Conservativism Triumphant

Well you have Liberals apologizing.

Paul Wolfowitz thought U.S. forces would be greeted as liberators in Iraq. I did not. His prediction in this case, was correct. I was wrong. (And not for the last time, I’m guessing.)

I hope Mr. Wolfowitz has equally good luck in the rest of his predictions since they seem to be driving U.S. foreign policy right now. I’d be amazed, and the consequences of his being wrong will likely be catastrophic for this country, but as I said, I’ve been wrong before. And as far as the Iraqi liberation goes, I’m extremely pleased to be wrong this time, at least in the short run. And if the Bush Administration’s past history is any guide, the short run is just about all the Iraqis can expect to enjoy.
Eric Alterman

And you have Conservatives crowing.

I want to rub it in the anti-war crowd's face so badly. I want to hear the protesters explain why it's a bad thing we released more than 100 children from an Iraqi gulag for underage political prisoners. I want them to talk about how they were fighting for the Iraqi people as the Iraqi people hug and kiss the American forces in Baghdad and greet the human shields with signs reading "Go Home You Wankers." I want them to explain why it wasn't worth it.
Jonah Goldberg

So it's a nice week to be a conservative. But of course the real question is (and always is, I suppose) now what? Most of the more reasoned arguments against the war dealt with this what's ahead of us, not what we have done. Some predicted that the war would be harder than it was; more predicted the war would be quick, although perhaps a bit more bloody. But the real question is now, what are we going to do to keep our promises to the Iraqi people? Are we going to take the time and the effort required to help them, or are we going to make a half hearted effort and then disappear? I hope it is the former; I believe it will be. But we need to keep pressure on the white house to make this happen.

Your Weekly Rush – History Moment.

I am considering starting a new feature here at Make me a Commentator!!! As some of you know, my original training is in history, and it’s still a passion of mine. It also occurs to me that many commentators speak about history without saying anything correct or meaningful. So perhaps, every so often, I’ll help set the record straight.

One thing Mr. Rush Limbaugh has said was that the Nazi movement was a liberal movement. Mostly he said this around the time of Germany’s statements against invading Iraq, which was, I admit, a while ago.

His argument was that the official name of the Nazis was the National Socialist Workers Party. So right there you see that it has socialism right in the title. And the name mentions workers as well, and as we all know, Conservatives are incapable of caring about the welfare of workers (for those who don’t know, that was a combination of sarcasm and telling commentary. Why does being for the workers make you a Liberal?).

Obviously this argument is refuted by an old analogy: if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and you call it a Socialist, well, it just might be a duck, but don’t tell anybody. The name proves very little.

The other argument revolves around the mobilization of the German economy for the war effort. Of course, we did the same thing here in the United States, but FDR did it, so maybe it was socialist.

So if I’m going to tell you that Nazism/Fascism was an extreme form of conservatism, what do I mean by conservative? I discussed this in a post down the page, entitled Conservatives Doom, Conservatives Triumph, in which was proposed two faces of Conservatism, the Libertarian and Traditionalist.

Now returning to our original subject—can the Nazis/Fascists be said to be Libertarian Conservatives? No. Personal liberties were totally irrevellent to them. What was important was the health of the state, whether it was Germany or Italy.

But can the Nazis/Fascists fit as (much more extreme) Traditionalist Conservatives? I would argue yes.

“The National Socialist movement of what was then the Worker’s Party adopted as its first principle the realization that the Marxist movement was to be fought to the end; second, the realization that the revolution as a consequence of Marxism and of an unprecedented criminal act, was not a matter of the German Bourgeoisie becoming national once more; the problem is that the German people, the broad masses, must be made national again. This means not just a pure, I mean passive, return to nationalism, but an active fight against those who have ruined it till now.”
Adolf Hitler

Note the focus on building a specifically German unity. One of the strikes against Marxism was it’s international flavor—Communism of almost any form asks a nation to abandon it’s separate culture and ideals in favor of a unity along class lines. One can also look at the Programme of NSDAP. This was a program presented on February 24, 1920 and was accepted by the party. Note these provisions:

8. All non-German immigration must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered Germany after 2 August 1914 shall be required to leave the Reich forthwith.

20. The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working German the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation of the State (through the study of civic affairs). We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.

24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the State, provided they do not threaten its existence not offend the moral feelings of the German race.

There are also planks related to the press, the importance of a strong military, and hints of the Nazi Economic program. The economic program is important, because it is one of the more common points used to indicate that Nazism was socialist. It was not. While some of the actions were similar (i.e. the management of some German industry was transferred to governmental control), the justifications were quite different.

“We therefore demand in the economy a soldierly conduct within and without. For, if the leader of a business runs it without regard to the economic independence of the nation, but only with a view to the highest possible profits, it will inevitably destroy the social peace within his company. His employees will be bound to adopt the same attitude . . .”
Werner Daitz

This economic plan rejects any sort of internationalism. It is also minimizes the possible uplift of the German workers, except in the sense that as the German people defeat their enemies all German’s will profit. But it is the life of the state as a whole that comes first, not any individual class or group.

In closing, I do want to make it clear that I do not believe that traditionalist conservatives are somehow equivalent to Nazis, any more than I believe those on the left are the equivalent of Stalinists. They have some things in common, to be sure, but American traditionalists have not, and, I believe, will not be willing to abandon the principals of Freedom of Expression or Freedom of Thought, which ideas form the backbone of what it means to be America.

Hope

Well, in the wake of Victory in Iraq day, we turn to what's next. As you might expect, and as I've referenced before. William Safire paints a very hopeful scenario in his column at the Times today, saying, "If Iraqis are able to adopt a system of free enterprise and representative government, they will become the center of an arc of freedom from Turkey in the north to Israel in the south (with Lebanon freed from Syrian occupation, if France will liberate the state it created). Egypt, the largest Arab nation, could not long resist such a tidal wave of liberty."

I hope he's correct. One problem with conservative triumphalism, is that some are painting the most elaborate scenarios for the future, and any criticism of those scenarios is responded to by, "Wait a minute, that's the same kind of thing you were saying before we invaded Iraq." There are real problems that will have to be solved in setting Iraq on the road to freedom, and it's a lot easier and more telegenic to invade a country than to occupy it and help it move towards freedom.

Great News!!!

Ann Coulter has revealed some great news in her latest column. "Liberals are no longer a threat to the nation. The new media have defeated them with free speech – the very freedom these fifth columnists hide behind whenever their speech gets them in hot water with the American people. Today, the truth is instantly available on the Internet, talk radio and Fox News Channel." She goes on to reveal that the retraction of the Dixie Chicks attack on Bush, the booing of Pearl Jam, the firing of Peter Arnett, and the attacks on De Genova make it clear that the people can get the information they need to combat the liberal media.

Do you realize what this means? No longer do conservatives get to whine an complain about the evil liberal media that keeps people in a stupor. Now the information is out there available to all. So, either conservatism will quickly triumph, crushing liberalism once and for all, or, maybe, just maybe, liberalism's control over the media wasn't as complete as conservatives have been saying.

The New Cabinet

Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (of the Ohio 10th) has introduced legislation mandating the creation of a Department of Peace, co-equal to the departments of Defense and Education and so on. In a press release, Captain Groovy, I mean Congressman Kucinich, stated "The Department of Peace would serve to promote non-violence as an organizing principle in our society, and help to create the conditions for a more peaceful world."

In a related story, Bryant Gries, Editor at Large for Make me a Commentator!!! proposed the creation of a Department of Commentary, co-equal to the Departments of Funk and Commerce and so on. Bryant stated, "The Department of Commentary would serve to promote snide commentary as an organizing principle in our society, help to create the conditions for a more prosperous bank account."

What's Next?

Well by now I hope we've all seen pictures of cheering Iraqis in Baghdad. We don't know if Saddam is dead or not, but either way his reign is over. So we can look for several weeks of Conservative Triumphalism, and we can look forward to what comes next in Iraq.

Thomas L. Friedman, commenting at the New York Times, stated, "We are so caught up with our own story of "America's liberation of Iraq," and the Arab TV networks are so caught up with their own story of "America's occupation of Iraq," that everyone seems to have lost sight of the real lives of Iraqis.

"We are lost," said Zakiya Jassim, a hospital maintenance worker. "The situation is getting worse. I don't care about Saddam. He is far away. I want my country to be normal."

America broke Iraq; now America owns Iraq, and it owns the primary responsibility for normalizing it. If the water doesn't flow, if the food doesn't arrive, if the rains don't come and if the sun doesn't shine, it's now America's fault. We'd better get used to it, we'd better make things right, we'd better do it soon, and we'd better get all the help we can get."

The next couple of weeks will determine if we are liberators or conquerors. I pray that we will turn out to be the former.

A Scientific Experiment

Pick up a Newspaper. I use the Wall Street Journal, largely because I get it for free. Look at the headlines. Don't bother reading any of the stories (although you can look at the pictures if you want to). Then say, in a loud and authoritative voice, "Idiots." ("Morons" works as well).

See how much better you feel?

President Bush

There is an interesting article at Salon today, explaining, in a thumbnail sketch, some of the background to the rights desire to pursue this war. It is interesting and certainly relevant but it does suggest, as many others have suggested that President George W. Bush is a puppet. "The neocons took advantage of Bush's ignorance and inexperience. Unlike his father, a Second World War veteran who had been ambassador to China, director of the CIA, and vice president, George W was a thinly educated playboy who had failed repeatedly in business before becoming the governor of Texas, a largely ceremonial position (the state's lieutenant governor has more power)."

I'm not sure this is a fair assessment. President Bush also has Colin Powell, who he listens to and meets with on a regular basis. Most give Powell the credit for pushing Bush to go through the UN. And President Bush's insistence on tying humanitarian efforts with our military operations is not a neocon idea.

Blame the Victim

This is the subject of a new article at Commondreams. Apparently Ira Chernus is upset that the American Media does not portray the American army as vicious predators, seeking to destroy Iraq. There is a stench of dishonesty in Chernus's writing. He equates American actions, designed to minimize civilian casualties with Iraqi casualties designed to maximize civilian casualties. He also assumes that Iraqi citizens are better off living under Saddam Hussein than under whatever emerges from this action.

I can't agree with either assessment. While I disagree with many of the steps that have brought us to this current war, we are in it now. We are fighting to minimize civilian casualties, and while there will be stumblings towards a free Iraq, it is every American's duty to see that we do not falter or give up along the way.

Correction

I posted too soon on an issue this morning. Apparently President Bush has clarified his remarks to make sure the UN understands how insignificant it is. So that's nice.

On the Positive Side

I liked this article by Paul Krugman on Senator Kerry's comments from last week.

In 1944, millions of Americans were engaged in desperate battles across the world. Nonetheless, a normal presidential election was held, and the opposition didn't pull its punches: Thomas Dewey, the Republican candidate, campaigned on the theme that Franklin Roosevelt was a "tired old man." As far as I've been able to ascertain, the Roosevelt administration didn't accuse Dewey of hurting morale by questioning the president's competence. After all, democracy — including the right to criticize — was what we were fighting for.

It's not a slur on the courage of our troops, or a belittling of the risks they face, to say that our current war is a mere skirmish by comparison. Yet self-styled patriots are trying to impose constraints on political speech never contemplated during World War II, accusing anyone who criticizes the president of undermining the war effort.

Along the same lines, why does the right have so little faith in our armed forces? Do they genuinely believe that any criticism of the President is going to make them lose heart? Aren't our soldiers made of sterner stuff? I believe they are.

Government put on New Footing

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. has a bone to pick with much of the world. You see instead of standing firmly behind the President's plan to blow the hell out of Iraq, much of the world stood against that plan. So now that the time has come (well, is coming relatively soon) for Iraq to be divvied up, well, Gaffney would like to see it run by that part of the government most loyal to the president, the Department of Defense.

He states, "There will, of course, be room for UN organizations to help with humanitarian relief, medical assistance, food distribution, etc., just as there will be appropriate advisory roles for State Department specialists and experts drawn from other U.S. agencies. But the authority for making the proverbial trains run on time and the wherewithal for doing so should be reposed in the one organization that has demonstrated the ability to get done the job assigned it by the President: the Department of Defense."

And it's about time. But why stop there? What did the Department of Education do to prosecute the war? Nothing. In fact there were reports of literally hundreds of teachers attacking the war from the classroom. Oh wait a second, instead of hundreds I should have written a half dozen. At any rate, it's time to teach those nogoodnik teachers a lesson by placing America's entire educational system under the Department of Defense.

And consider this chilling fact. All through this war, those Anti War protestors have been using America's highway system to drive to and from their protests. Potential terrorists could be using our highway transportation system right now! What has the Department of Transportation done? Nothing. So obviously we should bring the Department of Transportation under Department of Defense control as well.

After all, if the Department of Defense is good at one thing, they must naturally be good at other things.

Ooops. Looks like President Bush might not be on the same page as Mr. Gaffney. President Bush stated, ``Rebuilding of Iraq will require the support and expertise of the international community. We are committed to working with international institutions, including the United Nations, which will have a vital role to play in this task."

Conservatives Doom; Conservatives Triumph

Well, it looks like this war is largely over--although I would be surprised if there wasn't a bit of fierce fighting ahead. Also, according to many conservatives, this quick and relatively painless war has proven Liberalism wrong for all time. So in short order, you can look to see Conservatism being the only political philosophy around.

I can’t claim to be any great theoretician on the subject, but I have made certain observations. There seem to be two main branches of conservatism, what I will call Libertarian Conservatism and Traditionalist Conservatism.

Libertarian Conservatives are primarily concerned with the size of the government—they want it to be a lot smaller. Depending on how far they want to go, they would like to see government get completely out of the Welfare, the Retirement, the Housing, the Environment, and the Education business. They obviously want to see taxes slashed greatly, and they oppose government regulation, particularly in the corporate arena. In short they want government to focus on maximizing personal freedom (which generally means shrinking government). Libertarians are often indifferent to social issues, believing that the inability of the government to "legislate morality" renders such debate irrelevent. That said, some libertarians, on the basis of maximizing personal freedom, do support legalized marijuana or legalized prostitution.

I’ve often labeled Traditionalist Conservatives as Religious Conservatives, but recently released that that is inaccurate (as it is entirely possible to have a preference for tradition while not following any God). The Traditionalist' key concern is with preserving his or her interpretation of American Identity and Culture. Many are concerned with the preservation of American symbols, such as the Flag and the Pledge of Allegiance. Many Traditionalists support a strong military, seeing it both as a protection of the American way of life and as a symbol for what is best in our culture.

Another way of preserving a traditional American culture is through cutting off our borders, keeping out those who do not share our values and ideals. It should be said that many traditionalists have a fairly restrictive view of what an American is.

Of course, the largest subset of traditionalist conservatives are religiously motivated. They want to see traditional and generally religious standards upheld. The two most obvious areas of religious influence are in the Abortion debate and the Gay Rights debate, but it also plays into the continual attacks on Hollywood for corrupting our youth (Interesting how Madison Avenue, which is probably a bit more effective at corrupting our youth, generally gets the pass.).

The abundance of secret conspiracy theories is also, in my mind, a reflection of Traditionalist interests. You see, many Americans pay little more than lip service to their concerns, particularly when it comes to Hollywood. Why is that? Since they believe in a true American spirit that should exist among the American people, they have conjured up in their mind a sort of apocalyptic scenario. The Liberals completely control our education system, and our media system, and our entertainment system. Despite clear Republican control over all branches of Government, an abundance of some traditionalists still feel besieged. And this besiegement justifies their tactics.

Now let me be clear. Not all Conservatives fit neatly into these two categories. Most have a bit of Traditionalist and a bit of Libertarian ideas in them. It helps that for the most part the Libertarian and the Traditionalist focus on different areas of debate.

But now that Liberalism has been vanquished, the Libertarian and Traditionalist forces within the Conservative Movement may start to pull in different directions. The Traditionalist feels more comfortable with FBI scrutiny into Citizen's private lives, assuming that the innocent have nothing to hide, while the Libertarian will resist (and, indeed, has already begun resisting) such encroachments into their lives. It will be interesting to see what happens.

That is assuming that Liberalism is gone for good.

Keep in mind the distinction between Libertarian and Traditionalist Conservative; we will be revisiting them soon.

Trouble Ahead

Robert Novak has begun the delicate task of telling us why we fear Iraq isn't really why we fear Iraq. Those Weapons of Mass Destruction may not materialize, and if they do, may not be as awe inspiring as they could be. Novak reminds us that our "real" reason for invading Iraq had nothing to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction.

"The real reason for attacking the Iraqi regime always has been disconnected from its public rationale. On the day after the U.S. launched the military strike that quickly liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban, my column identified Iraq as the second target in President Bush's war against terrorism. I did not write one word about weapons of mass destruction because not one such word was mentioned to me in many interviews with Bush policymakers.

The subsequent debate over WMD ensued when Secretary of State Colin Powell, over Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's objections, talked the president into seeking United Nations sanction for military action."

Ah, you see? It all turns out to be the UN's fault after all, ably assisted by Colin Powell (who, after enjoying warm feelings from conservatives for a brief period of time, will shortly move back to their disapproved of list). The UN wouldn't buy the terrorist connection, so the US had to go after Weapons of Mass Destruction. Of course what that says to me is that President Bush had even less of a chance proving that Iraq had terrorist connections than they did proving that they had weapons of mass destruction.