Logic Times

Betrayed Conservatives

Commentary by Aslan, 4/29/06, 6:00pm. Comments (9)

The Left’s hatred of George W. Bush has no rival...

...or so it once seemed. But not so fast. There is a new breed of GWB hater: the Betrayed Conservative, a creature of surprisingly intense emotions for a member of the rational Right. The Betrayed Conservative is good news and bad news for the conservative movement. The good news is that there are vocal, passionate conservatives out there – large numbers of them – unwilling to accept anything less than sound conservative policy out of Washington. They are angry and active and have imposed some measure of discipline on that exasperating collection of spineless Republicans in the nation’s capital. At the drop of a bad Supreme Court nominee or immigration bill, the Betrayed Conservative explodes with the sort of colorful epithets that would make Al Franken blush. And make no mistake, Bush is their whipping boy, and they rarely stop at forty lashes.

The bad news is that Betrayed Conservatives are a political disaster. Betrayal involves a breach of confidence, but in the history of American conservative politics there has never been any confidence to breach, never been a reliable tradition of conservative policy in Washington implemented by principled public servants. Such animals have rarely walked the halls of the Capitol Building, and when they appear, they are hunted down by both the rabid Left and vacillating Right with the viciousness of ritual murder. Such creatures of principle – Newt Gingrich for example – threaten all pure politicians.

The revolution that began with Ronald Reagan, continued with Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America and had breathtaking potential under George W. Bush is a revolution that most rational conservatives have always understood to be about incrementalism. Draining a swamp is a slow process.

Ronald Reagan was special – a vanguard visionary who took the stumbling disaster of the 70s and infused new life into America. Even so, he presided over a doubling of the size of the federal government, signed a bill granting for the first time outright amnesty to Mexican illegals (2.7 million of them) and appointed such marginal legal minds as Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, his ascension was a triumph for conservatives seeking a place in the public square for God, family, economic liberty, and American strength, values in stark decline in the 60s and 70s.

Perhaps the Contract with America whetted the appetite of the Betrayed Conservative, representing as it did the promise of principle over politics, principles that had popular appeal and reigned in a disastrous and morally bankrupt Clinton co-Presidency. Yet even that crowd had its leader pulled down and many of its members assimilated as they grew comfortable with the tenure that government largesse could buy. Power corrupts and all that.

George W. Bush has turned out to be a politician when conservatives hoped he would be an ideologue. He has produced great things and dismal things, and, while disappointing, such political behavior should hardly be a surprise. The rational Right understands that it is time to bank the gains and make the next incremental effort in the conservative revolution.

Here is where the naiveté of the Betrayed Conservative clumsily intervenes and, like a large, witless boy in a brawl, head down and arms swinging wildly, strikes friend and foe alike. By adding their shrill voice to the debate, the first accomplishment of the Betrayed Conservative is to immolate all Republicans, paradoxically jeopardizing the opportunity for conservative government because of their exasperation with liberal government. I have yet to witness a Betrayed Conservative differentiate between a solid Republican conservative fighting the good fight and a crying, squishy waste of life like George Voinovich. In letting emotion rule the day and failing to make distinctions, the Betrayed Conservative functions more like a typical liberal and, at the same time, serves them very well indeed.

Tom "The Hammer" Delay is a perfect example of how the defection of Betrayed Conservatives has emboldened the scavenger media. The Hammer built his career as a political enforcer, most notably as the man who compelled Newt’s freshman and sophomore Republicans to toe the conservative line. It is this type of man Betrayed Conservatives need roaming the halls of Congress, and it is this type of man they have helped bring down with their blanket withdrawal of support. If nothing else, liberals know a good attack strategy when they see one, so look for character assassination of important conservatives to continue.

The second accomplishment of Betrayed Conservatives is that they have become pessimists – relentlessly negative, doom-and-gloom relatives of Chicken Little. Conservatives traditionally embrace life, opportunity, the entrepreneurial spirit, and a fundamental belief that Man is both good and capable of overcoming all obstacles. That we are endowed – endowed, not burdened – by our Creator with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and, yes, the pursuit of happiness. Instead, spend an evening with a group of Betrayed Conservatives and you are likely to find yourself on a ledge somewhere eager for the pavement below to deliver you from the impending geopolitical Tribulation. Are there problems in our world? Of course. Are they serious? Absolutely. But they are no more serious – and arguably less serious – than the problems faced in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s or any other decade, let alone in the early days of our country. Spend a few hours reviewing the hardships faced by George Washington’s revolutionary army retreating through New Jersey during a bitter December in 1776, ill-clothed, ill-equipped, demoralized and vastly outnumbered by seasoned British and Hessian soldiers. Then honestly evaluate America’s plight today. If Washington – with a list of legitimate complaints a mile long – was a Betrayed Conservative, he would have angrily rode back to Mount Vernon instead of crossing the ice-clogged Delaware at night in a sleet and hail storm with 2,400 exhausted men using blankets for coats and shoes, and then marching 9 miles in the dark to attack and defeat an experienced Hessian army at Trenton without losing a single man in battle. His attitude that long, painful year despite moments of personal despair was a refusal to abandon hope for the cause. Conservatives should take note.

The final accomplishment of the Betrayed Conservative is to undervalue George W. Bush. Given that Bush is the focal point for their outrage, such a statement in likely to make them sputter in disbelief, but George W. Bush has displayed more conservative courage where it counts than any modern president, including Ronald Reagan. Reagan defeated the Evil Empire, it is true, but that cold war – as a test of conservative courage – pales in comparison to the politically hot War on Terror underway today. The greatest hope – the only hope – of winning this state-less, amorphous war is the Bush Doctrine, a policy deeply rooted in conservative principles that survives intact only because it is guided by someone with astounding commitment to principle, someone with total disregard for political calculation in this most important of matters. Such should be mother’s milk to conservatives.

Do we give up on these "betrayed" conservatives? No, but a little advice wouldn't hurt: be optimistic, continue to demand good conservative policy, support true Republican conservatives, and remember the end game of your current strategy:

President

Vice President

Defense Secretary

Speaker of the House

Senate Leader

Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee

Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee

Chairman of the Appropriations Committee

Supreme Court

Comments

1: Paratrooper

April 30, 2006 11:20am EST

You are speaking to a group (including me) that politically that rejects the compromise which is part and parcel of Washington DC. You do not move in the direction of conservative values if you compromise those values. If we stand on principle and lose, then it is clear to future candidates that our votes are available only to true conservatives. If you say you are a conservative, you would understand this.

{Aslan: I sympathize with your desire to "Damn the Torpedoes," but if you and others take this stand, you are making three assumptions: 1) that Betrayed Conservatives represent a large enough voting "block" that your message will be recognized, 2) that the damage done while the political system digests this message will be manageable, and 3) that the political system will respond to the message and eventually produce unflinching conservative candidates who function as unflinching conservative Republicans in office. I think 1) and 3) are out of the question – never will happen. Perhaps 2) will be true – that Hillary and the rest won’t mess things up too bad, although I think the damage that the Clintons did the first time around is greater than will ever be realized.

Bottom line: your principled stand is destined to produce nothing you want – it will have the same effect (with a different mechanism) as Ross Perot did.}

2: Kruelhunter

April 30, 2006 11:38am EST

I have cast about for essentially the same words without even recognizing the full extent of the problem. I too have been guilty of the impatience that motivates so many conservatives. I attribute that to my rather recent recognition of the essential truth and quality of conservative principals.

"Yet even that crowd had its leader pulled down and many of its members assimilated as they grew comfortable with the tenure that government largesse could buy. Power corrupts and all that." I believe that statement identifies the basic fault with the neo-conservative movement, at least among the general electorate. It seems to me that many so called Reagan Conservatives have, like me, come to the movement fairly recently and have had hopes of turning the nation around immediately - an impossible premise even on the face of it similar to the student movements of the sixties that were expected to result in some sort of peaceful, perfectly just social order established by their own desire. Their idealistic worldview didn't come to fruition then and neo-conservative ideals have not come to fruition now. The main difference that I see is that many of those 'radical' students have since assumed positions of responsibility and authority and have used that authority to advance, with the very best of intentions, to advance their cause incrementally.

I continue to hope that our side will have similar experiences. Power to the people, failure to the politicians!

{Aslan: No question that liberal control of education, communication (media), un-elected government and law by 60s rejects is evidence of the power of incrementalism. K, past time for term limits?}

3: Nalsa

April 30, 2006 2:15pm EST

Jane, you ignorant slut. All of the points you make are good and are strongly valid. The problem that we “betrayed conservatives” have is not with what he’s done politically. It’s what he’s currently doing politically so your history lesson is moot. From where I stand the waters are crystal clear: America first. Period. From where he stands the waters are muddy. Values tarnished by business and politics. I don’t care if the Hispanic vote is generally conservative and likely to vote Republican. You don’t give America away to illegal aliens on a gamble just because it’s an election year. The Dubai Ports World debacle I can’t even discuss. Making a business deal with our enemies [read: ALL muslims (lower case intentional)] just to be in Iran’s backyard is unconscionable. He just doesn’t understand that we, the red voters from red states, didn’t elect him because we didn’t want Kerry, as much as that we had expected, hoped, and were led to believe, that he had our, and America’s, best interests at heart based on the native, intrinsic, core needs and principles we live for as Americans. Those of us going to work each day don’t give a rat’s ass about a global political picture. International affairs should be a secondary hobby for the White House. America first! If it takes withdrawing from the globe for a while then so be it. Let’s get our own house in order, secure the borders, and then branch out into the world again. And if they’ve all destroyed each other in the mean time, so be it. It’s time to pull back and strengthen America and GWB has taken his eye off the ball. We deserve better, right here, right now!

{Aslan: You won’t find a lot of disagreement on the issues here. And I must say that the border issue is the one issue that stopped this essay in its tracks for several weeks as I tried to figure out if I should be a Betrayed Conservative – just kidding. That is the one issue that is such a chip shot and would dovetail with Bush's excellent performance in the War on Terror. That said, it comes down to tactics. We agree on the issues, but not on how to respond to the issue.}

4: Mordsith44

April 30, 2006 4:45pm EST

I almost fell off my chair in fright as I was scrolling down the page eyeballing the hellish Democratic lineup, then I started laughing when I reached your depiction of the Supreme Court chaired by Ruth “clones.” I went through the gamut of emotions in one instance.

On a more sober note, Bush needs a public relations win, a big one, something along the lines of the capture of Osama Bin Laden to stem the tide of defections of his conservative base. Not many people have the “long” sight, or the will for greater and greater sacrifice that is necessary to see the Bush Conservative Agenda through to the end, though. Betrayed Conservatives, as you so rightly call them, are really too worried about being liked and being perceived to be popular to stand firm in the midst of such fierce opposition to and negativism for the war in Iraq from all quarters.

{Aslan: Seven Ruth Bader Ginsbergs. I apologize…that was just plain mean.}

5: thomaspaul

April 30, 2006 7:04pm EST

Funny but not funny, Aslan. Sort of like Hillary and Obama - you think it's a joke and then you realize that it could happen. I would attribute Bush's 32% to three things: 1/3 to the media who hates his guts, 1/3 to Bush's poor performance communicating his successes, and 1/3 Betrayed Conservatives. That spells Hillary and Obama. Joshua and Tony are the best in their businesses, but I don't know if there is enough time to turn it around.

{Aslan: You know, I agree for the most part, but has the Bush White House done such a bad job of communicating? What form does the communication take? Press conferences, news releases, interviews – all filtered by your evil first 1/3, the media. I had this debate with Trekram when he claimed that Bush was not communicating about the War on Terror. I proceeded to show the ongoing frantic level of communication (here). What more can the man do? I think there are some things (alternative media), but I think we all underestimate the stranglehold the media has on communication.}

6: Greg H

May 1, 2006 12:41pm EST

Well said - especially the visual aids at the end of the article.

{Aslan: Like they say in Emperor’s Groove (you can tell I have little kids): "Scary beyond all reason!"}

7: Larry Horacek

May 1, 2006 4:27pm EST

Very interesting article you've written about our betrayed brethren. First, I think we all need to recount the current atmosphere in Washington, DC.

In the UK, the party out of power is known as the "Loyal Opposition." I've watched some of the parliamentary debate they have over there and it does get a bit feisty at times. But that is a British tradition, not a US tradition. Our tradition has been what I would call "Statesman Opposition" in which it is OK to disagree - but to do so in a manner fitting of the elected congressional office. Not only has this tradition been completely abandoned, the media has engaged with the Democratic opponents in a way to amplify their grievances so as to distort the worthiness of their objections. Look at the way the media played the Abu Ghraib story for months (years?)...long after the story had any meaningful value. The media tried in every possible way to make this story a 'Nuremberg Trial," hoping beyond hope that the heighten reporting would surely uncover a despicable new truth that would indict a high administration official (which never came).

And so Betrayed Republicans are like fans at a boxing match, who hate it when "our" guy starts a round and gets beat up bad - but not knocked down. The Betrayed Republicans mumble, critique how he dropped his gloves, let the punches get in, etc. But when the next round starts, they're back cheering for our guy, even if a little wary that our guy has shown weaknesses that we must now hope the opponent won't exploit.

And that what Democrats are doing. They are actively trying to knock out the president...a man elected to the position for a four-year term...and to hell with the potential consequences to our country. This is what escapes the "Betrayed Republican" (the BR). The BR is seeing his guy getting beat up and now believes there is a good chance that he'll get knocked out. The BR is crying in his beer already, even as his fighter is still in the ring and holding up. When our guy continues to fight the good fight, then the fighter's fans need to pull together and be more supportive than ever. Don't pay attention to the dropped gloves (Harriet Meyers SC nomination), taking needless punches (Abu Ghraib/Iraq/etc.). The BRs need to remember that their fighter is still in the fight and can still win.

I fear they are losing perspective.

{Aslan: I don’t think this is the case anymore – "But when the next round starts, they're back cheering for our guy." I think they have stopped cheering altogether. They have indeed lost perspective. I like and respect our Betrayed colleagues, except they have never been Betrayed! They went to a football game expecting a tennis match.}

8: SA_Ron

May 3, 2006 8:27pm EST

Interesting article. I don't know if I'm a Betrayed Conservative or not, but I think I'm starting to lean that way. It just seems that when we elect conservatives, they forget why they were elected except to spar with democrats.

I did have one problem with the article and was wondering if you could clear it up.

This passage: "Are there problems in our world? Of course. Are they serious? Absolutely. But they are no more serious – and arguably less serious – than the problems faced in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s or any other decade, let alone in the early days of our country."

...and later, the following: "Reagan defeated the Evil Empire, it is true, but that cold war – as a test of conservative courage – pales in comparison to the politically hot War on Terror underway today."

Is the "as a test of conservative courage" the caveat here, or are these statements really contradicting?

{Aslan: I see your point! I am not saying the problems of the today are less severe on one hand and then a greater challenge on the other. I am isolating the conservative challenge faced by arguably the two most conservative presidents in recent memory, and suggesting Bush is facing far more heat (and a far greater test of his courage) than Reagan faced in on again/off again confrontation of words with Gorbachev.}

I wanted to just let this go, but I can't. Here's why.

Yes, Bush is facing a test of courage with his Iraq initiative. He is being steadfast. However, I feel you are denigrating what happened in the Reagan years with: "...than Reagan faced in on again/off again confrontation of words with Gorbachev."

With that statement, you have totally glossed over what the cold war was and how it was ended. I'm wondering if you're old enough to recall how it was then? This is not a slur, but a guess. The feeling then was that we could have a nuclear war at any time and we were all wondering whether we would have a free world or a communist world.

Communist advances in areas of the globe left the answer in doubt. This was not mere bantering between two world leaders. There were very high stakes involved and at the time, we felt it keenly. In hindsight, it may have looked like just bickering between two countries, but (and I know this sounds pretentious) it really was a global conflict with far reaching ramifications. Yes, there were only a few meetings between Gorbi and Reagan, but that wasn't the challenge. The challenge was soviet expansion.

I am not saying that Reagan's challenge was bigger than Bush's. What I'm saying is that they are different threats, but as you alluded to in the article, we have had presidents deal with threats before. However, I'd like to propose that the Cold War was no less real than the War on Terror. When current events become history, the impact and the feelings of the times gets lost.

There, I feel better now. Thanks again.

{Aslan: Being a Reagan conservative, I am the last person to minimize that accomplishment. The statement was strictly my feeling that the media has evolved into such a dominant anti-war force that the WoT, being a shooting war, has mobilized an intense response more likely to make a weak-kneed conservative buckle, which Bush has not. That said, I am not going to disagree with your characterization of the Soviet threat. It seems to me - perhaps with the distorted perspective of today - that this is a "hotter" issue from a public pressure perspective.}

More Comments Here