I’m pretty much a middle-of-the-road kind of guy when it comes to politics, perhaps leaning somewhat right fiscally and somewhat left socially. I’m 33 years old and generally an apolitical creature.
I’ve become more and more uncomfortable with Republican policies in the past few years, more so than with those of Democrats. Under the current administration in particular, I am disturbed by government trends concerning the environment, reproductive rights, conflict of interests with various large corporations, closer-than-ever affiliation with the extreme religious right, and the arrogance and heavy-handedness of our foreign policy.
On the one hand, I’d like to believe that CPAC represents only the loony fringe of the Republican party. And Salon is pretty heavily slanted toward the political left, I’ll admit. But on the other hand, the author of the article is describing some pretty sickening things, even when her florid left-leaning prose is mentally expunged. And our vice president was a key speaker, which makes one think that this “fringe” might be more indicative of our government’s policy leanings than one (well, I) might hope.
Since I should present an actual debate here: does Michelle Goldberg’s article have merit? Are the extremists described in this article truly a sign of the direction of the Republican party? Or is this just hot air being blown by a liberal writer with a blatant agenda?
‘CPAC’ itself is yearly conference, focusing on conservative issues, and how best to advance various conservative causes and agendas.
That being said, the extremists present at CPAC (anyone can go), are no more representative of the GOP then the various ANSWER loonies (and others) that show up to DNC/liberal events.
Not that it necessarily matters, but everything I have so far read at Salon has had a wicked leftist spin on it.
“That being said, the extremists present at CPAC (anyone can go), are no more representative of the GOP then the various ANSWER loonies (and others) that show up to liberal events are representative of the DNC.”
So what about Cheney’s presence? Does it mean anything? A mere sop to the religious right? If so, couldn’t he have chosen a more, uh, mainstream extremist gathering?
And is their confidence that Bush agrees with, and enact, their agenda just wishful thinking? Is there anything that supports their confidence, do you think?
Ack, I didn’t see your clarification of the gathering itself Brutus. I apologize for that. I would like to still ask my second question, though, as applied to the extremists. What could they be seeing that would make them think that Bush is with them? Just coattail thinking (“Gee, since he’s conservative and does conservative things, he MUST agree with me”)?
Left wing hawk checking in (US standards, by European standards, I’m a centrist):
I’m puzzled by the OP on a number of levels. Firstly, I don’t know what, “right fiscally” means. It used to refer to someone who doesn’t like budget deficits, like Pete Domenici, John Anderson or Treasury Secretary Rubin of the Clinton admin. Now, to some people, it means “lower taxes on upper income groups regardless of the level of government spending”. (Really.)
Anyway, set aside CPUC’s rhetoric, bumper stickers and fanaticism, and I’m hard put to find where their policy disagreement with the current administration would lie. But maybe I’m missing something.
Regardless, one only has to give a hard look at the actual policies espoused by the current administration to see its right-wing tilt. But, hey, some people like that sort of thing.
I’d love to attend CPAC next year, and at some point, I’d like to go on a National Review cruise. The list of guest speakers is generally impressive, food good, and booze flows a’plenty.
I agree with you Parthol. The article reminds me that we need a Third Party as soon as possible, for people who, say, think that most of the major religions today worship the same God, and the disagreement is in the details…who think that a woman probably does have the right to terminate a pregnancy on day 4 but not 4 days prior to delivery…who know what the Bible says about homosexuality, and don’t particularly care…and yet aren’t all that comfortable with the idea of hate speech…know that drug companies look more like a special interest group than do “the elderly”, because of course one can be black OR white and elderly, one can be an elderly gay Asian Muslim - it’s an equal-opportunity interest group…etc.
I do lean toward conservatism but prefer to be far removed from the Religious Right; nowadays they are synonymous. How’d that happen.
The easy answer is that the present administration needs the Right Wing Kooks™ to raise the faithful. It is completely appropriate to throw them an occasional bone to keep them coming to the table. One bone: according to my friends in the education business, the present administration has pretty well turned the US Department of Education over to the Southern Baptist Church. One friend tells me that the last Federal conference he attended was, for the most part, composed of equal parts of flag waiving and praying. For so long as the Reactionary Fringe™ is helpful to the business interests that are the core of the Republican Party the party big wigs will continue to pander to it. That is politics in a representative democracy.
I’m with Brutus on this one. When you pass that article through your de-leftify filter, you end up with a description of a few far-right-wing people attending a conservative function. Most of the things she described with what seemed like unadulterated terror, though, didn’t seem any more extremist than the views of the average SDMB-er, left OR right.
Jeff
The Administration has pretty much done the same with international conferences on women’s rights and other issues, as described in this article in The Nation [El Jeffe’s favorite magazine ].
Tee, I am a bit confused by your post as I don’t see how any of the beliefs that you stated put you in conflict with the Second party, i.e., the Democrats. Did you just leave out the other things where you part company with them? (Not that I disagree on the Third Party party…I think we need a Third Party too because of the Dems’ tendency to sell out way too much to corporate money but that is a different issue.)
Quite. Let me offer a caveat though. That is politics, when you have winner-take-all voting. Proportional representation, exercised by most of the world’s democracies AFAIK, allows multiple viable parties and makes the sort of wide coalitions observed in the US less likely.
Reading comprehension is your friend. CPAC itself is simply a forum where conservatives gather. If some loonies show up, so be it. But they are not representative of the conference as a whole.
Just like (I hope) the DNC is more sensible then the ANSWER-types (or insert your favorite radical lefties) that show up to their events.
I left out plenty…I can’t get past the basic big government ideals of the Democrats. A balance of liberalism/conservatism is a good thing, though, I understand that. Dems selling out to corporate money…seems to be very against the agenda, so maybe it’s more appropriate to say Congressional Democrats sell out? Or Congress as a whole sells out?
Well yeah, the point is that the Dems only look not-so beholden to corporate money because they are being compared to the Reps who are essentially completely beholden (with a few exceptions). The Dems also get money from unions and support from environmentalists and such so they have to buck the corporate will occasionally. The Republicans, particularly the G.W.-brand, essentially never do.
Everything is relative. If you spent your time living at the South Pole, 20 F might seem awful warm!
My friend? He can be yours, too, if only you’d return his phone calls.
One look at the sponsored speech list with such worthies as “Why the Left hates America,” and “NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus and other professional victims,” and my favorite “Entangling alliances: George Washington v. Kofi Annan” puts the lie to your ridiculous spin – the conference is by nuts, for nuts – nuts who make themselves out to be the new mainstream, as it says right on their website.
