|
|
January 31, 2008Are Our Ideologies Our Idols?The Wall Street Journal has an editorial up entitled McCain’s Apostacies. Think about that for a minute. His differences with his party are not differences, they’re “apostacies.” He is, for some, a heretic who has departed too sharply away from the dogmas and sacraments of The Church of Conservatism. And he’s the pro-life guy! I’ve been thinking for a while that the hyperpartisanship on both sides was beginning to resemble the Protestant/Catholic sectarian troubles in Northern Ireland. Hate and malice are being extended by both sides to those “others” over there. The “other side.” Nothing else matters but that they don’t believe the same things “we” believe (whoever “we” are, Conservative or Liberal). Because they don’t believe the same things “we” believe, they are bad, undesirable people and we shun them and will not have them in our midst. It’s downright unAmerican, if you ask me. And the tenacity with which both sides cling to their beliefs makes one wonder if the political extremes are not misplacing their faith - putting it not in God, but in “the party” and “the movement.” I did something I almost never do, recently, and spent a little time exchanging ideas within the thread of another blog. Within that exchange, someone wrote:
That stopped me in my tracks. All this time I thought the president - any president - was expected to serve the interests of the whole nation and all its citizenry. Apparently not; apparently the president is supposed to serve “the party” and “the movement” and if he does not do that - he is a poor and despised president. That “movement or the party” remark recalled the histories of fascism and communism and their ugly progeny - totalitarianism; all of those “isms” began with the notion that “loyalty to the party” trumped everything else - new ideas, tactics, statesmanship, economics, social unrest - whatever the question, loyalty to the party - the growth and sustainment of “the movement” was the answer. That’s all bad history. It is history we want to remember, but not repeat. But here we are, the mightiest and most democratic nation in the world, and the extremists within both ideologies have deemed fealty to the “ism” - whichever ism it is - to be the defining characteristic of a desirable candidate. Someone else wrote:
That’s quite true and un-objectionable. But of course, liberals are liberals because they believe liberalism is what’s best for America, and centrists are centrists for the same reason. It just seems to me that within those little ideological spheres which are full of ideas, a president must be permitted to listen to ideas and debate them and perhaps even to choose portions of ideas from each position, left, right and center, in order to formulate policies which are best FOR AMERICA, and which address the concerns of all the country, not just “the party,” and which serve the whole citizenry, not just “the base.” The best recipes call for more than one ingredient. The best policies do, too. If we are determined to shut out whole blocks of people because their thoughts are not ours, their ideas are not ours, their beliefs are not ours, then we’re doing democracy wrong - we’re turning it into something else. And I don’t think the “something else” is necessarily a good thing. Thomas More, the patron saint of politicians, was a good and trusted adviser to King Henry VIII, but his faith and conscience took precedence over that fealty. When Rome refused Henry a divorce, Henry broke away and formed the Church of England. More could not go where Henry went, saying at his arrest, “I am the King’s good servant, but God’s first.” I am by no means comparing President Bush to St. Thomas More, but it does seem to me that part of his problems within his own party stem from a similar attitude: He is the party’s good servant, but America’s first. And America’s good servant, but God’s even before that. Those priorities seem like good ones to me, and perhaps in a healthy society, they would be appreciated. But we’re not healthy right now - I doubt anyone would truly suggest we are - and in this society, sadly, the precedence of “the parties” and “the movements” over everything else is disconcerting. People who six months ago declared they would “crawl over broken glass” to prevent a particular presidency now declare they’d prefer to see that presidency over the “impure” alternative, and that seems oddly disoriented. How can an undesirable candidate suddenly become an acceptable, good faith alternative? I know there is a school of thought that says, “well, that will teach others and they’ll be more loyal to the party, next time.” But that’s being too clever by half, isn’t it? One of President Bush’s errors was in thinking he could sign a campaign finance reform into law and count on the Supreme Court to find it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court did not meet his expectations. Signing off on this election while counting on people to “do the right thing” in the next one seems to me equally hazardous and just as likely to disappoint. And it feels a little bit like putting one’s ideology before all else, and trusting in it, alone. I am no “McCainiac.” At this point I have no idea who I will be voting for in November, particularly since there is ugliness in every campaign. I’m merely offering food for thought. Eloquent Jonah Goldberg:
Sister Toldjah has more thoughts. Palm Tree Pundit has a quote for you. Jay Stephenson surveys the mood - and confusion - on the right. Beth minces no words. As I said in the comments section:
Related: The Nation Needs a Time-Out http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/01/31/are-our-ideologies-our-idols/trackback/ 70 Responses to “Are Our Ideologies Our Idols?” |
January 31st, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Hi Anchoress. Not to sound like a “seminar” poster, but I absolutely love this blog and have been reading off and on for the past year — much more often as of late.
Anyway, I think it can be fair to say that McCain’s disloyalty issues are a problem. Just bear with me. You seem to be claiming he’s just being loyal to the country. I, instead, observe more over the last few years or so that he is loyal to one thing — himself. Many of the ideals of the Republican Party and particularly Prez Bush have been better for the country. The very first post of yours I read was the one talking about going ahead and impeaching President Bush. It was splendid because in all the various points it detailed how Bush’s Republicanism is different (and better for the country I might add) than the Democrats and moveon.idiot crowd that have caused nonstop rancor since 2000 if not before! When McCain decides to go on his maverick streaks and break with the party, he does it in such a way that it contributes to the tense bipartisan bickering. It’s like he not only crosses the line, he spits as he walks over. And the media and Democrats eat that kind of thing up because it’s dramatic. Is dramatic really all that good for the country? Look to the Clintons on that and decide. Personally I don’t think so. At his least destructive, McCain is a drama whore. At other times, he’s not only wrong, he’s actively hurting the country.
Personally I consider McCain to be a very good man and a very poor public servant. I also don’t think means that I and hundreds of thousands of potentially similar minded conservative voters are in danger of becoming too much of an “ism”. No offense intended. Rudy dropping out has me in a bad mood. LOL.
January 31st, 2008 at 7:45 pm
St Thomas’ surname is More, not Moore.
January 31st, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Hi Ferrous - welcome.
I’m not claiming - as you suggest - that McCain is just being loyal to his country. I wasn’t actually even thinking about McCain, and as I said, I’m no McCainiac.
I was actually thinking - and trying to get all of us to think - about whether or not we’ve given our ideologies more reverence than they’re due. That’s all.
I’m a “take me at my word” sort of writer. Basically I write what’s in my head of a moment…and yes, I am naive - that’s both a good and bad thing.
January 31st, 2008 at 7:47 pm
phargado THANK YOU. I knew that but I’m a bit under the weather. I kept looking at it wondering why it didn’t look right! Much obliged.
January 31st, 2008 at 8:19 pm
“But here we are, the mightiest and most democratic nation in the world, and the extremists within both ideologies have deemed fealty to the “ism” - whichever ism it is - to be the defining characteristic of a desirable candidate.”
Actually, up until the Howard Dean candidacy, the dominant force in the Democratic Party were our “centrists” such as Bill and Hillary. They were largely within the Beltway, well-connected with the K-Street lobbyists, and completely indifferent to State and local politics. They still constitute a huge influence in our Party, Hillary would not be the last one of two standing if they didn’t.
The critique someone like myself would apply to them is that they embody a rootless opportunism that doesn’t stand for much of anything. And their utter indifference to local and State politics was slowly destroying the capacity of Democratic Party to win even national elections.
The true “Reagan Revolution” of the past 25 years had really far less to do with anyone in Washington and far more to do with Republicans in places like Terre Haute than most people realize. Out in the boonies the Republicans were consistently cleaning our clocks both in organizing and fund raising, the first largely through the Christian Right and the other through the local business communities. Backroom operators like Karl Rove also had enough sense to encourage George Bush to travel to the sticks now and then to pump up The Faithful.
What we were doing was inviting DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe in for fund raising and watching him take all the money back to Washington. We also were watching a President Bill Clinton on television, and never saw his face anywhere but there.
What Howard Dean did [and is still doing while teaching even our blockheaded centrists to do it] is revive the grassroots organizing and small-dollar fundraising–and turn it back into genuine political force. The Barrack Obama candidacy is the result. The Republican loss of Congressional majority status was also the result. They did as much as possible to shoot themselves in the foot in 2006, but it would have come to nothing if our grassroots organizing had been where it was in 2002.
As hysterical as people with my views sometimes sound when
gassing off in blogs [and they can sound quite hysterical] nobody’s going to walk away from the voting booth or the grassroots organization merely because a “centrist” candidate might be nominated. We may be “the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party,” but we held our nose and voted for John Kerry, the epitome of “politics as usual”.
We won’t because we know that we can parlay a Democratic Presidential victory in 2008 into more Democrats in office in our State or our town. And those Democrats will largely share our views, because they will be us. They are the Party’s farm team for the next generation. With any Democratic President and any Democratic Congress,
whether “liberal enough” or not, we will thrive and prosper.
So we have time to wait.
January 31st, 2008 at 8:32 pm
If conservatism goes down, it’ll be because of hubris on the part of Conservatives, who are so angry at their side of the electorate for not getting into step that they are willing to throw the country under a bus for the sin of us not being convinced by True Conservative Thought. They have not considered that some of us (I, likewise, am not necessarily a McCain fan, but geez, all the invective?) are watching with interest at people who believe they are entitled to decide for us all what to think and whom to support. I say let the cards fall where they may. If Conservatives want to keep their ideas at the table, they had better remain at the table themselves. This “take your marbles and go home” attitude is for the birds. I am amazed at people who might stay home on Election Day. Better yet, those who think that “in 2012 we will put up a true Conservative and we can coalesce around that person.” We cannot even predict the weather for next week with accuracy, and we are going to predict that? Not to mention all the Supremes in the balance, and the rollback of judicial good progress made in recent years.
The country has tilted more right recently than in past years, but I do not believe it is an entirely conservative country. While I am glad conservatives have stuck to their guns on a number of issues, and shown this person the light on several, I still think they need to realize they need to build some coalitions in order to further their agenda. They seem unwilling to do that. I think it’s not really in their nature to want to compromise, which is what you need to do with people who you want to see vote your way, but who are not in total agreement with you. I’m not sure how to do it otherwise.
BTW, excellent post.
January 31st, 2008 at 8:41 pm
I would add only that Conservatives are not inclined to compromise because they believe they are 100% correct and infallible in their thinking. Some of us are not as convinced. I wonder whose problem that will ultimately be.
I do acknowledge that they have been forced to deal with compromise on issues dear to them. But it has not been done in the interest of being in the driver’s seat and forming solid support for something that will stick. They have done it with long faces, and now are making noises about throwing the board game on the ground because they don’t like how they aren’t being heeded.
Hubris.
January 31st, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Anchoress,
I thought that the “McCain’s Apostasies” theme was largely facetious on the part of the WSJ editorial headline writers. Far from being a blast of excommunication, the piece as a whole struck me as more of an attempt–in the manner of the recent NRO symposium–to figure out how to reach a compromise with the man who seems likely to be the next Republican candidate, whether we like it or not–and who happens to agrees with the WSJ ed board on such things as anti-terrorism, abortion, and, to the chagrin of much of “the base,” immigration.
January 31st, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Indeed driver, that is what the WSJ was doing, but it was also pretty clear that they were using the word “apostasies” because that is what the hard-right considers them!
January 31st, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Ha. Agreed…if they truly intended facetiousness (as in poking fun at the hard right), it would have helped to have place “apostasies” within separate quotation marks.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:09 pm
If McCain gets the nat’l nod, I will be going to the polls but I will be sorely tempted to just simply abstain from voting for President. My Congressman still needs my vote as does the R candidate for governor in this misguided state of Washington, but I know that it is so liberal here that if I vote for McCain, the state will still go to whoever gets the Dem nomination. I know that’s terribly defeatist, but I’ve always been a pragmatist at heart (and that pragmatism is why I vote Republican!!!).
Thanks for the welcome, Anchoress.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:13 pm
I’ll tell you what, ferrous, in ‘96 I did what you’re talking about. I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Clinton (I was transitioning from left to right) but I also couldn’t vote for Dole, so I voted in all the other races, but left the presidential lever unpulled.
I hated that. It felt awful.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:28 pm
[...] has chased a clear and serious voice from the GOP - The Anchoress. And in her usual gifted manner she speaks clearly of the undemocratic thinking that is the force behind the hyper-partisan purity [...]
January 31st, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Russell Kirk argued that to be conservative is to be free from ideologies.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:07 pm
[...] Are Our Ideologies Our Idols? By The [...]
January 31st, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Russell Kirk died in the 1990’s when modern conservativism was emerging as the retrieval of “classical liberalism” which had been abandoned by the Democrats (recall, Reagan said, “I did not abandon the Democrat party; it abandoned me.”) - and well before “conservatism” embraced this current streak of ideological puritanism. When I came in, the tent was much bigger than it has become.
Once upon a time I might have agreed with the statement that the left is all about “feelings and emotions” while the right was about thinking and issues. I’m not entirely sure I would, anymore. Both left and right are doing their share of emoting.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:40 pm
A good argument could be made that John McCain has held a grudge against George Bush since 2000 for perceived slights against him, and so he has spent the last seven years pitching a hissy fit against him. So, if you don’t think that McCain would/will hold a grudge against the conservative wing if he were elected, then you are pretty naive indeed.
I do not think that McCain can, in all fairness, ask the party and conservatives to be any more loyal to him than he has been to them these last seven years, which is to say, hardly at all. (Indeed, on June 2, 2001, The Washington Post ran a front-page story with the headline “McCain is Considering Leaving GOP; Arizona Senator Might Launch a Third-Party Challenge to Bush in 2004.”) Conservatives can only trust McCain to be McCain. And don’t give me this nonsense about conservatives having nowhere else to go, and that the conservatives have some sort of moral obligation to vote McCain to prevent Hillary from being president. The McCain faction should not believe that they can take conservatives for granted — screwing them at every opportunity and still expect them to give servile support.
And if conservatives cannot, in all good conscience, vote for McCain, even if it is to stop Hillary, do not say that the party was not warned that such a thing might happen. Conservatives have given ample notice that many of them might just stay at home, rather than vote for one in whom every fiber of their being says that they should distrust.
When the first version of McCain ran in 1996, when he went by the name of Bob Dole, I too could not in good conscience vote for him, so I’m pretty sure I left the ballot blank when I couldn’t remember the name Mumbly Joe (I sure wasn’t going to vote for Kang or Kodos).
By the way, back when I still publicly called myself a Republican — and when I was Chairman of the College Republicans at my school — I went to a campaign breakfast for Bob Dole (1988), even though I was supporting Jack Kemp. Bob Dole was a nice enough guy, but he gave this story about his early political life. After the war, and after his rehab, he came home and decided to go into politics, but he was initially unsure as to whether he should run as a Republican or Democrat. He then took a look at the party rolls in his area and saw that there were more Republicans than Democrats, so he became a Republican.
True story. Or, at least, that’s the story that Bob Dole gave about himself. (not that surprising, really, after all, here in Northern Virginia, everyone is a Democrat — even the Republicans are Democrats (if they want to hold public office)).
February 1st, 2008 at 5:44 am
To my knowledge, the Republican party hasn’t really had conservative ideals for a while now. Neoconservatives are a far, far cry from any brand of real conservatism, in my estimation. Politics should emerge from philosophy- it is extremely important to engage with others in serious discussion, and to self-educate, before arriving at one’s own personal, political philosophy- but once that philosophy is developed, if it really is well grounded (and it really should be before anyone stands up and declares x or y to be the way to run the country), one cannot be faulted for being passionate about its defense and execution. Unfortunately for this country, people are so eager to arrive at the end, where they can become a part of a community, of a movement, of a party, that they skip over the beginning, and often enough substitute introspection and education with a combination of blind intuition and inherited views from their parents- a dangerous cocktail that, unsurprisingly, leaves many American voters staggering wildly and spouting jibberish.
I am a young conservative, both in terms of my age, and of how long I’ve considered myself one, but it is central to my identity. My conservatism is defined ultimately by a strong belief in personal responsibility- this dictates not only my politics, but how I live my life. As a college conservative in New England, I know what it feels like to be a minority in the political spectrum, to be straw-manned, prejudged, and brushed aside because I label myself as such, and I can understand where the combative, defensive attitude stems from within the Republican party (of which I am not, and likely never will be, a member), for while the definition of “conservatism” varies wildly within this country, it seems that nowhere is it a word without stigma. I have no small amount of resentment towards the “GOP” for providing the manure in which this anti-conservative attitude has grown so well, and I think they’re starting to understand it too, which is why they’re clawing so wildly for a core philosophy, a real return to basic principles- whatever those are.
I think it’s good that they’re trying to reshape themselves, but I do hope they ask “what IS conservatism?” while they’re doing it- it’s been too long since anyone in this country has done some real, political soul-searching.
Although I think it’d help if they had a certain Dr. Ron Paul there while they asked the question.
February 1st, 2008 at 6:30 am
Coulter: If he’s [McCain] our candidate, then Hillary’s going to be our girl…
Hot Air has the video, and Breitbart the quote of the day:If you’re looking at substance rather than whether it’s an R or a D after his name…If he’s our candidate, then Hillary’s going to be our girl, Sean, cause…
February 1st, 2008 at 7:07 am
A good argument could be made the right holds a grudge against McCain because he can win an election in spite of Ann Coulter’s screaming invectives.
The thing that bothers me is that we have put all these young people into harm’s way and yet these socalled conservatives would render the sacrifices of our own soldiers meaningless rather than vote for McCain. What kind of short sighted, hypocritical, self involved stupidity is that? I mean really?
The attitude toward McCain from some on the right is far more destructive to the conservative movement than McCain could ever be. They are basically saying that since McCain does not say how high when they say jump, they can not vote for him. Well, who died and made them king? What makes their vote or their principles or their beliefs any more important than anyone else’s?
I am not a McCainiac either, but the man spent 6 years in a POW camp. He was tortured, he did not know if he would ever see this country again. If that does not earn him a modicum of civility from the right, then that says something rather nasty about the right, not him, but them.
And btw, McCain’s coservative rating is too close to Fred Thompson’s for people to try and pass McCain off as a liberal Democrat and Fred! off as some conservative icon. It is just emotional silliness. Group think at its worse.
February 1st, 2008 at 7:12 am
Victor Davis Hanson has an interesting take on all this……. from the point of view of watching Hillary.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:42 am
I suspect that a lot of conservative dissatisfaction is from the recognition of a ‘frog in a pot of heating water’ or ‘death by one thousand cuts’ scenario playing out before their eyes. As the GOP has embraced increased federal spending, adopted reduced transparency (earmarks), expanded the size of federal and state government, gone wobbly on the concept of borders and respect for upholding existing law, and has even grown confused about the proper (constitutional) role of government, their dissatisfaction has also been rising. The emergence of ‘let’s poke these people in the eye’ John McCain is a direct insult to them. I understand the anger at the ‘moderates’. The ‘moderates’ are essentially saying ‘let’s keep on heating up that water’ or ‘Oh c’mon, a few more cuts won’t hurt!’
Ronald Reagan had very solid core values. The Conservatives you slight are absolutely right not to let go of them so easily.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:05 am
Noatak, is that what you think I am doing here, “slighting” the Conservatives and asking them to boil?
Then I must be writing very badly. I thought I was giving them something to think about - and not just them - ALL of us, liberals too.
It’s fine to have core values. It is strange - to me, anyway - to have core values that swing from “broken glass” to “let’s vote for Hillary!” That doesn’t seem like a core value to me. That seems like a very unwise tantrum.
And to think…so many of these people excoriated me for supporting “baby killer, serial adulturer” Giuliani. Are you telling me that their voting for pro-government-funded abortion-big state” Hillary is consistent with their “core values”? Is the “pulling out” of Iraq and rendering meaningless much young sacrifice (and deserting a people who are starting to trust us) consistent with their “core values?”
Well, crap then. Clearly, I never knew who they were!
February 1st, 2008 at 9:11 am
Anchoress this is about issues. Should we vote for McCain simply to stop Hillary? Is that inspiring to you? My rejection of McCain revolves around issues. Not purity. I was willing to vote for Guiliani for heavens sake. McCain has some serious issues with temperment that truthfully worry me should he get close to the Presidency.
He is a liar of the first order. Witness the flip flopping on immigration, where one week he says he would sign his bill and the next week he says he won’t. Then we have the Keating five incident where the man who was willing to steal away our first amendment rights was caught with his hand in the cooky jar. Sowell says it better than I can.
The passing years and a friendly media have allowed Senator McCain’s shortcomings in the character and integrity department to fade into the background.
McCain was one of “the Keating Five” — senators who used their influence to try to protect a failing savings & loan company, which also became the subject of a corruption investigation.
During the 2000 primaries, the Associated Press reported Senator McCain’s joking about people with Alzheimer’s.
This went beyond bad taste because (1) it was known at the time that Ronald Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer’s and (2) the media to whom McCain was pandering hated Ronald Reagan.
It is especially ironic now to see McCain wrapping himself in the mantle of President Reagan.
With the momentum of his Florida primary win behind him, going into the “Super Tuesday” primaries, John McCain has now been restored to the position of front runner that the media gave him at the outset.
Other Republicans are jumping on his bandwagon. This may have less to do with McCain’s own qualities than with the prospect of getting Cabinet posts or Supreme Court appointments as rewards for their political support.
It may all look like a done deal. But the McCain-Kennedy bill giving amnesty to illegal aliens looked like a done deal two years ago — until the public realized the truth behind the spin and brought that sell-out to a screeching halt.
Super Tuesday may be the voters’ last chance to bring the so-called “straight talk express” to a screeching halt.
It should be called the “sell-out express” because McCain has sold out not only with amnesty for illegal aliens but also sold out the First Amendment with the McCain-Feingold “campaign finance reform” bill that was supposed to take big money out of political campaigns, but blatantly has not.
McCain also sold out on judicial nominations by making his own side deal with the Democrats, undercutting Republican attempts to stop Democrats from filibustering judicial nominees instead of voting them up or down.
This is quite a record for someone running as a straight talker.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:17 am
Core values? Wait I thought you were the one who was saying that we shouldn’t have core values? I have been consistent with mine and I remain so.
Illegal immigration must be stopped and employers must be punished for knowingly hiring illegals. Start with Tyson and Mohawk again since they still have not learned the lesson.
My first amendment rights must be returned to me, we shouldn’t hire the architect of the dissolution of the first amendment to accomplish said task.
The Government should be getting more out of my business, not more into it. Witness McCain various alliances with Kennedy and Lieberman.
I want my tax cuts permanent.
I don’t want my Republican President sounding like a Liberal Democrat when he talks about profit and business. I happen to make my living from both.
I am true to my core values. It is Republicans who think that anyone but Hillary is enough of a reason to throw away all of their core values that worry me.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:24 am
I was referring to your ‘goldilocks’ Republicans on Pajamas Media. I’m assuming you still stand by that article.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:34 am
I’m not one of the ‘let’s vote for Hillary’ crowd. But i see the argument. A calmer way to state it might be ‘People are desensitized to this creeping socialism and nanny-statism going on here - shock therapy might be the only cure at this point.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:35 am
Excuse me, Pierre, I have never said people should not have core values and I think you know that. You think that going after “Republicans who think that anyone but Hillary is enough of a reason to throw away their core values” is being TRUE to your core values?
See, I’m confused. You want Illegal Immigration stopped: Hillary will, what?
You want your first amendment rights “returned” to you: Hillary’s talked about regulating the internet!
You want the government out of your business: Hello Nurse!
You want your tax cuts permanent: Hillary will give you that one, right.
But by all means…hang on to those core values until you give them to her because you don’t like a man whose conservative rating is about 2 points below Fred Thompsons!
Crap - I’m not a McCain fan…I’m a little tirde of defending someone I don’t even know if I want to vote for…but it seems to me this far-right wing needs to take a damn breath.
The right is having a stroke over a man who has been the only staunch supporter of our young people overseas and in harm’s way. What about THOSE core values?
The right has - for the last 2 years - been throwing under the bus a man who is NONE of the things they describe McCain as being, “vindictive, petty, self-agrandizing etc…”
The right wants something that is not on the table just now. Maybe it will be, later, but maybe it won’t be.
The right, it seems to me, is being played a little bit, here. McCain is not my own first choice, but he is no devil, either. Again I will say - people need to take a few breaths, turn off the radios and televisions and take a walk and read something fun and just clear the heads. I cannot tell you how many frantic emails I’m getting from people saying “I don’t know what I am going to do!”
Do nothing. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. It’s not time to freak out. I wonder what Jesus thinks of all this. And where is everyone’s vaunted “Faith”?
Pierre - must run but in answer to your second, longish comment…again…how does voting for Hillary FIX any of that? How does voting for a woman who fits your description of McCain become the better choice? That’s all I’m asking.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:40 am
Noatak, that’s fine. Let ‘em vote for Hillary then. It is entirely inconsistent with support for our troops, and that means lives will be lost, but by all means, let’s start that shock treatment.
As I said - it worked so well for Bush when he figured he could “rely” on the SCOTUS to undo his bad move.
We’ll see in four years whether Coulter’s bad advice comes to the same conclusion - when all those people who should have learned their lesson end up not following the plan and returning the land to the Church of Conservatism.
I asked in the headline: Is your ideology becoming your idol?
It is a legitimate question, meant to make people think about that and perhaps discuss it meaningfully. Mostly what I’m getting in response, in my emails, is emotional foot stomping.
And why is it some people can’t be bothered registering to comment, because that’s too much trouble, but they can write me 1500 words screeds?
I’m going to Bible Study Class! Later!
February 1st, 2008 at 9:51 am
Pierre:
Obama wants drivers licenses for illegals. McCain is the only guy that can beat him. So get real.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:53 am
Yes, I do stand by it, Noatak. I never thought I was “slighting” republicans there, either - once again just giving food for thought. I’m never out to diss anyone. Was my description of the GOP looking for “just right” and objecting to every candidate because of their flaws inaccurate?
February 1st, 2008 at 9:58 am
And you know something? I do not know one person whose life has been effected by McCain Feingold. It might be a silly law or even a useless law, but thus far the Constitution is still intact.
However, if Hillary or Obama gets in the White House, there will be changes that will make McCain Feingold pale by comparison. No doubt about that.
But I do agree with the Anchoress, we owe those young people who sacrificed their lives a debt. We need to remember them.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:12 am
I cannot speak for people that write 1500 word screeds to you. I can only speculate that people are hungry for inspirational leadership. Many people have played this game before with Gerald Ford and Bob Dole and GHW Bush. So naturally, there is a lot of frustration with the Party establishment and the process. (By the time the primaries get to my state the game is already over). The frustration is only exacerbated by the argument that we must assume a damage control mentality. Reagan provided a winning game plan, but the GOP leadership seems to reject it. ‘Vote for my guy because the other guy is worse!’ is hardly a rallying cry.
A good starting pointing for relieving the frustration and anger with the GOP might be offering a clear definitions of the terms ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:18 am
[...] Ideology and Idol. [...]
February 1st, 2008 at 11:00 am
McCain is the only guy that can beat him.
Not when his supporters consistently berate and insult those whom they are trying to get to ignore their consciences and vote for McCain for reasons of political expediency. So enough of this “shut-up and get in line” nonsense.
In fact, conservatives will vote McCain ONLY if polls show in the final days that the election is very close.
If the Dem is down by 10 points, then conservatives will NOT vote for McCain because he won’t need their vote. If the Dem is up by 10 points, then conservatives will NOT vote for McCain because it wouldn’t matter anyway if they did.
Either way, whichever candidate wins, we lose.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:20 am
I love it when the Anchoress gets tough!
The “sit it out” people think they’re going to get a “real conservative” if they reject every less-than-perfect choice this time around. But politicians don’t work that way.
If American voters (a vastly larger group, of course, than the horde of wingnut malcontents to which I belong ideologically) show their love by electing a hard-line socialist like Hillary or Obama, and she or he is not an utter, smoking-crater, Jimmy Carter-level disaster, in 2012 you’re going to find a lot more Republicans heading left than heading right. (And keep in mind that the press, which has been marching leftward all this time, will protect Hillary or Obama a great deal better than they protected the inept Carter in the ’70s.)
A politician’s primary function is not to hold to a principle, please a “base,” or even represent a larger constituency. It’s to get elected. If Hillary or Obama wins, my fellow right-wingers will believe it’s because principled conservatives refused to vote for a left-leaning Republican. Everyone else, including most Republican politicians, will believe it’s because the American people preferred a hard-left Democrat. And those politicians are not going to conclude that the answer is to move further to the right.
I am no admirer of John McCain as a politician, to say the least (I do admire him in other areas, it goes without saying). But the most important thing right now, for countless reasons, is to keep the Democrats out. We will have a lot easier time pushing the party rightward with even a nominal Republican in power than with a socialist-level Democrat.
(And, of course, to claim to support our troops and the Iraqi people and then actively campaign for the election of Clinton or Obama — which is exactly what the “sit it out” people are doing — is reprehensible.)
February 1st, 2008 at 11:43 am
Is my ideology becoming my idol?
My Christian ideology? Yes.
My Classical liberalism/Federalism ideology? yes.
At some point a person has to say ‘This is what I beleive. This is what I stand for’.
It’s probably not wise to do that at age 18. But after 30, 40, or 50 years, a person probably should have developed some convictions. Meeting someone halfway every year for four years will leave you with 1/16 of what you started with.
Somebody has to keep the goalposts from moving. I’m not into relativism. I think it’s an excuse for people stop thinking when things get difficult.
So I would ask the question differently: “Do you have any convictions?”
February 1st, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Actually the purists are behaving very rationally, although they may not realize it. It’s like dickering when you buy a house. You squawk about the roof. You don’t like the color of the bathroom tiles. The furnace will have to be replaced. Yadda, yadda, yadda. You sound like you adamantly hate the place in order to exact something from the seller.
I’m not saying that my ideological soul mates are consciously playing this game, but that’s the upshot. Of course, McCain (in his great vanity) may decide he doesn’t need us, in which case we end up empty handed.
But we have 9 months to play this game in, so there’s plenty of time to anoint him. Right now, what is every mother’s advice to her daughter? Something about not giving away the milk?
February 1st, 2008 at 1:26 pm
In response to throwing too many nasty tantrums, becoming infected with Washington-itis and Porker’s Disease, and finding itself in trouble with the electorate (at least the committed ones who vote in primaries), the Republican party….throws another tantrum. I detest McPain. I honor his service and his steadfastness on Iraq, but even a blind hog finds a nut once in a while. He’s a petty, vindictive, foul-mouthed, foul-tempered, spit-in-yer-eye kind of politician and I know for sure that he’ll side with Dems on lots of things, no matter what he says right now. Period. But I’ll vote against Hilary or Obama. All. Day. Long.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:33 pm
So I would ask the question differently: “Do you have any convictions?”
Yes. I believe that there is seen and unseen, and illusions abounding.
I believe in not being led a merry chase by people who throw red meat.
I believe that God isn’t done with anyone, yet, and that we sell ourselves and each other short when we get too caught up in the emotionalism of any issue.
I believe no one is a caricature and it is unwise to think of people or candidates as the cartoonish exaggerations that political pundits draw.
I believe that people are entitled to their opinions and to full respect for them.
I believe that any time a political party starts telling me that I have to fall in line with what they’re saying or I am not “true” or “real” then it’s time for me to leave that party.
I believe that there is a lot more going on here than mere dissatisfaction.
I believe everything is worth thinking about.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Bender:
I have not actually considered myself a McCain supporter, but I am getting there. No one is berating your guy. Your guy failed to inspire. That is not McCain’s fault.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:45 pm
And you know something? I am getting tired of hearing McCain haters assume they are the only ones with principles. That the only people who know right from wrong are people like them. That is self righteous, sanctimonious demagoguery.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:50 pm
[...] The Anchoress: Nothing else matters but that they don’t believe the same things “we” believe (whoever [...]
February 1st, 2008 at 1:59 pm
I am getting tired of hearing McCain haters assume they are the only ones with principles. That the only people who know right from wrong are people like them. That is self righteous, sanctimonious demagoguery.
Terrye, it’s funny you should write that. On my way home just now I flipped on Limbaugh and I don’t know who the guy is who’s subbing for him, but after a few minutes of listening to him rant, “demagoguery” was precisely the word that came into my head.
There is a game afoot. Whoever was covering for Rush today was a clown keeping the masses busy with red meat until the ringleader can do his schtick.
Something is definitely up.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:27 pm
In for Rush Friday was Jason Lewis, out of KTLK, a moderately rated FM talker in Minneapolis. Not the sort of major leaguer who usually gets to borrow Rush’s soapbox, to mix my metaphors, so I’d imagine his presence has to do with the fact that KTLK is owned by the company that owns the company that syndicates Rush’s show.
A clown Lewis may be, and probably is, but his presence for a day probably just means Premiere is making nice with its Clear Channel ownership, rather than being part of any larger game-afootery. CC is just sniffing to see if Lewis has any potential national appeal.
Not that this is hugely important, of course. I’m just not wild about the characterization of talk radio listeners as “masses” hungering for that old “red meat,” is perhaps what it is. Though it may be justified lately; I haven’t been listening to Rush these days, much less his subs.
But it sounds a bit like there’s some central office giving talk radio talent their marching orders, and, really, there isn’t. (I’m not just a geek, I’m in the radio industry.)
February 1st, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Thanks for the insight, Bridey.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Well maybe. Who knows? Ann Coulter is already promising to campaign for Hillary if the little people do not shape up. So maybe Rush will back a third party. That way they can be sure and get another Clinton in the White House. Lots of material in a Clinton admnistration. I think Rush is all about the money myself. Think of how lucrative Bill was for people like Ann and Rush. Add to that their inherent moral superiority and there really is not much they can not justify to themselves.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Sorry for the double post.
February 1st, 2008 at 3:58 pm
All this wrangling is getting on my nerves. It seems that we’ve all gone a little nuts over this and we all need a time out. That said I will say that I would have a very hard time voting for such a mean spirited, rude, arrogant and self serving man to represent my country. I can’t imagine him dealing with foreign leaders with his attitude problem, rudeness and his flat out lies. I had enough of the lies with the Clinton’s thank you. I guess it all boils down to the fact that I don’t trust him very much. His vindictiveness towards his perceived enemies and opponents is scary, not to mention his Cancer and age. How can one vote when we feel it is bad versus bad and they are basically the same only one has a D and the other an R behind the name? I just don’t TRUST McCain to do what is conservative or even morally right. He has stabbed us in the back to many times to be trusted.
February 1st, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Yes, I think a breather is essential.
February 1st, 2008 at 5:51 pm
For years I have been listening to people complain that Bush was too nice. Too easy to get along with. Would not stand up for himself. And now they worry that McCain is too mean and just to prove a point the Queen of Mean herself Ann Coulter promises to campaign for Hillary if McCain gets the nomination. I can remember defending Ann for throwing around words like raghead and faggot. But McCain is supposed to be mean.
I don’t think that people like conservative Senator Coburn from Oklahoma would even consider endorsing McCain if he felt McCain could not control himself. In fact right now it seems to me that McCain is not the guy having the problem with self control.
But a breather would be a good idea.
February 1st, 2008 at 5:55 pm
I said that badly. I meant to say that I can remember Ann’s supporters defending her for throwing around words like raghead.
Since I do not seem to be able to post without screwing up, maybe it really is time for a breather.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:30 pm
I don’t think that people like conservative Senator Coburn from Oklahoma would even consider endorsing McCain if he felt McCain could not control himself. In fact right now it seems to me that McCain is not the guy having the problem with self control.
Good point, Terrye. I think Ted Olsen’s endorsement also indicates that McCain is not quite the sweaty-toothed ogre of his caricature.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:33 pm
[...] Are Our Ideologies Our Idols? [...]
February 1st, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Well, listening to all of this tonight has actually helped me to follow my gut.
McCain is not to be trusted, Romney is uninspiring… that leads me to Hucabee :).
My husband- 33, non-political and extremely unimpressionable– liked him, although he called him Hickapoo(he’ll kill me if he sees i’ve told you this). I saw only one debate- NH. Pubs, then Dems. Huckabee was most impressive to me– i believe he’s an historical whiz.
There- all my ignorance is on this pg: Huckabee or bust.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Well, I suppose I have gotten a bit surly at the fact that ours is supposed to be a system of self-government and democracy, where everyone is allowed to have his or her say, and yet, by the time that I do get to have my say, that is, to cast my vote in a primary, there will be nothing left to vote for. The nomination has already been decided — and not by a majority of the party, but by a plurality in a handful of unrepresentative states.
And, yeah, I guess I am a little, um, ticked off when I hear folks from the establishment arrogantly and presumptuously give assurances that conservatives like me will simply suck it up and fall in line come November because we have no choice but to do so, leading me to think such intemperate thoughts as, “oh yeah, well eat **** and bark at the moon.”
And I suppose I have reached my last “last straw” when I comprehend and realize that the war we have patiently, but steadfastly, waged for these last 35 years, a war that I have been personally invested in and an active participant, is finally lost, and it will be lost by our own hands. Of course, we are not really cutting our own throats, merely those of millions of innocents who will continue to be slain as a result of the so-called electoral choice that we have made. We will sacrifice them, once again, on the altar of politics.
Does anyone really, in their heart of hearts, truly believe that John McCain will nominate someone who is even potentially anti-Roe?
It is going to take A WAR to get an potential anti-Roe nominee confirmed. To be sure, it will be a nuclear war to get the job done. The pro-abortion crowd will do anything and everything to stop such a nominee — it will dwarf the savaging of Bork and Thomas. Does anyone really think that McCain is going to want to be commander in chief of that war? Does anyone really think that McCain would go all out, balls to the walls, and take no prisoners to get an anti-Roe justice confirmed? Does anyone really think that McCain is going to want to go head-to-head with his “good friends” in the Senate, and thereby risk alienating them on other issues? Deep down, what do folks really think that a President McCain would do?
It is a war that we have waged with patience and perseverence for many, many years. And just like the chair got pulled out from under us in 1992, when we thought that were we on the edge of victory, only to be dealt a near-fatal blow with Casey, once again, we will give up hard fought ground, and be set back yet another 20 years.
Yes, things such as these do tend to make one a bit annoyed.
But don’t worry. We’ll take a breather. We’ll take a nice long breather. Many will come to realize that their involvement in the political process has really been little more than a life-long breather; they will withdraw completely from the political process, having become thoroughly disgusted, so folks won’t need to worry about them anymore. They will continue to work in the real world, in the world away from politics, but they have been burned way too many times (and by those they thought were their friends) to ever again trust the politics.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:15 am
So, Bender…Ted Olsen’s endorsement…doesn’t give you any reassurance in that area?
Funny. Up until a few weeks ago, most of the “true” conservatives thought the world of Olsen.
Even me, “untrue” conservative that I am!
Gosh I read your post and thought - hmmmm…maybe Bush wasn’t as bad as so many thought. He had the heart for these fights.
Let me ask you this: do you really think Romney - who has flip-flopped on the abortion issue and on other matters - is going to fight for the judges you want? Really? Because, honestly, I look at Romney and realize I have absolutely no reason NOT to expect him to fold like a towel the first time the Democrats give him a hard time on judges, the war, taxes…
I ask this in all friendliness, and not as a McCain fan: do you REALLY think Romney is the guy - or is he just “not John McCain?”
Seriously…you don’t think a breather is in order - that maybe Lent coming after Super Tuesday is a good thing?
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:57 am
Living in the D.C. area, I have had the opportunity to observe John McCain for the last nine years — not just the last nine weeks. I have closely watched John McCain ever since 1999, when he first ran for president, when I considered supporting him, and ever since then I have witnessed him doing everything he can to undermine the causes that I care most about. John McCain has showed himself for the last nine years to be a megalomaniac, infected with a bit of the narcissism that flows through Bill Clinton’s veins. He has proven himself for nine years to be untrustworthy.
Ted Olsen’s endorsement? I am a long-time very close personal friend of a certain person of national prominence, a person who is often called a leader of one particular faction of the social conservative community. This is a person whom I love a great deal with all my heart. This person has also joined the John McCain bandwagon, a joinder that was noted in the press, and this was after having abandoned Fred Thompson (who was not given public support, but whose disenchantment with was noted on background in the press). The reason that was given for this person joining McCain was because it was believed that McCain is the only one who could beat Hillary.
If this person of national prominence who knows McCain personally, whom I trust with my very life (and, indeed, is listed on my healthcare power of attorney), and whom I love unconditionally, could NEVER convince me to support John McCain, there ain’t nobody, nowhere who is ever going to do so.
As for Romney, I have repeatedly referred to him as Gov. Pander Weasel, so I don’t have much more trust for him than I do for McCain. But then again, I have not been watching him for the last nine years, as I have with McCain, so the reasons for my distrust are not grounded in as much evidence as they are for McCain.
As for George W., unlike the brain-dead elites at NRO, upon whom I place a great deal of blame for the inter-party bile that has spewed ever since Harriet Miers, I have never and will never say a bad word against him. I think that folks will miss him dearly, and perhaps, if they were honest with themselves, they are already sorry to see him go. A lesser man than Bush (like McCain) would have caved on multiple issues, multiple times.
Yes, McCain would have caved on Iraq and the War on Terror by now. First, McCain, like Kerry before him, is stuck in a Vietnam mentality, a mentality of looking for exit strategies and peace with honor, instead of standing firm and finishing the fight. And before caving, he would spend a great deal of time micro-managing the war effort, rather than letting his generals do their job.
Second, what with wanting to close Guantanamo Bay and otherwise, he seems to be sympathetic to the criminal justice model of combating terrorism (a Sept. 10 view), rather than seeing it for the war that it is.
Third, unlike Bush, who never really cared if he was president — didn’t need to be president — McCain has been running for president since 1999. McCain desperately, desperately wants to be president. He needs to be president. McCain’s first cause is McCain, while Bush’s first cause is not Bush, but his faith. Bush has stood firm in the war, not because he is personally stubborn, but because he knows that there are things greater than himself, and that there is such a thing as evil in the world. As a matter of faith, Bush continues the fight. Bush does not fight for Bush, he fights for the good and for truth (whether or not you all agree as to whether he has a correct grasp of the truth), even if the entire world hates him for it. On the other hand, McCain, who desperately wants to be president, fights for McCain. And he wants to be liked. He wants the approval of the MSM and Washington establishement. When it would be perceived to be advantageous for McCain to withdraw from the war, he would withdraw. McCain would never withstand the constant barrage of fire that has been directed toward Bush these past few years. In short, McCain would not be the rock that Bush has been when it comes to the war.
Frankly, I had not given much thought to McCain actually pulling it off. He was dead politically. The Right had made it crystal clear for many years now that they would NEVER support McCain and that a McCain nomination would be party suicide. But then, seemingly out of nowhere, McCain comes back from the grave. And so, the subconscious thoughts that have lingered for many years regarding McCain are surfacing again.
Even so, the conservatives really have no one to blame but themselves for failing to cultivate and come up with at least one leader that we can all rally around. It has been 19 years since Reagan left office, and we should have had a strong minor league system in place, ready to call up all sorts of superstars when needed. Like the pro-life faction, the conservatives generally have been an abysmal failure at producing good, charismatic, persuasive leaders.
Oh well. That’s what I get for putting my trust and hope in man, that fickle, foolish creature. Trust and hope in man and you will be disappointed every time.
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:01 am
oops — intra-party bile, not inter
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:19 am
Aw,don’t give up hope, Bender. I still think there’s a game afoot!
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:40 am
A Reply to The Anchoress:…
How is blind loyalty to a party any better than blind loyalty to an ideology? Can’t a person make the party an idol just as easily as a philosophical leaning? I’d really like to know. The only possible advantages I……
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:48 am
I hope people are realizing that the media very much would love for McCain to get the Rep nomination. Why? Precisely because the man has quite a lot of dirt on him and Obama doesn’t and Hillary’s intimidated them into not regularly talking about her dirt. That’s why!!!
If McCain gets this, we will get wall to wall coverage from about March onward about the Keating Five. That sort of thing by itself is enough to turn people away in droves. Remember how the swifties were able to deftly sabotage Kerry simply by providing the story about him throwing the medals away? That story was more damning than the “Was he or wasn’t he near or in Cambodia at Christmastime” spiel because it got right to the point of displaying this sense of questioning the character of a man who’d just disregard his country so much as to testify under oath that his brothers were baby killers and rapists. Imagine how painting a picture of a man supporting white collar thievery is going to look? Add the whole white guilt and sexist guilt for either Obama or Hillary and it’s no contest. It would take something ala the final scene of The Dead Zone to make it so the Dems don’t win.
Not trying to sound hysterical here, but I’ve been suspicious of all this from the start. The media succeeded in ruining Rudy’s chances, does anyone here seriously think they weren’t also trying to insure McCain’s chances?
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:34 am
Bender:
When you say you have “observed” McCain, what does that mean? You say you live in DC, well fine, but most people who live in DC are rabid Democrats, so why should I believe that your place of residence makes you a better judge of character than someone from New Hampshire?
I think people are acting like sore losers and children.
BTW, I still support Bush. I think the man has real courage. And it seems to me that a lot of the people who do not like McCain have done nothing but bitch and moan and whine about Bush for years. I don’t think they can be pleased. I am not sure they want to be pleased.
I do not believe that McCain would have caved, there is nothing in his political record or his life to indicate that he would. And since when did ambition become megalomania? The number of people out here psychoanalyzing McCain is stunning. Maybe they should turn some of that analyzing inward, because right now McCain is not the one acting crazy.
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:39 am
Anchoress:
I am still a little mystified by the game afoot comment. If we get a third party candidate from the right at this late date, it will only seal the deal for the Democrats. I really do not think that pushing McCain aside if he wins the nomination will help Republicans, no matter what game they come up with.
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
why should I believe that your place of residence makes you a better judge of character
Terrye — believe what you want to believe, and say what you want to say. I’ve not demanded that anyone agree with me. I’ve not consistently attacked and denigrated those who disagree with me. I’ve directed my recent pointed remarks only at McCain, Romney, Hillary, Noonan, NRO, and other establishment/elites. I’ve not attacked their supporters. I’ve not questioned the ulterior motives of their supporters. The supporters of those folks can believe whatever the hell they want to. I only ask that they quit demanding that I agree with them or that I voluntarily turn around, bend over, and willingly take it with a smile. That is a pretty piss-poor way to get someone to vote for their guy.
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:55 pm
[...] to all you Hanson’s, Simons and Anchoress’s out there, I call bullshit to the idea that we have to believe that McCain is not some big stinking [...]
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:30 pm
The Left decided to take no chances this time by selecting McCain as the Republican candidate.
They did so for one reason: He will lose come November. Sure, that strategy cost Hillary a win in Iowa, but the acquisition of total power will be well worth it.
Tune out the med