For Conservatives, Mission Accomplished

[Imran Siddiqui]

Very interesting op-ed on New York Times website I noticed today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/18/opinion/18WOOL.html

For Conservatives, Mission Accomplished
By JOHN MICKLETHWAIT and ADRIAN WOOLDRIDGE

Published: May 18, 2004

Last week Washington was the site of the biggest birthday party you never heard of. The occasion was the 40th anniversary of the American Conservative Union, and the guest list included all the grandees of right-wing America, from Senator Mitch McConnell to Phyllis Schlafly to Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association to, of course, President Bush.

In his speech, the President promised that "for our blessed land the best days lie ahead," and was greeted with several foot-stomping ovations and cries of "Four more years!" But the real flavor of the event was captured by what the president called the "fine group of decent citizens" gathered at the tables in front of him — members of the N.R.A., the Heritage Foundation, the Family Research Foundation and countless other groups that make up Conservative America. One man wore a tie with the Ten Commandments; women carried handbags in the colors of the American flag; and when the narrator of a film about the conservative union used the phrase "right-wing nuts," the room roared its approval.

This is the type of partisan anniversary that only one side of America pays attention to — the side that watches Fox News Channel (the host for the evening was that network's Tony Snow). Yet every Democratic politician in the land could have learned a great deal by attending. It would be going a little far to say that the A.C.U. ought to have celebrated under a banner labeled "Mission Accomplished," but it is because of such groups that the right has out-organized, out-fought and out-thought liberal America over the past 40 years. And the left still shows no real sign of knowing how to fight back.

To consider the ground that liberals have ceded, one must look back at the union's founding in a cramped living-room in 1964, a few days after Lyndon B. Johnson had thrashed the first fully paid-up conservative presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater. Back then, the self-styled "Mr. Conservative" seemed to come from another planet. "When in all our history," asked the political theorist Richard Hofstadter, "has anyone with ideas so bizarre, so archaic, so self-confounding, so remote from the basic American consensus got so far?"

Fast forward to today. A Republican Party that is more conservative than Mr. Goldwater could have imagined controls the White House, Congress, many governors' mansions and a majority of seats in state legislatures. Back in 1964, John Kenneth Galbraith smugly proclaimed: "These, without doubt, are the years of the liberal. Almost everyone now so describes himself." Today, a Gallup poll tells us, twice as many Americans (41 percent) describe themselves as "conservative" than as "liberal" (19 percent).

Democrats have come up with all sorts of excuses, from the evils of Richard Nixon's "Southern strategy" to the "stolen" election of 2000. They usually ignore the fact that the right has simply been far better at producing agenda-setting ideas. From welfare reform in Wisconsin to policing in New York City, from the tax-cutting Proposition 13 in California to regime change in Baghdad, the intellectual impetus has, for better or worse, come from the right. As President Bush bragged at last week's party, the right is "the dominant intellectual force in American politics."

Yet many Democrats insist this will change once Mr. Bush is ejected from the White House. This shows how little they have learned. First, the right has a history of advancing its agenda under Democratic executives (welfare reform came about under Bill Clinton). More important, it has organized itself for a much longer battle. Whenever it has been forced into retreat — as after Watergate — the flame has burned eternal at places like Heritage, the American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute, and at their smaller cousins in virtually every state.

Brains are nothing without political brawn. That's why the American Conservative Union disciplines Congressional Republicans by rating them according to their purity (the average rating for House Republicans has risen from 63 percent in 1972 to 91 percent in 2002). Yes, liberal environmental and abortion rights groups rate members of Congress too, but those figures are more effective as fodder for conservative attack ads than as a way to keep Democrats in line.

There are other battalions of foot soldiers, too. Americans for Tax Reform, which had a table at the dinner, rigidly enforces the party's pledge not to raise taxes. Focus on the Family (which has a campus in Colorado Springs so big that it has its own ZIP code) concentrates on promoting family values. Sometimes these groups feud — Cato libertarians have plenty of differences with Focus on the Family's social conservatives — but as all the back-slapping at the party showed, they share a sense of movement.

In theory, liberals have more than enough brain and brawn to match conservative America. The great liberal universities and foundations have infinitely more resources than the American Enterprise Institute and its allies. But the conservatives have always been more dogged. The Ford Foundation is as liberal as Heritage is conservative, but there is no doubt which is the more ruthless in its cause.

Now, perhaps, a few liberals are waking up to the task that confronts them. Americans Come Together, a group backed by the billionaire George Soros, already has 20 offices and 450 employees in Ohio alone. John Podesta, a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, has founded the Center for American Progress, which Democrats are calling "the liberal Heritage." But it still seems that liberals are purely reactive. Barry Goldwater may have been strong meat, but at least he had ideas. By contrast, Americans Come Together's entire raison d'être (like that of the John Kerry campaign) remains negative: to send Mr. Bush back to Texas.

"There is no such thing as spontaneous public opinion," Beatrice Webb, the great British leftist, once said. "It all has to be manufactured from a center of conviction and energy." The American Conservative Union is just one of many such centers on the right; it's a lesson that liberal America seems unable to learn.


John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, writers for The Economist, are the authors of "The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America."

[Nubclear]

Your celebrating the birth of the one party system in the United States?
And you critisize us commies.... You shame The Reagan!

[SlowwHand]

The Reagan.

[chequita guevara]

I've been saying this for years, but no one listens to me. But when the NYT says it, oh, it's news.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What, the Conservatives are better at the game than Liberals? Who doesn't know that?

And Tass, The Reagan has blessed the Conservatives making them the party of choice for the common man .

[Sava]

It's like a vicious nightmare.

But if history is an indicator of things to come, the scales will swing back the other way in the future. I only hope things don't get much worse before that happens.

[SlowwHand]

Che, surprised his credibility is less than the NYT.
This gets funnier and funnier.

[Jon Shafer]

Curse this blessed land!

[chequita guevara]

/me makes a list and checks it twice, then sends it off to some gun-toting anarchists.

[GePap]

I read that as well yesterday. The notion that conservatives have greater party cohesion and that conservatives interest gorups are a much better oiled machine are correct.

As for ideas-well, given that Liberals won, it should not be a surprise the main "new ideas" are onces coming form conservatives attacking the status quo.

As for reality:

Liberal ideas are still very powerful-the march of gay rights and it's backlash is one major social event going on, NOT driven by Conservatives. The trully radical conservative ideas have failed to pass, like getting rid of entitlement programs (they have only grown under this admin)-they are limitng abortion more and more but lack the strenght to kill it totally.

These guys term conservatives ideas "fresh" while liberal ideas are simple "reacitve"- the bulk of the conservaitve agenda is a reaction to the liberal victories of the 60's and 70's. Welfare was a new idea-welfare reform is a reaction by conservatives unable to kill it, trying to make it more palpatable. I see very few trully NEW conservative ideas, such as school vouchers and religious charities getting government money, thought that innitiative has not advanced much.

[MrFun]

this . . . . . . .




sucks

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Your celebrating the birth of the one party system in the United States?
And you critisize us commies.... You shame The Reagan!

actually when the Democrats implode they will shatter into their constituent groups. Same thing that will happen to the Republicans, but there are fewer constituent groups.

[Q Classic]

down with the party system!

[chequita guevara]

New ideas? How about this: kill all conservatives.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
* chegitz guevara makes a list and checks it twice, then sends it off to some gun-toting anarchists.

Santa Guevera and his gun-toting elves. Gonna wear his Red suit and distribute the wealth of toys to all the good little commie boys and girls.

Meanwhile capitalist conservative Scrooge.....

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
* chegitz guevara makes a list and checks it twice, then sends it off to some gun-toting anarchists.

Gun-toting anarchists? Didn't they have the table next to Focus on the Family?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
New ideas? How about this: kill all conservatives.

But . . . . .


I like Imran.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And that's how we get you... we make you like us as people

Then again, technically, Che's idea doesn't affect me. I'm not a conservative .

[MrFun]

Oh yeah -- I forgot that you're some kind of independent, moderate weenie.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Pot meet the kettle.

I'd never figure you calling someone else an independant, moderate weenie

[MrFun]

I'm a moderate liberal -- I vote Demoratic. I would never waste time with independent parties.


Hence, I am not an independent weenie.

[Theben]

Actually the victories of the Right come from the fact that they DON'T have much intellectual input- conservative ideology comes from a few sources and then is hammered into like-minded loyalists who will then blindly (more or less) follow right-wing agenda. OTOH, the Left's strength is also it's greatest weakness- a multitude of ideas and ideologies that make it difficult if not impossible to unite a coherent faction behind. But I'd rather have brains than blind servitude anyday.

(I suppose I could also mention how this article kills any remaining idea of a "liberal media" holding vast sums of power, but, wrt 'blind following', sense is not necessary.)

[Q Classic]

parties suck.
party politics suck.

parties with alcohol don't suck as much.

MOOSE PARTY FOREVER!!!!!!1

[chequita guevara]

My Socialist Party meetings have beer.

[GePap]

The Moose will never win, even with a keg in the Reg.

[GePap]

Originally posted by MrFun
this . . . . . . .




sucks

You do know the meaning of Op-ed, don't you?

Note that the two writers work for the economist

[MrFun]

Imran -- never mind. I think I thought you were one of the Apolytoners who got disappointed with Kerry, and decided to go for a third party.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually the victories of the Right come from the fact that they DON'T have much intellectual input- conservative ideology comes from a few sources and then is hammered into like-minded loyalists who will then blindly (more or less) follow right-wing agenda.

Well the article contests that. These groups are intellectually based ideology groups and at times do disagree (ie, the example with Cato and the Family groups), but they put aside their differences on important policy matters. In essense, they unite on things they agree on when it suits them.

Imran -- never mind. I think I thought you were one of the Apolytoners who got disappointed with Kerry, and decided to go for a third party.

Only when the third parties decide to stop being run by a bunch of wackjobs and loonies .

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
New ideas? How about this: kill all conservatives.

We could call it the "Kill Bill".

[GePap]

Some vital and new conservative ideas being sold by the admin.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/19/po...19GRAN.html?hp

White House Is Trumpeting Programs It Tried to Cut
By ROBERT PEAR

Published: May 19, 2004

WASHINGTON, May 18 — Like many of its predecessors, the Bush White House has used the machinery of government to promote the re-election of the president by awarding federal grants to strategically important states. But in a twist this election season, many administration officials are taking credit for spreading largess through programs that President Bush tried to eliminate or to cut sharply.

For example, Justice Department officials recently announced that they were awarding $47 million to scores of local law enforcement agencies for the hiring of police officers. Mr. Bush had just proposed cutting the budget for the program, known as Community Oriented Policing Services, by 87 percent, to $97 million next year, from $756 million.


The administration has been particularly energetic in publicizing health programs, even ones that had been scheduled for cuts or elimination.

Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, announced recently that the administration was awarding $11.7 million in grants to help 30 states plan and provide coverage for people without health insurance. Mr. Bush had proposed ending the program in each of the last three years.

The administration also announced recently that it was providing $11.6 million to the states so they could buy defibrillators to save the lives of heart attack victims. But Mr. Bush had proposed cutting the budget for such devices by 82 percent, to $2 million from $10.9 million.

Whether they involve programs Mr. Bush supported or not, the grant announcements illustrate how the administration blends politics and policy, blurring the distinction between official business and campaign-related activities.

In recent weeks, administration officials have fanned out around the country. Within a 48-hour period this month, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow was in Wisconsin and Illinois, doling out federal aid to poor neighborhoods. Anthony J. Principi, the secretary of veterans affairs, was in Las Vegas to announce plans for a new veterans hospital. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham was in South Carolina to announce a new national research laboratory. And a top transportation official was in Portland, Me., awarding a $13 million grant to the city's airport.

In some cases, overtly political appearances are piggybacked onto such trips. Earlier this month, Mr. Principi was in Florida announcing plans for another veterans hospital, in Orlando, with a side trip to Tampa to kick off a national coalition of veterans supporting the re-election of Mr. Bush.

A few days earlier, while traveling to Marco Island, Fla., on official business, Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans stopped in Daytona Beach to attend a large prayer meeting, where he praised Mr. Bush as "a leader you can trust 100 percent of the time."

The combination of official business and politics is neither illegal nor unusual in an election year, though Bush administration officials were reluctant to provide details. In fact, the Bush administration is using techniques refined by President Bill Clinton. The difference is that in the Clinton years the White House was often trying to add and expand domestic programs, not cut them.

The government has byzantine rules for documenting mixed official and political travel. The goal is to ensure that the campaign or some other political group pays for parts of a trip that are purely political.

But as the General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, has said, "it is often impossible to neatly categorize travel as either purely business or purely political."

Ron Bonjean, a spokesman for Mr. Evans, said the Republican National Committee paid for the commerce secretary's stop in Daytona Beach on May 6. A local newspaper, The News-Journal, said the prayer meeting there "evolved into a rousing Republican political rally."

The contrast between politics and policy is particularly striking when the administration takes credit for spending money appropriated by Congress against the president's wishes.

In April, Secretary Thompson announced that the administration was awarding $3.1 million in grants to improve health care in rural areas of Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico and New York. He did not mention that the administration was trying to cut the same rural health program by 72 percent, to $11.1 million next year, from $39.6 million.

Mr. Thompson likewise recently boasted that the administration was awarding $16 million to 11 universities to train blacks and Hispanic Americans as doctors, dentists and pharmacists. But at the same time, the administration was urging Congress to abolish the program, on the ground that "private and corporate entities" could pay for training.

Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel, has sent a memorandum to Cabinet officers saying they must carefully allocate travel costs between the government and the campaign.

"There is considerable room for discretion in determining whether an event giving rise to an expense is political or official," Mr. Gonzales wrote. Ultimately, he said, the decision depends on the facts of each case.

Interior Department lawyers said that Secretary Gale A. Norton had made eight entirely political trips and 17 trips combining official business with political activity, for which the government was reimbursed. The political sponsor typically pays a share of the costs, based on the amount of time spent on political activity, said Timothy S. Elliott, a lawyer at the department.

Last month, on a trip to Alaska, Ms. Norton attended two fund-raisers, in Juneau and Anchorage. "It's always beneficial to have members of the cabinet at these events," said Randy Ruedrich, chairman of the Republican Party of Alaska.

A trip to Minneapolis by Education Secretary Rod Paige shows a similar mix. John M. Gibbons, a spokesman for the secretary, said Mr. Paige went to a Republican fund-raiser there on Feb. 17, then visited schools the next day.

On March 13, Mr. Paige made a political trip to Orlando for a Republican dinner. He was back in Florida for a Bush-Cheney fund-raiser in Fort Lauderdale on March 26 and for the annual conference of the National School Boards Association, in Orlando, on March 28-29.

Likewise, Anthony T. Jewell, a spokesman for Mr. Thompson, said the health secretary attended a Republican fund-raiser on April 22 while visiting Detroit to promote organ donation.

The precedents for such activity run deep. Phillip M. Caplan, who was a special assistant to President Clinton, said the Clinton White House had a weekly conference call with chiefs of staff at Cabinet departments.

"We would tell officials, for example, that the president will be in Ohio on the 27th of this month, so you should scour the agency, and if you have something coming up in Ohio, let us know," Mr. Caplan recalled. "The announcement of grants was timed to coincide with the president's visit. The goal was to maximize the credit and visibility for the president."

Scott M. Stanzel, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, said: "The law sets forth clear guidelines as to how costs should be allocated. We adhere to the guidelines. We pay travel and other costs for government officials participating in political events."