish.
The Dems wanted a shutdown like this so they could blame for the GOP for the following disaster. Obama warned it would be a disaster to our financial system.
Guess what, the shutdown happened and no one noticed much. Of course Obama is trying to do all he can to make the situation as bad as he can. Because he doesnt give a shit about people. Harry Reid doesnt give a shit about children with cancer. But the public isn't buying the gloom and doom. In fact, they're probably OK with just having a government of "essential" services, just like the Founders intended.
With anything like this there is no predicting where it will end up. I suspect the Dems are getting their lunch eaten.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Damn good column in today's NYT. It should be required reading for all the self declared experts on people like me.

So what you’re seeing motivating the House Intransigents today, what’s driving their willingness to engage in probably-pointless brinksmanship, is not just anger at a specific Democratic administration, or opposition to a specific program, or disappointment over a single electoral defeat. Rather, it’s a revolt against the long term pattern I’ve just described: Against what these conservatives, and many on the right, see as forty years of failure, in which first Reagan and then Gingrich and now the Tea Party wave have all failed to deliver on the promise of an actual right-wing answer to the big left-wing victories of the 1930s and 1960s — and now, with Obamacare, of Obama’s first two years as well.
“They didn’t dare,” Frum wrote of the Intransigents’ Reagan-era predecessors, “and they realized that they didn’t dare.” Well, this time, no matter the risks and costs and polls, there are small-government conservatives who intend to dare — because only through a kind of wild daring, they believe, can the long-term, post-New Deal disadvantage that the cause of limited government labors under finally be overcome.
And if this attitude sounds more like a foolish romanticism than a prudent, responsible, grounded-in-reality conservatism — well, yes, unfortunately I think it pretty clearly is.

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/02/why-the-right-fights/?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0

Fucking right it is foolish, but it is better than the alternative.

People like to do what they are told and will copy what they see other people doing.

Progs are sheep that are to frightened to break ranks as they are being lead to slaughter.

 

[Interpol]

That was a really good read. I think Douthat pretty much has it right.

The Teabaggers basically want to go back to the 1920, before modernity began to surpass their dumb asses.

I think they think that if we wound the clock backwards exactly 100 years, that they'll show us how the 20th century might have been had we not had SS, Medicare, basically the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and of course, no Obamacare.

Nevermind that SS and Medicare helped us wipe out poverty among seniors.

 

[Interpol]

Damn good column in today's NYT. It should be required reading for all the self declared experts on people like me.

So what you’re seeing motivating the House Intransigents today, what’s driving their willingness to engage in probably-pointless brinksmanship, is not just anger at a specific Democratic administration, or opposition to a specific program, or disappointment over a single electoral defeat. Rather, it’s a revolt against the long term pattern I’ve just described: Against what these conservatives, and many on the right, see as forty years of failure, in which first Reagan and then Gingrich and now the Tea Party wave have all failed to deliver on the promise of an actual right-wing answer to the big left-wing victories of the 1930s and 1960s — and now, with Obamacare, of Obama’s first two years as well.
“They didn’t dare,” Frum wrote of the Intransigents’ Reagan-era predecessors, “and they realized that they didn’t dare.” Well, this time, no matter the risks and costs and polls, there are small-government conservatives who intend to dare — because only through a kind of wild daring, they believe, can the long-term, post-New Deal disadvantage that the cause of limited government labors under finally be overcome.
And if this attitude sounds more like a foolish romanticism than a prudent, responsible, grounded-in-reality conservatism — well, yes, unfortunately I think it pretty clearly is.

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/02/why-the-right-fights/?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0

Fucking right it is foolish, but it is better than the alternative.

People like to do what they are told and will copy what they see other people doing.

Progs are sheep that are to frightened to break ranks as they are being lead to slaughter.

That's a ridiculous statement.

Everyone knows the right-wing stick together almost always and on everything.

And everyone knows that liberals are made of tons of different specialized groups and that it's a miracle every time they win an election because they're never quite sure even going onto election day if they can get those 10 or 12 groups out.

 

[LoneLaugher]

That article is not very flattering from the perspective of the conservative.

He is basically saying that.....the conservatives have been getting their political asses kicked for nearly a hundred years....and have had enough failure. They are willing to strap on a suicide vest in order to force their agenda on the American people. He is calling you foolish and accusing you of throwing a tantrum.

Think about it......all the great statesmen.....the strong personalities that have tried and failed.....according to the article.....Reagan....Gingrich. And you all think that people like Cruz and Palin will bring you to greater heights?

I would not take that article as a battle cry, QW. But I suppose I can see why you would.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So what you’re seeing motivating the House Intransigents today, what’s driving their willingness to engage in probably-pointless brinksmanship, is not just anger at a specific Democratic administration, or opposition to a specific program, or disappointment over a single electoral defeat. Rather, it’s a revolt against the long term pattern I’ve just described: Against what these conservatives, and many on the right, see as forty years of failure, in which first Reagan and then Gingrich and now the Tea Party wave have all failed to deliver on the promise of an actual right-wing answer to the big left-wing victories of the 1930s and 1960s — and now, with Obamacare, of Obama’s first two years as well.

Conservatives are ‘fighting’ motivated by fear: fear of diversity, change, and expressions of individual liberty, the fear shared by all reactionaries as a society becomes more sophisticated, enlightened, and inclusive; they fear the common-sense pragmatism most Americans today advocate which rejects blind adherence to failed conservative political and fiscal dogma.

The willingness of House republicans, for example, to engage in pointless brinksmanship is the manifestation typical of the desperate reactionary coming to the realization that the change he unjustifiably and irrationally fears is inevitable.

And the motivation is also a consequence of conservative anger at a specific democratic administration, opposition to a specific program, and disappointment over a single electoral defeat – this is indeed very much partisan as well.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We need to take Conservative principles and couple them with 21st century technology

We don't need Federal Departments to control corn production or set the price of milk, that's Old School DemoSoviet Thought.

Individual freedom couple with nearly unlimited access to information will put the consumer back in charge

 

[JoeB131]

We need to take Conservative principles and couple them with 21st century technology

We don't need Federal Departments to control corn production or set the price of milk, that's Old School DemoSoviet Thought.

Individual freedom couple with nearly unlimited access to information will put the consumer back in charge

The problem with putting the "consumer" in charge is that you mean only the consumer who can afford them.

They actually do have a country that follows the TeaBagger philosophy. It's called "Somalia".

Lots of guns. No government. No Social Safety Net. Lots of crazy religion.

 

[Meathead]

We need to take Conservative principles and couple them with 21st century technology

We don't need Federal Departments to control corn production or set the price of milk, that's Old School DemoSoviet Thought.

Individual freedom couple with nearly unlimited access to information will put the consumer back in charge

The problem with putting the "consumer" in charge is that you mean only the consumer who can afford them.

They actually do have a country that follows the TeaBagger philosophy. It's called "Somalia".

Lots of guns. No government. No Social Safety Net. Lots of crazy religion.

Worried about your welfare check, eh?

 

[JoeB131]

We need to take Conservative principles and couple them with 21st century technology

We don't need Federal Departments to control corn production or set the price of milk, that's Old School DemoSoviet Thought.

Individual freedom couple with nearly unlimited access to information will put the consumer back in charge

The problem with putting the "consumer" in charge is that you mean only the consumer who can afford them.

They actually do have a country that follows the TeaBagger philosophy. It's called "Somalia".

Lots of guns. No government. No Social Safety Net. Lots of crazy religion.

Worried about your welfare check, eh?

No, worried that we'll have food riots when the "market" screws up the best food delivery system in the world.

Fact is, the biggest bunch of socialists out there is the agriculture industry.

 

[JimH52]

What is scary is these people only care about their "ideals." They are willing to take the government down, ruin the US credit rating, and throw us into another deep recession or even a depression just to advance their "ideals."

We may be on the verge of losing the title of the world's last super power, and along with it the loss of any global influence that we may have once held. Even Reagan would be ashamed of the GOP House.

 

[The Rabbi]

We need to take Conservative principles and couple them with 21st century technology

We don't need Federal Departments to control corn production or set the price of milk, that's Old School DemoSoviet Thought.

Individual freedom couple with nearly unlimited access to information will put the consumer back in charge

The problem with putting the "consumer" in charge is that you mean only the consumer who can afford them.

Yes. We want consumers to have what they can't afford! That's the socialist way!

 

[The Rabbi]

What is scary is these people only care about their "ideals." They are willing to take the government down, ruin the US credit rating, and throw us into another deep recession or even a depression just to advance their "ideals."

We may be on the verge of losing the title of the world's last super power, and along with it the loss of any global influence that we may have once held. Even Reagan would be ashamed of the GOP House.

The Founders only cared about ideals as well. They were willing to risk a ruinous war and their own lives for freedom from an oppressive central government.
I guess we should be ashamed of them too.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We need to take Conservative principles and couple them with 21st century technology

We don't need Federal Departments to control corn production or set the price of milk, that's Old School DemoSoviet Thought.

Individual freedom couple with nearly unlimited access to information will put the consumer back in charge

The problem with putting the "consumer" in charge is that you mean only the consumer who can afford them.

They actually do have a country that follows the TeaBagger philosophy. It's called "Somalia".

Lots of guns. No government. No Social Safety Net. Lots of crazy religion.

Hysterical OFA shill misread my post. The poor in America live better than the vast majority of people on Earth

 

[eagle7_31]

Damn good column in today's NYT. It should be required reading for all the self declared experts on people like me.



http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/02/why-the-right-fights/?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0

Fucking right it is foolish, but it is better than the alternative.

People like to do what they are told and will copy what they see other people doing.

Progs are sheep that are to frightened to break ranks as they are being lead to slaughter.

That's a ridiculous statement.

Everyone knows the right-wing stick together almost always and on everything.

And everyone knows that liberals are made of tons of different specialized groups and that it's a miracle every time they win an election because they're never quite sure even going onto election day if they can get those 10 or 12 groups out.

What planet are you living on? Its not Earth

 

[Plasmaball]

It's not foolish.
The Dems wanted a shutdown like this so they could blame for the GOP for the following disaster. Obama warned it would be a disaster to our financial system.
Guess what, the shutdown happened and no one noticed much. Of course Obama is trying to do all he can to make the situation as bad as he can. Because he doesnt give a shit about people. Harry Reid doesnt give a shit about children with cancer. But the public isn't buying the gloom and doom. In fact, they're probably OK with just having a government of "essential" services, just like the Founders intended.
With anything like this there is no predicting where it will end up. I suspect the Dems are getting their lunch eaten.

I love your delusions..so entertaining

 

[Plasmaball]

What is scary is these people only care about their "ideals." They are willing to take the government down, ruin the US credit rating, and throw us into another deep recession or even a depression just to advance their "ideals."

We may be on the verge of losing the title of the world's last super power, and along with it the loss of any global influence that we may have once held. Even Reagan would be ashamed of the GOP House.

The Founders only cared about ideals as well. They were willing to risk a ruinous war and their own lives for freedom from an oppressive central government.
I guess we should be ashamed of them too.

Sigh.....no, its like you ooze moron

 

[bendog]

Damn good column in today's NYT. It should be required reading for all the self declared experts on people like me.

So what you’re seeing motivating the House Intransigents today, what’s driving their willingness to engage in probably-pointless brinksmanship, is not just anger at a specific Democratic administration, or opposition to a specific program, or disappointment over a single electoral defeat. Rather, it’s a revolt against the long term pattern I’ve just described: Against what these conservatives, and many on the right, see as forty years of failure, in which first Reagan and then Gingrich and now the Tea Party wave have all failed to deliver on the promise of an actual right-wing answer to the big left-wing victories of the 1930s and 1960s — and now, with Obamacare, of Obama’s first two years as well.
“They didn’t dare,” Frum wrote of the Intransigents’ Reagan-era predecessors, “and they realized that they didn’t dare.” Well, this time, no matter the risks and costs and polls, there are small-government conservatives who intend to dare — because only through a kind of wild daring, they believe, can the long-term, post-New Deal disadvantage that the cause of limited government labors under finally be overcome.
And if this attitude sounds more like a foolish romanticism than a prudent, responsible, grounded-in-reality conservatism — well, yes, unfortunately I think it pretty clearly is.

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/02/why-the-right-fights/?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0

Fucking right it is foolish, but it is better than the alternative.

They believe that destroying representative democracy is the only way to save representative democracy.