Love it or leave it
One of the stranger contradictions within the conservative movement involves love of country and loyalty to the idea that America is an exceptional place.
In an interview this week with the liberal blog Talking Points Memo, conservative activist, gubernatorial candidate and former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo said this about President Barack Obama:
“There is something about this [country] that he dislikes intensely, and he wants to transform.”
It’s a common theme on the right, this notion that Mr. Obama and the Democrats are trying to transform the United States in subtle and not-so-subtle ways.
Often, these efforts are portrayed as an effort to make our society “more European” or “more socialist.” Mr. Obama is also accused of being far too eager to apologize for America’s past policies.
But here’s the wrinkle. Those same conservatives also say (sometimes in the same breath) that they despise modern America. They insist that the country needs to be transformed.
According to Glenn Beck, his rally in Washington was aimed at “restoring honor” to our nation.
Opinions differ on the right over just when we lost our honor. In an interview this week on NPR, the Southern Baptist Convention’s Richard Land argued that it happened half a century ago.
“[M]y answer would be the ’60s, that the nation took a wrong turn in the ’60s. There were some good things that happened in the ’60s, but a lot of bad things happened in the ’60s.
And I certainly don’t agree with the ethos of the sexual revolution and the moral relativism that came with it, and the divorce that came with it, and the illegitimacy that came with.”
Some conservatives push the America-gone-wrong narrative back even further, to the 1930s when Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman began constructing the New Deal and the social safety net that includes Social Security.
I for one think the idea that 1950s-Jim Crow-era America was more moral and just than our modern society is sketchy at best.
It’s also hard to argue in favor of a return to epidemic levels of poverty among the elderly. Or to an age when women’s roles were largely confined to the home.
Or an age when the lack of regulation on industrial pollution meant that American rivers were so toxic that they sometimes burst into flame.
But set that aside all that for a moment:
Even if you accept the conservative argument on its face, they are calling for us to “take back” a nation that a dwindling number of us ever experienced.
For better or worse, the vast majority of us are products of this nation, this America, this version of a “normal” society.
It’s also worth noting that our great nation has been led and shaped and governed by Republicans — all of them Christian, some of them intensely so — for a significant part of the “wrong turn” era.
Yet some conservative leaders are so disgusted with our country as it exists today that they talk openly of secession.
They suggest that despite our long-established democratic traditions, “second Amendment solutions” or a full-scale “revolution” might be needed to change things.
Really, you can’t have it both ways.
You can’t campaign on a “love it or leave” it brand of loyalty and American exceptionalism, while also trash-talking the country as it has existed for the better part of a century, calling it dishonorable, and flirting with the idea of breaking it up.
Your comments welcome.
.jpg)
Wow. Talk about dropping a huge, unprovable bombshell.
You talk as if there was one monolithic conservative being out there that controls group think for the whole nation. (actually, I thought there was one, too, except it was liberal).
Looking forward to the peaceful revolution that our Constitution provides us with every two or four years.
We’ll see who is left standing the day after we vote.
“It’s also worth noting that our great nation has been led and shaped and governed by Republicans — all of them Christian, some of them intensely so — for a significant part of the “wrong turn” era.”
This line is confusing. You at first say that during this time they were all Christians but at the end of the sentence say they weren’t. It’s confusing. In any case they weren’t all Christians. What about Barry Goldwater, Jacob Javits, Rudy Boschwitz, Warren Rudman, Jacob Hecht, Norm Coleman, Eric Cantor the House’s Republican Whip, and the list goes on. (I hate using wikipedia put it can be useful).
Did you mean Richard Land was just referring to the 60’s or 60’s to the present. If just the 60’s then you still have non-Christian Republicans in office.
Thank you for these thoughts. I often argue with my father (though I haven’t asked, his philosophy mirrors most of the Tea Party’s stances) about politics, and he often talks about how we’ve lost something since the 60’s.
Of course, conservatives aren’t a monolithic bloc, but the mouthpieces of the movement (conservative bloggers and talk radio hosts) use this phrase quite often.
rockydog,
None of those people you listed are well-known Republican leaders. I think Brian meant presidents such as Nixon, Regan, and Bush (1 and 2). Brian didn’t say that they weren’t Christians, but that modern day conservatives talk about the era in which they presided over in terms of being morally wrong.
The hypocricy of the conservative movement can be staggering. Liberals marching against the Iraq War = wrong. Conservatives marching against Obama’s policies = patriotic. What is the difference?
Yes, I meant that our presidents have all been Christian. Where the sentence was confusing was that I failed to emphasize that they’ve ALL been Christian, Democrats and Republicans.
JDM – Your post doesn’t make sense. I quote several hugely influential conservatives (and link to more) echoing a conviction which is widely shared on the right that our nation has gone seriously off the rails, is “dishonored,” “has to be taken back,” etc.
What exactly do I have to prove? Are you disputing the idea that conservatives think the country needs to be transformed? or that they deeply dislike America as it exists today?
If so, then you haven’t paid any attention to conservative rhetoric in the last ten years.
–Brian, NCPR
Brian:
“Are you disputing the idea that conservatives think the country needs to be transformed?”
Transformed only to the extent that the liberal/progressives also think it needs to be transformed either by overwhelming the system or re-doing it in the Euro-social model.
If transformed is the word-of-the-day, it goes both ways.
Ok. I just understand leaders as being more than just Presidents. And for that matter all our Presidents have been Christian. And for that matter I beg to differ verplanck that Barry Goldwater and Eric Cantor aren’t well known.
I do think that “to transform” to a conservative means through the election process.
“To transform” to the Obama group means legislate through un-vetted czars and overwhelm the system with debt.
rockydog – see here: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/republicans_give_romney_edge_over_gingrich
One of the Republican Party’s rising stars, Congressman Eric Cantor from Richmond, Va., remains little known. Forty-eight percent (48%) of voters don’t know enough about Cantor to have a soft opinion about him, compared to just seven percent (7%) for Gingrich and 10% for Romney, who both have been on the national stage much longer.
JDM – Obama got elected, and has done what he campaigned on (health care reform, financial reform, out of Iraq, ramp up Afghanistan). How is that any different than other politicians before him?
IMO the “take back” part of the present conservative rhetoric is confusing. It has multiple meanings depending on the context. Myself, I want to “take us back ” to an era of smaller gov’t, smaller budgets, no deficit spending and a tremendously reduced national debt. Others are more in tune with “taking us back” (forward in my mind) to a more responsible mindset both in gov’t and other public life and personally. I know there are those that say we must “take back” the country from the socialist/liberals/progressives. That’s just too simple a statement to be accurate, there are areas where both sides agree and others where there will never be agreement. Blanket statements describing the conservative movement lack accuracy too, there are as many different positions and platforms among the conservatives as any other group.
Lets also remember that Obama has used the phrase “transform” on multiple occasions to describe his plans. “Fundamentally transform…”. Whether it’s health care, banking or social justice he’s used the term. Words often actually do have meaning. Bill Clinton taught us that much. Maybe it’s just rhetoric, in which case he’s just and empty suit. Or maybe he does actually mean it, that could be good or bad depending on your perspective.
BRet:
“take us back ” to an era of smaller gov’t? When was that? 1920?
no deficit spending? Here is how the deficit has been changed by president (wikipedia):
W Bush +27.1%
Clinton -9.7%
HW Bush +15%
Reagan +20.6%
Carter -3.3%
Nixon +0.3%
Deficit spending good back before Roosevelt. How old are you?
When were the good old days you’d like to go back to?
verplanck:
Obama is different only to the extent that he has had the anomaly of having a super-majority in both houses of Congress. That is how he got minority positions through legislation and how he got czars set into place without challenge.
Fortunately, that will all change soon enough.
Conservatives will “transform” or “take back” this country through the election process.
The current “transforming” or “overwhelming” that is taking place will halt.
The super majority in congress campaigned on those positions… and they were elected by a majority of people… so how exactly can they be considered minority positions?
ok verplanck i’ll give you Cantor but there is no argiung Goldwater’s name recognition. I made a valid point but obviously valid point don’t count for much in the in box
Czars are perfectly legal. GW had 46 czars. I know Reagan had a drug czar but I’m unsure of his total. Non-issue.
I’m sorry but I’m correct. Brian, and I’m sorry Brian, is just trying to cover up bad wording. If leader meant just the executive office we’d be a dictatorship not a democracy.
My mom always told me that if I see something that is wrong I should try to change it for the better, and if I did something wrong I should apologize for it.
It always seemed like good conservative advise, but the Right would have us believe that my mother was telling me something bad.
You don’t transform a country by simply winning elections. After being elected you have to actually do something trans formative. Thus far, we don’t really know what, specifically, Republicans/Conservatives will do if they win back one or both houses of Congress. Except maybe shut down the government, issue hundreds of subpoenas, and lower fines (taxes). Oh yes, a good bet they will try to impeach President Obama also.
Well we are a much much more violent society since the 1960’s, we use more substances, we divorce much more, we have many more children without two parents around, many kids out of wedlock and I would have to say that when those things happen we see a society that is growing cold, losing any idea of love itself, hedonism destroys love. I do agree with the SBC on that point. So yeah on those fronts things were much better before the 1960’s; on those fronts. On others though; no way we are much much better as a culture. Women have opportunities, minorities have more opportunities than before and so forth those are unequivocally good things. It is a mixed bag things are not always easy or black and white. Politics can’t often change culture in my opinion, but culture can provide many good rants for everyone. But if we had a total Republican sweep based on family values style Republicans, I doubt very much the divorce rate would go down the murder rate would go down and we would import and use any less cocaine.
I think the super-majority came in on over-reacting to the liberal media bias against Bush (not all was undeserved, but it was negative x 10).
They did not govern as they campaigned.
It took a lot of undecided’s two years to see it, but they will do differently this November.
I don’t think impeaching Obama is on the agenda. It will be interesting to see how this post-partisan president fares when he actually has to deal with Republicans.
I tend to think he will not do very well.
JDM,
Please tell us exactly how the dems are not governing how they campaigned. Health care reform, financial system reform, end the Iraq war, escalate the Afghanistan war. Climate change was campaigned on, but is currently stuck in congress. DADT is being reviewed, and will be repealed.
And if the GOP does sweep both the senate and house, mark my words, there WILL be an impeachment hearing on Obama. For what, I have no idea. But that doesn’t matter. 20% of the population probably would approve of it no matter what the charges were.
Mateo, you’ve shown the times the deficit was down. I’m not a Republican supporter in that area. They are no more conservative than the Dems. I don’t care if there’s even a party in charge, I just want some actual responsible decisions made, some real fiscal responsibility and a day that we can look forward to lower taxes, more employment and a future that is better for our children than they currently look forward to.
Like I said, “take us back” or “take back” is confusing. We can’t go back, we can only move forward. What I’m interested in seeing hasn’t existed in a long time. And at that it’s only a part of the story. No one I know wants to go back to Wilson era imprisonment of anyone disagreeing with the President. No one wants to return to the bad parts of our past. Wanting part of a time period doesn’t mean you want all the bad stuff that occurred at that time.
I’m a big Calvin Coolidge fan. He was the last truly honorable President IMO. The last true conservative too. What happened to him? He chose not to run for a second term when Herbert Hoover was grandstanding across the nation. Coolidge was a smart cookie, he knew he couldn’t beat the hero of the people. Read the history, Herbert Hoover- a man we look at today as among the worst Presidents, was at one time a national hero “The Engineer” they called him. He ran on a campaign of… well, hope and change. He kinda blew it. Not as bad as FDR, but he blew it.
Gov’t has been growing since the days of FDR. Some say that’s fine, a good thing. In some areas it is I suppose. Nationwide highway systems were a good thing, unless you worked for the railroad I guess. Certainly gov’ts role in aerospace, medicine, defense industries has had it’s rewards. I’m sure we can all find things to be thankful for from gov’t programs and largess. We can also look at our pay stubs and the national debt and deficit to see the down side. I’m of the belief we could get along quite well with a Federal gov’t half the size or smaller than we have now. Our State and County gov’ts could be reduced too. It’s obvious we can’t afford to keep growing gov’t. In many areas gov’t is the largest employer! That’s simply unsustainable.
If someone can give me a logical argument in favor of an ever larger gov’t that doesn’t end up with us becoming another socialist workers paradise of some sort I’m more than willing to listen.
Look at the federal budget. It will not shrink unless something is done about military spending and a mentality that we should go to other countries and impose our will. The best way to stop terrorisim is stop participating in it.
July 22, 2010, Tom Tancredo, Washington Times, calling for impeaching President Obama. Darrell Issa, ranking member of government affairs comm. has mentioned impeachable offenses committed by President Obama. Issa want to double his staff if he becomes chair of that committee. I believe the chances of President Obama being impeached, if Republicans gain control of the House, are 50/50 at a minimum.
I kind of like Brian’s point though.
Either people like me who are not happy with our current culture have to say that change is good just like our President or we have to say that we like what we have and don’t want the President to change anything.
Impeachment was meant for someone with a mental disorder or a hardcore substance abuser, someone who can’t do the job, not for political reasons. If these guys start using it politically I think it threatens our basic form of government.
Just for the record, Barry Goldwater was Episcopalian, which I think is still considered to be a Christian denomination. He had a Jewish grandfather, I believe. Had he not been Christian, in 1964, much more would have been made of the fact in and out of the media.
On the larger topic, most so-called conservatives today are, in fact, reactionaries. They do not want to preserve the status quo, they want to destroy it and return to the “good old days”, as others have mentioned. above There was an excellent essay “Rolling Back the Twentieth Century” (forgot author, but easily googled from title) that came out a while ago, but is still valid. See also Jane Mayer piece in current New Yorker on Koch Brothers.
Mervel, impeachment was meant as a mechanism to legally remove an elected official guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Currently, I see no grounds for any move to impeach Obama. Any talk in this line is no more than political rhetoric, just as all the talk of impeaching Bush or Reagan was rhetoric. Tancredo is attempting to make political hay. He’s a go no where guy attempting to garner name recognition, IOW- a career politician.
More worrisome is Darrel Issa, Tancredo is not a serious problem. Issa has the power and recently said he would use it. Gridlock government to show how ineffective it is? Great solution.
I’ve never been a fan of “the good old days.” I prefer to live in the present.
I don’t want to know what religion someone belongs to.
It seems some people are not happy unless they are complaining about this, that or the other thing. It’s a lot like people who just love to talk about their various aliments. It’s all about looking for attention. Victimology, you could say.
Pointing fingers is always fun to.
So let me join everyone else and say I too am a victim. I listen and read the news and feel like I am a victim of listening to all the nonsense. And for the next few months I will be a victim of all the political ads where someone will be telling me they care about me but the other candidate wants to ruin my life.
Blah, blah, blah!
I think Pete’s onto something here.
Pete, we can all find good ideas or periods in the past. Periods where we enjoyed very high employment and a growing economy certainly aren’t something we wish to avoid in the future.
I hear people talk about victim hood here a lot. I don;t think it’s that so much as venting. If we all remain stoic and never voice our displeasure at the status quo how do we ever change things for the better or correct a wrong?