I know exactly which seconds Sarah Palin killed the last piece of my conservative soul. On 28.52-29.19 in the C-Span video “Vice Presidential Candidate Gov. Sarah Palin (AK) Full Speech at the RNC”. Right before, Sarah Palin said: “al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophical harm on America and he is worried that someone won't read them their rights”.
At first the crowd cheers at the political punch. Then you have a few seconds when people start to think about what they just heard. And then, it's like a posse that cheers even louder. The rule of law was suddenly replaced by the rule of man where we don't have to care about reading them their rights anymore.
At first, I didn't pay attention to what actually happened there. I watched the video several times until I had to stop right there and stare. Then I felt ashamed, dusted off an old Billie Holiday CD and played “Strange Fruit” repeatedly to remind myself about what actually happened in that video. What we saw was the end of conservatism as we knew it.
When I grew up in Sweden and Finland, it was easy to be a conservative, because Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were the voices of reason. It wasn't necessarily their politics that made them successful, but what their opponents didn't have.
Take Ronald Reagan and the Berlin Wall. When he said to Gorbachev to tear it down, lots of leftists in my home town claimed that Ronnie was the dangerous one. Why? Because the wall protected East German socialism from western corruption. Man, did they change their minds when the wall came down or what? Those leftists just didn't have any common sense.
Or take Margaret Thatcher. When she became prime minister, Great Britain was in a recession. Just like in Spain and Greece today, the unions had an unproportionate political power they couldn't handle in a responsible way, simply because they lacked a voice of reason. The British union bosses should have been challenged and corrected from within the Labour party, but no one had the spine to do it.
But the annoyingly self-righteous Margareth Thatcher had the spine, challenged the union bosses, left Labour in despair and that way plowed the way for a young, charismatic Labour politician who would change the party and plunder the Conservatives in the elections: Tony Blair. Blair played the role of the voice of reason in such an eloquent way that he made Margaret Thatcher look like a vicious old hag.
Needless to say, when Gordon Brown took over after Tony Blair and reintroduced the boring political culture of Blair's predecessors, Labour got hit in the polls. However, without Margaret Thatcher's voice of reason, we wouldn't have heard about Tony Blair and her political opponent Labour wouldn't have been vitalized.
But today conservatism is no longer the voice of reason and Sarah Palin is no Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan. We screwed up conservatism right efter 9/11 when we identified the threat as “Muslim” and “Islam”. The fact that Osama bin Laden wants a religious war doesn't mean we have to give him one. Instead, we should have taken the chance to do our part in protecting Islam against terrorism.
Then we screwed up our support for the liberation of Iraq. The issue should have been the unjust UN sanctions that killed millions of Iraqis and Iraq's real weapons threat, something the brilliant Swedish diplomat Rolf Ekeus wrote about in an article in the Washington Post.
Instead, many conservatives made the liberation of Iraq to an issue about punishing the Muslim world for 9/11. Most wouldn't agree today, but that's how bloodthirtsty many of us were then. I'm so glad I managed to retain my own voice of reason during those months, but I have to tell you, even I had my conservative rule of man moments.
Today, conservatism is held hostage by that growing fringe that cheered when Sarah Palin said “...and he's worried that someone won't read them their rights”. Problem is, there is no room for a voice of reason on the Palin fringe, since her fans claim that she is the voice of reason.
Sarah Palin, a wonderful motivational speaker and a horrifying political creature, made me realize it's time to cut my conservative losses and move on. She could have been a new Ronald Reagan. She could have been a new Margaret Thatcher. Instead, she chose the rule of man, set a terrible example that will last for decades, emergized the fringe and made many of the rest run for the lifeboats.
And no, the Swedish conservatives aren't much better.
Daniel Kronlid, Sweden
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
bikepsychobabble
elsma03
Shannon Kelley
Kerry Lauerman
Joan Walsh
Salon.com
Comments
But tell me, you didnt realize what a fake she (and those who follow her) was when she said she could see Russia and Putin flies over her house?
BTW Daniel, I thought M Thatcher was a vicious old hag long before I heard of Tony Blair.
Here, here!
I agreed with almost all of your post, except that quote above. She couldn't be either. Maggie had a brain and Ronnie had a heart. Sarah has neither.
Thank-you. Thank-you. Thank-you.
Rated.
What you are apparently missing is that non-citizens or enemy combatants, captured in warfare on the battlefield, often ask for their rights -- thinking they should be given the same privilege given to citizens. I guess they've maybe watched a few cop shows from American television.
If you are supposedly abandoning your conservative principles because of this misunderstanding of what Palin was referring to, then I wonder how well you understood those conservative principles to begin with.
And no conservative I am aware of -- and I know many -- ever thought we were at war with Muslims or with Islam. Bush himself, from the very beginning, described Ben Ladin as someone who had hijacked a great religion (Islam) for his own purposes.
You obviously haven't understood Islam. You either haven't read its book, or didn't understand it when you did. And this statement has nothing to do with Sarah Palin or Conservatism.
The idea of not torturing prisoners was, and still is, a very good ideal. To treat people humanly shouldn't be a bad thing. Throughout history there are too many examples of totalitarian governments who have thrown away the rights of foreigners and it almost always leads to the same treatment of their own citizens.
Denying basic human rights to people outside our nation is wrong. It's amazing, and not at all surprising, that many who seek this malignant and metastatic policy on the rest of the world is most vociferously defended by the people banging their pots and pans about America being a 'christian nation' with 'respect for human life'.
Who would Jesus torture? Why does 'respect for life' always end at birth and our borders? I submit that it is hubris, ignorance and fear that stoke these horrifically malignant and jaundiced views of the world. America is no 'supreme nation'. We don't need to white wash our past. If we do, we have learned nothing from it.
Respect for human life is universal or it applies to no one. Eventually what we do to 'foreigners' will be done to us...
Conservatism has had some small appeal to me but what Palin/Limbaugh/Paul/Beck/etc are selling isn't 'conservatism'. It's far to malignant, far to destructive, far too disturbing... It's Nihilism by kindergartners; Three year olds playing with nuclear weapons; Russian roulette with a semi-automatic gun with a full clip. It's hatred and intolerance whitewashed through the eye of career liars and thieves. And organized religion is playing into the destruction... Truly sick and disgusting... And they are all trying to 'save us'...
So now that people in the western world are starting to get their noses full of the lefties after 70 years of letting them have their way with goofy statiest strategies, you're ready to give up on free enterprise just because of one Sarah Palin applause line?
Listen pal, there must be a least a million housewives in the US that I'd vote for any day over Mr Obama, VP Biden, Ms Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Eric Holder, Tim Geithner, Rahm Emanuel...
I don't even get what it was in the applause line kicked you over to the dark side. FYI the Dept of Justice is trying to push through some changes to the Miranda warning as we speak. Even the most godless statist weenies in the DOJ realize that in a crisis the rule needs to be flexible enough to permit the cops to deal with the ongoing threats first.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/09/eric-holder-miranda-right_n_569244.html
"[Palin] could have been a new Ronald Reagan. She could have been a new Margaret Thatcher."
No, she couldn't have, and I say that despite having no love for either Reagan or Thatcher. Both of them had at least a basic understanding of world affairs -- Thatcher much more so than Reagan.
Palin on the other hand is a xenophobic, backwoods villager, and to make matters worse, a fundamentalist religious zealot to boot. Oh, she's able to spout inane slogans with the best of them, but if she were ever to have an original or deep thought, it would die of loneliness.
As for conservatism in general, you are quite right (no pun intended) to have jumped ship. Modern conservatism isn't conservatism at all, but what I call "consumatism". At it's most extreme, it is typified by James Watt, Reagan's Sect of Interior, who proclaimed there was no necessity to protect our forests since Jesus would be returning in our lifetimes -- I'm not making that up.
Serious conservatives would do well to read or reread Thomas Hobbes, the father of traditional conservatism, who understood the reason for government was to promote the commonweal, however reluctantly, if a ruler was interested in keeping his head. The reason for govt, he said, was that even the strongest man must eventually sleep.
Thus all govt is essentially "socialist" or at least socialistic in essence, a fact recognized by America's founders who laid out the reasons for govt in our preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Modern conservatives are far too willing to provide for the common defense (irrational fears being part of their nature) , but they don't seem much concerned with promoting the general welfare. Too bad, for that attitude ultimately leads not only to a society in which many are hungry, but one in which no one is safe. And that is the essence of Hobbes' argument as well as mine.
Successful democracy requires thinking, tension, compassion, and most importantly, dialogue. Without these elements, we're all doomed.
I'm busy this weekend, but will reply in a few days.
Again, thank you :)
Conservative? William F. Buckley is spinning in his grave.
The larger truth is that James Watt was utterly unfit to be in charge of protecting our nation's precious natural resources. He is widely regarded as one of the worst Interior Secretaries in our history -- and that is going some. Note this from Wikipedia:
"In 1980, President-elect Reagan chose Watt to be his Secretary of the Interior. He was soon after approved by the United States Senate.
Watt's tenure as Secretary of the Interior was marked by controversy, stemming primarily from his alleged hostility to environmentalism and his support of the development and use of federal lands by foresting, ranching, and other commercial interests.
According to the environmental advocacy group Center for Biological Diversity, for over two decades, Watt held the record for protecting the fewest species under the Endangered Species Act in United States history. The record was broken by Dirk Kempthorne, a George W. Bush appointee who, as of August 27, 2007, had not listed a single species in the 15 months since his confirmation. [2]
Greg Wetstone, who was the chief environment council at the House Energy and Commerce Committee during the Reagan administration and later served as director of advocacy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said Watt was one of the two most "intensely controversial and blatantly anti-environmental political appointees" in American history. (The other was Anne Gorsuch, head of the EPA at that time.)[3] According to the environmental groups, Watt decreased funding for environmental programs,[4] restructured the department to decrease federal regulatory power,[4] wished to eliminate the Land and Water Conservation Fund (which had been designed to increase the size of National Wildlife Refuges and other protected land),[4] eased regulations on oil[4] and mining[5][4] companies, and favored opening wilderness areas and shorelands for oil and gas leases.[4]
Watt resisted accepting donations of private land to be used for conservation purposes.[6] He suggested that all 80 million acres (320,000 km²) of undeveloped land in the United States be opened for drilling and mining in the year 2000.[6] The area leased to coal mining companies quintupled during his term as Secretary of the Interior.[6] Watt proudly boasted that he leased "a billion acres" (4 million km²) of U.S. coastal waters, even though only a small portion of that area would ever be drilled.[6] Watt once stated, "We will mine more, drill more, cut more timber."[7]
Watt periodically mentioned his Christian faith when discussing his approach to environmental management. Speaking before Congress, he once said, "I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns, whatever it is we have to manage with a skill to leave the resources needed for future generations."[8]
One apocryphal quote by Watt is "After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back"; there is no indication he actually ever said this. Glenn Scherer, writing for Grist, erroneously placed this remark in Watt's testimony to Congress.[9]. Journalist Bill Moyers, relying on the Grist article, mistakenly attributed the comment to Watt. After it was discovered that the quote was mistaken, Grist corrected their article and Moyers promptly apologized [10]. Watt has denied both the attribution and the associated characterizations of his policy.[11]"
Some will disparage that bit of bio because it comes from Wikipedia -- but that doesn't make the facts any less true. What is also a fact is that for all his holier-than-thou posturing, after leaving office Watt was charged with influence peddling and other crimes, and he barely escaped prison thanks to a plea bargain . Again from Wikipedia:
"In 1995, Watt was indicted on 25 counts of felony perjury and obstruction of justice by a federal grand jury.[23] The indictments were due to false statements made to a grand jury investigating influence peddling at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which he had lobbied in the mid to late 1980s. On January 2, 1996, as part of a plea bargain, Watt pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of withholding documents from a federal grand jury. On March 12, 1996 he was sentenced to five years' probation and ordered to pay a $5,000 fine and perform 500 hours of community service.[24]
During a March 1991 dinner event organized by the Green River Cattlemen's Association in Wyoming, Watt said, "If the troubles from environmentalists cannot be solved in the jury box or at the ballot box, perhaps the cartridge box should be used."[25][26]
In a 2001 interview, Watt applauded the Bush administration energy strategy and said its prioritization of oil drilling and coal mining above conservation is just what he recommended in the early 1980s.[27] "Everything Cheney's saying, everything the president's saying - they're saying exactly what we were saying 20 years ago, precisely ... Twenty years later, it sounds like they've just dusted off the old work."[27]
Again, I apologize for passing along a misquote, but I'm happy to add to the record the larger truth about a miscreant. And I DO NOT retract my original contention that there is nothing conservative about people like Palin or Watt -- they are greedy opportunists who cloak their avarice in flawed fundamentalist religious poppycock.
1. Write about Sarah Palin even though she is not serving any position in government and has none of the power that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have.
2. Write that you are a conservative who criticizes Palin.
3. Throw in a video about racist violence so you can imply some connection even though there is nothing in Sarah Palin's speech that serves as a logical connection.
As a conservative, I would think you would be more concerned about the actual policies that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are implementing rather than a two year old speech from a losing candidate who subsequently resigned office to go make money giving speeches.
A bit misdirected, no? But, you made the cover.
Reagan's war was on the middle class. Yes I know, the Swedish pay a hire percentage of their income in Taxes. They also don't have to be worried about being bankrupted by a catastrophic illness. A hedge fund manager last year made $4 billion and paid zero taxes. would he get away with that in Sweden? How about moving to the United States and see what you get here for your low tax base as an average citizen. when the big banks are given your tax dollars as corporate welfare. I would gladly trade place with you.
I would recommend you to read something about Phillip Blond and the Red Tory movement!
@ Roger Fallihee > Thanks :)
@ GeeBee > Good for you :)
@ cribbage > Thanks :)
@ Tanuss > Sarah had good spin doctors and speechwriters and the ability to put up a great show. I'm not sure she needed a brain or a heart.
@ Alan Nothnagle > Thanks :)
@ Retablo > "And no conservative I am aware of -- and I know many -- ever thought we were at war with Muslims or with Islam. Bush himself, from the very beginning, described Ben Ladin as someone who had hijacked a great religion (Islam) for his own purposes."
Good for you :)
@ Lainey > I agree. Chilling.
@ HenryR > I just have to talk with my Muslim neighbors to learn about Islam. Few of them support terrorism, even though some of them have problems defining terrorism.
@ dcvdickens > I might be wrong, but I don't think they care.
@ gonziod > Thanks :)
@ dennismam878 > We haven't had free enterprise since someone invented laws. It's a great phrase, but also an obvious impossibility. What I want is rewarding conditions for law abiding entrepreneurs, but that's something else. "Free enterprise" doesn't exist.
@ mynameise > Thanks :)
@ Tom Cordle > Thanks for a great post and for mentioning Hobbes.
@ plantlover > Thanks :)
@ rjheart > you wrote:
"I find it sad that it takes an insufferable nitwit like Sarah Palin to make some people see that their own position is idiotic, short sighted, and selfish."
I agree, but hey, I'm not perfect.
@ Beth Mann > What was McCain thinking?
@ Cranky Cuss > Someone should ask Palin if she has William F. Buckley's phone number...
@ Term Limits > I was never a racist. And am not one now.
@ Tom Cordle > Thanks for clarifying.
@ McGarrett50 > You wrote:
"A bit misdirected, no? But, you made the cover."
No, I don't think so. And I had no idea something like this could make the cover and EP.
@ Oplis > No, I don't think so :)
@ Kunal Pardeshi > I think the chances are bigger that she'll end up in a Playboy production featuring Sarah Palin and Jerry Springer.
@ Monsieur Chariot > Thanks :)
@ impermanentlife > Racism is too often connected to conservatism, I don't know why.
@ glencadia > I don't think I romanticized Reagan. I just stated the obvious from a different time and continent.
@ jackFiftyfour > Well, higher taxes aren't always a solution.
@ The Feral Conservative > Thanks, I might do that. But first, I have to dust off some old book about Hobbes.
First, you make the point that Sarah Palin is willing to ditch rule of law for her ideology. No problems here, I agree this is crazy. You compare this to a policy decision Reagan made. This is odd, I would want to see the comparison of a policy decision Reagan made versus a policy decision Palin made, or a ideological Reagan GOP speech versus an ideological Palin GOP speech if you wanted to point out their differences.
Finally, your statement that Reagan "had the voice of reason" is vague and specious. Do you believe Reagan had a great understanding of foreign policy beyond that of any of his contemporaries? If so, you should evaluate all of his foreign policy decisions, not just the ones that turned out well for him.
I think a better explanation of Reagan's foreign policy would be this: he had a strong belief that people, if given the option, wanted to be free. He was willing to back people he saw as trying to be free with his military strength. Sometimes, as in the case of the Berlin Wall, this worked out fantastically well. Sometimes, as in the case of backing the Taliban versus the USSR and attempts to topple numerous central american governments, this worked out poorly to horribly. Any claim that he had "the voice of reason" has to deal with his entire body of work.