“Conservative” Just Doesn’t Tell It Anymore

Posted on April 19, 2009 in Folly Watch Liberals & Progressives Parties Secularism Terminology

The current political climate, especially on the Right, necessitates a restructuring of our descriptive language. I feel guilty, for example, lumping [[Michael Steele]] and [[Arnold Schwartzeneggar]] with [[Rush Limbaugh]]. In the old Republican Party — that which existed before Reagan — we had Rockefeller Republicans (socially liberal but fiscally conservative), moderates, and [[John Birch Society|Birchers]]. Reagan did us the immense disservice of blurring those lines by demanding loyalty to himself and his particular set of ideals. After Reagan, the NeoConservatives who alleged that their brand of conservative politics had a heart arose. The party was likewise invaded by extremists of the Christian Right. By the end of Reagan’s term, most of the Rockefeller Republicans had fled to the Democratic Party and the moderates, represented mostly by [[Lincoln Chafee]] were on the run. (Chaffee was finally annihilated by the Republican National Committee in 2006.)

Two things have become more and more part of the brand of the Republicans: an extreme fascination with deregulation in favor of business and stock manipulation and demands for blind loyalty of the party regulars. But this has not eliminated differences among Republicans.

First, we have the neoconservatives who peddle a wordy philosophy that amounted to don’t tax but spend anyways. They promote a “free market” that give lots of breaks for big business and virtually no protection for small ones.

Second, we have the religious extremists who are perfectly happy to neglect the social gospel in favor of creationism and neopuritanism ((Which means no birth control, no abortion, and no sex education in the schools.)) . These found their faith on [[Bibliolatry]] and practice a [[cafeteria Christianity]] that focuses on twisting vague passages into vindications of hostility towards gays, opposition to abortion, and championing of the work ethic over classic Christian charity. A few of these hawk [[dominionism]], the idea that Christians should seize control of the government in preparation for the [[Rapture]].

Then there are conservatives who champion fiscal conservatism, but adhere to social liberalism. These Log Cabin Republicans simply don’t want to spend us into the red. This makes them opponents, at least on the surface, to the Fundamentalist takeover of the party.

Sometimes — when the classic Republicans drink the glass of courage — they speak out against the fourth group whose approach to political discourse might be called kneejerk — anything a Democrat — especially a liberal or progressive one — says or does is wrong. This group provides the primary participants in tea bag parties, calling for an end to high taxes under a president who makes a point to lower them for 95% of the population and complaining about the deficit after saying nothing under a president of their own party who eliminated a surplus and created a super-huge deficit of his own, spending much of it outside of the country.

The fifth and last group consists of extremists who embrace racism and nativism as a key tenet. They found churches such as [[Christian Identity]] and take up arms against illegal immigrants, bureaucrats, Jews, police officers, people of other races, and, occasionally, people who speak up against them.

All these get called conservatives. But does the ideology of Michael Steele and Arnold Schwartzeneggar really deserve to be classed with Rush Limbaugh and [[Sarah Palin]]? I think not. Only the third variety of conservative seems to be preserving anything. The rest deserve to be called by something else, to be drummed out of the ranks of true conservatives ((A group on Twitter that calls itself “#tcot’ or “True conservatives on Twitter” tends to align itself with groups one and four. This indicates the political potency of the word, but not their true leanings.)) .

Yet a now-limping coalition engineered by big business brings these together. There is a vested interest in preserving a semblance of unity for the sake of corporate power. The price that is paid is that good men devoted to true American ideals get dragged down by a word riddled with corporate sell-outs, theocrats, loudmouths, and Nazis. They do not deserve this.