IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Reminds me of a commentary by Glenn Greenwald
[link|http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/02/do-bush-followers-have-political.html|Glenn Greenwald] commentary (via Dan Gillmor's blog). It's long and a little strident (but apparently sincerely so). It covers the morphing of "liberal" and "conservative" in the time of GWB very well:

[...]

What it takes to make someone a "conservative" in Bozell's eyes is the same as what is required in the eyes of all Bush followers -- a willingness to support Bush's actions because they are the actions of George Bush.

We see the [link|http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/02/11.html#a7117|same thing happening] to hard-core conservative Bob Barr due to his criticism of Bush's violations of FISA . Similarly, the minute a Senator with years of conservatism behind them deviates from a Bush decree on a single issue, they are no longer "conservative." George Voinovich [link|http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,,FreedomAlliance_042105,00.html|became a "liberal"] the minute he refused to support John Bolton\ufffds nomination; John Sununu is now "liberal" because he did not favor immediate renewal of every single provision of the Patriot Act which Bush demanded, and Senators like Chuck Hagel and John McCain long ago gave up any "conservative" status because of their insistence on forming opinions that occasionally deviate from the decrees from the White House.

People who self-identify as "conservatives" and have always been considered to be conservatives become liberal heathens the moment they dissent, even on the most non-ideological grounds, from a Bush decree. That\ufffds because "conservatism" is now a term used to describe personal loyalty to the leader (just as "liberal" is used to describe disloyalty to that leader), and no longer refers to a set of beliefs about government.

That "conservatism" has come to mean "loyalty to George Bush" is particularly ironic given how truly un-conservative the Administration is. It is not only the obvious (though significant) [link|http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-31-03.html|explosion] of [link|http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.23352/pub_detail.asp|deficit spending] under this Administration \ufffd and that explosion has occurred far beyond military or 9/11-related spending and extends into almost all arenas of domestic programs as well. Far beyond that is the fact that the core, defining attributes of political conservatism could not be any more foreign to the world view of the Bush follower.

As much as any policy prescriptions, conservatism has always been based, more than anything else, on a fundamental distrust of the power of the federal government and a corresponding belief that that power ought to be as restrained as possible, particularly when it comes to its application by the Government to American citizens. It was that deeply rooted distrust that led to conservatives\ufffd vigorous advocacy of states\ufffd rights over centralized power in the federal government, accompanied by demands that the intrusion of the Federal Government in the lives of American citizens be minimized.

Is there anything more antithetical to that ethos than the rabid, power-hungry appetites of Bush followers? There is not an iota of distrust of the Federal Government among them. Quite the contrary. Whereas distrust of the government was quite recently a hallmark of conservatism, expressing distrust of George Bush and the expansive governmental powers he is pursuing subjects one to accusations of being a leftist, subversive loon.

Indeed, as many Bush followers [link|http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/bush-followers-are-not-conservatives.html|themselves admit], the central belief of the Bush follower's "conservatism" is no longer one that ascribes to a limited federal government -- but is precisely that there ought to be no limits on the powers claimed by Bush precisely because we trust him, and we trust in him absolutely. He wants to protect us and do good. He is not our enemy but our protector. And there is no reason to entertain suspicions or distrust of him or his motives because he is Good.

We need no oversight of the Federal Government\ufffds eavesdropping powers because we trust Bush to eavesdrop in secret for the Good. We need no judicial review of Bush\ufffds decrees regarding who is an "enemy combatant" and who can be detained indefinitely with no due process because we trust Bush to know who is bad and who deserves this. We need no restraints from Congress on Bush\ufffds ability to exercise war powers, even against American citizens on U.S. soil, because we trust Bush to exercise these powers for our own good.

The blind faith placed in the Federal Government, and particularly in our Commander-in-Chief, by the contemporary "conservative" is the very opposite of all that which conservatism has stood for for the last four decades. The anti-government ethos espoused by Barry Goldwater and even Ronald Reagan is wholly unrecognizable in Bush followers, who \ufffd at least thus far \ufffd have discovered no limits on the powers that ought to be vested in George Bush to enable him to do good on behalf of all of us.

[...]

UPDATE: For a glimpse of how actual conservatives quite recently used to think, one should read [link|http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a27337612f5.htm|this article] at FreeRepublic.com, which decries the dangerous loss of liberty and privacy as a result of the Clinton Administration's use of a "secret court" (something called the "FISA court") which actually enables the Federal Government to eavesdrop on American citizens! Worse -- much worse -- the judicial approval which the Government (used to) obtain for this eavesdropping is in secret, so we don't even know who is being eavesdropped on! How can we possibly trust the Government not to abuse this power if they can obtain warrants in secret?

Conservatives used to consider things like this to be quite disturbing and bad -- and the eavesdropping then was at least with judicial oversight. Now, George Bush is in office, and all of the distrust we used to have of the Federal Government exercising these powers has evaporated, because we trust in George Bush to do what is best for us. He should not just have those powers, but many more, and he should exercise all of them in secret, too, with no "interference" from the courts or Congress.

That is why I say that whatever else these Bush followers are, they are not conservative. (h/t [link|http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/11/233148/167|Stand Strong] and [link|http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/02/do-bush-followers-have-political.html#c113975024442944523|aarrgghh]).


Cheers,
Scott.
New That FreeRepublic link is great
How have the Democrats not picked up on this? Not this article in particular, but the whole issue it describes. What they should do: Find Republicans who had anything to say about FISA under Clinton. Write up choice quotes on posterboards and keep them handy in the House. Get them to defend Bush's wiretapping. Put the quotes up on easels and thank them for supporting your plan to shut down the program.
===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
New Which is to say, yet again -
Indeed , little-Jesus is no epithet, among those now Washed in the Blood of George II.

That is an accurate depiction of todays's theoiconology ... and only language murder can sustain the continuing use of any tag beginning Conserva-, as these troglodytes concentrate even more Wealth at the top; squander.. On Credit! perhaps more than a next generation's -now assured- daily drudgery as,

50-hour-week drones at pizza delivery wages
sans reform of the Medical (or Insurance) Industries) with that pizza uniform,
and abide the litany of declining services, infrastructure, cuth and .. intelligence.




Californians Arise !!!
Secede . . .


Remove our salvageable economy from this 100% mort-gaged floating crap game
- from this suppurating garbage scow and its crew of sanctimonius twits, in their race to the bottom.


tpoy


(or at least, do fucking Something, you bleating consuming sheep!)
Expand Edited by Ashton March 5, 2006, 11:46:59 PM EST
New Given that definition of "liberal"...
...we should sweep the next election that is framed fully on any so-called liberal/conservative schism!

Bring it on!




34% and falling....
jb4
"Every Repbulican who wants to defend Bush on [the expansion of Presidential powers], should be forced to say, 'I wouldn't hesitate to see President Hillary Rodham Clinton have the same authority'."
&mdash an unidentified letter writer to Newsweek on the expansion of executive powers under the Bush administration
Expand Edited by jb4 March 6, 2006, 10:18:12 AM EST
New Brilliant article
A brilliant article, one that cuts right to the core of what is wrong with much of the right wing in the US now.

The only thing I would add is that this really didn't start with Bush, it started with Clinton. There has always been an undercurrent of personal dislike between the parties, that is natural. But while Bill was in office the entire right coalesced around it. No longer did the conservatives and right wing oppose the president because they disagreed with his politcs, they opposed the president because the hated him personally.

When a Republican was elected this reversed, and they embraced him on personal level. No longer was being Republican, conservative or even right wing defined by political posistion, it was defined by support for the president.

Why this happened is a more complex issue, there are a lot of things that fed into this. Off the top of my head I can see Bill's carefully triangulated politics leaving little for the right to object to politically, the growing synergy between the conservatives and the religious right, Bill's personal popularity leading to frustration on the right, the money that was feed into the right for the purpose of bringing Clinton down rather then building up the right, the growing seperation between Republicans on Congress and the right wing politcal movements, and a rise in press based on sparking controvery rather then informing anybody.

Jay
     Video of Bush briefing before Katrina hit. - (Another Scott) - (37)
         More Lies, More Videotape - (jb4) - (1)
             Not Midterms, Finals. -NT - (jbrabeck)
         Heard on NPR today - (drewk)
         As more evidence of innate dumbth trickles in - it endears - (Ashton) - (33)
             Remember 1973-1974? - (Another Scott) - (32)
                 I still say the model has changed. - (Simon_Jester) - (5)
                     It's possible. Depends on the Repub candidate though. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                         No senator is ever in a "good position" for that race. -NT - (admin)
                     Another way of saying - (hnick) - (2)
                         That IS sad - (jb4) - (1)
                             Not too young. - (hnick)
                 One small point of clarification: - (jb4) - (9)
                     It's around $2.35/gal for regular, $2.70/gal diesel here. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                         My heart bleeds - (pwhysall) - (2)
                             $5.92/gallon. Not bad. :-/ -NT - (Another Scott)
                             YMMV -NT - (jb4)
                     My gas prices are down somewhat - (ben_tilly)
                     I'm paying $1.99, significantly lower than post Katrina. - (bepatient) - (3)
                         OK, so riddle me this, Batman... - (jb4) - (1)
                             It also depends - (bepatient)
                         Prices jumped up this past weekend for me - (lincoln)
                 Re: Remember 1973-1974? - (JayMehaffey) - (15)
                     Vast oversimplification - (bepatient) - (9)
                         Quite right about that. - (inthane-chan) - (1)
                             Aside from the fact... - (bepatient)
                         From my point of view - (ben_tilly)
                         Bull.... - (Simon_Jester) - (5)
                             Sigh - (bepatient) - (4)
                                 Well, on one issue we agree.... - (Simon_Jester) - (3)
                                     You keep missing the point - (bepatient) - (2)
                                         Again, we disagree on this point... - (Simon_Jester) - (1)
                                             The veep speaks quite a bit - (bepatient)
                     Reminds me of a commentary by Glenn Greenwald - (Another Scott) - (4)
                         That FreeRepublic link is great - (drewk)
                         Which is to say, yet again - - (Ashton)
                         Given that definition of "liberal"... - (jb4)
                         Brilliant article - (JayMehaffey)

Well, after thinking it over for a few hours, the toilet decided to work.
114 ms