Skip to content

Vote Conservative?

I am reprinting this letter from Daily KOS because it is a brilliant rant, and because the author specifically encouraged people to reprint it. It was originally written as a response to her very conservative brother who was trying to blame everything on Obama to get her to vote conservative in the upcoming election.

It is also an excellent public service — if you have a rabid right-wing relative who won’t leave you alone, you can use this as a basis of a response to their rants:

Hi, Greg,

I seem to recall that the current economic disaster began and in fact grew to its monstrous size under your President, whose policies were so short-sighted and reckless that he managed to turn a several billion dollar surplus into a near total economic collapse in eight years. The TARP was his program, a last minute bailout of his buds on the Street who had treated the money entrusted to them by the middle class as their own private casino funds, bet it all again and again in speculative endeavors that even they admit were absurd, and–gee whillikers!–ultimately collapsed under their own artificially propped up weight.

You may certainly disagree with Obama’s Keynesian approach to resolving the problem, but if you examine what is happening in the economy today there is little doubt that it is working. Not as quickly as everyone would like it to work, certainly, but then it took a very long time to create this mess, so fixing it in a little more than a year is and always was highly unlikely.

Still, let’s see what Obama has presided over thus far, shall we?

When he came in, the stock market was in free fall.
Today, it has completely recovered and is setting records.

When he came in, the American auto business was in danger of becoming extinct.
Today, Detroit may not be thriving, but the Big 3 are alive and well and looking to the future.

When he came in, Bush had paid out $700B in TARP money.
Today, all but $100B or so has been repaid.

When he came in, the nation was bleeding jobs, losing them at a pace that seemed assured to land us in another Great Depression.
Almost immediately, after passing the Recovery Act, the bleeding lessened. Every month of his administration, it has continued to lessen. Then, in December, the economy began producing jobs. Every month since then it has produced more jobs than the month before, with over 200K produced in April alone.

He has managed to accomplish something that Presidents have been trying to do since Teddy Roosevelt: get Congress to adopt a national health care policy that regulates the insurance industry and guarantees coverage without recision. It is not enough, but it is a start.

He has removed the banks as middle men in the student loan industry for the first time since Reagan put them there. Do you know when college education costs started skyrocketing? I’ll tell you: the Reagan administration. Hmmm… Again, it’s not nearly enough, but it’s a step.

Despite being fought tooth and nail by opposition whose only cohesive policy appears to be “say no to everything Obama wants,” he seems to be making headway against most of the big issues that faced him when he came into office. If the GOP would stop playing politics and start (oh, I don’t know) trying to govern, we could be well on our way not only to recovery but to a truly remarkable time in America. But the GOP would rather foster unrest and encourage anger and hatred and doubt than do anything positive at this point in their existence.

Truly, that’s too bad. When I look at the sorry state of the Republican Party right now, I just feel sad. It has been taken over by its worst elements. You ask me to “vote conservative”? I don’t think I could if I even wanted to. True conservatives are hard to come by in this charade of “tea party” extremists. When Bob Bennett gets kicked out of the Senate by his constituents in Utah for not being “conservative” enough, the world is out of whack. When Charlie Crist and Arlen Spector can’t find a place any longer within the GOP, something is seriously wrong with the party of Lincoln. When John McCain has to stoop to picking Sarah Freaking Palin as a running mate to appease the ultra right wing knuckle-draggers in his own party and then agree to allow her to foment vitriol in rally after rally to the extent that things got so out of control that even he had to step in at one rally and set his voters straight, someone has lost all sense of propriety. When the party becomes the home of bigots and birthers and men who show up to Presidential rallies wearing weapons, sanity has left the building. When the State of Maine, which usually remains somewhat above the lunacy and which has (to its credit) the only two moderate Republicans still allowed to roam free, loses its collective mind and issues a political platform that is so utterly (as one writer put it) “batshit crazy” that at one point it actually demands that the State of Maine officially oppose any attempt to create a one-world government, the whole party has officially come unhinged. Talk about giving in to the conspiracy theorists. Why don’t they just mandate tin-foil hats?

The thing is that conservatism, true conservatism, is needed in this country. Just as yin needs yang, as dark needs light, as up needs down, so liberal needs conservative. Everything requires balance. Bush proved that. When the Dems were rolling over and playing dead, acquiescing to everything he asked for in his first term instead of using the fact that his majorities were slim to negotiate better bills, Bush rode roughshod over the Constitution, deceived us into an immoral and very costly war, became the king of the unfunded mandate, and spent years rewarding the richest people in the land and ignoring everyone else so that, just before everything went to hell, the gap between executive and worker pay was by far the largest it had ever been in history. The rich got richer and richer and the middle class and the poor could not make ends meet.

These were his legacies, Greg. His legacies, not Obama’s. Because he was a neocon, not a true conservative. I do not agree with conservatism, as you are well aware. But I respect it. It is honorable and sincere and those who believe in its philosophies truly have the best interests of America in mind when they run for offices under conservative banners. But the neocons? Uh uh. History will record–if they have not started us on an irreparable path to our own national destruction–that they were one of the greediest and most self-righteous groups of leaders ever, that their hypocrisy was matched only by their amorality, and that they presided over the systematic and intentional undermining of a system of checks and balances that had been in place since the Great Depression which, once gone, unleashed a torrent of cash into their coffers and aggressively destroyed the economy for everyone else.

Sadly, there would be no place in today’s GOP for any GOP President in American history save Bush and (maybe) Reagan. Pappy Bush would never make it. Nixon? He’s practically a liberal. Ford? Forget it. Ike? No way in hell. Do you what the taxes were like under Ike? The highest progressive tax rate was 90% for the income in the highest margins. 90%. Imagine that! And what did the poorest pay? Nothing.

Communist!

Where is the party of these Presidents? Where is the party of William F. Buckley? Where is the party of Russell Kirk? Hell, Barry Goldwater, who was considered so outrageously conservative in 1964 that Lyndon Johnson’s voters actually believed the “daisy ad,” would be in the Democratic Party today. William Safire defined himself as a “libertarian conservative”; is there even room for that in today’s GOP?

This GOP has earned its “Party of No” moniker. John Boehner’s office actually began circulating templates opposing Obama’s SCOTUS nominee with “INSERT NAME” on them, the templates proclaiming (basically) the downfall of civilization as we know it if this nominee (whoever it happened to be apparently was unimportant) gets through. Despite the fact–the fact–that Obama has, from the outset, reached out to them time after time after time, angering his own constituents in the process by (in the opinion of many on the left) giving away the store before negotiations even start just to show his good faith, the GOP insists on maintaining the lie that he refuses to include them in anything. The health care bill is chock full of Republican ideas, but all you heard from them was “he’s shoving it down our throats.” The first thing Obama did in the Recovery bill was to agree to tax cuts despite the fact that Keynesian economics tells us that they are utterly counterproductive because it would, he thought, bring the GOP to the table. In the final Stim Bill, there were I think almost $200B in cuts. My taxes were lower this year; were yours? A study just today says that we are being taxed at the lowest rate since Truman. Good Lord! What does anyone have to complain about the job the government is doing with the little we are still giving them?

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t want to give them more. I can’t afford to. But I’ll tell you what: unlike the idiots who took the Washington Metro to anti-government rallies to chant against all taxes and government interference in their daily lives (“but keep your hands off our Medicare!”) and then bitch about the long waits to get back home on the (government-run) trains, saying that someone should have put more cars on duty for the rallies, I understand what I am paying for. I am paying for the infrastructure of this nation. Much of it is old and crumbling and in desperate need of repair, and, yes, in need of our tax dollars to make those repairs happen. But I wouldn’t be driving on interstate highways with excellent police protection to places that won’t burn down because fire codes are strictly enforced where I can eat healthy food that I know won’t kill me because health codes too are enforced (and I could go on) if it were not for those tax dollars. That’s just the truth. And I for one would not wish to do without any of these things. And, seeing the excellent job that the banks and the insurance industries have done of keeping college and health costs down through good old fashioned capitalistic free enterprise, and watching the way Wall Street has consistently screwed the middle class while padding its pockets, even during the current crisis–even while taking taxpayer handouts!–I think I’d rather have the government in charge and take my chances.

(Oh, and before you say “but Medicare is a shambles,” just stop. It’s not. It’s just underfunded. Thank you, Bush tax cuts. There is a reason those tea partiers are holding those “hands off my medicare” signs, and it isn’t because they like crappy health care.)

I don’t usually bother trying to get you to see “my” side of the political argument, Greg. Frankly, it’s not worth it. You are an amazingly smart guy, but you’ve spent too many hours watching Fox News and believing that you are seeing something that actually is true. Heck, I think Rush Limbaugh has even begun to believe the garbage he spews into the ether, and he was perfectly willing to admit several years ago that he is, first and foremost, an entertainer. (FWIW, I don’t think that Ann Coulter believes a word she says. I think she is a huge hypocrite saying whatever she thinks will sell books, and she’s found a ready audience on Fox. She’s become such a caricature of herself that she simply cannot be taken seriously and, unlike Rush, she never was an entertainer, so there’s no excuse.)

But anyway, for whatever reason, I just thought I’d give this a shot, even if it falls on the deaf ears I suspect it will. You think I have swallowed Obama’s Kool-Aid and I’m just echoing the party line, but I’m not. It’s the Fox News types, the Tea Partiers, who have swallowed the Kool-Aid, and it really is poison. As for me, well, I question Obama all the time. I’m very unhappy with the fact that Guantanamo is still open, for instance. And I am deeply disturbed by the fact that he has not issued an Executive Order–as would be within his authority–halting execution of DADT until Congress can eliminate it. I think that at least one of these SCOTUS nominees should have been a flaming liberal; Bush did not hesitate to appoint ardent conservatives. I also think he appeases the GOP too much, especially when they have shown again and again that they are utterly unwilling to compromise in any way. My feeling is that he should just say “screw it” and use his Democratic majorities to forge powerful left-leaning legislation, just as Bush did on the other side with far smaller majorities (and even with a Senate tie): if the GOP doesn’t want a part in things, the heck with them. But he continues to be a statesman despite everything. And you know what? After eight years of having a class clown as President, I sort of like that.

I do hope that you have read this thoughtfully and recognize that I am, though unabashedly liberal, ardently in favor of a strong, thoughtful, rational opposition party. At this moment in time, the GOP is not that party. I fear that it is heading down a road from which it may not be able to recover for a very long time, if ever. When the Democrats were in a similar position–hijacked by their fringes–in the early 70’s, they turned inward, re-examined their priorities, and ended up nominating Jimmy Carter. You’ll argue that he was a disastrous President. I have two responses: first, it was circumstances, not policy, that caused the problems of the late 70’s, and anyone in the White House at that time would have been in the same boat. He was tremendously unlucky and, distrusted by the still very active fringes of the party, received little support in Congress. Second, because of the above, he lost in 1980, setting in motion both the ensuing twelve years of Republican rule and the rise of the neocons, which ultimately led to Bush and the near-destruction of the American economy. A party hijacked by its fringes fails. Even winning the Presidency in 1976 became a failure for the Democrats because those fringes within their party refused to let Carter govern, aligning themselves again and again with the GOP across the aisle. So the fringes caused what amounted to two decades of disaster for the party.

And I hate to say this, but the Democrats on the fringe, though clearly outside of the realm of political reality, stood for something morally good. They stood for basic human dignity and welfare, for equal rights for everyone, for helping those in need. What does the fringe of the right today stand for? Hatred and distrust. Hatred of Obama, hatred of gays, bigotry, anger, distrust of government, lack of faith in even the evidence right before their eyes that Obama is in fact a US citizen. I am worried that a party that gives in to this kind of fringe will implode, never to return. A new second party will emerge, perhaps the Libertarians, who are in a good position, but it would be a shame.

Abraham Lincoln is often cited as the standard bearer of the GOP. They like Teddy Roosevelt too. And Ike. But these guys would not recognize the party of today. And they sure as heck would not want to be a part of it.

But that’s OK: they wouldn’t be welcome if they did.

Karen

UPDATE: Newsweek has an interesting article on how even Reagan himself wouldn’t qualify as a “Reagan Republican” in today’s far-right GOP.

UPDATE 2: Former first lady Laura Bush just revealed on TV that she supports gay marriage and even abortion rights. I guess she will soon get kicked out of the modern Republican party.

Share

15 Comments

  1. Falkelord wrote:

    I would like to point out that even though Lincoln was a Republican, shortly after the civil war (during reconstruction, mainly) there was a swapping of the political party’s views with the Democrats of the south. Essentially, what we would call a Democrat today would have been a Republican then and vice versa.

    I say this only because she referred to Republican Lincoln twice. While technically true (his party was called the Republican party), the platforms he held were more akin to the Democrat’s ideas of today.

    Wednesday, May 12, 2010 at 1:56 am | Permalink
  2. ebdoug wrote:

    My great Grandfather moved from Virginia after the Civil war because the “great swap” was taking place. He became a Republican because the Democrats (who are now the Republicans) in the south opposed Reconstruction.

    I’m sorry with her wonderful letter that she left out the mess in the Gulf of Mexico caused by lack of oversight of the regulatory commission under Bush’s cronies. MMM? something. Also SEC watch porn while “Wall Street burned” But Obama is blamed for all the Bush cronyism.

    As I’ve said before, I lived in California in the 60s when an Actor was elected Governor, then went on to be president. I saw him take the free college education away from the unpriviledged. It broke my heart. I’ve been a “bleeding liberal” ever since. I often wonder what state of affairs California would be in today if the people could get a college education. It is a perfect example of what is happening to the rest of this country. Take away the education (as Arizona is now doing to “people of color” ), and you have a bunch of Serfs to work for the Squires which is the main aim of the Republican party.

    Wednesday, May 12, 2010 at 5:39 am | Permalink
  3. Mike wrote:

    Bravo. I might add that Maine at least tried, maybe succeded to add a resolution to the platform that health care is not a right. I mean, between that and going out of there way to enrage Hispanics, it’s like they are trying to become irrelevant.

    Wednesday, May 12, 2010 at 5:43 am | Permalink
  4. starluna wrote:

    Nice! I like it.

    Wednesday, May 12, 2010 at 7:40 am | Permalink
  5. Jim wrote:

    I like John Rogers’ take:

    http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2004/12/i-miss-republicans.html

    (A bit dated, McCain long since grabbed his ladder and air rifle.)

    Wednesday, May 12, 2010 at 8:13 am | Permalink
  6. Iron Knee wrote:

    Jim, agreed — John Rogers’ rant is great too. From 2004 and even more timely today!

    Wednesday, May 12, 2010 at 8:58 am | Permalink
  7. Tom Terry wrote:

    Strong work!!! Excellent response…

    Thursday, May 13, 2010 at 4:34 am | Permalink
  8. sputnik wrote:

    Major problem in the opening sentence. The “surplus” you mentioned left by Clinton was all smoke and mirrors. Clinton even recently came aout and confessed that all those financial decisions he made were bad and led to the downfall of the economy…So basically what clinton did was sell Bush a car that had been “jimmy rigged” to make it look and operate well. Soon as bush got in the car and drove it off , That bitch fell apart.;

    Thursday, May 13, 2010 at 5:02 am | Permalink
  9. Txjill wrote:

    Sputnik: maybe so, but have Bush trade places and there wouldn’t even been a car there to drive off in, lemon or not.

    Nor would Dubya have admitted wrong doing. Remember…he answers to a “higher father” and probably feels what he did was the right thing. I would say both parties have let the Wall Street hoodlums run over them because of campaign financing/lobbying, but Bush brought in his oil& gas cronies to boot (like your shrimp coated in oil?)

    False equivalencies seem to abound these days. That and memory loss (Obama’s war, Obama’s deficit, Obama’s Katrina, Obama’s unemployment….). Who knew that all those years Bush was in office, it was really Obama’s fault!

    Thursday, May 13, 2010 at 7:25 am | Permalink
  10. Iron Knee wrote:

    ha ha ha Sputnik. I’m impressed how powerful Clinton must be in order to “jimmy rig” the economy so that after 7 years of Bush it fell apart.

    Do people actually believe this crap?

    Thursday, May 13, 2010 at 9:07 am | Permalink
  11. gosh wrote:

    Conservative Republican. Today isn’t that considered an Oxymoron?

    Sunday, May 16, 2010 at 11:35 am | Permalink
  12. Thomas wrote:

    There are so many falsities and half truths in this piece it’s hard to know where to start. President Carter “unlucky”? – The Carter Administration presided over the birth of the community reinvestment act which was later perfected by liberals Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd. This flawed piece of legislation led to housing bubble and was the major reason the economy tanked. Bush is to blame for Obama’s spending. – Let’s get it straight. Obama created his own $1.56 trillion deficit and projects to put the U.S. another $7 trillion in debt in just a few years. Medicare isn’t bankrupt it’s just “underfunded”. – This is typical liberal thinking where higher taxes are ALWAYS the answer. Both Medicare and Social Security are “underfunded” (read bankrupt) to the tune of $100 trillion. This debt will will never be paid and how could it when there will be only three workers for every person collecting their government check. As you can see, the U.S. is headed the way of Greece. As for Bush riding “roughshod” over the Constitution – what has Obama done to reverse any of this?

    Sunday, May 16, 2010 at 2:50 pm | Permalink
  13. Tom Parrett wrote:

    Response to Thomas: Gosh, one hardly knows where to start untangling your knotted logic. Blaming the Community Reinvestment Act for the housing bubble is like fingering sugar cane workers for America’s waistline. Worse, underlying your observation is the uncharitable belief that a lot of people who didn’t qualify for mortgages got them and then didn’t work hard enough to make the payments. That’s a weird reading of a situation caused largely by predatory lenders, greedy bankers, lax regulators and Visigoth traders (apologies to the Visigoths). Yes, Obama put together a huge deficit 2010 budget but let’s get this straight. Who started the two wars he inherited and how much are they costing? Stop the wars now and the budget just about balances. And please refrain from such silly generalizations as liberals “ALWAYS” want higher taxes. Most Americans paid less tax in 2009 under Obama, and will going forward — just not those earning more than $200,000. And a big reason Democrats sometimes have to raise taxes after years of ideological Republican rule — both Bushes, Reagan and Nixon included — is that some combination of lower taxes on the rich, huge new loopholes for special interests, and lavish [payments to defense contractors (how’s that for private enterprise) so grievously wrecked the economy that more taxes are urgently needed to pay federal workers and keep the doors open. And please note that the federal budget is not like your household budget. Economists across the ideological spectrum agree that deficit spending is often good for the economy, for job creation, for the general health of the American system. That would be Keynesian economics, as opposed to Friedmanesque (as in Milton) or Chicago School neoconservatism, the free-market-is-king notion that without regulations the markets will make everything hunky-dory. Indeed they will — for the benefit of a few very privileged people, at the expense of everybody else. And Bush abusing the Constitution — well, Obama outlawed waterboarding for starters, to the deep consternation of Dr. Torture, Deadeye Dick Cheney. At least his bellicose neocon hubris has finally been stripped to its boxer shorts. Can we all agree that we’ve seen enough?

    Monday, May 17, 2010 at 8:53 pm | Permalink
  14. Stephen wrote:

    Lee’s outrageous rant might be arguable if he had bother to substantiate his claims.

    First of all, Bush’s last two years was a lame-duck presidency which had to deal with a very hostile Democrat controlled Congress. (For you illiterates, a lame-duck president is one who is in the last two year of his second term and the Congress is controlled by the opposition). In fact, the Democrats/liberals viciously attacked Bush every single day of his presidency. And now, we’re supposed to respect Obama simply because he’s president?

    “[Bush] managed to turn a several billion dollar surplus into a near total economic collapse in eight years.” If he turned a surplus into a near total economic collapse, Obama finished it for him. In less than one year, Obama run the deficit to $12.8 trillion dollars almost four times what he ‘inherited’, and counting. And the Democrat controlled Congress has raised the debt ceiling to unmanageable and unsustainable levels. And we’re just barely into his second year.

    “You may certainly disagree with Obama’s Keynesian approach to resolving the problem, but if you examine what is happening in the economy today there is little doubt that it is working.” If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Spending your way out of a recession is the worst fallacy of all time. It would be like you getting a credit card with a higher limit to pay off your old credit card, and then just keep on doing.

    “When he came in, the stock market was in free fall.
    Today, it has completely recovered and is setting records.”
    When Bush left office, the stock market was quite healthy and so was my portfolio which was still growing at a very respectable. Now, the stock market is in total free-fall and my portfolio has lost all of the gains it achieved during Bush’s last year.

    “When he came in, the American auto business was in danger of becoming extinct.
    Today, Detroit may not be thriving, but the Big 3 are alive and well and looking to the future.”
    This is truly unbelievable. GM has claimed that it paid back its TARP bailout when in fact, they just shift that TARP money to another division’s TARP bailout. The only American auto manufacturer the is successful is Ford which never took any TARP money.

    “When he came in, the nation was bleeding jobs, losing them at a pace that seemed assured to land us in another Great Depression.
    Almost immediately, after passing the Recovery Act, the bleeding lessened. Every month of his administration, it has continued to lessen. Then, in December, the economy began producing jobs. Every month since then it has produced more jobs than the month before, with over 200K produced in April alone.”
    What a crock. At the end of Bush’s term, the unemployment rate as at 5.7%. In less than a year of Obama, the unemployment rate jumped to 10% and is not at 9.9% and has been that high far longer than under any other president since the Great Depression. He has also promised that the unemployment rate would never go higher than 8% (and this was after it had risen to 10%).
    And 8% unemployment rate is not something that any president should be bragging about.

    “He has managed to accomplish something that Presidents have been trying to do since Teddy Roosevelt: get Congress to adopt a national health care policy that regulates the insurance industry and guarantees coverage without recision.(sp) It is not enough, but it is a start.”
    Obama didn’t have to try very hard to ram down our throats, he had a very compliant Congress that worships him like a God. BTW, more than 65% of Americans oppose his health-care plan.

    He has removed the banks as middle men in the student loan industry for the first time since Reagan put them there. Do you know when college education costs started skyrocketing? I’ll tell you: the Reagan administration. Hmmm… Again, it’s not nearly enough, but it’s a step.”
    A good way to ensure that they never get paid back.

    When Pelosi took over has Speaker of the House, she promised bi-partisanship. To Dems, b-partisanship means shutting out the Republicans. She also promised an end to rampant corruption. I’m still waiting for her to keep that promise.

    Obama is the most unpresidential person ever to occupy the Oval Office. He’s still trying to blame everything on Bush and refuses to take responsibility for all of his screw-ups. He has alienated, and turned his back on, every ally we ever had and is trying to play nice with those countries that want to see us destroyed. The Arab world thinks he is a naive fool.

    Obama is an arrogant, pretentious narcissist. He takes criticism very personally and public attacks the person who criticizes him even if its an Average American citizen. When he just recently signed the Free Press Act, he then had the gall to refuse any questioning.

    Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 3:33 am | Permalink
  15. Iron Knee wrote:

    Stephen, I just have to say that almost everything you say is false (although thanks for taking the time to express your opinion).

    For example, every US stock market index I could find was in freefall in the last year of Bush’s administration, but went back up a few months after the start of the Obama administration. See http://finance.yahoo.com/indices?e=sp and view the last five years.

    And the reason why 65% oppose Obama’s health care plan is because it doesn’t go far enough. The majority of Americans want single payer (like Medicare) for all. But that doesn’t lessen the original statement: that Obama is the first president to get any kind of health care reform in place.

    At the end of Bush’s term, the rate that jobs were being lost was accelerating wildly, but immediately slowed down, and is now going down in absolute terms. Employment always lags economic recovery, or didn’t you know that?

    And no, “Spending your way out of a recession” is like after losing your job, borrowing money so you can go back to school and finish your degree so you can get a new (and hopefully better) job. The main issue is how you spend your money.

    And statements like “Obama is the most unpresidential person ever to occupy the Oval Office” are laughable. And how in the world do you think that “He has alienated, and turned his back on, every ally we ever had”? Are you serious? Can you cite a reference (other than Glenn Beck?). Every survey I’ve seen shows that the world loves Obama.

    Anyway, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

    Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 5:51 am | Permalink