The Eclectic One

…Because labels are a poor substitute for thinking

I’m a dirty “Librul” -like Peggy Noonan and George Will

Posted by Bill Nance on October 24, 2008

I’ve been reading the apologists for the GOP and the McCain joke candidacy and I have found out that yes, I am a liberal. Who knew?

SO lets see here:

  • I oppose Roe vs Wade because I think it’s bad law and believe in federalism. (Even though I think government should leave this decision to women -If you agree with me that abortion is at best a trade-off of rights, then don’t have one).
  • I think government in general should keep their noses out of people’s private lives, specifically what they ingest or who they have sex with, but in general, leaving me the Hell alone unless I’m doing someone else injury.
  • I think small government is a good thing. What government we need should be held strictly accountable and work as cheaply as possible while remaining efficient.
  • I think any program which spends money needs to be matched by either revenues or spending cuts in other areas.
  • I think the military needs to be well funded, trained and used both in direct support of our national interests and in the interests of world stability, because instability always comes back to bite us.
  • I think the Second Amendment to the constitution means exactly what it says and resent government trying to restrict my fundamental rights under the guise of safety.
  • I think taxes should be no higher than necessary to support government spending. I’m a believer in no tax breaks for anyone. If we decide to subsidize, we should do so directly and in the open light of day.
  • In keeping with Catholic Social Doctrine I believe society and government have an obligation to the poor and dispossessed. If this is “liberal” then the Catholic Church is a “liberal” institution.
  • I think it’s the duty of all men and women to serve their country, either with military service or some other community service. (Peace Corps, Teach for America, etc.). Those who do not serve are free-loaders.
  • Like Jefferson, I view banks and the stock market with distrust, knowing that great wealth acts in it’s own interests, often counter to those of the nation.

Now the last time I looked, these things all lined up with the views expressed by people like Edmund Burke, William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, et al.

But according to the new GOP, the “new conservatives,” these aren’t conservative positions at all. Apparently if one is hostile to fundamentalist wackos, reveres learning or disagrees over a strictly religious or frankly extremist position that a 2-second-old fetus is the same as a human being, you’re a “liberal.”

According to these people, if you vote anything other than Republican, if you question the racist, fear-based, politics of Karl Rove and company, If you look at Sarah Palin and see the obvious; that she is an incurious buffoon hopelessly out of her depth, or if you fail to show proper deference to bible-thumping wackos who’d never pass a sophomore test in any reputable seminary, you’re a liberal and a traitor to conservatism.

And people wonder why the number of conservatives deserting the GOP this year is so large?  It’s because the GOP has been taken over by the kooks. People who value their intellectual integrity and critical thinking don’t want anything to do with these people. -And rightly so.

Who has left the ship?

  • Colin Powell
  • Christopher Buckley
  • George Will
  • Peggy Noonan
  • Former MA Republican Governor Bill Weld
  • NRO writer Kathleen Parker
  • Bush Appointee and conservative Talk Show Host Michael Smerconish
  • Former MN Rep. Governor Arne Carlson
  • The Goldwater Family
  • Dan Drezner
  • Scott McClellan
  • Ken Adelman
  • Doug Kmeic

The list goes on and on.

So riddle me this my conservative friends: If virtually every conservative heavyweight out there has either endorsed Obama outright or publicly repudiated the McCain candidacy, are they all traitors? Were they all paid off by the “librul media?” Or maybe, just maybe, is the McCain cadidacy specifically and the GOP in general no longer very “conservative” at all?


7 Responses to “I’m a dirty “Librul” -like Peggy Noonan and George Will”

  1. Anne said

    The conservative and moderate Republicans who are crossing party lines to vote for Barack Obama are people who do their own thinking and do not like what they see in the McCain-Palin campaign.

    They also know that intelligent, thoughtful people can disagree without being disagreeable, and that is something that is currently lacking in the McCain-Palin campaign.

    John McCain has thrown his honor, integrity, and dignity under the bus in order to win this election, and his selection of Sarah Palin as his VP choice has made his judgment suspect. Their ugly and divisive campaign has made the Republican Party a national embarrassment.

  2. Bill Nance said

    What’s sad is that the Republicans have been apologizing and lying through their teeth to cover for Bush so long that no one with any actual integrity is left to speak for them.

    At least when Reagan took over for Carter there were guys like Tip O’Neil on the Democrat side able to be an effective opposition while the party got it’s act together. Who’s going to be there for the Republicans? They’ve completely exhausted all trust. I fear one-party rule only slightly less than I fear the Rethuglican party in power again.

    Maybe the Libertarians can finally pull it together?…Naw, wishful thinking.

  3. Ted said

    Interesting post. I agree with most of your bullet points.

    My problem is that I don’t really trust the Democrats any more (used to be one, now independent). There’s plenty of fast and loose with the truth from that side, too, Bill.

  4. Bill Nance said

    Of course the Democrats aren’t white as the wind-driven snow. As I said, I detest one-party government, and I’ve no love for the Democrats in general. But in fairness, the misdemeanors of the Obama campaign cannot be reasonably compared to the non-stop felonies of the McCain people.

    People keep calling Obama a liberal. But based on the list I posted, Obama is by far the more conservative candidate.

    Sometimes you have to take a chance. I’m betting Obama will make a good President. I believe he has it in him to be a truly great President. Whether he will live up to that potential is yet to be seen.

  5. mikem317 said

    *Limited* government, is still a *limited* problem. It’s like choosing between a major heart attack or a small one. They’re both heart attacks!

    I only take issue with two other bullet points: Government conscription (“I think it’s the duty of all men and women to serve their country…”) is tantamount to kidnapping. People ought to be able to freely associate with whomever and whatever. And this extends to individuals who chose not to engage society via military service or other community endeavor. Abortion? If you believe that the unborn child is a living being, then it is also deserving of the same rights that you and I enjoy. And “world instability” is often traced to American meandering in the internal affairs of foreign countries. There’s a reason Nazi Germany didn’t invade and terrorists do not attack Switzerland.

  6. Bill Nance said

    The fact is that all societies at all times have had government. It’s a necessary thing. Our constitution does a pretty good job of limiting its authority -Mind you this is not followed remotely as closely as it should, but that’s a different question. If you actually think anarchy is either a good idea or remotely possible, you’re living in a fantasy world. The real world is not the construct Ayn Rand would have liked to pretend. Ron Paul is well aware of this and has never suggested all government is evil. If it was we wouldn’t have it.

    Second, I said service was a moral duty. I mentioned nothing about conscription. I abhor conscription, which I consider to be tantamount to slavery. (It also makes for a lousy fighting force). One certainly has the right to be a freeloader. I just think you should be called what you are if that’s the case.

    On abortion I do not consider a fertilized egg to be anything other than a tissue mass. To take any other position is either extremist or religious, neither of which have any place determining public policy. 30-70% of all these fertilizaed eggs never make it past the first few weeks, so trying to make them morally or legally equal to a human being is just foolish IMO. At some point obviously a fetus transitions from tissue mass to unborn human. Personally I’m uncomfortable with abortion past 4 months. Beyond that I would leave it to the states to determine.
    Again, this is a TRADEOFF of rights, at best. On one hand you have the “right” of the fetus to be born, on the other you have the right of a woman not to be enslaved to her womb. To pretend this is a cut and dried issue is simplistic or religious.

    And finally as to intervention, take the piracy issue off Somalia: Using U.S. naval presence to reduce piracy seems entirely in our interest.

    On Iraq, I think we started the damn problem in the first place and so had a duty to attempt to try to fix it. The sanctions the U.S. insisted on after the 1st gulf-war wrecked the country and were killing 50,000 Iraqi children per year, not to mention we pledged support for a revolt and promptly withdrew it afterwards, resulting in tens of thousands of Iraqi dead. (we did the same in 1973 with the Kurds with the same result).

    The fact the the Bushies threw 12 years of planning and all common sense with their stupid crusade to remake a new ally in the gulf doesn’t change the history or the moral obligation incurred by the U.S.

    It’s one thing not to go gallivanting all over the world trying to impose democracy, it’s another thing entirely to slough off debts we’ve already incurred.

    If you’re seeing a common theme here, it’s duty. No man is an island. We exist as a social species and have various duties to each other and to the societies we choose to live in, including the larger global society. Where duty starts and ends is a question philosophers have been wrestling with for thousands of years and I doubt I’ll be able to add much to the subject beyond what I adopt for myself.

  7. […] Two: His pick of Sarah Palin, the buffoon from Wasilla, with major ties to a secessionist movement, not a shred of understanding of ANY issue of national importance and a religious fanatic to boot, was frankly the most horrendously cynical and irresponsible move by a major party presidential candidate in history. As I said at the time, Palin makes Dan Quayle look like Winston Churchill. -And I wasn’t alone. Many Republicans came to the same conclusion. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: