Will was famous as a cheerleader for Reagan: his defense build-up, his re-moralization of the Cold War, his hog-strapping of inflation, his tax cuts and tight money policy that led to a the economic growth we are still feeling, a growth interrupted by only two minor recessions (1991-92, the derailment of Bush '41; and the post- 9/11 headache). At the same time, Will became legendary (among conservative circles) for his nagging observations regarding Reagan's deficit spending (more debt under Reagan that debt than Washington through Carter combined, etc.).
Thing is, Will has thought nothing of stepping off the Republican reservation if he thought the Republicans had turned heretic to the conservative movement. At the time of Reagan's retirement, he placed Reagan at the "front rank of the second rank" of presidents; something that history might well revise upward, on the grounds that Reagan's anti-communism ("Bring down this wall!" and all that rot) far outweighed, and indeed justified, his out-of-control spending. Will excoriated Bush 41 for his ineffectual domestic policies (Bush's foreign policy having proved slightly more successful). And Will has remained true to his small-government, federalist, anti-deficit spending, anti-imperialist roots. He has refused to blindly defend George W. Bush in Iraq, and--almost alone among conservatives--he has openly criticized Bush's NSA wiretapping, in execution if not in theory.
So along comes a Will editorial today: entirely predictable, and I mean that as a compliment. Will, who is at least as intellectually rigorous on his own side as with the opposition, objects to both the rhetoric and the legislative overreach of the so-called "values voters." A sample:
It is odd that some conservatives are eager to promote the semantic vanity of the phrase "values voters." And it is odder still that the media are cooperating with those conservatives.
Conservatives should be wary of the idea that when they talk about, say, tax cuts and limited government -- about things other than abortion, gay marriage, religion in the public square and similar issues -- they are engaging in values-free discourse. And by ratifying the social conservatives' monopoly of the label "values voters," the media are furthering the fiction that these voters are somehow more morally awake than others.
Today's liberal agenda includes preservation, even expansion, of the welfare state in its current configuration in order to strengthen an egalitarian ethic of common provision. Liberals favor taxes and other measures to produce a more equal distribution of income. They may value equality indiscriminately, but they vote their values.
Among the various flavors of conservatism, there is libertarianism that is wary of government attempts to nurture morality and there is social conservatism that says unless government nurtures morality, liberty will perish. Both kinds of conservatives use their votes to advance what they value.
In other words, expansion of the state by way of, say, proscriptions against gay marriage (in the Constitution, for Pete's sake) or the NSA wiretaps (to pick up one of his other points) are a betrayal of the conservative movement. This is an arguable point. More importantly, this is a thread of an argument Will has made again and again and again for going on thiry years, twice a week in the newspaper, once a week in Newsweek, once a week on Brinkley (as I still think of it). For anyone with so much as a cursory examination of American commentary, this would come as no surprise.
By the way, everytime something like this is written, it is interesting to watch the tinfoil-hat group respond.
At Huffpost, the responses take three forms. There is, first, the "Finally, some sense from this guy!" comment:
George Will stomping on the latest Rovian catch phrase? Maybe there is a God...
And second, we have the Bush-is-Satan chrorus, led by this:
i'm a values voter -- and i can't WAIT to do my part to evict the lying, cheating, corrupt, me-centered, regressive, christo-fascist, smug, deviant, murderous, law-evading, paranoid, anti-woman, 'culture of life' f***wads! i only wish i could vote in more than one district!
i have a feeling that, shortly, someone even more powerful than george will is going to call the conservatives out about the absolute hypocrisy of the phrase "values voters." and i'll be popping my organic popcorn and setting up my lawn chair to watch the fireworks.
it is such a pleasure to watch the steady decline and fall of the bush junta.
And extended by this take-a-shot-for-each-moonbat-talking-point response:
Well, gee golly, George has it right for a change. They should be using the phrase "back door Diebolds", or "NH phone jamming", or "FL Hanging Chads", or "weirded out OH exit polls, cut off voters' from rightful precincts," "gerry rigged TX precincts", etc. "Value voters" sounds too kinky, and not truthful at all, like the Bush speak we keep hearing on such words as "democracy", "freedom", or phrases like "Mission Accomplished", "A turning point", "Victory in Iraq", "War on terror" when it is actually a "War on ordinary Americans", etc.
And finally, the lengthy attack on Will featuring an absolute misunderstanding of his body of work:
You can always count on George to write something vapid and irrelavent.
Not everybody is a values voter George. I'm not. I know what a "values" voter really is. Do you EVER tire of pointing out the obvious? What you should be doing is ripping Bush/Cheney unmercifully for destroying your brand of conservatism but you just don't have the balls. And you aren't honest enough. And you write like no one else is smart enough to understand you because you think your smarter than everyone else. It's called condecension George.
You are wrong about what "values voter" means as well. It means you vote Republican because you are a racist gay hater. It means you vote Republican if you value your reputation among your fellow lilly white rich zenophobic neighbors. It's a code word George. It means if you go to church on Sunday you are bound to vote republican because they will stop gay marriage. This is what annoys you George. That "social conservatives"(code for bigot)are so obvious now in their desperate attempts to hold on to power. You know subtlety is important when using race and bigotry and discrimination to attract a base. George these phrases and names of groups are all the rage for your type. Family and Values are on so many fund raising pacs names that it's hard to tell them all apart. Your so full of shit you make me sick. You sit idly by parsing words while your party destroys our country. You don't care because you have yours. That's the only "value" you and your ilk have ever cared about.
You are a phony and a liar always a willing doormat and bootlicker for the Republican Lie Machine. You can't just write stuff and have everybody hail you as some kind of genius George. Theres no law that says we all have to believe your bullshit. We don't. Never did. Never will. Your on your way out and you realize now YOUR own legacy is tainted by your life long association to the Good OLE White Boy establishment. What you thought was going to be a badge of courage is turning into a scarlet letter as you enter your twilight. Too bad. I don't feel sorry for assholes like you George. I'd shut up and retire if I was you and quietly disappear. America has no use for you now other than to ridicule and deride you and we know you can't handle that.
Okay, too easy, I guess. I'm not blind to the fact that gay marriage was helpful to the GOP in 2004. In fact, I'm of two minds. I'm in favor of gay marriage, but, as badly as I wanted Kerry not to assume the position of Commander-in-Chief, I took a certain perverted comfort in the use of the gay marriage issue to thwart Kerry's bid. Shoot me.
However, I bring all this up because I think Will is on to something big: namely a coming rift in the reliable GOP voting bloc, something that nothing less than a presumptive Hillary presidency might fix. There is a decided segment in the GOP that might be determined federalist/realist or pro-defense/libertarian or somesuch. They became famous under Reagan's tent as the "leave us alone" crowd--and as a fifteen year-old in 1980, wanting nothing more than to be left alone by everyone and everything, I saw Ronald Reagan as my standard-bearer. These are the people who understand that the price of gas is a product of worldwide market value, that it will go up in the summer and down in the fall. They know that the current three-tiered immigration bill is a sham, that the GOP has been nonfeasant in its ability to control spending, that the free speech restrictions known as "campaign finance reform" are a restriction of our most basic rights. We see the evangelicals as what they are: as a means to getting our people in, as a necessary element (we would never say evil, because we sort of like them, and to a certain extent admire them) to electing our people.
Abortion? Probably,l reluctantly, pro-choice, but anti-partial birth.
Affirmative action? Against.
Eminent domain? As for recent Court decisions, don't start with us. Outside of tax cuts, our admiration for Bush's domestic policies stops with his judges, notably Roberts and Alito.
Gay marriage? some are (like me) in favor, some against, most really don't care. If a dude wants to get it on with another dude, who are we to mind? But, in keeping with our philosophy, we don't want things jammed down our throats by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Should one partner be allowed to go on another's health plan? Yes.
We make up, let me wildly guess, thirty to forty percent of the GOP voting bloc, though every time I think of us I revise my numbers upward. And the one thing--the only thing that kept us on the reservation and out there, voting, in 2004 was who would lead us in the fight against Islamofascism.
My group's support for Bush's war has not wavered, though we might be upset here or there as regards its execution. But what Will has put his finger on is the disenchantment we have toward a free-spending, rights-ignoring, simple truth-denying administration that cannot see beyond its nose.
Yes, as soxblog pointed out today, Bush has gotten the big things right. That, plus a robust economy, may help them in November. But--as with Al Gore's stumbles in 200--given the facts on the ground, it will be far, far, closer than it should be.
No comments:
Post a Comment