The Myth of the Monolithic Conservative: Introduction

I came across a quite cerebral post by David Neiwert (which I passed on to Jonah Goldberg, author of Liberal Fascism, since its right up his alley) in which he counters accusations of ACORN fraud with examples of real and perceived GOP fraud. He ends his post with:

"So why do Republicans hate democracy? Maybe because they are the party of Oligarchical White Privilege."[1]

Other than being outlandishly false [2][3], it propagates a myth pushed by the ideological enemies of the right: that conservatives are mindless, lockstep robots that take orders from the top and spread them to the bottom, and because we have no analytical ability we vote ourselves into poverty and oppression. Journalist and ardent Democrat Thomas Frank wrote a whole book on the subject [4] with mixed reception. The most accurate of criticism being on his claim Kansas has suffered under the Republicans [5]. And it can go without citation that on any day in the leftist blogging community there will be a charge of Republican/conservative groupthink, most likely using terms and examples recently found at their favorite blog. By no means is this only a left-wing phenomenon as the internet is full of copycats and pusdeo-intellectuals touting their ability to read, cut-and-paste and type quickly. The prevalence of the myth of the monolithic conservative or the myth of monolithic American ideologies be ignored. Both damage honest discussion and the truth of the history of American politics.

THE MYTH OF THE MONOLITHIC CONSERVATIVE

INTRODUCTION

"To put conservatism in a bottle with a label is like trying to liquify the atmosphere … The difficulty arises from the nature of the thing. For conservatism is less a political doctrine than a habit of mind, a mode of feeling, a way of living." -R.J. White

The perception of conservatism has been tainted by the GOP with its reliance upon the Religious Right and its abandoning of its classical liberal foundations these past eight years. A large chunk of new voters now, as I did only a few years ago, see conservatism as a tyrannical, jingoistic, religion-driven, oligarchical ideology. This is a child's view, of course, but the exponential exaggeration have basis in reality, what small basis that may be. The few overreaching parts of the PATRIOT ACT [6][7], the over-the-top and unnecessary scare mongering for the Iraq War[8], the courting of Evangelicals and the corporatist policies [9] has given much ammunition. One cannot solely blame the GOP, of course. The media, the Democratic political machine and the liberal and left-wing community have gone to great lengths to tarnish the entire idea of being conservative [10], at times disgustingly so [11]. To get the right idea of what conservative thought is one must look at the history of conservatism, its history, its adherents and its many branches and the disagreements among them. There is no greater folly than to underestimate the ideas of men, as we will see.

Injecting Race into the Race by Those Against Race in the Race

A few months ago, race was a non-issue in the 2008 election according to the left:

The theory that race is holding back Mr. Obama’s candidacy rests on a pretty simple premise. Adherents argue that the Democratic candidate ought to be effortlessly leading by double digits in the polls at this point — and that his failure to do so can only be explained by latent racism among older voters.

[...]

These are flawed assumptions, however. While it’s entirely possible that Mr. Obama’s race is costing him some support, it’s also true that the electorate that voted in the last two presidential elections was almost symmetrically divided between the two parties. It would defy the laws of politics if, at this early stage of the campaign, moderate Republicans and conservative independents were to reject Mr. McCain (a candidate many of them preferred back in 2000) simply because they don’t like George W. Bush. [1]

Now, its the reason to vote Obama:

Look, Mr. Obama’s skin color is a bad reason to vote for him or against him. Substance should always trump symbolism.

Yet if this election goes as the polls suggest, we may find a path to restore America’s global influence — and thus to achieve some of our international objectives — in part because the world is concluding that Americans can, after all, see beyond a person’s epidermis. My hunch is that that is right, and that we’re every bit as open-minded about racial minorities as Jamaicans already were a quarter-century ago [when they elected a white man]. [2]

And its a reason to vote against the GOP:

The GOP code isn't hard to crack: There's the America that might vote for Obama (a suspect America populated by people with liberal notions, big-city ways and, no doubt, dark skin), and then there's the "real" America, where people live in small towns, believe in God and country, and are ... well ... white. [3]

And to have white guilt and hate white people:

So why do Republicans hate democracy? Maybe because they are the party of Oligarchical White Privilege. And democracy is about to kick them in the ass. [4]

I get really frustrated when those on the left bring up race, but attack the right for it for things that aren't race-based at all. The logic is missing, and the hypocrisy is front and center.

A very smart, yet misguided leftist friend of mine declares a robocall [5] by the McCain campaign racist not because of anything within the call, which informs the listener that Obama worked with communist terrorist Bill Ayers, but because its being played in the South and as we all know (wink wink) the South is racist. Apparently, putting "Obama" in the same sentence with "terrorist" will incite a vast and deep hate akin to the anti-Muslim/anti-Arab hate seen after 9/11 (except Obama is half-black, half-white) and will force a mindless Southerner to attempt to assassinate Obama. So, to be responsible, we cannot make the Obama-Ayers connection in the South, or any other area where racists reside [6].

Number of hate groups in the US

Related Post: Why Ayers Matters

Why Ayers Matters

In the television industry, the saying goes: "Its not what you know, its who you know". The same goes for politics. Its not what you know (economics, military studies, statesmanship, organization), its who you know (William Ayers, Reverend Wright, John Hagee, Charles H. Keating, Jr).

John McCain has had little trouble with his connections. He openly rejected John Hagee's endorsement after Hagee's alleged anti-Catholicism came to dominate the news cycle for a few days. The Senator from Arizona had no real relationship with Hagee other than normal political platitudes. McCain's connection to Charles Keating was nothing more than "poor judgment" [1] according to the investigation into the Savings and Loan scandal. On the other hand, Barack Obama's connections to Rev Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers are on a whole other level than McCain's. Obama was a member of Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ for over twenty years. Wright married Barack and Michelle, baptized the Obama children and was the inspiration for Obama's memoir, The Audacity of Hope. Unrepentant domestic terrorist [2] and leftist radical [3] William Ayers has been a major player in Chicago politics since he came out of hiding in the early 1980s. Since his return to the real world he spent the 1980s gaining degrees and in the 1990s he began to aid (in my view, damage) Mayor Daley's education reform. During 1995 to 1999, Obama was president of the board of the directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and oversaw indirect grants (explained below) to various schools including "breakthrough" schools (alternative schools) who's lessons weren't exactly math and science:

Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC [Chicago Annenberg Challenge] disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn). [4]

ACORN has been recently raided and charge with fraud in signing up voters [6]. And, to top it off, Ayers has compared his work to the work of authoritarian leftist Hugo Chavez:

I do not think that the link made here between the LSC’s [local school councils] and “democracy” is, in fact, accurate. I think that such “councils” look eerily similar to efforts by regimes like those in Nicaragua under the Sandinistas and Venezuela under Chavez to impose control over teachers and their independent unions by an authoritarian regime. Thus, it is not a surprise to me that Bill Ayers has traveled several times in recent years to Venezuela where he has spoken in front of Hugo Chavez and has enthusiastically applauded that regime’s efforts to link education policy to the Chavez “revolution.” [7]

Now, why should this matter?

First and foremost, Ayers, along with his wife, have never apologized for their terrorism. In fact, in a well-known quote, Ayers said he "didn't do enough" [8]. Such a view from a man who's career is based around educating children is horrifying. I highly doubt that if Eric Rudolph's case was fumbled and he was set free, that any attempt he made to enter the public education system would be met with massive and righteous outrage. There is no reason an boastful, unrepentant terrorist should have any significant influence in modern education. I could understand if he had apologized, at least. Repentance goes a long way towards reconciliation.

Secondly, the groups connected to the CAC are far-left in views and criminal in nature (as stated above). ACORN was one of the several "urban" groups that pushed for the abundance of mortgages and credit to low-income borrowers who couldn't get a loan before the change in the Community Reinvestment Act [9]. This act, along with Greenspan idiotic idea of cheap credit, the Democrats protection of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, and the Republicans failure to tackle this issue when they had power, all came together in the current economic and political crisis. Thanks to groups like ACORN, we now have most of the country calling for bigger government, and pompous left-wing economists like Jeffery Sachs [10] who claim the entire crisis was Reagan's fault and finally get to get their pseudo-economic theories heard.

Third and finally, what does this say about Obama? I've given Obama the benefit of the doubt countless times since he took center stage in the Democratic nomination race. When Wright came out, I believed he didn't really hear him. When Ayers came out, I believed he only met the man a few times. Both turned out to be blatant lies. If you look at Obama's record, his dealing with far-left people and groups would, in normal elections, be a pretty good indicator of his views. Except this isn't a normal election. The first black (or in this case half-black, Obama's mom is white) Presidential candidate has made everyone crazy. The media has jumped on the McCain camp for bringing up the Obama-Ayers connection. The AP actually called it "racist" [11] to mention Ayers. David Neiwert, an left-wing independent journalist and self-labeled expert on right-wing extremism, has actually traveled to Wasilla, Alaska to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin's ties to Neiwert's version of the far right (libertarians) [12] in what seems an attempt to create a moral equivalency between Wright/Ayers and Palin's connections. The best he could come up with is a connection to a man with the John Birch Society who had some extremist (libertarian) views on firearms.

As seen in the second debate [13], Obama is slowly shifting himself to the center in a smart, but dishonest attempt to make McCain look redundant. I would give him the benefit of the doubt once again, but his shifty words and attempts to divert attention from his past has swept the trust away, as I bet it has done for many others in the electorate. With the polls giving Obama at least a 7% lead and state polls already pushing him over the top [14], unless the junior Senator from Illinois has had a change of heart from his leftist views he professed in the first half of the year and for most of his life, we have much to worry about what he may do in office.