The Changing of the Guard
The current administration is mired in a seemingly endless series of scandals, struggling to keep Americans optimistic about Iraq, and facing rising deficits caused by irresponsible spending. The repeated prioritization of loyalty over experience and dogma over science has predictably resulted in incompetent governance. Crassly political attempts to polarize the nation along religious and cultural lines have backfired and left the GOP stranded outside the mainstream. The 2006 elections signalled discontent with the status quo and desire for change. In 2006, that change came from the other side of the aisle, as Democrats took advantage of GOP missteps. In 2008, it may come from within the Republican party. As is inevitable, the old conservatism is succumbing to progress; social and technological forces can be moderated but not denied. There is a repositioning of the center taking place, a changing of the guard. This is most easily observed when it comes to environmental and social issues.
From Redstate, Newt Gingrich makes a case for green conservatism .
American Solutions. The third group – the group that I believe is the future of the American conservative movement, and indeed the future of American politics – are those who favor a “green conservatism” - an optimistic, positive, science and technology based, entrepreneurial, market-oriented, incentive-led, conservative environmentalism that creates more solutions faster and that will result in more biodiversity with less pollution and a safer planet.
Gingrich joins ranks with moderate Republicans such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, who signed a CA law requiring reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases. Arnold has seen the future of the old guard :
"Your political base will melt away as surely as the polar ice caps," he said. "... You will become a political penguin on a smaller and smaller ice floe that is drifting out to sea. Goodbye, my little friend! That's what's going to happen."
The new guard is contesting the left's hold on environmental issues, and their vision of market-driven, business-friendly solutions to global problems is appealing to moderate liberals and conservatives alike.
Also on Redstate, Erick presents "The Sad Tale of Emma Rose." Emma's mom is patently unfit to care for her, and relinquished the child to the custody of a lesbian friend, who by all accounts has done an excellent job of raising the girl. She wished to formally adopt Emma, but the judge perceived an attempt to sanction gay marriage en passant and ordered the girl be returned to her biological mother. Despite his opposition to gay adoption, Erick is deeply unhappy with this decision:
In this case, we're forced to weigh competing values and interests and we're forced to choose between the values of how we'd prefer this child raised and the value inherit in placing this child with the only loving mother she's ever known. The choices are rarely easy, but sometimes the right choice is clear.(In comments
) A lot of people seem to see a social policy that should be implemented, enforced, or debated. I see a child needing a mom.
The divisive attempts to use gay marriage as a wedge issue were arguably successful in the short term for Republicans, but shifting attitudes (as exemplified above, and detailed here ) make such an approach ineffective in the long run. The leading Republican candidates for the Presidential nomination (McCain, Romney, and Giuliani) are much more friendly towards gay rights than many social conservatives would prefer. Americans are disenchanted with the government getting involved in their private lives and personal decisions
and Republicans are adjusting accordingly. The new conservatives are moving away from legislating based on Christian-derived morals and towards a more libertarian perspective.
The Bush administration has presided over the end of one form of conservatism but may bear witness, in its decline, to the rise of a fresh movement, a new guard of conservatism armed with a science-based pro-business anti-meddling platform that enjoys broad support among moderates. I wish this movement well.
Comments :
It's safe to say that no one group is defined by it's leaders
nor by it's most outspoken members. Parallels, similarities, shared thoughts? Yes, of course. But lock step agreement across the board? Hardly.
Democrats aren't all Birkenstock wearing, granola eating, pot smoking rabid environmentalists. Republicans aren't all Hitler Youth fascists. Christians aren't all in agreement with the Pope's dictates. Muslims aren't all bomb throwing suicidal jew haters.
Unfortunately, in the age of the 20 second sound bite, our media, and it's talking head minions, find it easier to identify an entire group by it's least savory characters, even if they don't fit the vast majority of the group.
Take this site for instance. When Josh & Armondo originally pulled it together, people on both sides of the aisle were aghast that either would even consider talking to each other, let alone try to have a dialogue. When viewed through that lens, in the course of time, it's been wonderfully successful. Especially when you see the homogenized versions of the net at TownHall.com, RedState, DKos, firedoglake, etc, etc.
So Kudos to you Brendan. Kudos to you Ender for maintaining the long term vision. We humans are much more like overlapping spheres of belief and thought than strictly to the right or left on a two dimensional line.
My appreciation and thanks.
Great comment. n/t
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Stereotypes are easier to handle
Complexity is confusing, even threatening. But we have to deal with things as they are, not as we wish they were.
We humans are much more like overlapping spheres of belief and thought than strictly to the right or left on a two dimensional line.
Ain't that the truth. Well said.
And likewise thanks -- this site in particular only works because of the give-and-take in the comments and diaries. It's great to see people arguing like hell for their side but simultaneously re-evaluating their beliefs when the opposition makes a valid point.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
What?
Are the denizens of the overlap now going to get some respect around here? Where a blue sphere overlaps with a red sphere you find purple, you know ;}
Seriously, I second Kindness's post. Well done to the heavy lifters!
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Sea changes
In some respects, the comment thread on Erick's diary is probably a more accurate portrait of the national debate than what you'd see at dkos (given that those opposed to gay adoption there are almost nonexistent). And Erick's discomfort and inability to work through a paradox in his values - notice how often in the comments he hedges with "I'm opposed to gay adoption, but" - is probably a more accurate portrait of the cultural tipping point than I've seen elsewhere. The real key here is that he's dealing with a person now, instead of an abstraction, and he can't fit his internal disgust at how this person's life has been ruined with the neat outlines of his abstract argument. There's our insidious gay agenda, ladies and gentlemen: once you know us as human beings, it's a lot tougher to make the same distinctions. I'm very encouraged by that story.
If I can be cynical on the other issues for a moment: there's something natural to the process, as well. If I were running for office, I'd not only want to represent my own party line as strongly as possible, but I'd want to incorporate as much of the other party's line as possible without compromising my own values. That deflates the other side's ability to claim a moral monopoly on those values, even if I'm not taking them whole hog. Why aren't Republicans presenting themselves as eco-friendly candidates? There are environmental issues that don't conflict with Republican values (a good argument can be made for stronger support of the national park service, for example), so if I were a Republican, I'd seek those out and push them hard.
At any rate, it's much more effective than trying to slur those values as a group. There was a time when Republicans tried that, by labeling environmentalists "tree-huggers" or whatever. But given a generation that group up with Earth Day and recycling and global climate change, it seems more politically astute to incorporate rather than reject outright.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Out here in CA, we don't really get the same gay adoption
hysterics that other places see. Honestly, I know more gay families with kids (their own) than adopted kids.
I'm surprised Erik is hemming and hawing a little, but then again, consider the venue.
Money
"Why aren't Republicans presenting themselves as eco-friendly candidates?"
Because many have been laboring under the false assumption that environmentalism is bad for the economy, when quite the opposite is true. Transitioning from oil to solar will be as dramatic an uplifting of humankind as transitioning from burning trees to burning coal was.
Socialisme ou Barbarie!
it is true
that GOP will need to change to adjust to both new Social realities of the 21st century and the need to go back to our Economic pro-capitalist pro-fiscal restraint small government roots.
I can't speak for Arnold and Newt, but I do not mind smart market based and market friendly solutions to any environmental problems.
I do hope the Big Government "compassionate" and corrupt current version of "conservatism" goes away towards what you are describing but not much about the current crop of Presidential contenders nor our representatives in Congress is inspiring to be honest.
It will take a long time to change the guard. I like your optimism though.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Old Guard
"It will take a long time to change the guard."
Not if the GOP base starts unseating the old guard in primary challenges, like the Dems have been doing to oust the crust Baby Boomers who have nearly ruined the party. Get the old blood out, don't let the party leaders form the agenda anymore, and things will change quicker than anyone expected.
That's the weird thing about American politics; things can seem so entrenched, but once a party loses a major election like 2006, things can change on a dime.
Socialisme ou Barbarie!
Most hysterical comment in the Newt thread
Newt, man, you might do better creating a new party and leaving these, um, folks behind.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
I am very impressed by Newt's post though
He actually responds to comments! (well not too much but still) Holy cow. What a great man.
If he ever forms a new party - I am so there.
This is not to say I am a big fan of the contents of his post :) But it's cool.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I was too.
I'll have to admit that whenever I see a post by a "prominent" (ie - national stage) person, I almost always think that it was put together by an assistant somewhere....but, Newt sounded almost progressive. Maybe that's what made me think it was his new college intern. And if that's the case, did his wife vet the intern to pick the homliest & most gruesome one? Newtie has a history you know.
Put that one against the post of the Congressman who was trying to rally the troops into not allowing more tourism & trade to Castro's Cuba and it's quite a difference. On the good side, most of the comments there told the Congressman that trade with Cuba would serve our purposes to open it up to democracy more than continued isolation....ie - China. I was pleased to see that too.
I liked it too
If the great man is fearless enough to learn, shouldn't you be too, grasshopper?
You could try something non-political to learn more about the science behind it. I've not read Al Gore's book nor seen his movie, and it's too political anyway, although it probably contains a decent overview of the science involved.
I've been trying to find non-controversial sources that I can recommend, but most of my personal collection just has bits and pieces, explained as part of the bigger topic of the book. You could try "Snowball Earth" (I think that's the title) which was published a few years ago, dealing with pre-Cambrian environmental investigations and the evidence of global glaciation. It may be a bit too heavy on the physical evidence of glaciation but it should contain the molecular science as well (carbonate analyses, volcanic effects, solar cycles, etc.). I got the abstract version in a journal so didn't buy the book, so I don't know for sure.
Any book discussing the extinction events of any of the geological periods could also be an OK source for some of the science, although not very comprehensive.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
I am slightly bored with the topic
which is why I don't spend much time researching it. I also don't like any of the environmentalist groups because they are leftist... Which leaves me with waiting for conservatives coming up with alternatives.
I don't trust the liberal left on this because they have ulterior motives to screw the business and the wealthy.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Didn't know you ascribed to
conspiracy theories.
I'm only half stupid
that's less a conspiracy theory
and more a general statement about environmentalist groups' ideology.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Education should not be feared
Environmentalist groups don't write detailed analyses of pre-Cambrian climate change . . . unless you believe that all scientists are leftists who cannot be trusted ;}
You won't be able to evaluate policy options effectively without understanding what is happening, the variables and the uncertainty factors. I can appreciate the unwillingness to read skewed publications, which is exactly why I'm searching for less contentious options. For anyone who reads this board and wants to know more instead of just following someone else's lead.
One example is the ethanol-in-gas decision. Makes a good soundbite, but it's horrible policy.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
and I appreciate
your efforts on bringing this issue up in a non-contentious way.
I am still undecided on what a lot of those scientists say but I don't believe they are all leftist. Biased perhaps.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
If the child's biological mother is UNABLE to care for her for
whatever reason(s), then the biological mother did the right thing by giving the child over to her close lesbian friend to raise. So, since the biological mother of the child is unable to care for her, and the biological mother's an excellent parent, I say, let the lesbian friend of the child's biological mother formally adopt her. This is an instance where differences must be set aside for the child's welfare and well-being, which is clearly at stake here.
Old Guard vs New Guard: Game/Set/Match
I love this!
Eric Boehlert of Media Matters
takes on
Scott Johnson and John Hinderacker of Powerline
Boehlert's post, can conservative bloggers tell the truth has the powerline gang literally frothing at the mouth.
Bring it, Eric!
I'm only half stupid
The righties use the cunning gambit of never actually
addressing the charges or issue, but instead rely on indignation and outrage to "prove" their claims.
Wonder how long that would stand up in a Court of law?
I so want
Powerline's a** to get pounded into the ground by the intellectual powerhouses on the left.
Powerline defends the Swiftboaters. Powerline is the Swiftboaters.
As a side note, Victoria Toensing is the defense lawyer for Paul Wolfowitz's gal pal.
I'm only half stupid
While I hope
this new version of conservatism emerges strong, the recent SCOTUS ruling shows the religious (force the government into your personal lives and morality) aspects are not going to go away quietly
.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
please man
there is nothing religious about this. 70% of the country supports this ban including a majority of pro-choicers and 19 Dem senators who voted for it.
Entire GOP including libertarian and economic conservatives support this.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I am
not arguing the popularity of the decision, I linked to an article that says it 'emboldens' more government intrusion in the spirit of the religious-right:
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
the religious pro-lifers
might think this is a stepping stone to wider bans, and little kids believe in Santa Claus. In both cases it's just fantasies.
The GOP has nothing further on this issue because maybe they thought they could milk this one for a few more years... Not sure. It's time to wake up and smell the roses and see that we need a new agenda.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR