This issue was the overriding background issue in the election of 2004 although you would not have known it by listening to the American media. All the other issues - War on Terrorism, the Iraq War, abortion issue, the economy, health care, tax cuts, corporate corruption, etc, - were mere background noise to the question of whether conservative policies or liberal policies will rule this nation for the near future.
In the midterm election of 2006, the issue was temporarily put to one side as the Iraq War took the voter's attention. Still, even in that Iraq War-dominated election, the issue was an important background issue.
The political battle still reigns supreme in American politics.
I would like to see "moderate polices" included as a alternative issue but the real debate is between conservatives and liberals. Moderate policies may emerge, occasionally, on individual matters as a compromise between the main opposing views but, moderation, by itself, is going nowhere in the present partisan environment.
"You are either with us or against us" is the new rallying cry for politicians. In 2004, the fight was between conservatism and liberalism, and political moderation was nowhere to be seen.
The issue was not decided in 2004. The midterm elections of 2006 also did not resolve the conservatism vs. liberalism struggle. In the election of 2008, the issue was an important background issue but the developing recession drove other issues to one side at the last minute.
Future rounds of the fight between the two opposing views will be held. The future of America could depend on the outcome.
For most of this past century, there have been ongoing political debates going on in the U.S.
Many of the early debates featured the liberals and/or the conservatives vs. the communists and socialists. For much of this time, liberalism was much closer to conservatism than to the communists and socialists. There was a parallel debate existing at the time between conservatism and liberalism but it was relatively civil compared to the debates with the communists and socialists. The liberal intellectuals were not that concerned with the conservatives and even despairingly talked of the absence of conservative ideas.
As the cold war wound down, however, the extreme left - communists and socialists - disappeared and it was quickly apparent that the liberal intellectuals, who, with the demise of the socialists and communists, had become, by default, the new left, now had to face a rejuvenated, unified conservative movement with a strong, non-compromising message. In a lecture given on February 8, 1995 at New York University Institute for the Humanities, Paul Starr described the dynamic energy of the new conservative movement :
"One striking feature of contemporary politics and intellectual life is the contrast between conservative energy and liberal diffidence, conservative discipline and liberal disarray. Since the 1970s, conservatives have built an intellectual counter establishment outside the academic world that includes foundations, think tanks, communications networks, and publications. Highly partisan, free from typical academic caution, the institutions of the right have trained and fielded a small army of intellectuals to contest liberal ideas and to foster consensus among conservatives........."
"There is no liberal counterpart to this effort".
In other words, the conservatives have had energy and discipline and the liberals have had too little of each. Then throw the right-wing propaganda minister - Rush Limbaugh, - into the mix! Is it any wonder that the conservatives have been winning?
The "small army of conservative intellectuals" described by Paul Starr in 1995 has continued to grow. The energy and discipline have been maintained by the conservatives and the diffidence and disarray by the liberals has also continued. Early in the growth of the conservative movement, the movement successfully enlisted big business to provide funds for the conservative side. Money talks. It buys ideas too. The liberals no longer speak of the conservatives having no ideas. It is now the liberals who are short on ideas and the conservatives who are seemingly flush with ideas.
Of course, in the past couple of years, Democratic ideas have begun to reemerge, e.g., Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11, plus Joe Trippi with his Internet work for Howard Dean during the 2004 primaries. Air America and other liberal radio sites have also begun to join the fray.
Another liberal problem and, consequently, an opportunity for the conservatives to grow, is the reluctance of liberal intellectuals to respond quickly to a challenge such as to the one conservatives pose. Too often the liberals respond to challenges by using the old academic intellectual dodge, "more research is needed." They would rather think than act.
In his 1995 lecture, Paul Starr correctly noted that "conservatives have been able to unify around a negative - opposing the federal government....." Fourteen years later, nothing has changed even though the liberal devil of that time - President Clinton - has been out of office for 8 years.&nbbsp; If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, he is attacking the Clintons almost as strongly today as he did in 1995 when Clinton was president. And now, he has Hillary Clinton to attack also.
Al Gore, who might have been president except for a conservative-loaded Supreme Court, is good for an occasional ridicule on Rush Limbaugh's talk show.
Limbaugh saves the toughest attacks for the Clintons but, during the 2004 campaign, he also enjoyed leveling attacks at the "French-looking" John Kerry and at Senator Kerry's wife. Today, over five years after that election and 6 months after the 2008 presidential election, Limbaugh spends his entire 3-hour program ridiculing top Democrats as if the election campaign was still on. Obviously, the high-ranking Republican conservatives who pay Limbaugh his multi-million dollar paycheck and his working orders know what they want from him. And they don't even have to label his show as a "paid political broadcast."
And, until recently, the Democrats stood there pretending that Limbaugh didn't exist. (Limbaugh did get some Democratic counterattack after his attacks on Michael J. Fox and his assertions that the Mark Foley page scandal was just a practical joke by the pages!)
With the Cold War over, it was expected by some that the conservatism - liberalism debate would become bland. Instead, bad feelings have intensified. As Paul Starr put it in his 1995 lecture:
"While battles over foreign policy have diminished, battles over culture, education, and moral life have intensified. There is even a tendency, particularly among conservatives, to regard these battles as the domestic equivalent of war, as if the so-called "culture wars" had replaced the cold war as the great historic struggle of our time."
It should be noted that the War on Terrorism, which occurred after Starr's lecture, has reintroduced battles over foreign policy into the conservatism - liberalism debate. So, no policy area is spared and the debate rages. A fight to the finish is ongoing. At this time, the political situation is like two fat guys trying to pass through a door at the same time. One will have to give way.
An example of the conservatives present warlike tendencies is their increasing use of the words treason, unpatriotic, un-American, terrorist, and disloyal when discussing Democrats, liberals, and, in general, all non-conservatives. Anyone who doesn't agree with the ultra-conservatives on any issue falls in one of the "un-American" categories. The fifties with the excesses of Senator McCarthy are being revisited.
It is ironic that the ultra-conservatives don't hesitate putting veterans who have honorably served in the military in the un-American category. Ironic, because so many leading conservative figures, e.g., Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, Dan Quale, George W. Bush, etc, didn't show up for the shooting wars of their generation. They had "other things" to do.
During the early years - through the administration of President Ronald Reagan - of the conservative movement, there was considerable compassionate conservatism. Welfare within limits was acceptable.
This compassionate conservatism has been discarded in the past 8 or 10 years. Massive rollbacks of federal expenditures have been made or are being planned in social welfare programs such as supplementing the incomes of the poor. In the George W. Bush administration, these social welfare programs were cut back while massive tax cuts for the rich were implemented.
And President Bush, while campaigning for president, claimed he was a "compassionate conservative."
What was President Clinton's tongue-in-cheek definition of a compassionate conservative? Something like... "A compassionate conservative is a person who wants to help the poor, wants to help the sick and disabled, wants to help the unemployed, etc, etc....but just can't" (strictly from memory, I couldn't find the actual quote).
Historically, Democrats have supported major social programs while Republicans have opposed most of the programs. James Carville and others have pointed this out.
The era of compassionate conservatism appears to have ended for at least awhile. If you don't believe that statement, listen to Rush Limbaugh ridicule the poor and the unemployed on his radio talk show. Limbaugh would not be ridiculing these unfortunates without the approval of those who pay his way - the Republicans and their conservative masters.
Of course, Limbaugh doesn't mention that he was often unemployed in his early career and that he allegedly received food stamps for a time.
Was Rush Limbaugh the welfare queen that Ronald Reagan kept looking for?
There is no doubt that Rush Limbaugh is the unofficial propaganda minister for the conservative movement (and, hence, the Republican Party). He is a very effective propaganda minister. I used to laugh at Limbaugh, thinking he was a buffoon, but I am not laughing anymore. Neither are most liberals. He is not a buffoon. He is a professional at what he does, manufacturing clever lies (or half-truths) about liberal and moderate folks and repeating those lies, ad infinitum.
As a result of Limbaugh's work, some have called him the most dangerous man in America. Although that could be true, a vote for that title might also go to the Republicans behind the scene who pay for Limbaugh's talk show to the tune of tens of millions of dollars per year. (Not to mention the U.S. taxpayers who paid for Limbaugh's show to be aired in Iraq!)
In the New Orleans area , for three hours a day, Rush Limbaugh is talk radio. You either listen to him or to rock & roll music.
The talk show situation in New Orleans changed for several years. Air America, a progressive radio station, began airing a progressive agenda from morning to night. For a while, there was a choice! And it was doing quite well until the Republican debacle in the midterm election of 2006! Then, the day after the election, the progressive programs were abruptly discontinued. (The station was owned by a conservative company!)
Progressive radio in the New Orleans area had essentially been banned!
The conservative movement might never have gotten off the ground without the Rush Limbaugh radio talk show.
Former first lady Hillary Clinton once spoke of a "vast right wing conspiracy" out to get her husband, President Clinton. Like most Americans, I laughed at such a statement. Like many Americans, I am no longer laughing. Senator Clinton was just a little ahead of her time.
The right wing "conspiracy" that we see in action today may not be a legal conspiracy but an unwritten conspiracy as ruthless as any conspiracy ever hatched. This unwritten conspiracy is more like a new religion in which conservatism/Republicanism is all-good and non-conservatism is all-bad. Instead of one Bible, the conservatives have multiple books that serve as Bibles........Limbaugh has a book or two, Ann Coulter has her book, William Bennett has his book, etc, etc. Unlike the original Bible, these Bibles are pro-conservative, pro-Republican and anti-Democratic.
Most of this conservative activity is coordinated almost informally through the work offices and car pools of America, churches and religious organizations, conservative foundations, country clubs, etc. An extremely effective means of coordination.
The conservative conspiracy, while apparently informal, tolerates no deviation from the basic plan. The conspiracy is both informal and rigid at the same time. To deviate is to be cast into the "pits of hell."
(Note: This conservative rigidity gives the Democrats an opportunity due to their greater flexibility........if they seize the opportunity!)
The Democrats have a great opportunity in future elections to turn the tide on the conservatives and put them on the run. But they must be careful about who counts the votes. The Republicans have already shown in Ohio, Florida, and other states that they are not be trusted with vote counting. The Democrats, on the other hand have been very naive and many Democrats apparently still think that they will get a fair shake at the ballot box.
Take one look at Katherine Harris of 2000 Florida fame. Would you trust her to count votes? Boy, did the Republicans reward her for a job well done in Florida. (Harris received her comeuppance in the midterm elections of 2006. Even the Republicans didn't want to have anything to do with her!)
1. Election, 2008. The midterm elections of 2006 are over. The Democrats took control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
2. Political Issues, 2008. There are many political issues in the country but the most important is the conservatism vs. liberalism issue.
Although many issues were discussed in the elections of 2004, 2006 and 2008 the overriding background issue in the election was "conservatism vs. liberalism".
Last updated: 05/24/09
e-mail me @ vanc13@cox.net (Author: Van Cook)
44Conservatism vs. Liberalism33