The Corrosion of Conservatism

[annabenedetti]

Max Boot has a new book out in October:


[h=1]The Corrosion of Conservatism: Why I Left the Right[/h]

Warning that the Trump presidency presages America’s decline, the political commentator recounts his extraordinary journey from lifelong Republican to vehement Trump opponent.
Declaring Mexican immigrants to be “rapists,” Donald Trump announced his 2015 presidential bid, causing Max Boot to think he was watching a dystopian science-fiction movie. The respected conservative historian couldn’t fathom that the party of Lincoln and Reagan could endorse such a “malevolent clown.” Yet the Twilight Zone episode that Boot believed he was watching created an ideological dislocation so shattering that Boot’s transformation from Republican foreign policy advisor to anti-Trump columnist becomes the dramatic story of The Corrosion of Conservativism.
While 90 percent of his fellow Republicans―Rubio, Cruz, and Ryan―became political “toadies,” Boot stood his ground, enduring the vitriol of his erstwhile conservative colleagues, trolled on Twitter by a white supremacist who depicted his “execution” in a gas chamber by a smiling, Nazi-clad Trump. With uncompromising insights, Boot evokes both a president who has traduced every norm and the rise of a nascent centrist movement to counter Trump’s assault on democracy.

 

[annabenedetti]

If this is what conservatism has become, count me out
by Max Boot

I’m used to being vilified by the far left as a bloodthirsty neocon warmonger for the Original Sin of having supported the invasion of Iraq along with 72 percent of the American public. It has been a little more surprising to be simultaneously vilified by the far right as a dangerous left-winger.

David Horowitz’s FrontPage magazine accused me of going “full leftist” for acknowledging that racism and sexism remain pervasive problems. Breitbart called me, with ironic quotation marks, the “Washington Post’s ostensibly new ‘conservative’ columnist,” because, among other sins, I support gun control and immigration. American Greatness wrote that I am a “soulless, craven opportunist” whose “brain is broken,” because I compared President Trump’s indifference to the 2016 Russian election assault to a president ignoring 9/11. For the same offense, Jack Posobiec — an Internet troll notorious for pushing the theory that Hillary Clinton was running a child-sex ring out of a Washington pizza parlor — said I was “sick” and a “Russian propagandist.” In the Orwellian language of the far right, someone who wants to combat Russian aggression is a “Russian propagandist,” whereas someone who echoes Russian propaganda is putting “America first.”

In the past I would have been indignant at such attacks and eager to assert my conservative credentials. I spent years writing for conservative publications such as the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Commentary magazine and working as a foreign policy adviser for three Republican presidential campaigns. Being conservative used to be central to my identity. But now, frankly, I don’t give a damn. I prefer to think of myself as a classical liberal, because “conservative” has become practically synonymous with “Trump lackey."

Richard Brookhiser, a longtime stalwart at National Review, summed up the Trump effect: “Now the religious Right adores a thrice-married cad and casual liar. But it is not alone. Historians and psychologists of the martial virtues salute the bone-spurred draft-dodger whose Khe Sanh was not catching the clap. Cultural critics who deplored academic fads and slipshod aesthetics explicate a man who has never read a book, not even the ones he has signed. . . . Straussians, after leaving the cave, find themselves in Mar-a-Lago. Econocons put their money on a serial bankrupt.”

Principled conservativism continues to exist, primarily at small journals of opinion, but it is increasingly disconnected from the stuff that thrills the masses. I remember as a high school student in the 1980s attending a lecture at UCLA by William F. Buckley Jr. I was dazzled by his erudition, wit and oratorical skill. Today, young conservatives flock to the boorish and racist performance art of Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter. The Conservative Political Action Conference couldn’t find room for critics of Trump, save for the brave and booed Mona Charen, but it did showcase French fascist scion Marion Maréchal-Le Pen.

The career of Dinesh D’Souza is indicative of the downward trajectory of conservatism. He made his name with a well-regarded 1991 book denouncing political correctness and championing liberal education. Then he wrote a widely panned 1995 book claiming that racism was no more, and it was all downhill from there. In 2014 he pleaded guilty to breaking campaign finance laws. Now, as the Daily Beast notes, he has become a conspiratorial crank who has suggested that the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville was staged by liberals, that Barack Obama is a “gay Muslim” and Michelle Obama is a man and that Adolf Hitler, who sent50,000 homosexuals to prison, “was NOT anti-gay.” He managed to sink even lower last week by mocking stunned Parkland school-shooting survivors after the Florida legislature defeated a bill to ban assault weapons: “Worst news since their parents told them to get summer jobs.”

It is hard to imagine anything more cruel and heartless, but for a bottom-feeder like D’Souza it’s all in a day’s work. As he wrote in his 2002 book “Letters to a Young Conservative,” “One way to be effective as a conservative is to figure out what annoys and disturbs liberals the most, and then keep doing it.” (Thanks to Windsor Mann for the quote.) That, in a nutshell, is the credo of today’s high-profile conservatives: Say anything to “trigger” the “libtards” and “snowflakes.” The dumber and more offensive, the better. Whatever it takes to get on (and stay on) Fox News and land the next book contract!

Naturally, just as drug addicts need bigger doses over time, these outrage artists must be ever more transgressive to get the attention they crave. Coulter’s book titles have gone from accusing Bill Clinton of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” to accusing all liberals of “Treason,” of being “Godless” and even “Demonic.” Her latest assault on the public’s intelligence was called “In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome!”

If this is what mainstream conservatism has become — and it is — count me out. ​

 

[Arthur Brain]

Kinda echoes some of the sentiments aired on here don't it?

:rain:

 

[ok doser]

... Declaring Mexican immigrants to be “rapists,” Donald Trump ....

nope

trump declared no such thing

in fact, trump has been very supportive of Mexican immigrants, and mooslim immigrants and immigrants of all stripes

what trump was talking about that Boot (and annabananahead) misrepresent are criminal mexicans who break the law to invade our country

calling them "immigrants" is a slander against those immigrants who follow the legal process

call them what they are - criminal invaders

and too many of those criminal invaders are indeed rapists

 

[The Berean]

Sounds like Max Boot traded in one absurd and vain political philosophy for another. I consider modern conservatism and modern liberalism to be both equally useless, wrongheaded, and absurd. Both sides are greedy, have an a sociopathic thirst for power, and don't give a damn about "the little guy". Oh they give lip service but that's about all they do. They both want to control the nation through their own myopic, narrow viewpoints. It's not surprising that Max Boot got attacked for not supporting Trump. Both sides do this to their own people when anyone dares challenge their respective groupthink philosophies. The same t hing happens to Black people who dare leave the Democratic Party.

 

[ok doser]

Sounds like Max Boot traded in one absurd and vain political philosophy for another. I consider modern conservatism and modern liberalism to be both equally useless, wrongheaded, and absurd. Both sides are greedy, have an a sociopathic thirst for power, and don't give a damn about "the little guy". Oh they give lip service but that's about all they do. They both want to control the nation through their own myopic, narrow viewpoints. It's not surprising that Max Boot got attacked for not supporting Trump. Both sides do this to their own people when anyone dares challenge their respective groupthink philosophies. The same t hing happens to Black people who dare leave the Democratic Party.

i know you weren't speaking about me, but i don't care if he supports trump or attacks trump, as long as he's honest about it

 

[The Berean]

i know you weren't speaking about me, but i don't care if he supports trump or attacks trump, as long as he's honest about it

That's true. I can respect honesty. The issue is that people get emotional when it comes to politics. Most people cannot or won't embrace facts, reason, and logic. I didn't vote for Trump. I don't really think he's a good president. But, I do not have a visceral hatred of him. I can understand why people voted for him. Shoot, I personally know several Black people and Latinos who voted for Trump. And they get attacked by other Black people and Latinos for doing so. They try to publicly shame them and attack them, unfriend them on social media. I find that weak and pathetic and they rightfully should be mocked for acting like snowflakes. I have zero respect for that mindset.

 

[quip]

nope

trump declared no such thing

in fact, trump has been very supportive of Mexican immigrants, and mooslim immigrants and immigrants of all stripes

what trump was talking about that Boot (and annabananahead) misrepresent are criminal mexicans who break the law to invade our country

calling them "immigrants" is a slander against those immigrants who follow the legal process

call them what they are - criminal invaders

and too many of those criminal invaders are indeed rapists

So, by your logic those that cross the border illegally are - by default - branded as rapist, while those who cross via proper channels are pure of heart?

That's one simple minded thought process.
Do you get out much?

 

[Idolater]

So, by your logic those that cross the border illegally are - by default - branded as rapist, while those who cross via proper channels are pure of heart?

That's one simple minded thought process.
Do you get out much?

Of course they're not all rapists, but the ones who are, are like ghosts for the police, since when they do rape, we've absolutely no other evidence that they even exist.

 

[quip]

Of course they're not all rapists, but the ones who are, are like ghosts for the police, since when they do rape, we've absolutely no other evidence that they even exist.

True.
But that's not what doser seems to be saying.

 

[Idolater]

True.
But that's not what doser seems to be saying.

OK. But I don't know that it's Not what he's saying either. I thought that's what everybody always meant when they said they were against illegal aliens, it was always that some of them are criminals, and the ones that are, can wreak such havoc here (as specifically undocumented people, meaning police have no knowledge of their existence), that we really need to address border security for general public safety. That's just what I assumed, perhaps wrongly.

 

[quip]

OK. But I don't know that it's Not what he's saying either. I thought that's what everybody always meant when they said they were against illegal aliens, it was always that some of them are criminals, and the ones that are, can wreak such havoc here

Well, let's look at doser's wording and emphasis:

"criminal mexicans who break the law to invade our country"

"call them what they are - criminal invaders"

"and too many of those criminal invaders are indeed rapists"


First off, he's not addressing concern over a small minority of illegal Mexican immigrants who may become potential rapist.. rather he's more concerned with making a wholesale, sensationalized pronouncement by labeling them all "criminal invaders".:shocked: It shouldn't be too difficult to see the implications doser's attempting to paint here...it's classic demogougory; a clear pandering to fear and vilification.

It's surprising how many people can't see through this farce...perhaps they're all too happy not to. :idunno:

 

[ok doser]

So, by your logic ...

these words always precede epic retardedness

....those that cross the border illegally are - by default - branded as rapist...

what i said: "and too many of those criminal invaders are indeed rapists"

, while those who cross via proper channels are pure of heart?

glad you phrased it as a question :thumb:

no, those who cross via proper channels are not necessarily pure of heart

to think so would be retarded

That's one simple minded thought process.

yes it is - you should always stop when you find yourself banging out "So, by your logic" and ask yourself if you're prepared to look simple minded

Do you get out much?

stop flirting with me

 

[ok doser]

Of course they're not all rapists, but the ones who are, are like ghosts for the police, since when they do rape, we've absolutely no other evidence that they even exist.

what's worse is that they prey upon those who are also illegal, within their community, and so don't report it

 

[ok doser]

True.
But that's not what doser seems to be saying.

what i said was very clear:

nope

trump declared no such thing

in fact, trump has been very supportive of Mexican immigrants, and mooslim immigrants and immigrants of all stripes

what trump was talking about that Boot (and annabananahead) misrepresent are criminal mexicans who break the law to invade our country

calling them "immigrants" is a slander against those immigrants who follow the legal process

call them what they are - criminal invaders

and too many of those criminal invaders are indeed rapists

Well, let's look at doser's wording and emphasis:

"criminal mexicans who break the law ..."

right - breaking the law makes them criminals by definition

... to invade our country

in·vade /inˈvād/ verb verb: invade; 3rd person present: invades; past tense: invaded; past participle: invaded; gerund or present participle: invading enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, especially with intrusive effect. ...

"call them what they are - criminal invaders"

"illegal immigrants" are by definition criminal invaders

"and too many of those criminal invaders are indeed rapists"

do you dispute this?

or are you arguing that too few of them are rapists? :freak:

First off, he's not addressing concern over a small minority of illegal Mexican immigrants who may become potential rapist..

right, my main concern was the dishonesty presented by Boot and the bananahead

...rather he's more concerned with making a wholesale, sensationalized pronouncement by labeling them all "criminal invaders".:shocked:

iow, i used words that triggered you and you're responding emotionally

go find a puppy to hug, curl up in a little ball and suck your thumb for a while, you'll feel better

 

[Idolater]

Well, let's look at doser's wording and emphasis:

"criminal mexicans who break the law to invade our country"

"call them what they are - criminal invaders"

"and too many of those criminal invaders are indeed rapists"


First off, he's not addressing concern over a small minority of illegal Mexican immigrants who may become potential rapist.. rather he's more concerned with making a wholesale, sensationalized pronouncement by labeling them all "criminal invaders".:shocked: It shouldn't be too difficult to see the implications doser's attempting to paint here...it's classic demogougory; a clear pandering to fear and vilification.

It's surprising how many people can't see through this farce...perhaps they're all too happy not to. :idunno:

I guess the only substantive implication that I see in that, is that we should take our border security more seriously for the general public safety. There's plenty of ways to skin the cat here, and this is Ok Doser's way. The skinned cat is to communicate that we should take our border security more seriously. And it's a valid and reasonable position to hold, even if you disagree with it (also reasonable and valid), and even if someone's expression of that position doesn't meet with your expectations for how a position should be expressed.

 

[Idolater]

what's worse is that they prey upon those who are also illegal, within their community, and so don't report it

I don't know if that's worse or better. Horrid in either case though. Rapists are 666.

 

[quip]

I guess the only substantive implication that I see in that, is that we should take our border security more seriously for the general public safety. There's plenty of ways to skin the cat here, and this is Ok Doser's way. The skinned cat is to communicate that we should take our border security more seriously. And it's a valid and reasonable position to hold, even if you disagree with it (also reasonable and valid), and even if someone's expression of that position doesn't meet with your expectations for how a position should be expressed.

You seem to take a reasonable tack on this issue and I fully agree with you and respect your opinion.
Though, through the means of scaring the masses, an effort to manipulatively seek support for a special-interested ends...is particularly insidious. In otherwords, procuring the political end-goal is more important to the demagogue than the issue(s) it purports to alleviate, is patently disinguenuious by it's very nature and practice.

 

[quip]

what i said was very clear:

I'm sure you honestly believe it was quite clear. This only goes to show that the manipulative nature of the tactic you've brainlessly mimicked seems beyond your grasp.

"illegal immigrants" are by definition criminal invaders

All things being definitively equal as you assert them to be, why not simply argue using the term "illegal immigrants"? Does the term lack the emotional fervor to adequately manipulate the recipient?
Wherefore the sudden impulse for revision?

 

[ok doser]

... the manipulative nature of the tactic you've brainlessly mimicked ...

blunt honesty based on established dictionary definitions?

why not simply argue using the term "illegal immigrants"?

i believe i covered that:

...calling them "immigrants" is a slander against those immigrants who follow the legal process...