In his column today, the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne, Jr. asserts, “Obama will thus be the conservative in 2012, in the truest sense of that word.” This is a silly claim, of course, but also a revealing one. When a liberal like Dionne insists that a liberal like Obama is the “true” conservative in the 2012 race, it shows the broad appeal of conservatism. It also shows the enormous damage liberalism has inflicted on itself when no one, not even Obama, wants to run on what he is. There is a reason reactionary liberalism in America has been discredited. It has been a failure in almost every significant way.
There are two other things worth noting in Dionne’s column, one of which is that like Sam Tanenhaus, he believes the role of conservatism is to ratify every radical gain of liberalism. Once ObamaCare is the law of the land, for example, repeal efforts become antithetical to conservatism. It’s also why Dionne was a passionate opponent of welfare reform in the mid-1990s; he believed that any effort to undo the welfare state achievements of liberalism was by definition un-conservative. This was (and remains) a terribly simplistic interpretation of conservatism.
The other statement worth noting from Dionne is when he writes, “[Obama] is the candidate defending the modestly redistributive and regulatory government the country has relied on since the New Deal, and that neither Ronald Reagan nor George W. Bush dismantled. The rhetoric of the 2012 Republicans suggests they want to go far beyond where Reagan or Bush ever went.”
This is a rhetorical trick Dionne has been relying on for years now. When a conservative and/or Republican is president, he is a ferocious critic of that individual. And yet that individual’s reputation is restored by Dionne from time to time, if only to argue that every new Republican candidate for president is far more radical and dangerous than the ones who came before him. So Reagan, who looked very bad during his presidency, looked very good compared to George W. Bush. And now Reagan and Bush look responsible compared to the radicalism of the likes of Mitt Romney. And so it goes, like clockwork. And if Romney were fortunate enough to win the presidency, you can be sure that he would be portrayed as the most radical and destructive figure imaginable — until a new Republican monster comes down the road to replace him.
Interesting comment: n"When a liberal like Dionne insists that a liberal like Obama is the “true” conservative in the 2012 race, it shows the broad appeal of conservatism." nSince there is no chance of a conservative winning where do you see the broad appeal for conservatism. nMost of the time conservatives like Bachman and Santorum are disparaged on this site. n
Peter is observing a trend among Leftist journalists, no integrity with the only goal of winning the immediate battle. n nBut the lack of inhegrity by the Left must be understood in context, THEY are saving the planet, all the creatures and all the oppressed people. THEY alone have the compassion to care about anything but themselves. n nIt's only understandable that from this lofty tower of moral righteous that petty things like integrity should only be used when it advances the most important movement in human history.
Just about everything E. J. Dionne writes is a silly claim, in the truest sense of those words. But E.J. doesn't use "rhetorical tricks;" he uses calumny, ignorance and a poor grasp of reality. Of him it can truly be said that he has gone further on less than most anyone you can name.
America…. we are at the crossroads of maintaining greatness, or sliding into a bannan republic. n nPlease make your neighbors and friends aware that Obama and the democrats will NOT stop the spending till the soup lines start. n n
This trick of anointing themselves as the true conservatives is, as Rightslant points out, an old gambit. Defining conservative as rational, realistic, moderate, non-ideological, they hope to re-package some very immoderate policies they know have not gone over well with the American public. n nReading Wehner's piece, I thought almost immediately of how liberals in recent years have tried to club Conservatives over the head with the memory of Ronald Reagan. Reagan as uniter, healer was invoked by people who labeled him a dangerous extremist, heartless towards the poor, anti-labor, and likely to get us into W.W. III when he occupied the White House.
As Tallyrand said of the Bourbons, Dionne and his progressive comrades have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
What happens to Dionne is what happens to all progressives – they have no principles; progressives live by 'feel'. Principles build 'character, consciene and morals', something the left lacks. Demonising, manipulating, deceiving and outright lie is what they do best. If that does not work, the hate kicks in. nOne can not teach an old dog new tricks, unless they find a change in their vision and outlook, it's always us 'those not agreeing with them' who cause problems.