Blinded on the right

David Brooks writes about what followed Ronald Reagan into the White house.

Conservative institutions and interest groups proliferated in Washington. The definition of who was a true conservative narrowed. It became necessary to pass certain purity tests — on immigration, abortion, taxes and Terri Schiavo.

An oppositional mentality set in: if the liberals worried about global warming, it was necessary to regard it as a hoax. If The New York Times editorial page worried about waterboarding, then the code of conservative correctness required one to think it O.K.

Apostates and deviationists were expelled or found wanting, and the boundaries of acceptable thought narrowed. Moderate Republicans were expelled for squishiness. Millions of coastal suburbanites left the party in disgust.

Conservatism became, in other words, the philosophy of flat-earthing, torturing, and excommunicating for the sake of building what has ultimately proven to be a minority political movement. What's not to love?

Also, David Brooks is still a conservative.

Comments

What's not to love?

I love it, as long as they don't win any more elections.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR on January 22, 2008 09:57 AM

Brooks' piece contains a comment that seemed like "whistling past the graveyard" to me. He writes that "[t]he lesson is not that the conservative establishment is headed for the ash heap. The lesson is that the Republican Party, even in its shrunken state, is diverse."

Yeah, right. I guess the message from the little controversies at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968 was that the Democratic party was "diverse." And headed into a 40-year period in which its congressional majorities would dwindle and it would win only 3 of 10 presidential races, with its only successful nominees being relatively conservative southerners. "Diverse" indeed.

Posted by: Jorge on January 22, 2008 06:39 PM

Post A Comment