It's really very simple:

One topic that's being discussed this week is the notion of the "honest conservative". The starting point was this observation, which some say applies to the Bush administration:

Of the three features—-personal honesty, sincere support of the regime, and intelligence—-it was possible to combine only two, never all three. If one was honest and supportive, one was not very bright; if one was bright and supportive, one was not honest; if one was honest and bright, one was not supportive...

Then there was a follow-up which noted that the current pivoting of conservatives away from Bush is preparation for attacks on the Democratic president. Then Digby weighed in, followed by Tristero.

Look, here's what's happened. Starting with the Gingrich revolution of 1994:

The Republcan party became vicious, corrupt, and authoritarian, with the goal of destroying the New Deal and giving more power to the plutocrats, using religion and and jingoism for political gain.

Let's not get distracted with fine distinctions over wheather or not a particular Republican or conservative is "intelligent" or "honest" or whatever. That kind of analysis might have made sense decades ago, but not now. Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford were Republicans who accepted the New Deal and Great Society. The current breed of Republican does not. They don't want to use government to assist the poor or the unfortunate. While the Republicans controlled Congress for more than a decade, the minimum wage wasn't raised, food stamps weren't raised, qualifying for Medicaid became harder, etc. If you read Dick Armey over at Time's Swampland you got a taste of that kind of thinking. Republicans don't care about government except to the extent that it can be used to raid trust funds and shovel money to their rich friends.

Looking for an "honest conservative" is a fool's errand.


posted by Quiddity at 6/16/2007 08:12:00 AM