Is Conservatism Succumbing to Mediocrity?

What can one say about that dear heart, Herman Cain, the current surprise front-runner of the Grand Old Party? Aside from the fact that he’s the Vidkun Quisling of African Americans there’s his 9-9-9 plan (hey evangelicals, invert it and you get a 6-6-6 plan!), an economic plan that includes a dream tax for the richest among us, and a nightmarishly lock-stock-and-barrel abolition of the social safety net, including both Social Security and Medicare (grandma and grandpa ought to just die and decrease the surplus population anyway, hmm?). Okay, I guess he qualifies as an authentic “conservative” despite his stark racial inappropriateness for a predominantly Caucasoid camp.

Then there’s that good ole Texan boy Rick Perry with his fond childhood memories of quality time with dad at the family’s “Ni**erhead” hunting lodge. Incidentally, speaking of lodges, he’s the same Rick Perry who’s backed by religious rightists (Apostolic Reformationists, who make Billy Graham look like a secular humanist!) who a few years ago performed an exorcism on every Masonic lodge in the “Prophet state”, as they’ve dubbed the state of Texas. Of course Governor Perry not only appeals to wannabe American ayatollahs who would earnestly like to transform the country into a totalitarian theocracy, i.e. a biblical Big Brother state, he also smarmily spouts the kind of pro-big business rhetoric that our society’s corporations and their potentates enjoy hearing and that’s become de rigueur for conservative Republicans. Well, corporations are people too, right Rick?

Should I even waste any characters on pray-the-gay-away Michele Bachmann? She and her husband can now fade from the electoral limelight to devote their time to psychotherapeutically curing homosexuals of their heinous-anus pathology and fighting the mock-noble fight in Congress for the imperiled special interests of the corporate benefactors of the working class. Likewise, her fellow anti-feminist female non-candidate Sarah Palin (yes, she’s an increasingly self-parodic bad joke wrapped in oxymorons inside a hypocrisy we’ve come to expect from “conservatives”) can return to unsportingly shooting bears and whorishly maintaining her celebrity on reality TV.

And then there’s Mitt Romney. Well, according to Rush Limbaugh he’s not really, truly, or sufficiently puristically “conservative”. Hmm, Rush Limbaugh may be an iconic ideologue of the right, but he’s hardly a universally acknowledged arbiter of the definition of a “conservative”, so I’m going to respectfully disagree with his statement that Romney is a “nice guy” but not a conservative. I don’t think that he’s either a very nice guy (when he was in the private sector he certainly wasn’t anyone’s definition of “nice” to all the blue-collar workers he put on unemployment), or a moderate. Nope, he’s most definitely and staunchly a pro-fat cat and anti-underdog type, and he’s certainly not at all progressive on issues such as capital punishment and the environment.

So what, pray tell, in Mr. Limbaugh’s skewed-to-the-far-right worldview, disqualifies Mitt Romney from being a real-deal fellow traveler of the conservative movement that he, the meister of mean, self-appointedly spearheads? What, does the fact that a Romney presidency would only threaten to cripplingly shoot Social Security in the foot and leave its recipients limping more pronouncedly to the proverbial poor house, rather than fatally shooting it in the back of the head à la Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, make Romney an unacceptably lukewarm excuse for a “conservative”? Or perhaps Romney isn’t sufficiently anti-choice, after all he apparently would allow rape and incest victims to have access to legal abortion procedures. He also probably doesn’t appeal much to right-wing gun nuts, since he would ban assault rifles. But hey, conservatives, he’s anti-union and opposed to raising the minimum wage.

So, is this what the American conservative movement has finally and dismally degenerated into? The camp of heartless free-marketarian purists who view Social Security and any regulation of corporate avarice as insidious “creeping socialism”, right-wing theocrats, anti-abortion zealots, NRAers who masturbate to images of .44 Magnums, telegenic lady politicos who condemn the women’s movement, etc., etc.?

It certainly would appear, if the current slate of Republican presidential hopefuls is any indication, that the right has found its level, which turns out to be one of ideological mediocrity and unspiritual meanness, despite its advocacy of putatively logical and faith-based public policy. Once upon a time in this land the persons of note and notoriety on the conservative side at least had some integrity and intellect. Their integrity was of course misplaced in the form of loyalty to ill-conceived ideas & ideals. And their intellect served to rationalizingly dress up the benighted and uncompassionate attitudes lurking behind said ill-conceived ideals & ideals. But increasingly the self-vaunted integrity and intellectuality of conservatives is indeed flimsily faux integrity and intellectuality.

Rapidly fading from the collective memory of our political culture are the likes of Barry Goldwater, whose politics were appallingly conservative but who still maintained real conviction and common sense. As have vanished the excellence, moral and mental, of William F. Buckley and Russell Kirk. Nowadays George W. Bush and Rick Perry (according to insiders Perry is actually a few IQ watts shy of being the dim bulb that Dubya is popularly perceived to be) represent the declining standards of intellectuality of the conservative movement. And Sarah Palin represents the rising appeal of vapidity to much of the right-leaning segment of the public. And if this isn’t pathetically sad commentary enough, Newt Gingrich passes for a veritable conservative highbrow!

This decline in the caliber, characterological and intellectual, of conservatives and their movement was all quite inevitable of course, not at all a fluke or merely a result of the bigger picture of our society’s trend toward mediocrity. Conservatism, alas, has always emanated from an unevolved, a morally, spiritually, attitudinally, and intellectually unevolved place in the human psyche that will predictably always bring it down into the gutter of such vulgarisms as fundamentalism, nationalism, racism, pro-capitalism, and partisan politics.

Say what?! At its stripped-of-rationalization core the conservative outlook is quite simply an unreconstructedly alpha male/female, social dominance-oriented, authoritarian mentality. A nearly Neanderthaloid mentality consisting of amoral and unspiritual mental positions that run much deeper than a conservative’s conscious and sanctimonious opinions. The real conscience (if one can loosely call it that) of a “conservative”, that is, is that of his/her inner caveman, which axiologically esteems raw strength and dominance, and which thinks in terms of morality and society being undergirded by the force of authority. Hence the conservative’s wont to admire and identify with the interests of the rich, our society’s latter-day dominant males (and females) – and the conservative’s boosterism for capitalism, a system that permits individuals to attain to social dominance through the achievement of economic wealth and superiority. Hence also the conservative’s unempathetic disregard for poor people and welfare recipients, who are viewed through caveman lenses as inferior losers who don’t deserve society’s compassionate support.

And hence the rest of the motley mediocre positions of the conservative ideology. E.g., conservative moralism on issues such as abortion, homosexuality, and pornography, which stems from self-righteous adherence to authoritarian ethical-religious beliefs and bestows on the conservative both a secure sense of being in the bosom of his/her moral authorities, and of personal moral superiority. And conservative nationalism, which psychologically involves identifying with the strength and espousing the authority embodied by one’s national tribe. And the tough law & order, pro-death penalty stance of conservatives, which expresses the mentality that crime is to be dealt with by asserting the dominance of society’s “good people” over the “criminal element” with law enforcement and harsh penalties. And the pro-military, support-the-troops jingoism of conservatives, which manifests their macho mindset’s respect for their national tribe’s warriors, its alpha males in uniform; as well as fulfilling an unconscious desire to partake of a sense of personal prowess by publically expressing affinity with manly military men.

And on, and on. All of the other views and stances of conservatives likewise cognitively-emotionally trace back to underlying crude alpha male thought patterns and psychological attitudes. The current crudity, intellectual, moral, and spiritual, of conservatism’s crop of presidential candidates is no surprise at all then, conservatism really has found its natural level. The Rick Perrys and Sarah Palins of contemporary politics are the true if disappointing face of their movement and the feeble best that they can now put up to run against a Democrat for the highest office in the land. Tear-jerkingly sad commentary indeed.

Superbe! Thanks.

But where is Ron Paul in all this?

There are so many right-libertarians online who will go off on a tangent arguing that they and their darling Ron Paul belong in a separate category and I just didn't want to afford them the opportunity to sidetrack the thread with that particular debate.

Warning, conservatives, lower the bar enough and every reactionary Tom, fundamentalist Dick, and bigoted Harry is going to flock into your fold and swell your membership. You'll find yourselves, more and more, rubbing elbows with rightist riffraff and unreconstructed hatemongers. Individuals with intellectual aplomb, such as a William Buckley, will become the vanishing exception. And shock jocks and verbal thugs, such as Neal Boortz and Rush Limbaugh, will become the rueful rule. If you don't wish this to become the squalid fate of your movement, begin to take honest note of the very appreciable decline in quality of those who wear the label "conservative". I sincerely hope that you do, because if you don't, you very well may take our society downhill with you.

Makes sense.

Although I am not a big fan of Ron Paul, I do think he is different from the rest of the GOP candidates, because at least he is honest and doesn't just change his policies to please the increasingly extreme right standards of the GOP.

I can admire a person who can stand by his principles, even when his principles do not meet mine.

Do you admire Adolph Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, etc?

Sorry, I don't answer dumb questions!

Do you believe everyone's opinion is equally valid, Yes or No?

Hello Charles... Why don't you use the Karl Marx avatar on our forum? I ask because I've seen you use it on other forums. Don't hide your love for Marxism, be proud of it.

Do you deny that you seek to use government's monopoly on the legal use of force to coerce the population into conforming with the Marxist ideology?

No. When someone can back up their opinion with factual data and critical reasoning, their opinion is more valid than someone who is just repeating something they have "heard" from an unknown, or unreliable source.

But, I respect the fact that everyone has the right to have their opinion. . .right or wrong.

Another melodramatic, arrogant statement!

I find this poster's words interesting and based on excellent research. His opinion is obviously more than a repeat of some vague propaganda.

And I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that there is no rule on which avatar one decides to use, or not to use in this forum!

Get over it!

People who can read , can understand that

I can respect people who

is not the same as

I respect all people who..

Well, did anyone here watch the putzy performance of the comical crew of conservative candidates in the Republican debate yesterday? I don't think that Saturday Night Live writers will really have to strain their creativity a great deal to work up an amusing sketch from yesterday's forensic farce majeure. Oh yes, it was quite entertaining to watch the lot of them twaddlingly touching on the usual diversionary talking points of the right, i.e. issues that merely serve to misdirect the voter's attention away from the simple sociopolitical fact of life, that it's the minority of people who possess power in the world, the minority of people who sit atop the economic and political power structure, who actually create most of the troubles & terrors of history, our current recession and problem with terrorism being no exceptions.

But naturally, being conservatives, instead of confronting this well-known worldly reality and declaring a principled commitment to empowering ordinary people against the elite, they promptly jumped right into vying to be viewed as the candidate most likely to further deregulate the corporate powers & principalities and to placate xenophobic anti-immigrationists who have a non-reality-based worldview in which it's somehow disenfranchised immigrants and minorities who are at the root of all socioeconomic evils.

At least it led to a tickling moment when Romney inadvertently commited an self-betraying boner on the matter of his personal hypocrisy regarding the issue of employing undocumented workers. Then there was the ironically fruitless filibuster of Herman Cain on the distinction between apples and oranges that he resorted to to stonewall answering Romney's pointed questions about the new taxes proposed in his 9-9-9 plan. Oh, and that bizarre moment when Romney became so frustrated with Perry that he placed his hand on him. Lol, as they say on the internet. For a brief moment there was a prospect of the Tea Party becoming an internecine Tea Fracas.

As for the "libertarian" troll Ron Paul, he just keeps quaintly peddling the same old crock of paleo-conservative, free-marketarian caca; you know, the one that smells of the future Wall Street shenanigans and recessions that would inevitably result from his agenda of totally unfettering big business and banking. Yes, if some twilight-zone twist of fate enabled Dr. Paul to somehow win his bid for the Oval Office it would quite soon turn out to be a most joyless outcome to the election for the majority of working-class voters; that is, if he actually attempted to make good on his ideological rhetoric and turn back the clock to pre-Great Society, pre-New Deal days, i.e. all the way back to the robber baron days.

Yes indeed, they're a most amusing bunch, as long as none of them gets elected president of the United States. Let's keep it that way. (Btw, I've actually been quite gentle here, Jed Lewison of Daily Kos calls them "clowns" and a "freak show".)

I must say, I much enjoy your editorials. . .all of them!

Well done!

Considering that I have offered you actual historical facts only to have you dismiss them as "opinion", I'm curious to know exactly how we can both agree on what can be considered a "fact".

Also, reason and emotion are not very different, emotions cloud judgement. You admitted to being overly emotional about some of the topics we discuss, you even suggested I should try being emotional as a way to understand your point of view... Replacing reason with emotion is not logical and does not lead to a rational opinion.

Lastly, the "reliability" of a source seems entirely subjective to you. For example, I offered historical data from the Congressional Budget Office, which you dismissed as "opinion", while, in contrast, you cited the totally unsupported opinions of Robert Reich as being "fact". Again, this leads to the need for some standard by which we can separate fact from opinion.

Does their right include voicing opinions in favor of discriminating and/or promoting violence against some segment of the population?

Link on historical facts I dismissed as opinions?

I didn't ask you to be emotional as a way to understand MY point of view. . .I ask you to allow yourself to feel emotions so that you could take a broader view of issues, rather than standing in one spot and refusing to be moved by issues that DO REQUIRE us to engage our SOUL as much as our BRAIN.

.

Link? I would like to observe whether what you are saying is valid or not with at least one specific exemple. . .but it seems that that "subjectivity" exists on both side, as i do not believe I have EVER heard you acknowledge that ANY sources I presented were worthy of respect!

You mean. . .like some members of the tea party, Palin, Beck, Limbaugh?

Apparently they have NO problem voicing their opinions and promote violence!

Not at all, my statement cuts to the heart of what is being advocated:

The basic principle behind the entitlement state is that a person’s need entitles him to other people’s wealth.

If I give a homeless man a dollar, by my own free will, that's an act of charity.

When you use force to take that dollar from me and hand it over to the homeless man, you consider it an act of "charity" on your part when it's actually an immoral act. You excuse your act of immorality by calling it "compassion", but it's really just tyranny.

Because you agree with what he's saying... To me, he's spouting all the usual talking points put out by the Left.

That's all it is, propaganda.

I'm just curious why he wears his Marxist ideology on his sleeve in other forums but shies away from it here. We have/had posters named Dante The Marxist, Stalin, and Capitalist Pig on the other end of the spectrum, these people are/were proud of their ideology, I respected that, and they took the time to engage in actual conversations.

Charles, on the other hand, is a copy and paste intellectual, he refuses to engage in an actual discussion, preferring instead to argue against strawmen and poison the well.