"But what does conservatism stand for today, other than opposition to President Obama?"

The Cato Institute's David Boaz had a great op-ed in yesterday's Washington Examiner with a little advice for today's floundering conservative movement:

But what does conservatism stand for today, other than opposition to President Obama? President Bush expanded entitlements, increased federal spending by more than a trillion dollars, federalized education, launched "nation-building" projects in two far-flung regions, and accumulated more power in the White House than any previous president.

Yet the masses assembled at the Conservative Political Action Conference chanted "Four More Years!" at him in the eighth year of his reign. Is that really a record that conservatives wanted more of?…

The trick for 21st-century American conservatives, conservatives in a country founded in libertarian revolution, is to decide which traditions are worth holding on to. I would suggest as a good first rule that we allow the natural evolution of society and market, while limiting coercive intervention into those processes.

Conservatism should make its peace with natural social change, before it loses the entire younger generation, while reaffirming its commitment to freedom and limited government.

Read the whole thing here.

Comments

[Warty]

reaffirming its commitment to freedom and limited government.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Isaac Bartram]

Uh huh.

Though I didn't really LOL so much as WTF?!?!

[Jaybird]

"But he's driving all of the right people crazy! What do you mean he's not conservative enough?"

[Attorney]

IMO the excerpt is better than the whole piece.

[Autodidact]

"But what does conservatism stand for today, other than opposition to President Obama?"

Best. Strawman. Ever!

[John Tagliaferro]

"But what does conservatism stand for today, other than opposition to President Obama?"

Racism?

[Mark Twain]

But I repeat myself!

[Hyperion]

Or legislating moral values? My only question is... Because Huckabee jammed with Skynyrd on Fox, does that make him cool? I vote no.

[Moose]

Actually, jamming on Fox with Huckabee made Skynyrd LESS cool.

[B]

Legislating moral values? Liberals do the same fucking thing. Every time I hear someone give that lame reply, it makes me roll my fucking eyes.

[B]

Jesus Christ, give me a fucking break. Racism? Christ, can we please have a rational fucking discussion without some stupid fucking asshole dropping a turd in the punch bowl.

Yes, racism is exactly what conservatives stand for. Why, you can't listen to a conservative talk without hearing "I hate niggers and spics".

[Pro Libertate]

Limited government: It's what's for dinner!

[mark]

Yet the masses assembled

Lost me there.

For those who don't read Drudge, I give you Michael Bloomberg:

We live in a world where we have to have a balance. We can't just say everybody can go everyplace and do anything they want.

[Hyperion]

I saw that. Just the sort of statement you would expect from that nanny stater, shit for brains Bloomberg.

[mick]

The narrative of inevitable change is how liberals have dominated society for the last several decades.

There is absolutely nothing inevitable about letting liberals run this country. It's time to stop being little bitches about this and say no to change.

[J sub D]

But what does conservatism stand for today, other than opposition to President Obama?

We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen!

[24AheadDotCom]

Boaz is obviously an idiot. "Natural social change" is how the far-left obtains power, such as through MassiveImmigration. For an education, search through my archives.

P.S. In case anyone replies to this, their responses will almost assuredly be ad homs, thereby conceding my points and showing the childish, anti-intellectual nature of libertarians. Dozens of comments here have shown that the phrase "fascist libertarian" isn't an oxymoron.

[Amakudari]

And I quote:

Boaz is obviously an idiot ... In case anyone replies to this, their responses will almost assuredly be ad homs, thereby conceding my points and showing the childish, anti-intellectual nature of libertarians ... "fascist libertarian" isn't an oxymoron.

But seriously, ad hominem is childish.

[libertybill]

But seriously, ad hominem is childish.
______________________

You expect LW to make any sense when he parrots Pat Buchanan's talking points?

[Kolohe]

In all of human history, the far-left has only obtained power through violent revolution, not through natural social change.

And in nearly all cases, far-left movements - both sucessful and unsucessful - have found their base in the people that have been present the longest on the particular piece of real-estate over which people are arguing about control.

[Warty]

Holy shit, Lonewacko upgraded his disclaimer to a +10AC super disclaimer!

Shut the fuck up, Lonewacko.

[John]

"Conservatism should make its peace with natural social change, before it loses the entire younger generation, while reaffirming its commitment to freedom and limited government."

So 'natural social change" is always for the better? It is never towards the more oppressive? Damon you might want to ask Europe about that. The natural social change there seems to be towards the Sharia.

Natural social change my ass. It is about affirming people's natural rights and protecting them from the government regardless of what the current social fashion is. What an idiot. How do these people manage to get jobs?

[24AheadDotCom]

Here's one foreign example of Boaz's social change. I don't know whether he's a Sharia supporter or not.

And, closer to home, here are some of Boaz' racial power group buddies crowing about change.

[Mike M,]

Conservatism should make its peace with natural social change, before it loses the entire younger generation.

Political conservatism is never particularly popular with young people in any generation.

[Hyperion]

It's because young people don't want their morality legislated, and most conservatives tend to come off as being stuffy and unhip old cronies. That and they are too young to see through the false hope of 'change(good change)' promised by the liberal politicians.

[B]

Again, the whole legislated morality thing is total nonsense. The left does it just as much as the right.

[zoltan]

I think especially this generation, with the largest amount of college living on parents'/government's dime.

[libertybill]

The problem is that like the Fiscal Left, the Social and Religious Right enjoys using the jackboot of government to enforce their idea morality. Like the Fiscal left, talking some sense into them is a pointless task.

[Kool]

#1) Boaz is not an idiot. Anyone who has ever met the man would know that (full disclosure-I have met him).
#2) Consider me a facist-libertarian anarcho-capitalist... someone who will grab you by the lapels and yell "THINK FOR YOURSELF!"
3#) I can't believe I am responding to LoneWacko. Please note how I couldn't (read: wouldn't) actually answer to his thread.

[John]

"#1) Boaz is not an idiot. Anyone who has ever met the man would know that (full disclosure-I have met him)."

If that is true, why does he write such stupid shit? I am sorry but the idea that you have to change with the natural social flow and that that always will be for the positive, is just stupid. You should have a set of principles and stick to them even when they are unfashionable or object to the flow of society. Sometimes society is going crazy.

[P Brooks]

Eeeeeeeeeeeeek!!

Immigraaaaaaaaaaantsss!

*jumps on chair*

Shut the fuck up, LoneWanko.

[insert gratuitous sexual innuendo]

[mike]

Fair enough, John, but he's not really addressing libertarians. He's addressing conservatives, who have broadly moved away from an ideology based on principles such as, say, federalism and support for individual rights. I think the point he's trying to make is that conservative hatred for gays, blacks, women and people with marijuana prescriptions is a recipe for losing future elections.

[24AheadDotCom]

"Mike" is, of course, confusing "hatred" with balancing what group-based radicals want against what's best for everyone else. For instance, some opposition to GayMarriage may be based on "hatred", but most is more likely due to a desire for tradition.

And, the Bush response to hurricane Katrina was quite "libertarian". What he did - prompted in part by GroverNorquist and other "fiscal conservatives" - had huge costs for the U.S., direct and indirect.

[B]

Since when did this site start attracting douchebags who think rejection of identity-based politics, race-based grievance mongering and the most bigoted of all, entitlement reform, is tantamount to racism and hatred of blacks and women? What next, "mike"? Are you going to use the old Charlie Rangel quote, I'm paraphrasing, about how "tax cuts" is code for "I hate black people"?

[B]

Hatred of women? Creigh Deeds, is that you?

[BakedPenguin]

Lonewhacker doesn't even know what a fucking ad hominem is. Most people here either 1) tell him he's a fucking idiot and/or he should shut the fuck up. These are (well deserved) insults, but they are not ad homs in and of themselves. 2) others respond by addressing his bullshit arguments with facts and logical arguments, and then possibly add that he's a fucking idiot and should shut the fuck up. Since these address his points, these are not ad homs either.

For the three or four years I've been around here, it's actually a small minority who say "Lonewacker, you're a worthless fucking piece of shit, therefore, you can't be right." These are, in fact, ad homs. And as Amakudari pointed out, his hypocrisy is palpable, since this is his typical method of debate. He refuses to answer argument put to him in good faith - (note see Jesse Walker's questions, which JW asked 4 or 5 times). He has refused on multiple ocassions to address the benefits of immigrant labor. All he wants to whore his blog and insult people.

Therefore, I'm not saying you're wrong because you're a piece of shit, Lonewacko. I'm saying you're wrong and you're a piece of shit. Hope you can grasp that, ya little philosopher.

Oh, and shut the fuck up, you pus filled shitbag.

[libertybill]

owned

[B]

"He has refused on multiple ocassions to address the benefits of immigrant labor."

Kind of like the way the huge majority of people on this site refuse to accept the facts that unchecked illegal immigration has had multiple deleterious effects on border states and adds a miniscule amount (and that is being way too fucking generous) to the GDP in this country. Moreover anyone who doesn't believe that unchecked immigration is an unlimited source of sunshine, lollipops and rainbows everywhere is insulted as a knuckle-dragging Klansmen. I have yet to read one post or comment thread on this site concerning illegal immigration that didn't have the phrase "brown scare" in it. It's like trying to "debate" La Raza.

There are probably a lot of things people on this site can insult the guy over, but obstinance on the immigration issue sure as fuck isn't one of them.

[J sub D]

John,

What social trends over the last half century would you support the government using the power of the state to counteract?

[John]

How about Jim Crow? The natural social order of the South in the early 20th Century was towards Jim Crow. Who the hell were those carpet bagging northerners to come down and enforce a legal regime on the South?

How about fascism? The natural social evolution, especially among young people in the 1930s was to go out and bash in the windows of Jews' houses. Fascism and anti-semitism was all the rage and damned hip in the 1930s.

Should libertarians have embraced that? Should they have just said that the government needed to live and let live and let the natural social order run its course?

It is not about anything haveing to do with the "evolution of society". Society, since it is human made, sucks and it always will. Society will always want to do bullshit and oppress the hell out of the different. The point is that there are human rights and an objective right and wrong that people of good conscience should always fight for, regardless of if it is where society is going or not.

[Tony]

The natural social change he seems to be referring to is the fact that blacks can now vote and drink from the same water fountain. Conservatives seem to be just getting over this.

Also, gay marriage will become a reality, the population will become less white, and the tea bagging generation will die off, much sooner than anyone else since they are the oldest demographic. The question is what is conservatism leaving the next generation to champion? Hatred of liberals? Good luck with that.

[libertybill]

Majority of Conservatives arent racist, yea there people like Buchanan, Duke, Black and others but there will always be assholes.

[Ravac]

If gay marriage becomes a reality, how can the tea-bagging generation die off?

[Deciduous forest monkey]

They can't reproduce through tea bagging, duh.

[Michael Ejercito]

Also, gay marriage will become a reality, the population will become less white, and the tea bagging generation will die off, much sooner than anyone else since they are the oldest demographic.

Which non-white countries are socially liberal?

[SugarFree]

pus filled shitbag

Isn't a shitbag full of pus a pusbag? Is it a bag for shit that is filled with pus or was it a bag of shit that was displaced by a large volume of pus. Is the pus and shit mixed, in other words. Or is he literally filled with pus while metaphorically a shitbag? Or is he a bag of shit (i.e. full of feces) that is filled with metaphorical pus?

[Ska]

I read that as a colostomy bag on someone with a serious infection, so it is a shitbag, fill of shit and pus.

But that's just my interpretation.

[John]

"Also, gay marriage will become a reality, the population will become less white, and the tea bagging generation will die off, much sooner than anyone else since they are the oldest demographic."

That is why blacks and hispanics voted overwelmingly for gay marriage in California. Excpet of course they didn't. If anything, America will become less tolerant as the 60s generation dies off and America becomes more ethnic, more bulkanized and less white and affluent. God you are stupid Tony.

[zoltan]

America will become less tolerant as the 60s generation dies off and America becomes more ethnic, more bulkanized and less whitereligious and affluent

If you think religion has nothing to do with this, you're an idiot. How many poor minorities cling to it?

[John]

I don't write the voting records I just read them. Blacks and hispanics are far more socially conseravtive than whites. Hispanics are the fastest growing ethnic group. I don't see too many gay rights campaigns in Central America.

[Tulpa]

I don't see too many gay rights campaigns in Central America.

Maybe that's what the government of Honduras needs to do to get on the Dems' good side...

[John]

It is a good thing, hispanics are not overwelmingly Catholic or anything. I don't know maybe we can get some Muslim immigration to. That ought to help with gay rights.

[Michael Ejercito]

It is a good thing, hispanics are not overwelmingly Catholic or anything. I don't know maybe we can get some Muslim immigration to. That ought to help with gay rights.

Indeed.

Do not social liberals understand the danger that a loose immigration policy poses to their agenda?

I suspect that if President Reagan did not sign that amnesty bill, same-sex "marriage" would have been legalized in some parts of America before 2000.

[Tony]

You could be right. The conservative party sure was stupid to alienate racial minorities. Now you've got a whole generation of minorities actually voting based on what's in their best interest instead of who's saying the right things about Jesus.

[Michael Ejercito]

Now you've got a whole generation of minorities actually voting based on what's in their best interest instead of who's saying the right things about Jesus.

And what happens when they take over the liberal party?

What would happen to gay rights, for example?

[Tony]

Polling indicates a trend toward acceptance of gay marriage country-wide. Less than 30% are against both marriage and civil unions, and those in favor of marriage are the largest group and it's growing. Among Democrats, even including racial minorities, the numbers are of course even stronger in favor of marriage. I'm not too concerned.

[BakedPenguin]

SF, the bag was made for, and at one time carried, shit. Now it is full of pus. Was that really so hard?

[SugarFree]

Was that really so hard?

It's not my fault you don't express yourself properly.

[Ravac]

So, in other words, Lonewackoff is an abscess draining into a colostomy bag.

Got it.

[SugarFree]

Thank you, Ravac.

Was that really so hard, BakedPenguin?

[Warty]

So, in other words, Lonewackoff is an abscess draining into a colostomy bag.

Well, no, unless I am misreading things severely, Lonewacko is the colostomy bag after it's filled with pus.

[P Brooks]

Lonewacko is the colostomy bag after it's filled with pus.

With a sticker on the side, proudly proclaiming, "Made In America."

[J sub D]

How about Jim Crow? The natural social order of the South in the early 20th Century was towards Jim Crow. Who the hell were those carpet bagging northerners to come down and enforce a legal regime on the South?

You are aware that Jim Crow was enshrined into law, right? That absent government enforcing those laws integration in thje south would have happened sooner.

How about fascism? The natural social evolution, especially among young people in the 1930s was to go out and bash in the windows of Jews' houses. Fascism and anti-semitism was all the rage and damned hip in the 1930s.

So your prescription would have been to outlaw fascism? Probably communism too. Not too sure about that solution to idiotic political movements. Would you have the government round up the KKK and Aryan Nation members?

[John]

J Sub D,

You completely missed the point. What Boaz is saying is that conservatives need to embrace whatever social trend is happening. That is crap. Conservatives need to embrace human rights regardless of social tredns. The social trend is just as likly to be oppressive as it is to be liberating.
Yes, Jim Crow was enforced by law. Why? Becuase legislatures passed it because it was damn popular at the time. You can't just go with the flow. You have to have principles.

[SugarFree]

After surgery, I had about 18 inches of rubber tubing under the long scar down my leg to drain pus and other fluids down into a bag attached to the side of the bed. When it came time to remove it, the doctor just wiggled it a bit (I was Loratab'd to the gills) and pulled it out. There was a distinct slithering sensation in my leg as I could feel the hose being pulled out. My entire body erupted in horripilation and I went cold.

I imagine it was still more enjoyable than 2 minutes around Chris Kelly in real life.

[Warty]

SugarFree, that depends on whether Lonewacko is in his gimp suit. Zippered hoods are useful.

[Ample Bosoms]

"You are aware that Jim Crow was enshrined into law, right? That absent government enforcing those laws integration in thje south would have happened sooner."

[citation needed]

[Ample Bosoms]

'Cause it's still pretty segregated.

[Warty]

Fat-girl Titties, have you ever been to a northern post-industrial city? The south is a million times more integrated.

[Ample Bosoms]

Fat-girl Titties, have you ever been to a northern post-industrial city? The south is a million times more integrated.

Is there a state of Alabama in your south, Warty?

[R C Dean]

If anything, America will become less tolerant as the 60s generation dies off and America becomes more ethnic, more bulkanized and less white and affluent.

John scores with another sweet RC'z Law example.

"Bulkanized." I am totally using that.

[dicknjane]

In that regard, I'm more positive than Hayward is about the "tea party" movement. True, it is somewhat "unfocused," unintelligible, without a clear "connection to a concrete ideology." much beyond an 8th grade education. But it reflects and galvanizes the natural American antipathy to big government thinking too much about anything that doesn't involve a salty or sugary snack.

[B]

"But what does conservatism stand for today, other than opposition to President Obama?"

What nonsense. Well of course they fucking oppose President Obama. He is the most statist liberal to occupy the Oval Office. He is the most powerful man in the country. What the fuck do you expect conservatives to do, not oppose him so that they can win favor from some irrelevant commentator who likes to make himself look good ala every advisor John McCain ever had?

The whole article is a bunch of contradictory bullshit. First this clown talks about getting back to limited government and free market principles and then he upbraids the people who are doing that very same thing when they oppose the quasi-socialist we have in office. Or maybe he thinks attending symposia on Ludwig Van Mises and Freidrich Hayek would be a more effective means of preventing Obama from destroying this country.

Assholes like Boaz who constantly write articles about how fucking horrible it is to vehemently oppose this douche of a president do way more fucking harm than good .

I'm sorry, but theoretical discussions about Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand are totally fucking useless in stopping the president's agenda.

[B]

"The Cato Institute's David Boaz had a great op-ed in yesterday's Washington Examiner with a little advice for today's floundering conservative movement"

Christ, can this site please quit pushing the whole "leaderless GOP" "floundering conservative movement" meme down our fucking throats?

How can a site that has articles one week about the huge grassroots movements, like Tea Parties, that are springing up in opposition to this president and pushing limited government, link articles discussing an impending Democratic slaughter at the polls in 2010, and then turn right around and tell us that conservatism is floundering? Maybe the conservatism of the salon where they discuss the writings of Russell Kirk over a glass of port and a game of backgammon is dying, but grass roots conservatism is far from dead in this country. The notion that the Tea Parties or a similar grass roots conservative rebirth or uprisings have to be grounded in some bullshit theoretical framework to be legitimate is just that, bullshit.

[VinceP1974]

B: Ah finally.. a voice of reason... so to speak.

I get so frustrated with this midguided and relentless attack on GOP Politicians and Congressmen.

I mean . yeah.. we get it by now.. they sucked all decade long. Enough already ... we get the point.

What is in power now is determined to destroy everything we have known about this country

The Democrats seem to get escape this bitter criticism , no matter how despicable they act.

But yes, the GOP as a party.. and its politicians (other than about 6 or 7 of them) are utterly useless and are unable to get past the MSM information embargo.

But what I don't get is why Libertarians feel compelled to attack the "civilian" Conservatives and Christians.

I contend that most Christians are not the Tyrannical abusers of the Federal Govt that so many are paranoid about.

Continuously attacking them seems to be so utterly shortsighted to me.

But then I live in Chicago. I'm surrounded by the Religious Left.

Noone is more driven to control all of our lives like the Religious Crusading
Leftist.

Most of the conservatives I know want to be left alone.

[huangzhixian11]

http://www.icfshop.com =====FREE SHIPPING FREE======

BIKINI $25. OUR COMMITMENT,CUSTOMER IS GOD.

All the products are free shipping, and the the price is enticement , and also can accept the paypal payment.we can ship within 24 hours after your payment.

accept the paypal

free shipping

competitive price

any size available

our price:coach chanel gucci LV handbags $32coogi DG edhardy gucci t-shirts $15CA edhardy vests.paul smith shoes $35jordan dunk af1 max gucci shoes $33EDhardy gucci ny New Era cap $15coach okely CHANEL DG Sunglass $16.our price: (Bikini)coach chanel gucci LV handbags $32.coogi DG edhardy gucci t-shirts $15.CA edhardy vests.paul smith shoes $35.jordan dunk af1 max gucci shoes $33.EDhardy gucci ny New Era cap $15.coach okely CHANEL DG Sunglass $16

http://www.icfshop.com =====FREE SHIPPING FREE=====

I wish you a happy shopping and happy every day!