It’s really very simple: The unstated assumption is that saving the American economy the Democrats’ way is a Devil’s bargain – that some prices are too high to pay even for prosperity, and any erosion of “freedom” as conservatives define it is such a price.
This is by no means a new idea. For the first half and more of the 20th Century the right’s great fear WRT socialism was not that it would fail but that it would succeed, on its own stated terms, in providing general prosperity, but at too high a social and moral and spiritual cost. When William Buckley wrote that a conservative’s duty was “to stand athwart history and shout ‘Stop!’”, he was assuming that history really was on the side of the left – but asserting that that did not in and of itself settle the argument.
That’s the conservative view. They “know” government intervention would fail and hurt the country so they hope that Obama fails in his attempt to enact government intervention.
Which makes him suitable for his role as de-facto leader of the Republican party and the conservative movement, since a few laughs are all they’re good for anymore.
Conservatives are defending their current message as “this stimulus may make us feel better for a while, but the deficit spending and creeping socialism will harm us in the long term. Better to take our medicine now, and muddle through the current downturn.” Why doesn’t that apply in other areas? If the Democratic approach is so obviously flawed, let it be seen now and quickly discredited.
When you’re sick, there are times when immediate treatment is required. There are also times when it’s best to wait the illness out.
Now, you might disagree with that particular approach in this circumstance, but the point remains… While conservatives believe that Obama’s plan is seriously flawed, it does not logically follow that they should bite their tongues so that they can delight in his ultimate embarassment.
It also does not logically follow that this is the begining of a plan for the government to own everything and run everybody’s lives, and yet that seems to be the common rallying cry put forward by conservatives at the moment.
I am perfectly willing to accept that many conservatives have legitimate concerns about the stimulus, and that while I may disagree with them, their actions are a good faith effort to enact policy in the best interests of the nation as a whole. Now, how many of their prominent spokesmen are willing to say the same about liberals?
And if I had been attempting to defend such a claim, your remark would be relevant to this discussion. As you know full well though, I did not. Rather, I was addressing your specific claim that conservatives should logically choose to let the country sink into disaster. Your latest retort does nothing to defend that claim.
Cite, please? Can you please cite even a single prominent conservative leader who says that the government plans to “own everything and run everybody’s lives”? Your remark is gross hyperbole, and I think you know it.
Many conservatives feel that the Obama adminstration’s plan is misguided and objectionable. This does NOT mean that they believe that the government wants to seize all their possessions. If you think otherwise, then please provide a credible citation.
“But I was exaggerating for effect!” one might object. If so, then stop it. We all know that such wild exaggerations are good for fostering ignorance rather than combatting it.
Limbaugh’s other two definitions of socialism that he claims applies to the Obama administration are pretty loose and obviously biased. But I don’t see this one as even being in the ball park. I can’t think of anything remotely connected with the Obama administration that can possibly be twisted around enough to justify this claim. Can anyone explain where Limbaugh is going here?
IS there a problem with Limbaugh (or any other conservative) saying he hopes Obama’s economic plan fails? Yes, but… the problem is NOT one that’s been expressed yet in this thread. Rather, it’s the problem Republicans had in the Thirties.
Did Republicans want FDR’s New Deal to succeed? No… but what they didn’t understand was, IF the New Deal had failed, America wasn’t going to turn to Alf Landon as their new savior! Memories of Herbert Hoover were just too fresh, and it was bound to take time before the Republicans could mount a credible challenge to the Democrats again. If the New Deal had failed, the alternatie might have been communism, fascism, Huey Long-style populism… any of which would have been worse, from a Republican standpoint, than the New Deal.
I think the GOP faces the same problem now. Rightly or wroingly, most Americans blame Bush and the Republicans for the current economic crisis, and are HOPING Obama can lead us out of it. If Obama succeeds, the Democrats will be in the driver’s seat for years to come. But if he fails miserably, and the economy continues sliding… then what? Are the American people going to turn to Mitt Romney?? No! They may turn far left or far right, but they’re not going to turn back to a mainstream conservative Republican any time soon.
For that reason, we on the Right may HAVE to hope Obama succeeds, because the alternative won’t be pretty.
The point you make, astorian, is a critical one. Even if one accepts the argument that FDR’s policies did not in fact lift the country out of the Depression (and I don’t want to sidetrack into that one), Roosevelt held the country together, calmed enough of the people’s fears and fury to stave off revolution, and I believe saved the United States from the dreadful alternatives you outline.
It seems to me that we are sliding down into another such crisis time, when, if the center cannot hold, things will indeed fall apart in terrible ways. There is no magical specialness about this country that wards it against implosions like what happened in post-WWI Germany and Russia. If things get bad enough, and if the people lose all confidence in their government, we will be in shit far too deep for the mainstream of either right or left to hold them back from eruption.