It's The 'Conservatism'......Stupid!

[Gimpy]

It's The Conservatism, Stupid

Paul Waldman

July 12, 2006


Paul Waldman is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America and the author of the new book, Being Right is Not Enough: What Progressives Can Learn From Conservative Success, just released by John Wiley & Sons. The views expressed here are his own.

Ask a conservative what the biggest problem in America is today, and you?ll get answers like overtaxation, a sexualized culture, lack of respect for authority, insufficient church-going or big government running amok. But if you then asked the conservative what the real source of the problem was?the beating heart pumping blood to each and all of these socio-politico-cultural wounds?you?d get the same answer: liberalism.

On the other hand, you could ask a liberal a hundred questions about the problems facing our country before you?d get to an answer that placed conservatism at the heart of the nation?s ills.

And conservatives learn these messages when still young. What does a ?campus liberal? do? Well, it depends what his or her issue is: fighting sweatshop labor, or environmental degradation, or the Iraq war, or any of a dozen other problems about which liberals are concerned. What, on the other hand, does a ?campus conservative? do? Fight liberals and liberalism.

You can hear it in the media as well. As any fan of Limbaugh, Hannity or O?Reilly hears every day, whatever the issue is, the problem is liberals. Conservatives write books saying liberals are The Party of Death , who are Trashing Democracy, Waging War Against Christianity , ,Screwing Up America, Corrupting Our Future?and on top of it all, our whole ideology is A Mental Disorder. Liberals, on the other hand, write books about why George W. Bush is a terrible president. (I plead guilty.)

What we haven?t yet seen from the left is a sustained critique, not just of a particular politician or a particular policy, but of the entire ideology and worldview of conservatism.

As everyone knows, conservatives have succeeded in making ?liberal? an epithet, something they throw at their opponents?who try desperately to dodge the label. The demonization of ?liberal? has been successful in part because conservatives have effectively created what social psychologists call a ?schema? with decidedly negative features around the term. A schema is a set of ideas that are connected in people?s minds, such that activating one idea??liberal??activates a whole set of related ideas, like lights on a Christmas tree. We assemble schemas as a way of storing and categorizing related information in memory. In this case, the related ideas are things like ?soft on crime,? ?weak on defense,? ?sexually permissive,? and so on. The ideas liberals would like to pop right up in people?s heads when they hear the term liberal??wants prosperity for everyone,? ?supports universal health care? or ?stands up to powerful interests??are farther away from the schema?s center.

This didn?t happen by accident. It is the result of a relentless campaign against liberalism by conservatives. And liberals need to do the same thing to conservatism.

A good first step would be to never, ever again use the word with a positive connotation. How many times has a Democrat, in order to score a debating point, said, ?A true conservative wouldn?t tolerate these Republican deficits?? How many times have solidly liberal Democrats described themselves as ?fiscally conservative?? Those formulations accept that true conservatives are principled people with noble goals. They are not, and should not be talked about as though they were. When was the last time you heard a Republican call himself a ?social liberal,? even if he is one? They don?t, because they understand that liberalism is an opposing ideology to which they will give no aid or comfort.

So allow me to offer a few points of attack on conservatism, ones that will resonate with the public and accrue both short-term and long-term gains to the liberals who use them.

1. Conservatism has failed . The overwhelming majority of the American public now sees the Bush administration as a failure. They failed in Iraq, they failed after Hurricane Katrina, they failed on health care, they failed to deliver rising wages, they failed on the deficit, they failed, they failed, they failed. Why? Liberals need to argue that it wasn?t a product of incompetence, it was a failure of conservative governance. As Alan Wolfe put it in a recent Washington Monthly article, ?Conservatives cannot govern well for the same reason that vegetarians cannot prepare a world-class boeuf bourguignon: If you believe that what you are called upon to do is wrong, you are not likely to do it very well.?

Conservatives had their chance: a Republican president, a Republican Congress, Republican-appointed courts?in short, the perfect environment for enacting their vision with little to stand in their way?and they failed. Should we be surprised at the level of corruption? Of course not; they don?t think government is there to serve the people, so why shouldn?t they raid it for whatever they can grab?

In short, progressives should start talking about the Bush administration?s failures not as those of a president, but of an ideology.

2. Conservatism is the ideology of the past ?a past we don?t want to return to. Liberals need to embrace the culture war, because we?re winning. The story of American history is that of conservative ideas and prejudices falling away as our society grows more progressive and thus more true to our nation?s founding ideals. Conservatives supported slavery, conservatives opposed women?s suffrage, conservatives supported Jim Crow, conservatives opposed the 40-hour work week and the abolishment of child labor, and conservatives supported McCarthyism. In short, all the major advancements of freedom and justice in our history were pushed by liberals and opposed by conservatives, no matter the party they inhabited at the time.

Conservatism is Bill Bennett lecturing you about self-denial, then rushing off to feed his slot habit at the casino. It?s James Dobson telling you that children need regular beatings to stay in line. It?s a superannuated nun rapping you on the knuckles so you won?t think about your dirty parts. It?s Jerry Falwell watching ?Teletubbies? frame by frame to see if Tinky Winky is trying to turn him gay. Conservatism is everyone you never wanted to grow up to be.

3. Conservatives are cowards, and they hope you are, too . We?re afraid, they shout. We?re so afraid of terrorists, we have to become more like the things we hate. We?re so afraid, we have to let our government sanction torture. We?re so afraid, we have to let the government spy on us. We?re so afraid, we have to give the president dictatorial powers. We?re so afraid, we just want to rush to the arms of politicians who say they?ll protect us.

Progressives need to frame their rejection of the fear campaign as an act of courage: Al-Qaida does not scare us, and we will not dismantle our democratic system because we are afraid. The America we love does not cower in fear, as the conservatives want it to.

These are just a few ways progressives can begin to talk about contemporary issues in the context of the larger ideological conflict that shapes our political history. As an added bonus, when we make clear just what it is we are against at its fundamental, philosophical level, we define for the public who we are and what we stand for.

One of the troubling contradictions in contemporary public opinion is that while on nearly every issue the progressive position is more popular, the number of people willing to tell a pollster they consider themselves ?conservative? still far outnumbers the number willing to say they?re ?liberal.? It wasn?t always that way, and it doesn?t have to be that way. Winning converts isn?t just about convincing people you?re right on the merits of issues, it?s also about showing them that your side is one they want to join, and the other side is one they want to avoid.

The key challenge facing progressives right now is how?once George W. Bush decamps for Crawford in January of 2009?to maintain the increased energy motivating the political left in recent years . They will be able to do so if they come to understand that George W. Bush is not what they need to fight. What they need to fight is conservatism.

[SuperScout]

Was it conservatism or liberalism that gave us ?overtaxation, a sexualized culture, lack of respect for authority, insufficient church-going or big government running amok.? And if conservatives are against overtaxation, a sexualized culture, etc., does that mean by extrapolation that liberals are in favor of it? It must be.

And just who favors abortions on demand and partial birth abortions? It?s liberals, so they indeed are the Party of Death.

Where have we failed in Iraq? Just because we haven?t achieved instant democratization, provided everyone with potable water, hi-speed Internet, and a MasterCard in 45 days, the bedwetters get their panties in a knot and claim we?ve failed there. If there are failures in Iraq, it certainly isn?t because of conservatism; the author?s assertions are simply an ill-advised opinion.

It is liberalism that takes people?s private property away from them and sells it to developers.

Conservatives didn?t support slavery or the Jim Crow laws ? it was Democrats like J. William Fulbright, the godfather Slick Willie Clinton, and Al Gore, Sr., who filibustered the Civil Right Act before it was signed into law, only because of the heroic work of Senator Dirksen, Republican from Illinois and other conservative Republican senators.

Our government doesn?t sanction torture ? Waldman is a liar, and anybody who supports his blatant lies is a gutless wonder.

How has the government spied on you? Are you that paranoid, or are you part of the AlQaeda network that needs to be permanently eliminated? What dictatorial powers have been granted to the President? Conservatives don?t want Americans to cower in fear we simply want to defeat the terrorists, not give them aid and comfort like the liberals want to.

It wasn?t that conservatism failed in the Katrina aftermath ? it was the very bloated, big-government that conservatives dislike that failed. And the real issue is the total failure of liberalism and their ongoing giveaway programs that was exposed for the world to see in New Orleans. Decades of liberal feel-good programs have produced nothing but societal sloth, corrupted entire cultures, and have not improved the conditions of those designed to help. All one has to do is review the ignorant refugees coming out of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina to see the real winners of liberalism there.

What have the liberals given us? The success of the Carter administration, where interests rates were at record high levels, when his foreign policy approach gave us a boycott of the Olympics when Russia invade Afghanistan, our Panama Canal that was given to the thugs of Panama, and amnesty that was given to cowards. And shall I remind you of the foreign policy successes of the Clinton administration ? Haiti, Somalia, and Bosnia? Where his lack of decisiveness gave us ineptitude after the first World Trade Tower attack, the Khobar Tower attack, the US embassy attacks in Africa, the USS Cole attack, and his arcane policy to no-talk/no coordination that helped facilitate the 9-11 attack?

[Gimpy]

like a few folks need some more "evidence based" facts for further convincing, huh?...............

Bogus Conservative Idea #1 . Cutting taxes stimulates the economy and leads to increased revenue. A corollary of this is that higher taxes strangle economic growth.


Of course, we now have two distinct examples of tax cuts that directly led to deficits. The conservatives say that those deficits were caused by a failure to reduce spending. But that contradicts the theory of "voodoo economics". Economic stimulation is supposed to drive up revenues and pay for the tax cuts. Hasn't happened yet.


Then there is the experience following Clinton's deficit reduction act. You will recall that act contained the "largest tax increase in history". The result was a dramatic increase in revenue -- far more pronounced than the eventual increases in revenue under Reagan, that basically tracked increases in GDP.


The conservatives say that economic growth drove up those revenues, but again this undercuts voodoo economics. Clinton raised tax rates on the top, and the economy boomed anyway.
"Voodoo economics" is dead as a hammer. Even conservatives are now reduced to arguing, "well, deficits aren't so bad".


And of course, the "facts" that justify the liberal interpretation are found at a conservative web site. Perhaps you've heard of it. It's called the "Heritage Foundation".


Bogus Conservative Idea #2. Deficits "aren't so bad". There are several ways to debunk this nonsense.


First of all, tax cuts that lead to deficits aren't tax cuts at all. They're tax deferrments. They postpone the day when today's expenditure must be paid for. Sooner or later, the bill has to be paid -- with interest. Whatever evil results from raising taxes, sooner or later you will have no choice. In fact, we can think of Clinton tax increases as Reagan's tax increases, since we had deferred paying them while Reagan was President.


Unfortuneately that isn't really accurate, since the increase in debt under Reagan is still with us -- Dubya having decided that paying down our debts wasn't a priority.


Second is the drain deficits place on finance capital. It's actually somewhat hard to fathom why deficit driven tax cuts would stimulate the economy. Government apending takes money out of the private economy one way or the other, either as taxes, or as money spent buying government bonds. Only the bonds have to be repaid with interest. Meanwhile, some economists believe that deficit spending drives up interest rates. This is supported by the fact that structural interest rates were much higher under Reagan and Bush. Clinton enjoyed the lowest interest rates in a generation, after he balanced the budget..


But if you doubt the eventual inflationary pressure of deficits, you need to wake up to an ominous fact of life. The dollar is weakening against foreign currencies. US bonds have been a traditional "safe haven" investment for years. A weakening dollar changes that. If the dollar weakens too much, the govenrment may be begging hat in hand for finance capital, raising its bond yields, with other interest rates following suit.


Can you say inflation? Can you say fiscal crisis from hell?


Bogus Conservative Idea #3. Liberalism is "destroying America".
Other variants include, "liberals are "collectivists", "socialists", "communists" "Stalinists". Insert your totalitarian reference here. If this were just rhetorical hyperbole, I wouldn't pay any attention to it. But some of these conservatives appear to actually believe it.


In fact, I have presented the facts -- you know the things we liberals don''t have any of -- and I still see this utter hogwash mouthed by conservatives.


First of all it helps to know what "communism" really is. A few highlights. Communist countries have no or very little private business. The Communist manifesto calls for the abolition of land ownership. Centrally planned "command economies" are a central feature of Communist governments. And of course, Communist governments all have a "gulag" like police state.


So where is America's gulag? How many political prisoners did FDR, Truman, LBJ or Bill Clinton have? What was the name of our central planning agency? And when have Democrats even advocated -- much less passed -- anything like abolition of land ownership. Our FHA has in fact broadened land ownership, not restricted it. And how many personal fortunes have been built since the beginning of the New Deal in 1933. Where are your "facts" conservatives, to support this "liberals are really communists" crapola?


As for destroying the country, consider these unemployment numbers. This is the unemployment rate on the last day of the Truman, Johnson and Clinton administrations, respectively. 2.5%, 3.5% 4.5%. Under Clinton's presidency, unemployment dropped below 5 percent for the first time in 27 years. Yes, I know about Jimmy Carter, he left with 7.5%, the same percentage he came in with. Now look at unemployment on the last day of the Hoover, Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan, and BushI adminstrations. 25%, 6.5%, 7.5%, 5.5%, 7.5%. For Hoover thats twenty five not two point five. Only Reagan left office with lower unemployment than he inherited, and his finishing unemployment rate pales beside that of Democratic administrations. Pitiful isn't it?


And of course, we know about the explosion in deficit spending under Reagan, BushI and now BushII. Under Clinton, he ended his presidency with a budget surplus, low interest rates, low inflation, and low unemployment -- the same conditions that prevailed in every other Democratic administration except for one. Kennedy/Johnson sent men to the moon, in the age of the Detroit "muscle car". The modern suburban middle class was born after the war, when Democrats controlled Congress and occasionally the White House. New Deal and Great Society initiatives are so popular, even George W. Bush praises them.
All of which proves that we liberals sure are doing a lousy job of "destroying America". Patriotic conservatives on the other hand, what with high unemployment and huge deficits, seem to be doing a much better job -- of "destroying America" that is.


Ouch!.


Bogus Conservative Idea #4. "Trickle down" economics. This is the underlying philosophy behind those "voodoo" tax cuts. Its simple really. Put more money in the pockets of the rich, and they will invest in business, creating jobs. So why didn't it work in the wake of Dubya's tax cuts? And why didn't Clinton's tax increases shut down economic growth? [Those are facts, conservatives. Sorry, if you can't handle them.]


The reason it didn't work is simple. It's horseshit. Investors don't invest in new businesses, expanding businesses, new equipment, research and development or anything else if there's no demand. Demand drives the economy, not supply. Why would you invest in greater production capacity if no one is out there with money to spend? Besides, there are plenty of other investments that send no money into increasing production facilities or new businesses. You can invest in commodities, foreign exchange, and government bonds. Even the stock market is mostly an aftermarket, with people buying stock owned by other people. No money goes into business expansion there. And of course, you can "short sell", that is, bet on the market to decline.


If the economic history of the United States proves one thing it is that money in the pockets of little man stimulates the economy. Why do you think there was so much prosperity under Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton? Their policies put money in the pockets of the people on the bottom, creating demand and stimulating investment. Wealth doesn't "trickle down", it flows up from the bottom.


Bogus Conservative Idea #5. The wage earner depends on the wealthy investor for his prosperity. There is nothing more personally entertaining to me than to listen to conservatives talk about "wealth". They seem to get almost misty eyed about the whole concept. They think that "wealth" is something real -- and that the first responsibility of the government is to protect the "wealth" of the "haves".


But what is "wealth", really? What is the tangible value of that picture of Benjamin Franklin in your pocket? What is "stock", "equity", "debt". Hell, what are property rights? Here's the answer conservatives. Refute it if you can. "Wealth" is nothing more than a set of abstract ideas that organize distribution of what labor produces. Labor is the thing that is real.
Everything used by the person with symbols of wealth is produced by a wage earner The tools and equipment he uses are produced by a wage earner. The buildings are produced by wage earners. The roads that lead to your house, your office, or your factory are produced by "wage earners". Wealthy investors who call themselves "producers" make me laugh.


That's why Adam Smith said, "the annual labor of a nation is the fund which supplies the necessaries and conveniences of life that a nation annually consumes." It is also why Abraham Lincoln said, "Labor is the superior of capital and ought to be given much the greater consideration." Labor -- and not those symbols and social conventions called "wealth" -- is the engine of the economy. Leave it to the conservatives to figure out why the man who owns pieces of paper gets whatever he wants, while the man who actually produces has take what he can get.


Bogus Conservative Idea #6. Government is "bad" and has no role in creating wealth or prosperity. Of course, the conservative, who fails to see the all-important role of labor in the creation of "wealth", likewise fails to perceive the central role of government in its creation. It is certainly true -- as conservatives point out -- that government doesn't do the work of production. But government does create the "rights" the property owner relies on the take "ownership" of what somebody else produces. Government creates, enforces and regulates the symbols and concepts of "wealth". It creates property rights, a court system to enforce those rights, the currency, the banking system, unique forms of business organization called "corporations", securities, contract rights, and indeed the entire legal infrastructure of capitalism.


You don't hear conservatives complain about those functions of government. They just claim that those are the only functions of government. Government can do nothing, to hear the conservatives tell it, to benefit the people who do all the actual work of production.


And of course, the conservatives completely overlook all of the other infrastructure created by government. They don't perceive the value of something as simple as a system of roads and highways in creating business opportunities. Every single day, conservatives -- like all of the rest of us -- make use of technology created by or with the assistance of government.


Their computers, TV sets, telephones all make use of microchips first developed by engineers working for government contractors. They make use of communication satellites, placed in orbit by government engineers and techniicians. They use materials and technology developed at public universities with government funding.


And they are completely oblivious to all of it. They don't even appreciate all of the commerce and economic stimulation made possible by government assistance and infrastructure for the benefit of wage earners. What sort of economy would we have without the minimum wage and unions creating vast markets for goods produced in capitalist business enterprises. What would our construction industry look like without FHA guaranteed mortgages?


But if they're still not convinced, here is the question they never answer. Show me one "minimalist government" paradise. Just one. We have them. There are places with no social security, no welfare, no unions, no minimum wage, no OSHA, no environmental protection. There are places where the only thing the laws and the government do is protect the interests of the wealthy. They have names like "Guatemala", "Bolivia" and "Chad". Every first world economy, without exception, has a substantial public sector. Every one. Show me one that doesn't conservatives, or the shut the fuck up.


Bogus Conservative Idea #7. Conservative believe in "less government". As you should be able to see, conservatives believe in "less government" for them, more government for you. They believe in less government for the already prosperous. They also believe in more spending for the pentagon, more "discretion" for the FBI and CIA. They never saw a military intervention they didn't like.


But just let the government tell them to put scrubbers on their smokestacks, or pay their help a living wage. "It's tyranny, I tell you. ENOUGH'S ENOUGH!"


Bogus Conservative Idea #8. Conservatives are "patriotic" whereas liberals are "traitors". Of all of the conservative posturing, this is the most obnoxious. As we have seen, conservatives utterly fail to appreciate the role of labor in the creation of fortunes. They fail to see the role of government. They fail to acknowledge that the government that creates and enforces their rights, can also create and enforce rights for other people as well.


No, the conservative has it all figured out that you, the wage earner, are "on your own". Ask them what will happen when there are no unions, no minimum wage, no OSHA requirements, no safety net, and in general no government infrastructure that favors anybody but them. What will happen to living standards for American wage earners.


Your living standard will decline. It seems the conservative thinks that you are "overpaid" and "pampered". So they don't have any problem with American corporations moving overseas to avoid taxes, enviornmental regulations, and paying a living wage. They also don't any problem with free trade agreements like GATT that can only be described as a surrender of American sovereignty. They also support those deficits, funded by bonds, that represent a transfer of wealth from American taxpayers to wealthy bond holders to the tune 300 billion dollars a year.


But conservatives don't believe in a system of government that works to benefit the vast majority of Americans who work for a living. They believe in a system of government that benefits and handful of people who are independently wealthy. So while they pursue policies that benefit the few at the expense of the many, they wrap themselves in the flag, spout selective clauses from the Constitution, put their hands over their hearts and pledge allegiance to "the flag".


They say they love America. But what do they love? The Constitution? Not the one we live under. They love a wooden constitution as it applied to the country before the invention of the telegraph. Do they love the United States Government? Only the agencies of it that help THEM. The agencies that do anybody any good are "communist". And as for the people of this country, well they don't have very much use for a good three quarters of them -- starting with the half of the country who are Democrats. And we know what they think about our "pampered" wage earners?


Some patriots, these cheap-labor conservatives. Ship American jobs to third world dictatorships, finance the government with massive debt, saddle future generations with the obligation to pay interest to tomorrows millionaires, drive down wages and living standards for ordinary working Americans -- and then call the liberals "traitors".


But don't worry. People are waking up.


They are starting to catch on that conservative ideas are bogus, wait till November if you want to see the PROOF!

PS-----------------------

And yeah, and BTW..............let's not forget the wonderful way these new CONservatives have craped all over the troops and military veterans of this country, OK?

Topic: Military/Troops


Speaker: Bush, George - President


Date: 8/20/2001


Quote/Claim:
"Veterans are a priority for this administration... and that priority is reflected in my budget. [Source: White House Web site]"


Fact: "The President's 2004 budget request for the Veterans Administration will effectively cut spending for its already-stretched health care system. Because of increased medical costs at an above-inflation rate of 4.7% and increased enrollment of 8%, the American Legion calculates that Bush's 2004 request comes $1.9 billion short of maintaining an inadequate status quo. - American Legion Magazine, May, 2003


Hundreds of sick and wounded U.S. soldiers including many who served in the Iraq war are languishing in hot cement barracks at Ft. Stewart, Georgia, while they wait, sometimes for months, to see doctors. - UPI, 11/5/03


A task force commissioned by the President found that federal funding for former soldiers has plummeted from almost $15,000 to less than $5,000 over the past decade, while over 235,000 veterans are currently waiting six months or more for an initial appointment. - NYT, 8/14/02"



Topic: Military/Troops


Speaker: Rumsfeld, Donald - Secretary of Defense


Date: 7/9/2003


Quote/Claim :
"The services and the Joint Staff have been working with Central Command to develop a rotation plan so that we can, in fact, see that we treat these terrific young men and young women in a way that's respectful of their lives and their circumstances.? [Source: ABC Web site]"


Fact: "In 2003, troops were told they'd be going home in May. Then in early July. Then late July.? Then Rumsfeld said August. Then officials changed the story again, saying they could make no hard promises.? Then the Pentagon announced for the first time since Vietnam, they might have to start serving back-to-back overseas tours of up to a year.? Then Secretary of State Colin Powell said some troops would probably be serving at least another year in Iraq. And now the Pentagon acknowledges that the United States will have to provide the overwhelming majority of the occupying troops indefinitely.? - ABC, 7/16/03; USA Today, 8/24/03; Figaro, 10/24/03; Ny Times, 10/27/03"




Topic: Military/Troops


Speaker: Cheney, Dick - Vice President


Date: 4/26/2004


Quote/Claim:
"It is irresponsible to vote against vital support for the United States military [and] repeatedly call for major reductions or outright cancellations of many of our most important weapons systems.? [Source: White House Web site]"


Fact: "We have to get on with the business of cutting?We have to cut out those things we don't need. We have to cut out those things that we can do without in the military area, that we can do without in terms of the complex that is the Department of Defense?Over the course of the last year, since I've been Secretary, I've recommended terminating, cancelling, shutting down 20 separate weapons programs. - Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, 4/30/90


The F-14B, of course, we're terminating in '90. There's no new money in it for '91. The AHIP, the Phoenix missile, the F-15 aircraft, et cetera -- all of those are being terminated in '91?The Apache helicopter, of course, ends in '91. The M1 tank, we're proposing to shut down the M1 tank production lines in '91.? - Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, 2/1/90


Defense Secretary Cheney tried to reduce active-duty troop strength from 2.2 million to 1.6 million while making deep cuts in the Reserves and National Guard. - NY Times, 8/4/91



Topic: Military/Troops


Speaker: Wynne, Michael - Undersecretary of Defense


Date: 4/21/2004


Quote/Claim: "I should point out that we can employ this same authority to require preferential performance as necessary to accelerate the outfitting and delivery of ?up- armored Humvees.? In this case, however, the real constraint is production capacity, not competing demand. Accordingly, in this case, the Department funded a ramp-up to increase production from 220 per month to 300 per month by July 2004; and we will sustain that rate through March 2005.? [Source: Congressional Testimony]"


Fact:
"Last fall, Army officials insisted that 80 armored Humvees could be produced a month, then raised that estimate to 220. In reality, AM General Corp. of South Bend and Armor Holdings of Fairfield, Ohio, are capable of turning out hundreds more a month, according to company officials.? - Indianapolis Star, 5/17/04


M General, the lone producer of Humvees, can assemble 18,000 Humvees a year. Last year the plant had orders for fewer than 6,000. Nearly a third were for foreign countries.? - Indianapolis Star, 5/7/04 "


Topic: Military/Troops


Speaker: Bush, George - President


Date: 4/13/2004


Quote/Claim:
"America's armed forces are performing brilliantly, with all the skill and honor we expect of them. We're constantly reviewing their needs... If additional resources are needed, we will provide them...I talk to General Abizaid quite frequently. I'm constantly asking him does he have what he needs, whether it be in troop strength or in equipment. He and General Sanchez talk all the time. And if he makes the recommendation, he'll get it. [Source: transcript printed on USA Today Web site]"


Fact :
"President Bush's budget request for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 included no money for Iraqi operations, and his budget director, Joshua B. Bolten, said no request would come until January at the earliest. - Washington Post, 3/21/04"




Topic: Military/Troops


Speaker: Bush, George - President


Date: 2/26/2003


Quote/Claim:
"We are doing everything we can to protect the troops. [Source: White House Web site] "


Fact:
"For many GIs, Iraq appears to be a strictly BYOB war -- Bring Your Own Bulletproofs. The shortages [of protective gear] come down to money and priorities. Gen. Richard B. Myers confirmed last week that it would be December before there were enough plates for all of our people in Iraq.? - Dallas Ft. Worth Star Telegram, 10/5/03


'We do not have as many armored Humvees as we would like,' the Army's vice chief of staff testified before Congress in late September. So how is the White House proposing to deal with this? By underfunding the program to armor Humvees...And as for the thousands for armor kits the military says it needs, the White House's proposed budget includes exactly zero dollars for them. - Slate, 2/18/04"




Topic: Military/Troops

Speaker: Bush, George - President


Date: 2/2/2005


Quote/Claim :
"During this time of war, we must continue to support our military and give them the tools for victory.? [Source: White House Web site]"


Fact:
"In December, a soldier serving in Iraq asked why he had to dig through local land fills? to find scrap metal to properly arm his military combat vehicle. Rumsfeld?s response? You have to go to war with the Army you have.? - CBS, 12/9/04"




Topic: Military/Troops


Speaker: Bush, George - President


Date: 10/9/2003


Quote/Claim:
"Your lives can be changed in a moment with the sudden call to duty. I want to thank you for your willingness to heed that important call, and I want to thank your families. I want to thank your sons, daughters, husbands and wives who share in your sacrifice, who are willing to sacrifice for our country and who stand behind you.? [Source: White House Web site]"


Fact:
"Less than 2 weeks after the President made these comments, the Bush administration announced its formal opposition to a proposal to give National Guard and Reserve members access to the Pentagon's health-insurance system, jeopardizing the plan's future and angering supporters. A recent General Accounting Office report estimated that one of every five Guard members has no health insurance.? - Gannett News Service, 10/23/03"



Topic: Military/Troops


Speaker: Bush, George - President


Date: 10/9/2003


Quote/Claim:
"Any time we put our troops into harm's way, you must have the best training, the best equipment, the best possible pay.? [Source: White House Web site]"


Fact:
"The administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.? - Army Times, 6/30/03


When Bush taunted gunmen in Iraq, many GIs must have nervously tugged at their obsolete flak jackets. For many GIs, Iraq appears to be a strictly BYOB war -- Bring Your Own Bulletproofs. The shortages [of protective gear] come down to money and priorities. Gen. Richard B. Myers confirmed last week that it would be December before there were enough plates for all of our people in Iraq.? - Op-Ed, Dallas Ft. Worth Star Telegram, 10/5/03"




Topic: Military/Troops


Speaker: Bush, George - President


Date: 1/3/2003


Quote/Claim:
"I wanted to make sure that our soldiers had the best possible pay.?"


Fact:
"The Bush administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.? - Army Times, 6/30/03"




Topic: Military/Troops


Speaker: Bush, George - President


Date: 1/3/2003


Quote/Claim:
"I want to make sure the housing is the best possible for our military families.? [Source: White House Web site]"


Fact:
"The President's 2004 budget proposes a $1.5 billion reduction in funds to military family housing/medical facilities ? a 14% cut. - Bush FY 2004 Budget"




Topic: Military/Troops


Speaker: Bush, George - President


Date: 1/17/2003


Quote/Claim:
"Seeing the care that these troops get is comforting for me and Laura. We should and must provide the best care for anybody who is willing to put their life in harm's way.? [Source: White House Web site]"


Fact:
"The President made these comments on the same day that his Administration announced it was cutting access to its health care system for approximately 164,000 veterans. The Administration also pushed a cut of $1.5 billion in military housing/medical facility funding, despite the fact that UPI reports hundreds of sick and wounded U.S. soldiers including many who served in the Iraq war are languishing in hot cement barracks here while they wait - sometimes for months - to see doctors.? - Washington Post, 1/17/03; UPI, 10/17/03"




Topic: Military/Troops


Speaker: Bush, George - President


Date: 1/17/2003


Quote/Claim:
"Having been here and seeing the care that these troops get is comforting for me and Laura. We are, should and must provide the best care for anybody who is willing to put their life in harm's way.? [Source: White House Web site]"


Fact:
"On the same day President Bush made this comment, The Department of Veterans Affairs announced that it is immediately cutting off access to its health care system to 164,000 veterans. - Washington Post, 1/17/03


The Veterans of Foreign Wars issued a statement after the President introduced his 2005 budget calling the proposal disgraceful and saying, the president ignored veterans in the State of the Union Address and with today's release of his 2005 budget, it is further evident that veterans are no longer a priority with this administration. VFW Commander-In-Chief Edward Banas said the funding package is a disgrace and a sham. - VFW Release, 2/2/04


With the Bush Administration chronically underfunding veterans medical care, Hundreds of sick and wounded U.S. soldiers including many who served in the Iraq war are languishing in hot cement barracks here while they wait -- sometimes for months -- to see doctors. The National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers' living c"



***************

And this is just a FEW of the injustices and outright lies and deception committed by GEE-W and his gang of thugs against the troops and military veterans of this country. I got more to post if folks need further convincing! ....................

[SuperScout]

I don't know what data you're looking at, but actual revenue receipts are up after the tax cuts. It happened when JFK did it, it happened after Ronaldus Maximus Reagan did it, and it happened again after George W. Bush did it. It's a fact, whether you want to admit it or not. Show me any government that has taxed its way to prosperity.

"First of all, tax cuts that lead to deficits aren't tax cuts at all. They're tax deferrments." That's the most stupid statement you've cut and pasted yet. It isn't the tax cuts that led to deficits, it was overspending. See paragraph #1 above. Clinton didn't raise the taxes on the top income earners - he raised it on everybody. And our economy grew inspite of what that draft-dodging weasel did. He balanced the budget, only after the conservatives (at the time), forced him to sign the measure, just like they forced him into approving welfare reform, after he vetoed it twice. It ws stupid spending that has caused the current problem with deficits, but these very same deficits are going faster than projected, due to higher revenue receipts.

"Their computers, TV sets, telephones all make use of microchips first developed by engineers working for government contractors." This is stupid but and paste #2: ever heard of Texas Instruments? Probably not, but they developed the microchip before the government ever got involved.

Here's some of the "ess goernment" I'd like to see: do away with the IRS, and go to the FairTax Plan; we'd have more money than even liberals could spend! If in doubt, read the book - it's something even a liberal would like! And I think it's writen simply enough tht even liberals can understand it. And then we'll eliminate the Department of Education: education is more rightfully a state function, not the federal's.

Check back on your history books, skippy, to find out about your FDR's gulags, and then ask the Japanese-Americans about how much they liked them.

[Gimpy]

Six (6) years of FAILURES is what these CONservatives have given us.


One of the goals of Conservatives is to keep people from relying on the federal government. Under Bush, FEMA was reorganized to no longer be a first responder in major natural disasters, but to provide support for local agencies. This led to the disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina. Now citizens, as well as local and state governments, have become distrustful of the federal government?s capacity to help ordinary citizens. Though Bush?s popularity may have suffered, enhancing the perception of federal government as inept turned out to be a conservative victory.


Conservatives also strive to get rid of protective agencies and social programs. The deficit Bush created through irresponsible tax cuts and a costly war in Iraq will require drastic budget cuts to remedy. Those cuts, conservatives know, won?t come from military spending, particularly when they raise the constant specter of war. Instead, the cuts will be from what Conservatives have begun to call ?non-military, discretionary spending;? that is, the programs that contribute to the common good like the FDA, EPA, FCC, FEMA, OSHA and the NLRB. Yet another success for the conservative agenda.


The mantra of incompetence has been an unfortunate one. The incompetence frame assumes that there was a sound plan, and that the trouble has been in the execution. It turns public debate into a referendum on Bush?s management capabilities, and deflects a critique of the impact of his guiding philosophy. It also leaves open the possibility that voters will opt for another radically conservative president in 2008, so long as he or she can manage better. Bush will not be running again, so thinking, talking and joking about him being incompetent offers no lessons to draw from his presidency.


Incompetence obscures the real issue. Bush?s conservative philosophy is what has damaged this country and it is his philosophy of conservatism that must be rejected, whoever endorses it.


Conservatism itself is the villain that is harming our people, destroying our environment, and weakening our nation. Conservatives are undermining American values through legislation almost every day. This message applies to every conservative bill proposed to Congress. The issue that arises every day is which philosophy of governing should shape our country. It is the issue of our times. Unless conservative philosophy itself is discredited, Conservatives will continue their domination of public discourse, and with it, will continue their domination of politics.


But, like I said before, folks all over this great country are starting to wake up and see the TRUTH about these 'NEW' CONservatives.

[tamariki]

I note that FDR's treatment of Japanese/Americans has been mentioned.
Perhaps this article will shed some light as to why this occured.
Tamariki

MAGIC & Manzanar
By Lowell Ponte
FrontPageMagazine.com


OF ALL THE CARDS PLAYED BY THOSE SEEKING REPARATIONS for African-American slave descendants, one of the strongest is this: During World War II, those of Japanese descent on the West Coast were herded into camps such as Manzanar, and in 1988 the U.S. Government atoned for this by paying them reparations of $20,000 apiece.
This is in some ways an apples and oranges comparison. All of the 82,000 people paid reparations in 1988 had been affected directly by heavy-handed government actions. Not a penny in reparations, however, has been paid to their children, grandchildren, or great grandchildren born after World War II. Most Americans probably would agree to pay reparations to anyone who actually was a slave prior to Emancipation during the 1860s ? but no former American slaves are today alive.

But look deeper and you will discover a Politically Incorrect alternative history of World War II that argues it was a mistake to pay reparations to Japanese-Americans. If you have the courage to reconsider everything the schools and media taught you to believe about the so-called "American concentration camps" like Manzanar and the WWII "Japanese-American Internment," then read on for a MAGIC carpet ride.

December 7, 1941. The nation of Japan, in the midst of seemingly honorable negotiations with the United States, launches a sneak attack against Pearl Harbor, killing thousands of Americans. Japanese-Americans in the Little Tokyos along the West Coast, largely culturally insular from the communities around them, are instantly viewed with suspicion and mistrust by their neighbors.

If a mysterious enemy can attack Hawaii, is the then-sparsely-populated West Coast also vulnerable? Military planners knew that in 1912 the chief military adviser to Chinese leader Sun Yat-sen, Homer Lea, had predicted that the century would bring a war that would begin with a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor followed by successful Japanese occupation of parts of America?s West Coast.

About one percent of West Coast residents were of Japanese descent. Were they loyal to the U.S. ? or to the nation that attacked us, Japan? And, if in doubt, should this potential Fifth Column be removed from the coast and its military facilities?

Political pressure for such relocation grew quickly. As the very liberal Walter Lippmann wrote in his national newspaper column on February 12, 1942: "It is a fact that the Japanese navy has been reconnoitering the Pacific Coast more or less continually and for a considerable period of time, testing and feeling out the American defenses. It is the fact that communication takes place between the enemy at sea and enemy agents on land. These are facts which we shall ignore or minimize at our peril?. The Pacific Coast is officially a combat zone: some part of it may at any moment be a battlefield. Nobody?s constitutional rights include the right to reside and do business on a battlefield."

These, mind you, were the words not of a jingo racist but of the preeminent Left-liberal American journalist-intellectual of the time, Walter Lippmann, writing coolly amid the fevers of a just-declared war. You can imagine the fears and feelings of other Americans in the heat of that moment. (And, during the war, a Japanese submarine surfaced one night and shelled a small oil facility in Oxnard, California, just north of Los Angeles.)

In the Oval Office, President Franklin D. Roosevelt knew far more than did Lippmann.

In late 1940, cryptographers of the U.S. Army Signal Intelligence Service had cracked "Purple," Japan?s highest level diplomatic code. The intelligence information gained from intercepted Japanese messages was cover-named MAGIC, a name later subsumed under the British intelligence name ULTRA. (Whether this means FDR knew in advance of the attack on Pearl Harbor is grist for another mill.)

MAGIC messages revealed that Japanese espionage networks were spread along the West Coast. You can read many of these decoded messages in the new book MAGIC: The Untold Story of U.S. Intelligence and the Evacuation of Japanese Residents from the West Coast During World War II (Athena Press, Inc., 2001) by the late David D. Lowman, former Special Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency (popularly known as "the Puzzle Palace"). Lowman oversaw the declassification of the MAGIC Messages for this highest U.S. Government cryptographic intelligence agency.

He noted that not a single official familiar with these Top Secret MAGIC messages disagreed with the course of action FDR took towards Japanese-Americans.

The Japanese Government planned for, "Utilization of our ?Second Generations? and our resident nationals. (In view of the fact that if there is any slip in this phase, our people in the U.S. will be subjected to considerable persecution, and the utmost caution must be exercised," read MAGIC Message #044, which also discussed cooperation "with the German and Italian intelligence organs in the U.S.," as already agreed among these three powers with which the U.S. was formally at war.

The Japanese term for this ?Second Generation? born in the U.S. is Nisei. The "First Generation" is called Isei.

President Roosevelt had to deal with a dilemma similar to one faced by Prime Minister Winston Churchill. British intelligence had cracked the German code and warned Churchill that Coventry was about to be a bombing target. He could have evacuated the city, but German spies would see this and signal that the British had broken Hitler?s secret code. Churchill kept the secret and left thousands at the mercy of Nazi bombs.

MAGIC intercepts gave FDR the knowledge to target specific potential West Coast spying and espionage for Japan. Such pinpoint action, however, could reveal to Japan that we were reading its secret messages. If its cryptographers switched to a new code, we might be unable to decipher it.

To avoid tipping his hand to Japan, President Roosevelt had two choices. He could do little or nothing, thereby leaving potential spies and saboteurs in place. Or he could cover the removal of this risk with a sweeping action that deceptively appeared, as the 1988 reparations measure declared, to come from "racism, war hysteria and a lack of political will."

The 1988 congressional hearings that led to reparations for Japanese-Americans assiduously avoided any mention of then-declassified MAGIC Messages and the risk they revealed. It was by then Politically Incorrect to suggest that FDR might have had good, or at least plausible or prudent, reasons to move against any Japanese-American.

How big was that risk of spying or sabotage perceived to be during the war fever of early 1942? One U.S. intelligence officer sympathetic to Japanese residents, according to Lowman, estimated that "the loyalty to the United States of about a fifth of the Japanese population could not be trusted."

On February 19, 1942, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066. Contrary to today?s widespread notions, it made no mention of those with Japanese ancestry. It merely created a zone "from which any or all persons may be excluded," at the discretion of the Secretary of War or appropriate Military Commander. In practice, this exclusion zone included the whole of California, the western halves of Washington State and Oregon, and the southern third of Arizona along the Mexican border.

(The U.S. Supreme Court later affirmed 6-3 that this Executive Order was constitutional because it was "nothing more than an exclusion order," not based on "racism," and because "there were disloyalties" during a time of war with the Empire of Japan.)

Under a nearly 200-year-old Federal Law, no U.S. citizen in America may be "interned," a term that applies only to detention of "enemy aliens." Thousands of Japanese citizens along the West Coast were moved into facilities such as the guarded camp at Tule, California, as were many Nisei who refused to take a loyalty oath to the United States. Many at Tule took part in marches and ceremonies honoring the Emperor of Japan. At war?s end, those at Tule were subject to deportation to Japan, although many asked to remain in the U.S.

More than 110,000 Japanese-American citizens were removed, often on short notice and with little opportunity to bring possessions or secure property, to "Relocation Centers" such as Manzanar near Inyo, California. These were barracks-like cities thrown together to house about 10,000 people.

Japanese-American citizens, at least initially, were free to move inland from these exclusion zones, according to controversial relocation historians such as Lillian Baker. But in wartime 1942 America, those who looked like the enemy usually found it safer to accept the free food, housing, and compatible community of the Relocation Centers than to seek scarce jobs and housing among suspicious and angry Caucasian strangers.

Japanese-American citizens who already lived outside the exclusion zone ? e.g., east of Highway 97 in Oregon and Washington State ? were not subjected to evacuation, nor of course were those who lived in the Midwest or along the East Coast. In Hawaii, where about 30 percent of the entire population was Japanese-American, there were no Relocation Camps such as Manzanar. (In British Columbia, the Canadian government imposed similar coastal evacuation and controls on Japanese-Canadians, but this reporter has found no evidence that Canada has paid them any reparations.)

Most Americans are surprised to learn that those of Japanese ancestry were not the only ones under suspicion. On February 24, 1942, about 10,000 Italian-American aliens living in California, many of them elderly and disabled, were ordered to evacuate coastal and military zones. Roughly 52,000 Italian-American aliens in California were subjected to an 8 P.M.-6 A.M. curfew and prohibited from traveling more than five miles from their homes. Hundreds of Italian-American citizen fishermen were prohibited from taking their boats to sea, and many of their boats were impounded.

In 1941, New York Yankee slugger Joe DiMaggio had a 56-game hitting streak and was an American hero. The following year his father Giuseppe was among thousands of Italian-Americans told they could not fish in San Francisco Bay or visit the city where he had lived and raised his children.

As then-Congressman Rick Lazio (R.-N.Y.) told a 1999 House of Representatives Hearing on the Wartime Violation of Italian American Civil Liberties Act, "600,000 Italian nationals ? most of whom had lived in the United States for decades ? were deemed enemy aliens and subject to strict travel restrictions, curfews, and seizures of personal property for no other reason than their heritage." This happened to Italian-Americans on both the East and West Coasts. Even the immigrant gateway Ellis Island was used as an Internment Center for Italian and German nationals.

This, said Italian-American Lazio, is "what we call ?Una Storia Segreta,? which is our ?secret story,?" unknown today even to many Italian-Americans. And Congressman Lazio continued: "There were cases of German Americans who were involved in espionage and helping the Nazis. There were no instances of Italian Americans involved in espionage, who passed on information to any of America?s declared enemies." (Japanese-Americans argue that not one of them during WWII betrayed America. But broadcast propagandist "Tokyo Rose," convicted of treason, was a second-generation Japanese-American from Los Angeles who studied zoology at UCLA.)

Then-House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R.-Ill.) during these hearings observed: "All the Italian-American community wants is the truth to be told. It is not a question of reparations or looking for money or anything like that, but the truth has been obscured and it ought not to be obscured." [Emphasis mine] No reparations have been paid to those of German or Italian ancestry who suffered under U.S. control and relocation policies.

In World War II Internment Camps in Missoula, Montana, and Crystal City, Texas, nationals who were German, Italian, and Japanese lived in equality side by side. Unlike the Relocation Centers, such Internment Camps had barbed wire, lights, and guards to keep people in. More Germans, Italians, and other European "enemy aliens" would be Interned in such camps during the war than Japanese nationals, unless we add the 5,620 Nisei who renounced their U.S. citizenship. (By contrast, of about 19,000 military aged Japanese-American males in Relocation Centers, about 1,200 patriotically volunteered to fight for the U.S. in the war. Just over 20,000 other Japanese-Americans were inducted.)

Work in these Internment Camps, and in Relocation Centers, was reputedly voluntary ? albeit rewarded with low $12-19 per month pay comparable to conscripted soldier pay. As the war proceeded, tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans in Relocation Centers were urged and helped to get jobs outside the Centers. Inside the Centers, as provocative revisionist historians such as Lillian Baker assert, were medical and dental facilities, recreational facilities, and schools where children learned and prepared for college. The birthrate in these Centers was higher than elsewhere in the nation, where husbands were away at war.

Was the evacuation of Japanese-Americans from the West Coast an unfair hardship imposed on tens of thousands of patriotic citizens? Yes. Despite government efforts to warehouse, protect, transport, and recompense Japanese-American property, billions of dollars worth of land, businesses, and possessions that these hard-working Americans had honestly earned were lost. An undeniable case can be made for recompensing specific families for property unjustly lost, and under the 1948 Evacuation Claims Act the Federal Government paid over 26,000 claims prior to 1988?s reparations.

But unfair individual losses did not justify $20,000 in reparations to every ethnic Japanese evacuee and internee, revisionist historians argue. Under the politically-convenient 1988 law, notes William Hopwood of the Center for Internee Rights , taxpayers paid reparations for "human suffering" and the United States formally apologized to former enemy aliens now living in Japan, Japanese-Americans who during the war renounced their citizenship, U.S.-born children of Japanese diplomats who went home to Japan during the war, and more than 6,000 babies born in the Relocation Centers during the war who left while still too young to remember the experience. No payments have been made to German or Italian individuals or their families ? 14,183 in all -- interned in some cases in the same camps with Japanese who received reparations. And Japan has paid no reparations to Americans it imprisoned and used as slave labor during World War II.

When Japanese-American former U.S. Senator S.I. Hayakawa (R.-Calif.) called these reparations a "wolf-pack of dissident young Japanese-Americans" making an unconscionable raid on the U.S. Treasury, activists called him a "banana," yellow on the outside but white on the inside. And Japan?s government was cynically happy to give tacit support to Leftists demanding reparations from a United States they called racist.

Was the evacuation of Japanese-Americans from the West Coast exclusion zone illegal or unwarranted? The U.S. Supreme Court found it entirely legal and constitutional, and noted that Japanese-Americans in the Relocation Centers had the freedom to leave (but not to return to excluded areas). The MAGIC Message intercepts in 1942 persuaded President Roosevelt that the evacuation was warranted, or at least was prudent and reasonable.

Like today?s critics of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, we are all prone to the fallacy of "historicism," to judging people of a past time by our Monday-morning quarterback knowledge, values, and morals today. Today we know that virtually all Japanese-Americans were loyal and patriotic. But in 1942 with the U.S., Japan, and Nazi Germany all racing to build and use the first atom bomb ? and without the comforting knowledge that the U.S. would win that race and the war ? would you as President, looking at those MAGIC Messages, have issued Executive Order 9066 or not?

And if you conclude that President Roosevelt made the right decision under the circumstances in 1942, then why did Japanese-Americans deserve reparations? FDR, as a matter of national security, decided that millions of Americans would be conscripted to fight for years overseas (where more than 292,000 would die, and nearly 671,000 would be maimed or wounded for their country). FDR also decided as a precaution for national security that more than 110,000 Japanese-Americans living along the West Coast would in effect be "drafted" to sit out the war, housed and fed at taxpayer expense in homeside Relocation Camps that resembled army camps. Virtually all of them survived the war. As the poet John Milton wrote, "They also serve who only stand and wait." For this, say the revisionists, they got reparations?

[Gimpy]

This should shed some light and open some eyes!

Great post.

[Advisor]

Frankly, both conservatives (neocons) and liberals are full of crap.
Both sides see government as something to solve problems & that is bogus. We have ample proof that government can't solve a thing.

[Gimpy]

More overwhelming and compelling evidence to support my claims!


###START###


Triumph of the authoritarians

By John W. Dean | July 14, 2006

CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATISM and its influence on the Republican Party was, until recently, a mystery to me. The practitioners' bludgeoning style of politics, their self-serving manipulation of the political processes, and their policies that focus narrowly on perceived self-interest -- none of this struck me as based on anything related to traditional conservatism. Rather, truth be told, today's so-called conservatives are quite radical.


For more than 40 years I have considered myself a ``Goldwater conservative," and am thoroughly familiar with the movement's canon. But I can find nothing conservative about the Bush/Cheney White House , which has created a Nixon ``imperial presidency" on steroids, while acting as if being tutored by the best and brightest of the Cosa Nostra.

What true conservative calls for packing the courts to politicize the federal judiciary to the degree that it is now possible to determine the outcome of cases by looking at the prior politics of judges? Where is the conservative precedent for the monocratic leadership style that conservative Republicans imposed on the US House when they took control in 1994, a style that seeks primarily to perfect fund-raising skills while outsourcing the writing of legislation to special interests and freezing Democrats out of the legislative process?

How can those who claim themselves conservatives seek to destroy the deliberative nature of the US Senate by eliminating its extended-debate tradition, which has been the institution's distinctive contribution to our democracy? Yet that is precisely what Republican Senate leaders want to do by eliminating the filibuster when dealing with executive business (namely judicial appointments).

Today's Republican policies are antithetical to bedrock conservative fundamentals. There is nothing conservative about preemptive wars or disregarding international law by condoning torture. Abandoning fiscal responsibility is now standard operating procedure. Bible-thumping, finger-pointing, tongue-lashing attacks on homosexuals are not found in Russell Krik's classic conservative canons, nor in James Burham's guides to conservative governing. Conservatives in the tradition of former senator Barry Goldwater and President Ronald Reagan believed in ``conserving" this planet, not relaxing environmental laws to make life easier for big business. And neither man would have considered employing Christian evangelical criteria in federal programs, ranging from restricting stem cell research to fighting AIDs through abstinence.


Candid and knowledgeable Republicans on the far right concede -- usually only when not speaking for attribution -- that they are not truly conservative. They do not like to talk about why they behave as they do, or even to reflect on it. Nonetheless, their leaders admit they like being in charge, and their followers grant they find comfort in strong leaders who make them feel safe. This is what I gleaned from discussions with countless conservative leaders and followers, over a decade of questioning.

I started my inquiry in the mid-1990s, after a series of conversations with Goldwater, whom I had known for more than 40 years. Goldwater was also mystified (when not miffed) by the direction of today's professed conservatives -- their growing incivility, pugnacious attitudes, and arrogant and antagonistic style, along with a narrow outlook intolerant of those who challenge their thinking. He worried that the Republican Party had sold its soul to Christian fundamentalists, whose divisive social values would polarize the nation . From those conversations, Goldwater and I planned to study why these people behave as they do, and to author a book laying out what we found. Sadly, the senator's declining health soon precluded his continuing on the project, so I put it on the shelf. But I kept digging until I found some answers, and here are my thoughts.

For almost half a century, social scientists have been exploring authoritarianism. We do not typically associate authoritarianism with our democracy, but as I discovered while examining decades of empirical research, we ignore some findings at our risk. Unfortunately, the social scientists who have studied these issues report their findings in monographs and professional journals written for their peers, not for general readers. With the help of a leading researcher and others, I waded into this massive body of work.

What I found provided a personal epiphany. Authoritarian conservatives are, as a researcher told me, ``enemies of freedom, antidemocratic, antiequality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian and amoral." And that's not just his view. To the contrary, this is how these people have consistently described themselves when being anonymously tested, by the tens of thousands over the past several decades.


Authoritarianism's impact on contemporary conservatism is beyond question. Because this impact is still growing and has troubling (if not actually evil) implications, I hope that social scientists will begin to write about this issue for general readers. It is long past time to bring the telling results of their empirical work into the public square and to the attention of American voters. No less than the health of our democracy may depend on this being done. We need to stop thinking we are dealing with traditional conservatives on the modern stage, and instead recognize that they've often been supplanted by authoritarians.


John W. Dean, former Nixon White House counsel, just published his seventh nonfiction book, ``Conservatives Without Conscience."


###END###


Just exactly what I have been saying all along................but with much more eloquence and historical evidence.

[SuperScout]

"Remember the folks who said the tax cuts would 'blow a hole in the deficit?' Well, revenues as a share of the economy are now expected to rise this year to 18.3%, slightly above the modern historical average of 18.2%. The remaining budget deficit of a little under $300 billion will be about 2.3% of GDP, which is smaller than in 17 of the previous 25 years. Throw in the surpluses rolling into the states, and the overall U.S. 'fiscal deficit' is now economically trivial. This would all seem to be good news, but some folks are never happy. The same crowd that said the tax cuts wouldn't work, and predicted fiscal doom, are now harrumphing that the revenues reflect a windfall for 'the rich.' We suppose that's right if by rich they mean the millions of Americans moving into higher tax brackets because their paychecks are increasing. Individual income tax payments are up 14.1% this year, and 'nonwithheld' individual tax payments (reflecting capital gains, among other things) are up 20%. Because of the tax cuts, the still highly progressive U.S. tax code is soaking the rich. Since when do liberals object to a windfall for the government?... As for the 2003 tax cuts, the current revenue boom is one more argument for making them permanent. They are now set to expire in 2010, and, even if they are extended, federal revenues will continue to climb as a share of GDP as more taxpayers earn higher incomes and move into higher tax brackets. If liberal Democrats are really determined to soak the rich?and we don't doubt it for a second?they'll also vote to make the tax cuts permanent." ?The Wall Street Journal