June 6, 2007
-- by John Emerson
I think that when the "honest conservatives" reject Bush they're just setting up their assault on the Democratic president they expect to see elected next year. Their way of digging themselves out from under the Bush disaster (and obscuring their own massive role in that disaster) will be to swear that "Never again can an American President be allowed that kind of free hand!" This will justify their fighting the new Democratic President tooth and nail for every inch of ground.
For example, Bush's politicization of the career staff in Justice and elsewhere was a very bad thing, no? And certainly this kind of thing has to stop, no? So we will forbid the new Democratic President to interfere with career personnel, with the result that all of the political hacks Bush put in civil service positions will be untouchable. (When that happens, can we expect the media to understand what's going on? No, of course not. Can we expect the Democrats to understand? Not really, but this is one area where I'd trust Rahm Emmanuel. Send a hack to catch a hack.)
Now that they've stolen the horse, they're going to lock the barn door. It's just like January 2001: once Bush was inaugurated, the media and the Republicans decided that sabotage by impeachment and Gingrichean nastiness are really very bad things after all. So now the same people who worked so hard trying to impeach Clinton for almost nothing are telling us that it's unthinkable to do anything serious about Bush's much graver crimes.
In the long run we need a two-party system, and ultimately we want the Republican Party to be rebuilt on sane, civilized principles. But let's not rush into this. For the moment our task is to boot the Republicans out of office and start repairing the damage they've done. The role of the sane conservatives in this will be to sit in the back of the room with paper bags over their heads and their hands folded quietly on their laps.
From the comments here.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Exactly, John. As so often with the incisive stuff you write, I've been thinking the same thing for quite a while. Of course, when the demos take the presidency (unless they screw that up -- not at all impossible) the media will suddenly discover the evil of one-party governance, the danger of an unbounded executive, and the horror of political cleansing of the civil service. Assholes.
I've been saying for years that a real opposition party (not the demos), would go along with the Bushies' concentration and abuses of power. The Bushies, as dangerous as they are, are ultimately incompetent idiots. They will fall. And the power levers they've established, in the hands of, uh, us, could do a whole lot of good.
But enough ass-kissing -- I don't get this: In the long run we need a two-party system, and ultimately we want the Republican Party to be rebuilt on sane, civilized principles.
Huh? The two-party system is one of the genuinely horrific aspects of our political/media/corporate setup. And if we have to have just two parties, why not demos (aren't they corporate/right-wing ENOUGH?) and socialists?
You did say "long-term". :)
Correction: We need ^at least^ two parties. Democratic one-party rule wouldn't be good. If the Republicans disappeared and a (non-fascist) new party arose that would be good. A multi-party system might be best, but structurally that's almost impossible in the US.
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)