The Death of American Conservatism

Can there be such a thing as a
"conservative movement?"


I must first say that I heard this idea on the radio from Sam Tanenhaus. Since that interview the topic has been running through my head. The truth of this concept was made evident by S.C. representative Joe Wilson. His outburst made it clear that there are very few, if any, true conservatives left in the GOP.

After the Obama inauguration there were hopes on the left of a permanent majority. A post partisan era where there would be Obama-Republicans as there had been Reagan-Democrats. Just as the rights claims to permanent majorities had been dashed, so has the lefts.

The last true conservative, Bill Clinton, adapted to his political surroundings and the national sentiment. After the defeat of health care reform Clinton altered his political course to one of moderation.
Al Gore was defeated not only an opponent, but by a movement. While this movement called its self conservative, by being a movement, "or composed of movements" it was by definition not.

Compassionate conservatism was the fire brand populist movement which began the end of conservatism as we know it in America. The Burkean concept of moderation had been replaced by agitation. True conservatives such as Eisenhower, even Nixon, were capable of maintaining the normative status quo for their era.
This, above all, was the purpose of conservatism.

Eisenhower grasped that New Deal programs became so embedded in American culture that to attempt to dismantle them, would be in perspective, extreme for most Americans.

The key was that true classic conservatives believed in moderation. Those who sought to alter the norm too much were seen as extreme, right or left. Burke’s critique of the French Revolution begins with anti-left sentiment, but ends in anti-right warnings.

What has happened to the Republican Party has been a shift in power via the so called “compassionate conservatism” movement. A vast expansion of militarism and industrial military complex growth, “the same Eisenhower warned against” has been combined with government growth and the insertion of ideology to create a whole new brand of politics in America.

Rhetorically we also see the victory of the idealists. The Utopian aspect of the right has taken control of the Republican message. Some of these messages are romanticized ideas of a Utopian past. An urge to change the current society to somehow regain something lost.

Other groups included in this movement have shifted from left to right over the past 160 years. A speech from then (D) William Jennings Bryan could today be given by a Republican representative.

It is important to recognize that many of the movements included in compassionate conservatism, or the modern GOP, are as old as America.

For example many progressives were fire brand religious moralists who wanted to legislate religious moral decency. This is how prohibition became law, and why they voted Democrat. These same people used religion to agitate as abolitionists, part of the then radical Republicans.

A person holding an anti-choice protest sign who currently votes Republican, not too long ago could have been arguing for prohibition and voting Democrat on the same moral grounds.

With the failure and collapse of compassionate conservatism, “which became a dystopian Orwellian construct as many utopias tend to” many of the activist Republicans "non-conservatives" became even more isolated and extreme.

The very idea that there is a "far right" included in the GOP makes the organization not conservative.

This extreme fringe is gaining in strength due to the fact it is now on the outside. Extremists never do well when they are in power. As the rhetorical compassionate conservatism was replaced with rapid militarization, spending, and government growth both bureaucratically and in power relating to civil liberties, the small tent GOP began to split.

The people that were most in peril were the classic conservatives who found themselves caught between movement based activists and the huge government/military Bush 2 developed.

The death of conservatism is the death of moderation. The voices on the right do not wish to act in the interest of a steady course. The right equal to the left wants to -reshape- America into an image they feel is the best.

Instead of maintaining the status quo, today's conservatives seek a "conservative revolution" which would have been an oxymoron to Burke.

The right is driven by movement/agitator based groups who copy many tactics from the left.

During the beginning of the Bush era coffers were emptying for many of these fringe groups and media outlets. They do much better tossing rocks from the outside than actually being constructive from the inside.

The uncertain economy, first African American president, and democratically controlled legislature are all ingredients for fringe success.

The only thing which may save conservatism in America in its original Burkean terms is power.

People will always seek out power. Someone may see an opportunity via these non-ideological methods to attain some.

This prospect may seem overly dim by exaggerated media focus on the movement based Republican Party, but a true conservative may appear very far left to the current voices on the right.

Who is paying for the town hall disruptions?

Where are these health care reform protesters coming from?.

Republicans would like to present these protests as grassroots, while Democrats would like to describe them as astroturf.

While I am sure some of these mislead individuals really believe the fear tactics Republican and Lobbyist organizations have been spreading about the numerous healthcare reform bills currently in legislation.....

There Are People Organizing These Events.

Lobbyist and Republican funded organizations such as,

• "Operation Embarrass Your Congressman." A website with instructions on how to disrupt town hall meetings, not actually participate in them.
  
• Conservatives for Patients' Rights- is a front for CRC Public Relations -- the conservative PR firm previously known as Creative Response Concepts. This is the same firm that funded 'Swift boat attacks" against John Kerry in 2004. It's head man is Richard Scott, who has raised over $20 million to fight health care reform.
  
• American Majority, headed by Lonny Leitner who was regional director for Bush/Cheny '04 and Ned Ryun, a Bush speech writer.

• Americans for Prosperity, led by conservative David Koch the 19th richest man in the world. Patients First - Art Pope is the president. He is an elite conservative who contributed so much to the North Carolina GOP they named their headquarters building after him. It's at 1506 Hillsboro Street.
  
• Patients First is responsible for bussing people around the country to the town hall meetings on health care reform with instructions and tactics to derail them.
  

I found these in a matter of minutes by searching yahoo yesterday morning before work.

I am sure there are many more.

Currently the Lobbying Disclosure Act does not cover attempts to create demonstrations. This means firms can fly operatives across the country and even pay protestors directly without telling anyone in the public or in Congress. The biggest industry has hired the most sophisticated firms in order to defeat public healthcare.

More names can be found at,

http://recessrally.com/

Problems with the Supreme Court's findings on Ricci v DeStefeno

In the lead up to judge Sotomayor's confirmation,

a case involving New Haven, "my home town" was used by Republicans to attempt and frame Ms. Sotomayor, "an American-Puerto Rican female who worked her way up through poverty" as a racist. There was nothing more disturbing than seeing the Republicans questioning Ms. Sotomayor, "all older white males" then reading the online suggestions that Ms. Sotomayor was not qualified for this position due to her stance on race. This meant, all those questioning her were somehow more qualified.

The connection was based in a theory that Ms. Sotomayor was only chosen because she was a Hispanic woman. Being a recipient of affirmative action favor, so the theory goes, she voted with the city of New Haven in the Ricci v DeStefeno case.

There are many undertones of racism involved with this view, beginning with the notion that those who use anti-discrimination laws in their favor are doing so because they are other wise unqualified to achieve their goals.

Problems with the Supreme Courts findings on Ricci v DeStefano.

The Supreme Court voted along party lines to overrule local and district courts in this case.

The conservative judges justification is found in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The court argued that Ricci, and the other firefighters faced discriminatory hiring practices by the city of New Haven based in the Equal Protection clause of Title VII.

The original reason for throwing the test results out was also found in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In Title VII there is the option for employers to not use aspects of their hiring procedure if they ended in racial disparity. This protected employers against litigation.

The city contracted the test creation to a private company “Industrial/Organizational Solutions, Inc.” Once the test was taken, half the number of African Americans passed than that of Caucasian. This disparity was wider than that of previous exams. New Haven’s independent exam rule board was split on their decision regarding the tests 2-2, so the tests were not certified.

Ricci, and the other firefighters who did pass this test sued the city. Connecticut courts upheld the city of New Haven's right to do away with the test under Title VII disparity laws. The regional court held in New York, "judge Sotomayor's tie into the case" upheld New Haven's right, as an employer to give a new test

The Supreme Court found that in this specific case, one aspect of Title VII, “Equal Protection”
was more significant than another part of the same act, “prohibition of hiring practices which produce disparate racial results.”

The court did not re-write the law to say this,

and that is where the problems begin.....

The court did not re-write the law to describe in what occasion a test may be thrown out, or not thrown out. Conservative judges Scalia, Alito, and Thomas publicly argued that since the tests were related to job performance they were not subject to disparity claims. The judges did not re-write the law to say this. In fact, the disparity language in title VII did not change at all.

The conservative judges simply felt that New Haven probably would have won if sued over disparity.

What was the result of this finding?

Now all employers must weigh whether to throw out aspects of hiring practices that result in disparity or not. Employers could face litigation under racial disparity if steps taken during the employment practice produce very uneven outcomes based on race, but they could also face litigation by the majority group if the employer decides to scrap the aspect of employment which caused the disparity in an attempt to protect its self from that very same litigation.

The only avenue of guidance given by the Supreme Court is that they believe disparity suits will not be won.

There is now precedent for two different findings on the same topic, with neither over ruling the other.

The Supreme Court is supposed to take on cases which result in new views of established law. What the court did was say in this specific case disparity was not enough to justify throwing away the tests, but in the future disparity may be enough for litigation. The court did not change the law, it ruled on this specific case.

One must wonder if Judge Sotomayor were not a candidate for SCOTUS if this case would have been given back to District with notes of concern, since now definite change in the law occurred.

• This ruling has already been challenged in NYC. U.S. District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis agreed that the city has discriminated against minorities in its hiring of firefighters, causing blacks and Hispanics to comprise only 10 percent of the fire department's work force even though most city residents are minorities.
  

This is the argument Judge Ginsburg gave in her dissenting vote against the conservative judges in the Ricci case.

• Back in New Haven at the end of July, the New Haven jury awarded five minority Greenwich police officers $157,000 in a federal racial discrimination case.
  

Do these cases need to be appealed all the way to the Supreme courts to find a resolution? The Supreme Court's findings were essentially a non-finding, and eerily political.

The irony of the whole case is that due to the findings by the Supreme Court, determining a discriminatory hiring practice has become subjective,

the very term Republicans used to slander Sonia Sotomayor.

• In the future people such as Frank Ricci may find it harder to win lawsuits. 
  

In 1995 Ricci sued New Haven for discrimination, "dyslexia" when he was not chosen for

1 out of 40 positions among 795 candidates applying for a fire fighter position.

The case was settled on 2007, when Ricci finally received his position.

It also happens that Ricci sued the city of Middletown in 1998 over his dismissal. The Connecticut Department of Labor investigated, and found Ricci's firing was justified.

The Most Important Part Of The VP Debate Of Course Missed By The Mainstream Media

The highest rated Vice Presidential debate, and...

Well,

from Senator Biden we learned little if nothing new. Why would he want to inject a new conversation into a political race that his ticket is winning?

From the media we learned nothing new as usual. Of course Republicans downplayed Palin exactly as they did McCain so that a second rate performance could be seen as a home run.

The media also got bogged down in number fact checking, quote comparisons, and other pretty useless statistics similar to those given in a lull point of a football game on espn.

Some important revelations have appeared concerning Sarah Palin.

It scares me when politicians start talking about how America is different than other countries, inherently superior with no basis of judgement, almost as if we were ordained by God...

couple this with a strong religious belief in Christian literalism and you have a pure ideologue on your hands. More specifically the McCain campaign has one on their hands.

This is the point,

The most important aspect of this debate was of course not covered by the media. It came well into the debate when the moderator asked about the role of the vice president. While Biden gave the traditional description expected, Palin said loud and clear that she did not only support what Dick Cheney has done with the position, but would want to make it even stronger.

• Quick background: Dick Cheney has stated that the VP belongs to neither the executive branch nor the legislative branch, but participates in both. This means that the VP maintains power in two branches of government, "remember the checks and balances charts from high school" while being exempt from rules of both. 
  

Palin not only supported this, but smiled as she did it, "not sure if she threw a wink in there too."

---Overall---

The VP debate showed us nothing new about the media or the Democratic ticket.

Republicans again lowered expectations so far down that the fact Palin didn't collapse half way through the debate equalled unexpected success.

The scariest and most significant thing learned was the true believer that Palin is, and the fact that this could be exerted in a newly created branch of government formerly known as the Vice President.