¿Communista?
"Conservatives pride themselves on resisting change, which is as it should be. But intelligent deference to tradition and stability can evolve into intellectual sloth and moral fanaticism, as when conservatives simply decline to look up from dogma because the effort to raise their heads and reconsider is too great." -W.F.B.
By J.M. Hamilton 8-31-13
I remember it well. I was getting my hair cut in a South Texas barbershop and we were discussing the issues of the day. When the red head cutting my hair turned to me, batted her baby blues, and asked, "You need to meet my brother, he's a member of the John Birch society. Would you like his phone number?"
Oh baby, talk dirty to me.
It was the early eighties and W.F.B. was in his ascendency. Seemingly, Ronald Reagan was brought to power by National Review. That, and Mr. Buckley's shear force of will. The apostates and the “Birchers” had been driven from the Republican temple by the man with the golden tongue; and many were attracted to the Party by the shear athleticism of Mr. Buckley's intellect.
And there was something more, something singular – at least for me, the promise and allure of upward mobility that capitalism appeared to offer all Americans.
Sundays were great. Sundays - after sleeping through church service in the back pew - meant Firing Line. Almost as interesting as W.F.B.'s arguments - it was a challenge just to attempt to keep up with him - was his willingness to bring liberals, Dems, and nearly anybody else on the show, who had the testicular or ovarian fortitude to appear. Mr. Buckley was as iconoclastic as he was iconic.
Ultimately, what was so appealing about Mr. Buckley, however, was he often argued from the moral high ground. His near fundamentalist belief in capitalism - the unlimited opportunity capitalism seemed to afford the U.S. and its adherents - and his faith in his own Catholic upbringing - were undeniable. That didn't mean he was a slave to orthodoxy, and the pillar of the conservative movement certainly had a libertarian streak a mile wide. By way of example, he opposed President Bush's (W) war in Iraq, and he was against the war on drugs. Clearly, this was a free-thinking conservative. A statement that is clearly oxymoronic today.
If Mr. Buckley was doctrinaire anywhere, it was in his firm opposition to the gangsters who ran the former Soviet Union. Perhaps it was the USSR's attack on personal freedoms, the near universal poverty of it's citizens (except for communist party cadres), the socialism and slavery that often accompanies a command economy, or it's goal of global hegemony. Of course, Mr. Buckley shared similar concerns about the growth in the U.S. government... clearly there was angst expressed about the growing welfare state, particularly as it applied to the general public. National Review went after the socialist inclinations within this country.
The intellectualism that Mr. Buckley brought to the party was only eclipsed some thirty year's later, at the tail end of the Bush Administration (W.), by the party's decline, characterized by: a lack of leadership, a dearth of fresh ideas, anti- intellectualism, xenophobia, moral turpitude, and a slavish devotion to party orthodoxy.
This decline is best exemplified by today's House of Representatives and the candidates the GOP put up for the last presidential election.
Presently, we see a House of Representative that is dominated by the Republican Party, propelled there by gerrymandered redistricting. That the GOP could not win the Presidency or the Senate in 2012, during the heart of the Great Recession, speaks volumes about the decline of the Party, and it’s lack of national appeal. Today, the House does not rule, but rather, obstructs and views this a progress; and the leadership, offers no alternative to the administration’s guidance, but for the nihilism afforded by Ayn Randians, misguided and misled Tea Partiers, and the GOP establishment (terrified by the extremist). Supposedly the brightest ideas coming out of the House these days is the desire to shut down the Federal government, and impeach the President. The House is allowed to play this game because the Federal Reserve has printed trillions to keep the nation afloat and bailout the Wall Street banking cartel; in short, while the GOP fiddles, D.C. and the nation burns in a ocean of liquidity.
My piece Dumbed Down Madness described in great detail how the GOP leadership advocates higher education for themselves and the elite; but believe it’s a waste of time – and completely corrupting - for the 99%. As the GOP guts public education, and offers no alternatives to spiraling higher education costs, it proposes to allow banks to charge higher interest rates on student loans. For many, it’s very clear that the Party prefers an under-educated and dumbed down electorate. Unlike Mr. Buckley, today, very few right-leaning political pundits would allow Democrats, liberal guests, or competing ideas on their shows. Today’s GOP, seemingly, doesn’t believe it’s the responsibility of the Party to educate the public on the issues of the day – as Firing Line did; but rather, the Party’s role is to dictate party orthodoxy.
Standing completely alone among the GOP, is Senator McCain, who shows us what the GOP could be, if it was not dominated by demagogues, and paid for by right wing industrialist and oil oligarchs. Mr. McCain’s recent performance is independent, intelligent and thoughtful; Mr. McCain’s policies and proposed legislation clearly show the path out of the wilderness, by embracing the middle class, adopting pro-middle class growth policies, and employment opportunities; but don’t look for the radicals in the Party to embrace such precepts.
The Party and the House are both divided about immigration reform, quite possibly for fear of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, changing the homogenous complexion of their base, and due to the absolute terror of potentially affording a victory to this administration. This single issue quite possibly demonstrates why the public opinion of the House is at an all time low. My guess is these guys and gals will easily take their approval rating down into the single digits. In the early 80’s National Review and other conservative journals of opinion referred to a “liberal crack-up” … today, we are witnessing nothing short of the GOP’s self-immolation.
As for moral turpitude, look no further than the House’sFinancial Service Committee. This Committee has grown to sixty-one members, which is fourteen percent of the legislative body. The prime purpose of sitting on this committee is to do the Wall Street bank’s bidding, in exchange for campaign contributions. The nation’s dirty little secret is the biggest “welfare queen” around, a term that originated with Presidential Candidate Ronald Reagan, is the Wall Street banking cartel. With trillions awarded in bailout funds, Federal Reserve bond purchasing and interest rate suppression, tax breaks, and watered down rules and regs: the Republicans use to call such government favors “socialism,” or if they were feeling particularly provocative, “communism.” In fact, the GOP still calls public handouts “socialism, or communism,” when the government provides assistance to the 99%; however, when the House Financial Services Committee affords welfare to the affluent and uber wealthy, well that’s business as usual, or communism by any other name. One more interesting fact, from 1980 through 2010 (largely a period of Republican rule), Federal outlays per annum have grown from just under a trillion dollars to just under six trillion dollars… a 500% increase. Meanwhile, the yawning abyss of the GOP created national debt grows ever wider. Perhaps that’s by design, since the GOP’s banker pals profit immensely from the national debt.
Of course, our Republican packed Supreme Court believes cash equals freedom of speech; and we wonder why the Cartel seems to always get away with an ever growing rap sheet, where another fine – without admission of guilt – is just the cost of doing business.
Republicans like to insist any proposed financial regulation (including an enfeebled Dodd-Frank), be accompanied by cost benefit analysis, showing that the new reform will not have adverse impact upon the banks. On the surface not a bad concept, but in practice, it’s just another roadblock for badly needed reform. However, where’s the GOP when it comes to insisting that the publicly traded monopolies, cartels, and M&A activity go through similar cost – benefit rigor? Arguably, if the government should have to demonstrate the efficacy of proposed rules and regs, why should not monopolies and cartels – given their government granted privilege of minting monopolistic profits (taxes upon the citizenry) in exchange for campaign contributions – have to undergo an annual cost-benefits analysis/review? Such analysis might be useful in demonstrating that the cartel or monopoly doesn’t work at cross purposes with the public good, soak the consumer, or strangle economic opportunity and nascent recoveries (such is the recent history of Big Oil).
But don’t look for the communists in the House to rein in free-market crushing cartels and monopolies anytime soon; nor will the House slow same down long enough to make them validate and justify their impact upon the United States, via the same financial analysis imposed upon Federal regulators.
As for the capitalist panacea Mr. Buckley so convincingly promised… well, it appears to have stalled. Upward mobility is more rigid in America than in the land of royalty and aristocracy, Great Britain.
Thanks to Mr. Buckley and President Reagan, the gangsters who ran the former Soviet Union are all gone now, replaced by a lone KGB operative; but the banksters, who run Amerika, are alive and well, and they demand tribute from Comrade Hensarling’s Committee.
As for myself… although the Birchers were tempting, like the sophistry afforded by the Tea Party, I passed. Alas, there is no Mr. Buckley to drive the philistines away from contaminating decency, and polluting common sense and good government; there is no Mr. Buckley to crush failed ideology, ground lockstep Republican Party orthodoxy, and offer up an enlightened moral high ground.
And it is the nation, indeed the world, who suffers for it.
