With the rise to enduring power of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal in 1933, a new type of Republican emerged in reaction to FDR's attractive and overawing power: the me-too Republican. Until the election of President Reagan five decades later, these me-too Republicans supported, rather than opposed, Democratic Party policies but claimed they would administer them better. Of course, this led to a half-century of Democratic dominance of American government and politics.
FDR himself cruelly mocked this pathetic breed of spineless, protect-your-career-at-any-cost Republican politicians:
"Let me warn the nation against the smooth evasion which says: 'Of course we believe all these things. We believe in Social Security; we believe in work for the unemployed; we believe in saving homes. Cross our hearts and hope to die, we believe in all these things; but we do not like the way the present administration is doing them. Just turn them over to us. We will do all of them; we will do more of them; we will do them better; and best of all, the doing of them will not cost anybody anything.'"
Now, on the cusp of what some think will be a major Obama victory, we are beginning to see emerge what I will call "me-too conservatives" -- initially among conservative commentators (politicians to follow). I have in mind, among others: Peggy Noonan, David Brooks, Chris Buckley, David Frum and Kathleen Parker.
Of course, they are not quite saying they are giving up conservatism for whatever it is Obama would bring. They are initially focusing on style or, in the newly arrived cliché, temperament -- a term made famous, interestingly, to describe FDR as possessing a second-class intellect but a first-class temperament.
The hopelessly enthralled David Brooks wrote recently:
"(Obama) doesn't seem to need the audience's love. But they need his. The audiences hunger for his affection, while he is calm, appreciative and didactic.
"He doesn't have F.D.R.'s joyful nature or Reagan's happy outlook, but he is analytical. … His family is bourgeois. His instinct is to flee the revolutionary gesture in favor of the six-point plan." That is, amusingly, almost exactly what Vladimir Lenin's admirers, such as John Reed in "Ten Days That Shook the World," used to say in contrasting Lenin's style to the fierier Leon Trotsky. (Note: I am making a style point, not a substance point.)
But they all cast their admiration for Obama in contrast with Sarah Palin -- whom they mischaracterize through a process of intellectual and historic dishonesty tempered by cultural snobbery and fear.
For example, Peggy Noonan charges that Palin's "political decisions seem untethered to a political philosophy.
… She does not speak seriously but attempts to excite sensation -- 'palling around with terrorists.' … But it's unclear whether she is Bushian or Reaganite. … She has spent her time throwing out tinny lines to crowds she doesn't, really, understand. This is not a leader, this is a follower. … She could reinspire and reinspirit; she chooses merely to excite. She doesn't seem to understand the implications of her own thoughts."
Oh, my. Has Peggy been napping up there on Mount Olympus through the past several generations of American politics? She accuses Palin of not engaging America in a Socratic dialogue, of using phrases untethered to a political philosophy. Exactly what philosophy are the slogans "change" and "hope" tethered to? American presidential campaigns, with very few exceptions, have been little more than slogans shouted in the hopes that crowds will be excited by them. The much-admired Obama campaign has been the greatest exemplar of style over substance. However, it is Peggy Noonan's completely unsupported sneer at Palin's mental capacities that is most revealing.
I think that Peggy may have unconsciously touched on what really is going on here when she accuses Palin -- who is attracting crowds as big, if not bigger than any Reagan ever drew -- of being a "follower … not a leader." Peggy's unconscious fear may be that it will be precisely Sarah Palin (and others like her) who will be among the leaders of the about-to-be-reborn conservative movement. I suspect that the conservative movement we start rebuilding on the ashes of Nov. 4 (even if McCain wins) will have little use for overwritten, over-delicate commentary. The new movement will be plain-spoken and socially networked up from the Interneted streets, suburbs and small towns of America. It certainly will not listen very attentively to those conservatives who idolatrize Obama and collaborate in heralding his arrival. They may call their commentary "honesty." I would call it -- at the minimum -- blindness.
The new conservative movement will be facing a political opponent that will reveal itself soon to be both multiculturalist and Eurosocialist. We will be engaged in a struggle to the political death for the soul of the country. As I did at the beginning of and throughout the Buckley/Goldwater/Reagan/Gingrich conservative movement, I will try to lend my hand. I certainly will do what I can to make it a big-tent conservative movement. But just as it does in every great cause, one question has to be answered correctly: Whose side are you on, comrade?
Tony Blankley is executive vice president of Edelman public relations in Washington. E-mail him at TonyBlankley@gmail.com. To find out more about Tony Blankley and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.

|
 |
Comments
|
5 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Tony, so I see you choose not the speak the name that qualifies all of the "Conservatives" you menitioned in your article. They are "Neo-Cons". Sarah Palin is a "conservative". A true conservative is both economically and socially conservative. Anti-abortionism is just as important to a conservative as a tax cut. Long live B. Russell and Hyack. Long Milton Friedman. Long live the name of America's first conservative "George Washington"....
Comment: #1
Posted by: Bill Conlon
Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:00 AM
|
|
|
|
Tony, great intellect on your part: Peggy was always too painful to read or understand.
She can go pound sand.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Algerhyss
Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:07 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Bill Conlon; Sir,...Are you for real... You must certainly recognize that the forces against abortion rights are against all rights... They are not conservatives; they are absolutist supporting four hundred years late the absolutism of Kings... Who give one person the right to deny rights to others... Such power can only be a divine right... Given by God to self appointed agents of God..... Get your labels right if you expect to not be caught up in them... Your terms show you lie... Change your terms and tell the truth. You know; I have seen Washington's house. I have seen how he lived and I have seen how his slaves lived. Don't take a slaver for a hero.. Stand proud for the freedom of all mankind . Fight divine rights. Thanks... Sweeney
Comment: #3
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Thu Oct 23, 2008 1:36 PM
|
|
|
|
Sir;... From my perspective I don't see the Repubicans having ever supported the democratic initiatives of the past... You see, back when the communists actually seemed a threat the republicans joined with democrats to remove the fuse from their bomb... Do you want reform of government??? Sure... Do you want government to look after your interests and your retirement??? Well sure... Anything that keeps the working class from asking for their rights is fine; and then, when the crisis is past, they milk the money out of it until it bleeds... Not one of the social programs promised to the people is any more certain than the govenment, and government has thrown itself into the grave with capital... Will the people pull both of these rotten corpses out of the grave just to have a flatlined social security??? I think the country was a better place while there was communists in it... As soon as the democrats ran the commies out of town, they quit looking center, and started looking red all over... Perhaps the Right will have to overthrow the democratic agents of the sixth international....Maybe the over throw will go the other way when the people realizee that the promises made by the rich and the democrats for social justice were all air... I don't think the problem is with republicans ageeing with the democrats... I think there is a serious problem with the democrats believing them... It was all a put off... Pie in the sky... Anyone who actually bought that garbage needed a brain...And you could use one too.. Buy one from Bill C.. He isn't using his.. Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #4
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Thu Oct 23, 2008 2:04 PM
|
|
|
|
Mr. Blankley: ( ( ( If you live in the river you should make friends with the crocodile. ) ) ) Indian Proverb
Your closing lines in October 22, 2008
The Birth of the Me-Too Conservative: “I certainly will do what I can to make it a big-tent conservative movement. But just as it does in every great cause, one question has to be answered correctly: Whose side are you on, comrade? “Comrade ? ? ? ?”Very catty, Mr. Blankley. Very catty --- indeed. I'll allow that this catty stuff of yours will play itself out as you go into a tail spin --- which is what I see happening to you, Mr. Blankley. Already constructing your universe of discourse, sound-bites, ziggers, slogans... socialism, “ beware the sharers of the wealth”, etc. etc. etc.
Mr. Blankley, you really had to crick your neck around to come up with this link of Obama and Lenin. Boy are you laying the groundwork for the REVIVAL early in the game. QUIT THIS CRAP, Mr. Blankley. You are as transparent (maybe you want to be) as a plate of glass. Comparison indeed ? ? ? “ HERE”S YOUR “comparison” ... The hopelessly enthralled David Brooks wrote recently: "(Obama) doesn't seem to need the audience's love. But they need his. The audiences hunger for his affection, while he is calm, appreciative and didactic.He doesn't have F.D.R.'s joyful nature or Reagan's happy outlook, but he is analytical. His family is bourgeois. His instinct is to flee the revolutionary gesture in favor of the six-point plan." That is, amusingly, almost exactly what Vladimir Lenin's admirers, such as John Reed in "Ten Days That Shook the World," used to say in contrasting Lenin's style to the fierier Leon Trotsky. (Note: I am making a style point, not a substance point.) “ “ “ Oh REALLY !!! ... “ a style point ????? STOP THIS CRAP.
Your defense of Palin worries me. Are you grasping at straws? My god! You? ---- Throwing you lot in with Ms. Sarah Palin? You ? A very well endowed thinking person? I cannot believe it. This woman is NOWHERE. Noonan, as you quote her, has got it right. You too have it right. Campaigns are low brow slogan fests. But most of the people who run for office, unfortunately, have to descend. Ms. Palin has never risen!. She starts and ends with crazy grammar and oblique responses to actually grammatically correct questions. How did you come to this? Because Ms. Palin can excite a crowd? Because she speaks to jingoists, nativists, beer drinking people, enthnocentrists? ? ? ? ? Do you want fear base, paranoid, agoraphobic slavers people as the base of the revived RIGHT WING? What happened to the episcopalian, j. crew wearing, moderate, sensible, urbane, reasonable, socially minded people who were called republicans first and conservative second. These moderate, human, social beings have been pushed out by the GROVER NORDQUISTS of the world and his ilk ---- the rabid private property, non-communal social recluses, anti-social personality disordered folk --- the pre homo sapient types --- the types who have lost the social function in their brains, the Scrooge McDUCKS of the world . Regroup, Mr. Blankley if you must. DOn't call yourselves REPUBLICANS .Don't even call conservatives. I'd rather not call the Palin folk conservative. This word is too precious to be applied to the Palin folk. Call them the forrest-dwellers, recluses --- people sitting in front of the dwellings with shot guns over your laps, weirdly independent, autonomous, lone WOLVES, Steppenwolves. .
. "The best lack all conviction, and the worst are full of passionate intensity..." This I think applies to you. Mr. McCain, not having a colleague of his own ilk, give us the political publicity stunt that is Ms. Palin. I hear that Ms. Palin has electrified the her base --- the fundamentalists, the nativists , the plutocrats, the Charleston Hestonites, the hyper-patriots, the oligarchs, the jingoists, the slavers, the ethnocentrists, the crypto-Fascists, the authoritarian personality types. Patriotism hypertropied becomes a form of sick disdainful fear. Then there is the whole spooky, demonic world that the “patriot” must escape, must beware of, must project on to the OTHER !! ! There is too much demonizing on both sides I am sad to say. How about we all think on what Laurence Sterne
1713-1768, British Author said: “Respect for ourselves guides our morals, respect for others guides our manners.”
Have you seen on youtube that a visiting minister to her church felt called to cast out witches from Ms. Palin. Am I to conclude that she was possessed by witches? Does it mean people not like her and her church have to be doubled as witches? ? ? Have you seen that Ms. Palin has been judged to have acted unethically by a commission in Alaska examining her conduct in office? Have you seen that Ms. Palin and her husband have been observed (there is evidence) to be trucking with a rabid group of people who want to break Alaska away from the United States? Is Ms. Palin a patriot or what? Can she be serious about questioning others' loyalty and judgment. I cannot believe she has been part of a group that hates the USA, but the evidence is there. How servile and sycophantish can one get Mr. Blankley ? Admit your faults and Ms. Palin's. Your swaggering bluster would be amusing if it were not so full of mischief, lies and delusion. You are one of the deluders and time wasters on your great Disney owned American Broadcasting Co. Mr. Hannity, Rush and Savage and Billy Cunningham and O'Riley --- the whole lot of you being sponsored by the people that brought us Bambi and Snow White... If you and your ilk are not surreal, I don't know what surreal means. Please repent, recant, save yourself and confess on Saturday evening before Sunday.
Since this is a pastiche, I close with a thought of RICHARD REEVES:
"Character is a word that seems to define almost all human activity and then some..."
"Power is what you do and character is what you are..."
" All leaders must face some crisis where their own strength of character is the enemy." I think what Reeves says about leaders and their strength of character applies to Mr. George W. Bush --- he could have gotten several other differing opinions from those of himself and his yes-men.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Arthur
Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:31 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|