As usual, a well written, insightful piece. As a former conservative-turned-democrat-turned-politician-hater, I appreciate the angle of the piece, but I believe it is missing something. The ideology of conservatism has mixed with what I'll call the "faith-following" nature of religion, and has led to a very disturbing confluence in the Republican party. While is has obviously become very ideologically-driven, and openly hostile to ideas that are not its own, it has also become openly hostile towards intellectualism. This is, in my opinion, one of the most disturbing trends. It discourages independent thought and research, relying instead on a truly corrupted media of its own to spread hateful and ignorant ideas (most often predicated on lies). Since the triumph of W over McCain, this has truly turned into a vicious spiral, of which Sarah Palin is merely a symptom (though an excellent example) of an anti-intellectual creed. Regardless of your intelligence or eloquence, the Republican party is truly at a crossroads and appears to unfortunately be diverging from you.
As long as you have a very corrupted right-wing media motivated by greed and ratings rather than constructive dialog aimed at addressing and solving some very fundamental, systematic shortcomings in our political system, you will continue to have the portion of the Republican party that considers themselves very religious (mostly the evangelicals obviously, but not exclusively) led down this road like the sheep they have proven themselves to be. I fail to see how your intellectual conservatism can take root in the modern Republican party any more than intellectual liberalism can. This is the unfortunate state of affairs that drives intellectual conservatives such as myself away from the party.
This of course is not to defend the Democrats in any way. But I believe you do find them embracing intellectualism and problem solving in this environment, although whether that's because they have the luxury of doing so because they're in power remains to be seen.
I will bring up my constant rallying call which I posted previously on your blog. A third party is the only viable alternative right now. We have often said it is not a realistic expectation, but I do not buy that. Given enough resources (think: Bloomberg), you could truly capture a very large part of this country that sits squarely in the center - they want practical government that abides by the constitution, provides a certain level of a safety net for those that need it, and regulates business in an independent, non-corrupted, minimally intrusive manner.
Just a humble opinion of course, but one I continue to promote in the hopes that it will catch hold. It has happened many times in the past in our political system, and can certainly happen again.Comment Posted By Dave On 7.10.2009 @ 10:44
Rick, I have to tell you that I have just stumbled on to this blog, but so far have nothing but respect for your attitudes and approach to the completely dysfunctional political environment we have found ourselves in. I was a republican who was pushed from the party by W, and even moreso by the anti-intellectualism, pro-religion, governmental expansionism that gripped the party after 9/11. Unfortunately, the democrats don't seem to be any better at this than the republicans. As far as I can tell, the only thing that the 2 parties have demonstrated is that they are completely corrupt and incompetent.
My fundamental question is this - how is it possible that a viable 3rd-party has not emerged? How much longer will this country tolerate these parties? Have we truly become so lazy in this country that the most we are willing to do is scream and yell, but not willing to pick up the mantle of change and revolution anymore?
The game is well and truly rigged against any 3rd party emerging. Ballot access is the number one control used by both parties but beyond that, the media is a huge problem as well. Since they refuse to recognize any third parties as viable, they are dismissed.
The institutional barriers are formidable. Organizational problems abound (look at Perot's 3rd party that fell apart after he left). No viable 3rd party can truly emerge and if it tries, it is usually viable for only an election cycle or two before it is absorbed into one or the other party. That's the history. I have no idea how to change it.
ed.Comment Posted By Dave On 2.10.2009 @ 07:35
Saying that the man is untalented or limited in his talent is subjective, regardless of what you think he did had talent, he could sing and dance. Wether or not it was good in your oppinion, i dont care. Comparing him with others is like comparing the taste of one fruit with another, its stupid. " This apple is better than that apple .. "
About the child-molestation, nobody really knows wether or not he did anything, however i think you cannot link that to thee fact that he was a born entertainer. The first has nothing to do with the other, its like saying John Travolta is a bad actor because he believes in Scientology.(talking about idiots)
I think you have a genuine dislike towards the man, wich is your right, but you try to prove that with irrelevant arguments and comparisons that dont make sence.
In my opinion just say that you dont like him and be done with it dont be a wise-ass and try to cover it with sweet talk.Comment Posted By Dave On 26.06.2009 @ 19:02
funny man, congratulations! You are now classified "brave" in Rick Moran's world.
And if you don't like the "loudmouthed bullying", then you should vote democrat. Cuz' I hear Pelosi and Reid are real nice to moderates in their party.Comment Posted By Dave On 8.04.2009 @ 16:00
Well, let me proffer a suggestion.
Don't put your own tripe out over the internets if you don't want any incoming.Comment Posted By Dave On 8.04.2009 @ 15:37
Here's how it is.
Agree with me, you're brave.
Disagree with me, you're a bigot.
Did I say everyone was an anti-Catholic bigot or just the person who thinks that as late as 1960, a Catholic running for president would be torn between the Vatican and his own country? And yeah, when comments are running 20-1 against me and someone sticks up for me, I call that brave - considering the nauseating tripe people have been flinging at me and that Andrew is leaving himself open for the same treatment from the same mouthbreathers.
ed.Comment Posted By Dave On 8.04.2009 @ 15:27
Who is this Rick Moran guy? And why is he mixed up in some hocus debate involving conservatism? I mean, from what I can tell, I'd say he's Kathleen Parker's intern, but really, who is he?Comment Posted By Dave On 8.04.2009 @ 14:47
I don't really give a rip if the GOP is "doomed."
Conservative principles, as articulated by the likes of Beck, are good for the country. I don't care what party carries them into practice, although I will say that the GOP is "doomed" to the extent it tolerates second-hand scholarship wrapped in elitism such as the tripe produced by the author.Comment Posted By Dave On 8.04.2009 @ 13:46
Who is this guy anyway? And why in the hell does Hot Air link?
Yeah, anti-Catholic bigotry in the 1920s continuing through to the present day is horrible.
Now, pray tell, why does this subject, but for the author's fondness for mixing apples and oranges, have anything to do with Beck's question to Ellison and, moreover, why is this evidence of Beck's "kookiness"?
Someone's a kook alright, and it ain't Beck.Comment Posted By Dave On 8.04.2009 @ 13:16
Well, I read to the point where you ridiculed Beck as a kook for asking Ellison a very honest question and labeled those of us with similar feelings as kooks. I can see why you're costing your hosts readership. By the way, asking Ellison the question posed by Beck is in no way similar to asking JFK about his ability to serve the US as a Catholic. I don't ever recall 19 crazed Catholics crashing planes into buildings in the name of their religion. Perhaps you need to go back to daddy's library and do some learnin.'
Never heard of anti-Catholic bigotry in this country? Are you an idiot or do you just play one on my blog?
And by bigotry I mean that people were terrified that "Papists" would take over the country and make us all slaves to the pope. Do you think it an accident that no Catholic was elected president until 1960? Read an account of the election of 1928 where Al Smith was the victim of the most nauseating kinds of bigotry you can imagine. But then, I'm talking way over your head when I say "read."
Obviously, you should probably not try so hard to make an ignorant fool of yourself. It's embarrassing.
ed.Comment Posted By Dave On 8.04.2009 @ 11:54