Honest Conservatives Should Shut the F*** Up: Hoisted from Comments on "A Proposed Pecking Order for Honest Conservatives"

As a good Millian liberal, I turn the mike over to John Emerson:

Honest Conservatives Should Shut the F--- Up: I think that when the "honest conservatives" reject Bush they're just setting up their assault on the Democratic president they expect to see elected next year. Their way of digging themselves out from under the Bush disaster (and obscuring their own massive role in that disaster) will be to swear that "Never again can an American President be allowed that kind of free hand!" This will justify their fighting the new Democratic President tooth and nail for every inch of ground.

For example, Bush's politicization of the career staff in Justice and elsewhere was a very bad thing, no? And certainly this kind of thing has to stop, no? So we will forbid the new Democratic President to interfere with career personnel, with the result that all of the political hacks Bush put in civil service positions will be untouchable. (When that happens, can we expect the media to understand what's going on? No, of course not. Can we expect the Democrats to understand? Not really, but this is one area where I'd trust Rahm Emmanuel. Send a hack to catch a hack.)

Now that they've stolen the horse, they're going to lock the barn door. It's just like January 2001: once Bush was inaugurated, the media and the Republicans decided that sabotage by impeachment and Gingrichian nastiness are really very bad things after all. So now the same people who worked so hard trying to impeach Clinton for almost nothing are telling us that it's unthinkable to do anything serious about Bush's much graver crimes.

In the long run we need a two-party [or multi-party] system, so ultimately we want the Republican Party to be rebuilt on sane, civilized principles [or replaced by a different, non-insane party]. But let's not rush into this. For the moment our task is to boot the Republicans out of office and start repairing the damage they've done.

The role of the sane conservatives in this will be to sit in the back of the room with paper bags over their heads and their hands folded quietly on their laps.

Comments

[Delicious Pundit]

God must indeed love the Honest Conservative,
For look how rewarded he is for his stands:
The suffering of others he can see as a purgative;
While he's blessed to be blind to the blood on his hands.

[David Lloyd-Jones]

How often do I have to say it for it to start going around?

Impeaching Cheney and Bush is a dopes' game: the votes aren't there in the US Senate, even at this late date, and even if they were there probably wouldn't be enough time for the process to go through.

Cheney and Bush are traitors, subversives who have tried to destroy the American Constitution. Rumsfeld, and Cheney, his former boss in the Ford Administration, are war criminals, and should be shipped to The Hague for trial: there *were* weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the five Hughes helicopters and the associated "agricultural chemicals" which were supplied by Rumsfeld et. al. for use against the Iranians and were in fact also used against the Kurds the first is a war crime, the second the Nuremberg crime of genocide.

Not treason, not war crimes, nor genocide are subject to US Presidential pardons.

[bigTom]

Well I'm of a mixed mind about rolling back presidential power. We desperately need to restore the balance of power between our three branches of power. Congress needs to take back its share. Of course at the same time, we have the legions of idealogues that Bush has appointed gumming up hundreds of agencies. We do need to get rid of these folks!

[MobiusKlein]

Every political movement needs an honest, intelligent opponent. Some force to ensure honesty and effectiveness. Microsoft spends millions and more on a Quality Assurance staff, not because their engineers are dumb, but because they are only human. (And sometimes dumb too.)

[Kate G.]

Well, i don't see why impeachment doesn't fall under the same logic as any other "symbolic" vote where the symbolism is rendered really, really, stark and the cause of dissatisfaction is laid out in toto. I think of impeachment not as something that has to be sucessful (the guy is removed) but that has to be really comprehensive. I also think there is a very good chance that if the Democrats had the ovaries and the anger and the intelligence of the Republican party they would go to important republicans and say "we are going to reveal every shred of corruption, every dollar that was diverted, and every death that can be made a tearjerker. We are going to show pictures of Iraqi civilians, we are going to interview soldiers in their beds, we are going to call up everyone you ever fired, and we are going to tar every single one of the top republicans with greed, graft, and cronyism. Now *you* go and tell bush and cheney to *both* step down. " In the end, didn't nixon step down because Goldwater told him to?

I think the country's laws and the country's soul has to be vindicated by some immense, clunky, machinery in which our representatives get up and a) apologize and b) what's the word from Law and Order ABCDEFGHIJK? Oh, "allocute."

Yeah, that's what I want "allocute don't execute: Impeach now."

Kate G.

[Count Cant]

a couple of points about Andy Sullivan:

1) I read him frequently
2) he has improved, and perhaps enough to be counted an Honest Conservative
3) but he is a lagging Truth-Teller, not a leading Truth-Teller. He eventually gets to the truth, but only after a year or two of sliming, denouncing, and ridiculing the leading Truth-Tellers
4) so my main motivation for reading him is that disreputable pleasure known as Conversion Porn;
5) despite his serial Conversions, despite the amusement and pleasure he affords by his eventual realizations, he is still not to be trusted, because
6) he still plays tribal with his affiliation, by which I mean, in his mind, "Conservative" still = Hutu and "Liberal" still = Tutsi

Witness this, from June 12, 2007, less than one week ago:

"I know why some liberals regret this. They often regret it when people have freedom to ignore their lectures and bromides."

I ask you: who the FUCK is Sully talking about here? And who the FUCK does he think he is to use "liberal" as a derogatory catch-all slur in this way? Does he think this is still 1988 and he's running against Dukakis?

The liberals have saved his ass and shown him the truth time and time again over the last six years. And time and time again he was woken up to it, a year later, and confessed his previous sins.

But at heart, he is still a tribalist, looking for liberals to bait. At heart, he is still the same old Bell-Curve Andy.

Read him for laughs. Call him a lagging HC. But never trust his judgement.

[Ben V-L]

Brad, you should front-page Kate G.'s reply to Bruce Bartlett. Mr. Bartlett earned it, and she delivered it perfectly.

[nemo]

"The role of the sane conservatives in this will be to sit in the back of the room with paper bags over their heads and their hands folded quietly on their laps."

The sane conservatives have already had plenty of practice playing this role throughout the past 6 years of the Bush administration.

"[Sullivan] is a lagging Truth-Teller, not a leading Truth-Teller. He eventually gets to the truth, but only after a year or two of sliming, denouncing, and ridiculing the leading Truth-Tellers ... at heart, he is still a tribalist, looking for liberals to bait."

Snap! You've captured the essence of Andrew Sullivan.

[sm]

If that's what it takes to be an honest conservative, then we have to say there are none. They will have to be forced to get out of the way, they won't do it themselves.

I am perfectly happy with that conclusion.

[andres]

"The role of the sane conservatives in this will be to sit in the back of the room with paper bags over their heads and their hands folded quietly on their laps."

I sympathize with John, but disagree. As I've mentioned one or two posts back, the role of sane conservatives, while they cool their heels out of power, will be to write thourough and intelligent analyses of why conservatism is susceptible to being corrupted Bush/Cheney/Reed/DeLay style. And what can be done in the future to prevent conservatism from being corrupted in this manner.

If they can do this, they can remain a viable political movement. If they cannot or will not, then in the words of EF Schumacher (dismissing socialism) "they have nothing to offer that is worthy of the sweat of free-born men".

[Ken Muldrew]

David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
"Impeaching Cheney and Bush is a dopes' game: the votes aren't there in the US Senate ... [they] should be shipped to The Hague for trial"

Do you have the votes in the US Senate to ratify the Rome Statute?

[Steven Rogers]

Sullivan as lagging truth-teller: Not on torture. He was one of those who were leading the charge on that one.

[David]

these "honest conservatives" should sit in that corner and sing these old blues lyrics to themselves (quietly)

I've had my fun
I don't care if I don't get well no more.

[andres]

Ken Muldrew: I don't think the US Senate matters with regard to international law. Yugoslavia never ratified the ICC either, but Milosevic still ended up there.

[andres]

Hmm, now that I think about it, scratch that last comment. Yugoslavia may have ratified the Rome Statute/ICC after Milosevic fell from power. Still, non-ratification should certainly _not_ be a defense against dictators and other criminals being hauled into the ICC.

[PSP]

Rome Treaty only applies to the ICC. Not sure if our failure to recognize the Court's jurisdiction removes jurisdiction over the body of the individual if that person is there.

But, the Bushies' prosecutions need not take place at the ICC. All Courts have universal jurisdiction over war crimes. Any Court that wants to prosecute, and has the defendant within its grasp, can prosecute. That is why Kissinger can't go to Europe anymore, because there is a Spanish warrant for his arrest.

[Ken Muldrew]

Andres,
Without ratification, the U.S. will not extradite people to face charges in the I.C.C. Lloyd-Jones point was that Bush and Cheney should be sent to the Hague to face charges. I agree, but that will require just as many votes in the Senate as impeachment.

[David Lloyd-Jones]

Ken,

As several people have pointed out, the permission of ten or so Republicans is not needed for the prosecution of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Yoo, etc. America does not make the laws by which American war criminals are judged.

All that is needed is for somebody somewhere to get their hands on them with a warrant in place.

Note, parenthetically, that Bush was unable to visit Ottawa in the last couple of years, for fear of the barracking he would have taken, from members of at least three political parties.

Reagan addressed Parliament once, with his usual somewhat vacuous gracefulness, and was subject to good-humored heckling by the socialist NDP, which he took in good spirits. The Bloc, the NDP, several Liberals, and perhaps one or two Independents would have none of that old good natured feeling toward Bush.

Rumsfeld and Cheney, of course, are not just subject to charges for their role in the current Iraq war: they are the war criminals who supplied Saddam with the helicopters and "agricultural chemicals," the nerve gases used illegally on the battlefront against Iran, and genocidally against Kurdish civilians.

[jibal]

DeLong's "honest conservatives" of 2000-2006 are like someone who robs a bank but admits that 1+1=2. Opposing Bush does not make one honest. So-called "conservatives" are deeply and fundamentally lacking in scruples.

[jibal]

"the role of sane conservatives, while they cool their heels out of power, will be to write thourough and intelligent analyses of why conservatism is susceptible to being corrupted Bush/Cheney/Reed/DeLay style"

"Conservatism" is corrupt at its core, which is the maintenance of unwarranted disparity.

"in the words of EF Schumacher (dismissing socialism) 'they have nothing to offer that is worthy of the sweat of free-born men'"

Without a citation, I won't believe he said that, or dismissed socialism. Anyone who did say that is a fool, since "socialism" is not a "they", and it certainly isn't true that socialists have nothing worthwhile to offer.

[jibal]

"Every political movement needs an honest, intelligent opponent."

No, every political movement needs honest and intelligent critics.

"Some force to ensure honesty and effectiveness. Microsoft spends millions and more on a Quality Assurance staff"

They spend far more on advertising, and it shows.

"not because their engineers are dumb, but because they are only human. (And sometimes dumb too.)"

You're not exactly the brightest bulb yourself.

[jurassicpork]

One thing you're forgetting, Brad: The new Democratic President won't have to fight the neocon agenda because Bush will leave behind the infrastructure of the dictatorship that Reagan started and that W. set in motion. I shudder to think what Hillary would do with it as the official 43rd President.

[jibal]

"Impeaching Cheney and Bush is a dopes' game"

It's remarkable how far people will go to miss the point, in this case arguing against a strawman and sending the thread headlong onto a side track. Emerson's point had nothing to do with what court is a better place to try war criminals, but rather the double standards of Republicans and the media (the latter being a de facto branch of the former), and the consequences that follow if we allow that double standard to be applied.

"Well I'm of a mixed mind about rolling back presidential power."

This also misses the point, which is about the rhetorical context, not so much about the law -- although we should certainly the roll back the Military Commissions Act and the Patriot Act. But much of what the Bush administration has done is abuse existing law -- especially the Constitution -- and he has been able to get away with this because of the extra-legal political framework. Signing statements have no proper legal force, but who is saying so? Article II doesn't give the President the authority that he has claimed, but who is saying so? The President can't amend the Constitution via executive order, but who is saying so? "recess appointments" should not be used to avoid the Constitutionally mandated advice and consent of the Senate, but who is saying so? Hiring and firing of federal attorneys is an executive function, but the way the Bush administration did it was corrupt -- who is saying so? Not the media, not Republicans, not "honest" or any other sort of "conservative" -- at least certainly not many. If they can't bring themselves to say these things about a Republican administration, then they must shut their yaps when it comes to a Democratic administration -- principles applied only to one's opponent are no principles at all. That was Emerson's point.

Sheesh.

[Kate G]

I missed jibal's comment up above saying Honest conservatives are like a bank robber who admits that one plus one is two. What a great, great, line. And so right. Watch their hands and not their words and you will know conservatives by the results of their actions. Every one of Brad's selections (and especially andrew sullivan) are simply people who discovered (rather late in life) that actions have consequences and when you elect thieves to steal for you they very often end up stealing from you. Isn't that in fact the meaning of the bruce bartlett comment in the other comment thread? Bartlett was shocked and disappointed to discover that "his" candidate who was going to implement Bruce's particular policies was also a screw up of magnificent proportions, a liar, a corrupt boob, and dangerous to our constitution and society. But that wasn't a *bug* that was a *feature* of Bush and his plans for the country. His loyal followers are only shocked because they've discovered that you *can't* get a modern conservative without getting a modern crook, as well.

Kate G.

[andres]

jibal: My thanks--if I had doubts that left-wingers could be as obnoxious as their right-wingnut counterparts, you have dispelled them.

A simple recipe:

(1) Go to your nearest bookshelf, used bookstore, library, whatnot, and pull out EF Schumacher's _Small is Beautiful_.

(2) Flip to the end of the chapter on socialism.

(3) See that Schumacher is talking about socialists, not socialism (I stand corrected in that respect).

(4) See that Schumacher's scornful reaction is towards "actually existing socialism", ie the communist countries. And that what Schumacher prefers socialists accomplish is to create a more humane, small-scale, environmentally sustainable system of production.

(5) Read last sentence: "if they can do this, the future will belong to them. If they cannot, they have nothing worthy to offer the sweat of free-born men."

(6) If this doesn't sink in, lather, rinse, and repeat.

I can't quote the exact passage and page number because my copy of Small is Beautiful is packed inside a box, and I couldn't google up a text website for Small is Beautiful. But there you are.

[Evil Joe]

Kate G,
Will you marry me?

[Bob M]

There must be at least 20 Democratic senators who quality

[John H. Morrison]

I believe that the effect of a serious impeachment attempt would be the same as what happened when Chile's Pinochet went to England for medical work and got charged with crimes. The discussion about Chile (and in Chile) completely changed. Pinochet is now viewed there as an evildoer. Chile's current president was tortured under Pinochet, and her father was tortured to death.

The effect of the impeachment attempt would hopefully be to get the Bengal Tiger in the living room on the table for discussion. The conduct of the media in promoting Bush and smearing Democrats would be a major component of the discussion, of course.

I believe that one lesson of the Pinochet affair is the need to act for oneself, rather than demanding that others act. A Spanish judge put out the international warrant for Pinochet, which set the process in motion.

In the early nineties, when discussion of strong encryption and government control was beginning, Phil Zimmerman wrote PGP and gave it to the public.

I'm trying to figure out what to do, myself -- some action to take. So far, it's been trying to present evidence to hopelessly blind persons.

[Spiritcatcher]

Forget politics. Don't fight the unilateral presidency, you might need to use it before deconstructing it. Ideology and morals don't matter as long as you don't see the important point, being that there's only ONE imperative goal : Don't let them steal the election again. Learn from Florida and Ohio, don't let it happen again. Everything else doesn't matter until afterwards.

[andres]

Evil Joe: I think Kate G. is taken. Then again, you could try persuading her and her husband to move to Utah.

Come to think of it, why are so many men on the internet absolute suckers for well-written women? Now there's a real research project.

[andres]

Er, that should be "women who write well" on occasion, my non-native English shows.

[andres]

And now that I think about it, I doubt that those secretive Utahites(?) look with favor on polyandry as opposed to poligamy. My non-native Utahan (?) is also showing.

[Timewitch]

Don't say idealogue, say dogmatic, don't say partisan say Republican-it's more direct & to the point. There are laws that have been broken, now the president of Russia (& China) have given themselves the same authority to kidnap people outside their nations & hide them away in secret dungeons-see what Bush & the neocons have done? International lawlessness is being pioneered by Bush & his country club friends & too many nations are following his lousy lead.

[Jack Shultz]

It seems to me that "conservatism" and the Republican Party have proven so inept, and so corrupt, and so destructive, that even Kate O'Beirn, a staunch partisan of the party, has admitted on (inter)nationalthat the "Republican brand" was badly tainted by the Bush administration, if you can call it an "administration".
But there is more at stake. The "American" brand has been very badly tainted by this administration. In order to retrieve your international reputation, the US will have to officially repudiate the Bush administration. That must begin with impeachment proceedings. Once impeached,
Bush and Cheney should be extradited to the Hague to face charges of war crimes.

[Leila Abu-Saba]

"Next year in the Hague!"

I said that to Jane Smiley at her book reading in Oakland, and she led the assembled crowd in cheering the slogan at full volume three times. It was the day they convicted Scooter Libby. We were giddy.

Next year in the Hague!

[RS Janes]

Of course, what Bush, and those around him, is and has always been cannot rightly be described as 'conservative' but rather 'corporatist' -- those who use the government to reward their wealthy friends and large corporations at the expense of the country, as Mussolini did in Italy. (After all, Junior's from a long line of plutocrats.)

Those claiming to be 'honest conservatives' aren't very honest (nor bright) if they can't see that.

So-called 'HC's' -- Andy Sullivan, David Brooks, Tom Friedman, Joe Scarborough and even Bill O'Reilly, et al, all occasionally pose as anti-Bush 'true conservatives' but, when push comes to shove, they're right on the bandwagon with the corporatists who sign their paychecks. The patina of bipatisan honesty quickly evaporates when there's money to be made, or tax breaks to be had, by their employers. I don't think any of them should be trusted any further than a former Nigerian government minister wanting your bank account number by email.

The only honest conservatives I've run across are people like Paul Craig Roberts, Gen. William Odom and John Dean, the first two formerly employed by the Reagan administration. None of them are receiving paychecks from multi-national corporations with ties to the Bush family, and all have criticized Bush prior to the Iraq disaster.