Home › Blogs › Matt Moon's blog ›

Beyond the Endorsement: How the Right Should React to Colin Powell

Submitted by Matt Moon on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 18:40
in

Bottom Line Up Front: The Right needs to rethink and reshape our style, substance, and strategy based on the opportunities and challenges that face us now. Evolve or die.

Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama today was one of the three "ouches" Moe Lane pointed out on RedState, the other two being the $150M raised by Obama last month and the 100K strong crowd for Obama in St. Louis.

Nobody should take much stock in endorsements, and this wasn't unexpected. Plus, I think John McCain can do a lot more with the aftermath of Obama's conversation with Joe the Plumber than Obama can do with Powell's endorsement.

But Powell does mention a few things that are worth noting and reacting to.

The first subject focuses on the importance of "intellectual curiosity":

"On the Obama side, I watched Mr. Obama and I watched him during this seven-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one. And also, in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor. I think that he has a, a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well."

I've written before on the dichotomy of Celebrity Obama vs. Professor Obama on the campaign trail, and how I'm more afraid how the overly academic "Dr. Jekyll" might govern versus what "Mr. Hyde" might say. I still stand by this argument, but I'm more and more convinced that the conservative movement of the future has to engage just as much on the intellectual battleground as we do on the electoral and rhetorical battleground. While we have to pay attention to the demographic and political trends in each part of the nation, we also have to engage the liberal movement on their turf as well, and not only fight for conservative principles, but explain why the goals of "equal opportunity and freedom" are superior to the end of "equality of condition," and come up with creative policy solutions that abide by those principles.

One person who is a rising leader in the Right when it comes to tethering rhetoric and "intellectual curiosity" (like Obama has) with great decision-making abilities (where Obama has not convinced many that he has) is Bobby Jindal. I'll just say right now that if McCain loses, and if Jindal announces plans to run in 2012, I'll be the first one on board. He's known as a policy wonk, but has an amazing ability to connect with folks. No better time for the Right to have someone like Bobby Jindal to move us forward intellectually on the public policy front while spreading the message of freedom on all levels.

The second subject Powell deals with is the GOP. He praises McCain, but is not happy with the direction of the campaign and the party overall:

"I also believe that on the Republican side over the last seven weeks, the approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become narrower and narrower. Mr. Obama, at the same time, has given us a more inclusive, broader reach into the needs and aspirations of our people. He's crossing lines--ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines. He's thinking about all villages have values, all towns have values, not just small towns have values ...

"Now, I understand what politics is all about. I know how you can go after one another, and that's good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It's not what the American people are looking for. And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign and they trouble me. And the party has moved even further to the right, and Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift.  I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that's what we'd be looking at in a McCain administration. I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, 'Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.' Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian.  But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America.  Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, 'He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists.' This is not the way we should be doing it in America."

Now, I think most of us would vehemently disagree with Powell on his comments about Palin and his difficulty with "conservative appointments to the Supreme Court." I especially disagree with Powell on where SCOTUS should trend. The fact is that the third branch of government should not be about conservative vs. liberal. It's about strict interpretation vs. a view of the Constitution that treats it more like a users' manual than a bedrock of American government. Trust me, you can have "conservative legislating from the bench" just as much as you can have "liberal legislating from the bench" ... the fact is that legislating from the bench is still bad.

Powell's comments on the campaign and the GOP becoming narrower are a little bit confusing, but seem to make two points that the next conservative movement should pay attention to. First, the GOP brand has been damaged, and has been branded as the party of intolerance. How do we fix that? Good question. Second, and more importantly, the "divide and conquer" strategy of "51% is enough" through every election cycle is no longer working. Sure, we still live in a Center-Right nation for all intents and purposes ... but it doesn't mean that we can't stop talking to voters about our principles and new ideas based on those principles. It seems as though we've focused too much on "voter turnout" and have become lazy when it comes to the "voter persuasion" process beforehand.

The third thing Powell discusses are two issues that should be paid more attention to. Tom Brokaw asks "what's not on the screen right now that concerns you that should be more prominent in the minds of the American people and the people running for president":

"I think the American people and the gentlemen running for president will have to, early on, focus on education more than we have seen in the campaign so far.  America has a terrible educational problem in the sense that we have too many youngsters not finishing school. A third of our kids don't finish high school, 50 percent of minorities don't finish high school. We've got to work on this, and my, my wife and I are leading a campaign with this purpose.

"Also, I think, the new president has to realize that the world looks to America for leadership, and so we have to show leadership on some issues that the world is expecting us to, whether it's energy, global warming and the environment. And I think we have to do a lot more with respect to poverty alleviation and helping the needy people of the world. We need to increase the amount of resources we put into our development programs to help the rest of the world. Because when you help the poorest in the world, you start to move them up an economic and social ladder, and they're not going to be moving toward violence or terrorism of the kind that we worry about."

Education and global economic influence are the perfect combination of domestic and foreign policy items where the Right can show some creativity.

Using the steadfast principles of competition and choice, we've done a good job in not only coming up with the concept of vouchers, but communicating this issue with some success. I think we can do more on education though, including further calls for accountability of teachers and administrators as well as offering more choice within the public school system so that every child can move forward based on their own learning styles and career interests.

The Right also has a great opportunity to infuse principles of freedom into a merging of foreign and economic policy. More creativity for an "all of the above" strategy will be needed for energy and environment policy. I'm more intrigued with the future of America's foreign aid policy. The fact is that our aid should not promote paternalism and dependence as it currently does. Any aid we give should be tethered to opening borders and promoting economic freedom within the African and Latin American continents.

Am I a little disappointed with Powell's endorsement? Sure. And while I disagree with him on his characterization of the race in the short term, his long term observations are worth considering.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Colin Powell's endorsement is BS

Submitted by sweatingbanshee on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 18:55.

No one who calls himself a Conservative in any manner could in good conscience endorse Obama.  At least maintain some sort of conservative credibility and endorse Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin.

Parroting lame democratic talking points about McCain's allegedly vicious campaign are ridiculously disingenuous.

I agree 100%

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 20:58.

This is a DC-insider endorsement and perhaps an endorsement of one racial-barrier breaker of another, but Obama's position is so far to the left on so many issues that only an uninformed or liberal voter could be enthused about such an inexperienced left-wing candidate.

It alas is nothing but an 'outing' of Powell as an ungrateful unconservative operator.

 

Amen

Submitted by oldpapaman on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 11:22.

I agree totally!

I have an idea!

Submitted by CJK on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 19:01.

Let's just have Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld endorse him too! Then at least we can watch how the media will spin that in favor of Obama.

Bush endorsement

Submitted by Chris Palko on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 20:46.

of Obama might just be what McCain needs to win!

Palin- The Wilderness Guide or maybe not

Submitted by carltonyates on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 20:42.

Having spent the last eight years in the political presidential wilderness, I welcome you. Make yourself at home. You may be staying for 16 years. If Palin is your wilderness guide you may be staying for longer. Moosehead stew rocks, I speak from experience.

"Resolving such fundamental questions can take years, Mr. Brooks said, noting that in Britain, the Conservative Party spent a decade and a half reinventing itself after Margaret Thatcher left office. Following Goldwater’s rout in 1964, American conservatives struggled for 16 years before Ronald Reagan finally was elected president.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/weekinreview/19cohen.html?hp

"Having spent the last eight

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 21:09.

"Having spent the last eight years in the political presidential wilderness"

What are you talking about? Are you a Green party member? a communist? Your comment makes no sense if you are a Democrat. Daschle was majority leader, and now Democrats Harry Reid and Pelosi run Congress.  The Democrats have the majority in Congress so the Democrats are not in the wilderness - rather the Democrats are running most of the levers of power in Washington today, the media, the Congress, the permanent bureaucracy.

Putting a Democrat in the White House is just a matter of snuffing out opposition to the permanent elite's running this country.

Which means that the call for Sarah Palin to go into the wilderness is really a call for the people she represents to do likewise - the gun owners, Christians, family values people, anti-immigration, populists, etc.

Elites to Downscale Christian "Clinging" People: F U, you peasants, we are sick and tired of having to cater to you; now go sleep outside in the rain while we run things our way.

 

 

No Matter What Strata of Society One Resides...

Submitted by Darvin Dowdy on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 20:45.

...an ingrate lose is an ingrate loser.   Folks don't waste your time over this very mixed-up, confused individual,  Powell.   If you want to be inspired by a patriotic Black American may I recommend Ms. Frances Rice, US Army retired:  ( LINK )

She proudly proclaims, "MLK was a Republican". 

DD

MLK was a Republican

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 21:19.

This happens to be true.

It's also true that more Republicans than Democrats voted for the 1964 civil rights bill, and of course it was Republicans in the 1920s through the 1950s fighting for civil rights in Congress and southern Democrats fighting against it, and of course Republican chief justice Earl Warren who ruled to end segregation and Republican President Eisenhower who enforced it when he sent national guard into Arkansas.

So MLK may have had his reasons.

And MLK didnt even know JFK and RFK was wiretapping him.

Brooks is a faux conservative

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 20:47.

I think the NY Times keeps him around for the same reason the Bronx Zoo has wild animals--their customers want to see something they think is exotic being held in captivity.

Forget flyover country, Brooks wouldn't be considered a real conservative in Putnam County, for gosh sakes. 

NYTimes cant handle real conservatives

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 21:15.

That's why they run these potted plant conservatives.

The one thing true in politics is that things change. Obama's agenda is so wrong for America and so extreme, and he has managed the temporary art of getting diverse people to support him even though they dont support most of his agenda.  Such a hype and hope-based election ALWAYS creates a letdown.

Can't handle real conservatives?

Submitted by meelar on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 09:42.

*Cough*Billkristol*Cough.

Kristol may or may not be an idiot (I certainly think so, but YMMV) but can you seriously argue he's not a conservative?

Kirstol, an inside-the-beltway semi-conservative

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 20:58.

*Cough*Billkristol*Cough.

LOL. you're kidding me. If you think that's a real conservative, you lead a sheltered life.

The Weekly Standard is known for being a neo-con, watered-down conservative outlet. Kristol was in the tank for McCain during the primaries when we had more conservative option, he was for amnesty for illegal aliens, and he's been a 'greatness conservative' aka another excuse for big-govt conservatism, a failed attempt to triangulate to permajority. Didnt work, you can never out-pander tax-and-spend-like-drunken-sailors Democrats like Pelosi.

Kristol is doing great work supporting the McCain/Palin team. Understandable as he always liked McCain. Maybe he was right, we would have had some interesting differences if McCain was President from 2000 to 2004.

The gap between Kristol to a real conservative is like  the difference wine cooler to bourbon.   Nice  man, especially now that he's loyal to the McCain/Palin ticket, but consider him an appetizer-level conservative, not the heavy stuff. (In case you were wondering, if Kristol is a wine cooler, George Will is the good claret, Buchanan a gin and tonic, Hugh Hewitt the Mondavi, Malkin the Long Island Iced Tea, and Ann Coulter the everclear. Sowell is like that $200 bottle of champagne perhaps the clearest and best thinking out there on any side.)

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell1.asp

Go to The American Spectator, National Review, Townhall, or Commentary for more rich and varied conservative opinion. The New York Times prints the kiddie stuff so liberals can imagine they are getting the conservative view (they are not). Even IBD editorials have more meat than anything in the NYT.  If the Times would ever print Coulter, Thomas Sowell, RE Tyrrell, Buchanan, MIchelle Malkin, Walter Williams, etc. I suspect the lib readers would have cardiac arrest.

 

 

Colin Powell loses any

Submitted by alexashrugged on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 21:48.

Colin Powell loses any credibility with me as being a Republican when he says:

I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that's what we'd be looking at in a McCain administration.

The Supreme Court is the ultimate issue that unites all Republicans against Obama - how could a true Republican be against more Republican appointments?!  History shows that Republican appointments have a 50/50 chance of actually being strict constructionists, but Democrat appts are guaranteed to be Constitution-trashing liberals.

 

Also, we nominated a moderate like McCain, against the wishes of the conservative base, for people like Colin Powell and this is how he repays us?  I think the reason many people are blaming this endorsement on race is that they can't believe that Powell is so stupid as to believe the demonstrably false unity and bipartisanship Obama is trying to pretend he fosters.  How could such an intelligent man be so blind and willfully ignorant?  It boggles the mind.  Unless he was never Republican to begin with.

 

http://www.alexashrugged.com

The Judges is one area where the Democrats are extremists

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 22:08.

The Supreme Court is the ultimate issue that unites all Republicans against Obama - how could a true Republican be against more Republican appointments?! 

Absolutely true! And you have to be a real leftwing loonie to feel like a standup 'umpire' of a SCOTUS chief justice like Roberts has been a bad judge, or that more like him would be a bad thing.

 

Democrat appts are guaranteed to be Constitution-trashing liberals.

And it's not like Obama hasn't warned us.  It was Obama's favorite justice who went against our 5th amendment rights in Kelo and against our 2nd amendment rights in Heller.  So what is Powell worried about? He has quaffed the liberal DC kultursmog so long he thinks being strict constructionist, ie doing your job RIGHT, is a suspect thing.

It tells us that Powell is either very ignorant or simply not 'with us' on these basic matters all along.

How could such an intelligent man be so blind and willfully ignorant?  It boggles the mind.  Unless he was never Republican to begin with.

I was always for Term Limits for Congress-critters. Maybe we need to extend that to administration bureaucrats.

 

Powell's position on SCOTUS appointments was the tipping point

Submitted by lagomorph on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 14:16.

for my determination that he is a formerly great leader with whom I completely disagree.  He lost all credibility with me when he expressed "concern" about seeing more appointments of conservative-nominated Supreme Court justices.  In my experience, conservative appointments have absolutely nothing to do with overturning Roe v. Wade, although that's how I interpreted Colin Powell's expression of "concern".  John McCain made it very clear that his conservative requirement for a Supreme Court justice is simply one who does not legislate from the bench, period. 

I'm always intrigued by so-called libertarians who are so fiercely pro-choice that they would support a liberal Supreme Court judge who will arbitrarily and unconstitutionally legislate from the bench simply to avoid any possibility whatsoever that the Roe v. Wade "right to privacy law" will be overturned.  I'm captivated that the same very same people who give lip service to upholding the constitutional rights of those without an umbilical chord are completely without conscience when it comes to withholding all rights, including the right to life, of those who are still dependent upon one.   Perhaps the strangest manifestation of a double standard in the interpretation of the rights of the unborn can be seen in states where a murder of a pregnant woman is charged, tried and sentenced as a double-murder (i.e. the Scott Peterson murder of pregnant Lacey Peterson in California).  My personal interpretation of "pro-choice" is to let the mother choose to put the child up for adoption, keep the child herself, ask family members to help raise it, or leave it on a hospital doorstep instead of a dumpster.  Nevertheless, I'm not personally lobbying to overturn Roe v. Wade and doubt we will see that in our lifetime, regardless of who is appointed to SCOTUS.

Powell seemed almost on the verge of tears at one point during the interview, and I was impressed with the way that Brokaw really held his feet to the fire yesterday.  The most exciting news of the day to me was that Tom Brokaw is still an actual journalist.  For everyone on the Nu-Left who hates Bush and Cheney with an absolutel unbridled passion, watching Brokaw replay Powell's impassioned endorsement of both Darth Vader Cheney and Great Satan Bush from the 2000 Convention seemed to send the clear message that Colin Powell's judgment could be very, very questionable at best and downright incompetent at worst - especially since he was also referred to as the "closer" for the votes needed to support our commitment to the Iraq War.  What an LoL it would be if all the Nu-Left Obama supporters were to wake up today with a Powell endorsement hangover and ask themselves..."WTF!?". 

My favorite aspect of Brokaw's interview was the point he made about how helpful it might be for Mr. Ayers to renouce his own past to counteract his toxic "I wish we had bombed more" unrepentancy post-9/11.  The fact that Powell is so unconcerned about Ayers even though he came of age and served in Vietnam in the decade of 60's radicalism during which the SDS and the Weather Underground brought American Communism to an utterly murderous height that helped defeat us in Vietnam and usher in the capture, torture, reeducation and deaths of almost a million Vietnamese as a result is simply confounding.  When Powell lauds Obama's "intellectual curiosity" yet displays none of his own and merely parrots the Socialist Democratic party line that the Ayers/Obama relationship was minimally casual in spite of Dr. Kurtz' revelations to the absolute contrary, he comes off as intellectually weak, out of touch, incurious and in denial.

I thought it was interesting that he admitted having gotten to know Obama very, very well "over the past two years".  Obviously his announcement is not "news" to anyone in Washington.  Quisling seems like an inappropriate term for Powell, as I doubt that his endorsement is going to sway more than a few undecideds.  More likely it will simply convince the already-convinced even more that their vote for Obama is justified. 

GOP Nursing Home

Submitted by carltonyates on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 22:09.

I'm reminded of the sad visits I have made to a low cost nursing home. The GOP now has the vibe and stench of such a place. Your candidates are the bed-ridden patients, who know how the show ends.

The nurse is calling you to bed

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Sun, 10/19/2008 - 22:17.

Time to take your pills and clean your bedpad, carlton.

Trolls need their beauty sleep too, dont ya know.

 

This is nothing more than Powell trying to reform his legacy.

Submitted by Joe C. on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 05:53.

Colin Powell needs the Media to reform his legacy of being proven wrong at every turn for the last 18 years. He advised not to go into Baghdad and finish the job in the first Iraq War, which would have obviated the rest of history since. He enabled Clinton’s fecklessness regarding terrorism. He spearheaded (reluctantly) the liberation of Iraq - which he didn’t believe in - then stabbed Pres. Bush in the back at every turn as his Sec. of State. Now, he is completing the circle of incompetent advice to the country by paying his pennance to Lord Obama and the Media by again stabbing in the back the one man who was right during the whole War.

After hearing and reading Powell’s non-sensical endorsement, I honestly doubt that this is anything more than another Black guy endorsing Barack to stick it to Whitey so that he looks good in the history books.

nonsensical?

Submitted by cr on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 07:00.

Just because you can't understand it, doesn't mean it's nonsensical. He was quite clear. If he wanted to stick it to Whitey he would have skipped the military, joined the 'weathermen' and dem party.

you should quit the meth habit Archie Bunker.

Bigger than Obama

Submitted by cr on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 07:49.

I think that Powell's endorsement is very big news. I can hope only it's the beginning of the end of the road for demogogic fascism in the republican party and a return to Goldwater style conservatism. And it, like other times before, may be 8 or more years for this to shake out.

Are you paying attention to the sucking sound in the party. It's average (actually above average) republicans leaving. What's left are the extremist who have little ability communicate ideas beyond screaming and name calling.

There are 280+ americans living in this country. Not once have we ever turned toward socialism nor dictatorship in our history, despite party change in the white house. Yes, the Dem party has has tended toward socialism, but the Reps has come to symbolize big government, fiscal irresponsibility, unneeded forign intervention, and secret intrusion into the privacy of individual americans.

Stop being paranoid, Barack isn't the end of the U.S.; learn to disagree with people respectfully; and start learning to tolerate dissenting opinion. It's one of the beauties of this country.

Maybe then Reps will get back into power. All majorities fail eventually. Don't be your own worst enemy. People are tired (Dems, Reps, Ind, Libs)  of the nasty ("agree with me or you're S&*T") B.S.

--------------------------

And by the way, this was a pretty good article. Most of the articles on Powell are about how he, and everyone else, is wrong. But it's rare when someone thinks they're right, but asks the question, what are we doing wrong? Hopefully, more people will start reevaluating why things are going wrong rather than blaming people for things going wrong. Powell's a smart guy, really smart. If he wanted to be a dem, he could just do it. Why did reps lose him? I think his speach is a good start to address that question.

 

Powell reveals leftward tendancies, thats all...

Submitted by Darvin Dowdy on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 07:16.

"Now, I think most of us would vehemently disagree with Powell on his comments about Palin and his difficulty with "conservative appointments to the Supreme Court."

What we've seen here is Colin Powell "coming out of the closet" so to speak.  This is what the guy has always been.  Thats all it is.  Nothing more.  Many of us have expected this.  By all means do we "not" want to make adjustments to the conservative movement or the GOP.  No way.  We also see another indication of George Bush's inability to delegate.  Its horrifying now especially to think that this guy Powell was our SecState for so many years.  Its always been my opinion that Powell absolutely destroyed our relationship with Russia.  Russia should have been our strong ally in the GWOT. 

We should do nothing but  recognize this left leaning ingrate liberal for what he is and continue moving rightward.  Where Middle America wants us to go. DD

Actually

Submitted by cr on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 08:23.

According to the polls, America doesn't want you going further to the right. This of course has to be confirmed by the elections, but . . . read the article above. For many centrist republicans, the powell endorsement matters. And if you just blow them off as closet libs, then most likely they'll say f' you, I'll vote dem. Just as Powell has done.

Formula for failure...

Submitted by johnson springs on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 09:25.

By all means do we "not" want to make adjustments to the conservative movement or the GOP. 

We have to confront the questions posed by Powell's defection. How can we not? Do you really think there is a future for a GOP/conservative political movement that does not appeal to someone like Colin Powell? Do you really think he's been a liberal (really? a liberal?) all these years and we just didn't notice?

This is not a serious or thoughtful response to the problems we face today. Are you not paying attention to what is happening in this election? 1) GOP is running John McCain at the top of the ticket (John McCain!!); 2) GOP congressional caucus is retiring en masse and/or losing at the polls; and national Democrats are so flush with cash they are now targeting spending on the state legislature level where redistricting decisions will be made after the 2010 census. The GOP will be a substantially less significant factor in DC than it has been in our lifetimes after 2008 and beyond.

Consider these facts, the Obama campaign raised $150mm in September with an average donation of $86, they have raised $600mm for the whole campaign ($600mm!!). Over 3 million individual Americans have donated to the campaign dewarfing Goldwater in '64 and Kerry '04 who each had around a million. Why is this happening? If you have any faith in basic economics and market theory you must ask what drives so many Americans to give so much money to the other guys.

We have to change something because what we're doing is just not working. 

Can't prove it Johnson Sprgs...

Submitted by Darvin Dowdy on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 19:21.

...but I'm telling you that the average Middle American wants the entire political dynamic to move nationalistic and rightward.  To take a big jump in that direction.  There is a massive block of people that are easily discouraged from going to the trouble of voting.  Will use any excuse not to vote.  Mostly because they're too darned busy.  And they don't get involved in the political process because the whole mess exasperates them.  And neither party excites them.  Nor do 3rd parties.  This massive block is hard-core nationalistic and conservative.  In that order.  Figure out a way to get this "block" enthusiastic and they'll come out to vote.  As I see it both parties are content to keep this giant remaining asleep because both parties have totally bought into globalism and want no part of these nationalistic, hayseed hicks in flyover country. 

I'm convinced that the dem's don't necessarily bring out so many more legal voters but that the above mentioned block, who formerly voted GOP are Staying at Home on election day.  Its the stay-at-home crowd that is killing the GOP.   The "estranged" former Reagan Democrats and independents. There ought to be a way to make that case by looking at overall voting numbers/percentages starting back in 1980 to present.  Including the midterms.  But heck, I wouldn't know how to find out that info nor have I the time.  Would you? Anybody? Or is there already some existing study relating to this?  DD

Has Powell left conservatism?

Submitted by johnson springs on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 09:05.

Or has conservatism left Powell?

I think that is a question for all engaged conservatives to ask themselves. If contemporary conservatism turns off Colin Powell, is that Powell's problem or ours?

Those of us who value a central role for conservative ideals in American political life will have some tough questions to answer in the next 2 years. The seriousness with which we approach those questions and the quality of our answers will largely determine whether conservatism can regain its vigor and purpose in the near term. Fortunately, we will have plenty of free time in which to think.

C. Powell and the Spirit of Party Past

Submitted by jhmccloskey on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 18:32.

"Has conservatism left Powell?  Or has conservatism left Powell?"

It does not, apparently, cross the neocomradely type of mind that possibly there was no leavin’ at all, because General Powell was never a conservative at all.  Nor even "a conservative."  Let alone A Conservative!

I don't happen to know the personal history of C. Powell, especially which pols he availed himself of to advance his career.  But he must have started the self-advancin’ process thirty or forty years back, when there will have been so-called "Liberal Republicans" or "Moderate Republicans" around for him to exploit.  How should he know in advance that their race was doomed to go extinct?

Well, perhaps he could have known by bein’ a deep student of Big Management Party history, capable of workin’ out for himself that all those oddly unconservative Elephant Folk between A. Landon and W. Wilkie in 1938 and, say, A. Specter and C. Shays, dinosaurs still extant in 2008, were so at odds with the fundamental ethos of the Party of Grant and Hoover that they could not possibly last forever.  But if C. Powell had known that forty years ago, he would not have been a West Pointer seekin’ to exalt himself in the violence profession.  Presumably that counterfactual C. Powell would have been some sort of graduate student in the Am. Hist. Dept. and we would never have heard of him.

In any case, it is the Landons and Wilkies and Rockefellers and Scrantons and such who have done most of the leavin’, not the good general.  Since they had to die in order to escape from the Goldwater Gang, it would be a bit unreasonable to write them down as traitors to it.  The only flat-out Benedict Arnold whose name occurs to me off-hand is ex-palæocomrade J. V. Lindsay, who was never more than Big Party mayor of New York City at a time (1966-1973) when that job had already become much less important that it once was.   (JVL is extinct too, as from 19 December 2000.)  Perhaps former Congresscritter J. B. Anderson, the guy who dyed his hair white in order to run for President in 1980 without reference to the Party of Big Management, qualifies as well.  Myself, I'd apply the maxim de minimis non curat lex, however.

Needless to say, there has been twenty times as much traffic in the opposite directions, especially of neoscalawags down in Dixie.  Every non-wombschoolboy knows about them nowadays, but that does not mean that C. Powell should have seen ’em comin’ in 1968.  Who -- i.e., what faction or factionette already in detectable existence -- would you advise a buddin’ young careerist to pick this week as most likely to be powerful at Beltway City in the spring of A. D. 2041?   If you know enough to make a plausible sounding answer to such a question, you would not be interested in the C. Powell sort of career anyway, would you?  You'd have already resolved to be a pol, or perhaps a Goldwaterite ideologue, when you grow up.

Minus the Landons and Wilkies and Rockefellers and Scrantons and Specters and Shayses (plus all female Senators from Maine), the militant extremist Republicans are perhaps not really a political party at all.  Certainly they are not one of the same type as America’s party has reliably been, all the way back to Gen. Jackson and Mr. Van Buren and perhaps even Mr. Jefferson.   But forty years ago the gap was much smaller, and C. Powell appears to be devoted to the mob that he chose to join many years ago in a recognizably parteilich kind of way:

REPORTER: Are you still a Republican?
POWELL: Yes.

To judge from Limbaugh & Co.,  most of the Big Management Party neocomrades will find that exchange, which occurred as the general was on his way out of the "Meet the Press" studio on Sunday morning, either mystifyin’ or infuriatin’. 

Democrats and other politically normal persons cannot be counted on to understand it thoroughly, I admit, because the Spirit of Party has not had an easy time of it anywhere ever since TV (and the financial arrangements TV necessitates) first came in.  Simply being a donkey or an elephant does not pay the small investor satisfactory dividends any more, and, as a rule, pro hacks take the line that party exists for them and not they for party.

C. Powell is neither the one nor the other, however, neither a credentialled GOP Genius® nor a rank and file member of the GOP base and vile.  C. Powell has not "left" the Party of Grant, nor has the Party of Grant left him, he and it are both located much the same place as ever.  However in the good old days, the PoG used to be somewhat broader than it has become, so that where C. Powell stands was unquestionably elephant turf.  At present there are questions: one needs to talk about emanations and penumbræ and epicycles and ancient history in order to make intelligible why the general should want to call himself by the R-word.

After another decade or degeneration has passed, probably such explanation will have passed beyond the resources of spin and sophistry.   By then, though, C. Powell will be pure history, and therefore pure bunk.

Oh, well, ’tis no worse than must happen to us all.

Happy days.
 

Elegant and incisive post!!!

Submitted by Our Paul on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 09:11.

Elegant and incisive post!!!

Yes, very elegant and incisive.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 10:18.

May I sugget you go

Here, here and here for an equally elegant and incisive rebuttal.

 

ex animo

davidfarrar

 

Your comments really spoke to me

Submitted by Terry_Mahoney on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 10:34.

I am a registered independent living in Maryland.  In reaction to MY revulsion to the policies and campaigning of the GOP for the 2002 mid-term election (Saxby Chambliss, Rove, et al) I forced myself to reevaluate the way I approached voting.

Starting in with the 2004 election, I left the Democrats (Whom I only joined in reaction to the policies of the Bush administration and the GOP Congress) and pledged to vote no more than 50% of any ballot for one party. 

Being partisan and voting party line (particularly at the local level) does not jive with my experience that most Americans are patriots and want what is best for the country.  Further, the answers that will carry our nation forward will be found in widely different political camps.  I WANT to vote for GOP candidates, in fact, I must, according to my own principles and pledge. 

When people take key topics off the table before they will even start a discussion (Abortion, SCOTUS, Multilateralism) they lose a whole swath of voters, like me, and end up in a closed loop, just talking to themselves.

PLEASE listen to this commentator, his arguments are necessary adjustments the GOP needs to make in order to move forward effectively.

Semper Fi,

Terry Mahoney

Three points...

Submitted by dean2 on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 11:20.

First, you're just dead wrong about the efficacy of vouchers.  Not only are they a failure based on all objective observation and data, but furthermore your fellow conservatives agree:  http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0804.anrig.html

Second, why does anyone want to relegate the SCOTUS to "ugly step child" status?  They're the third and co-equal branch of our government, not a nit-picking society or a rubber stamp for Congress and POTUS.  It's their job to consider the Constitution and all influencing factors, then make a decision that works for the times in which the issue is being decided.  It's NOT their job to pretend to understand what the founders would have decided about issues they of which they couldn't possibly have even conceived.  That's the beauty of the Constitution, it's adaptable for the needs of the day. 

Finally, I very much welcome honest, intellectual debate from conservatives.  I've used the word "conservatives", emphasizing the quotations, for the past 15 or so years because most of the Republican base, the Pat Buchanan style conservatives that dominate the party, aren't actually conservatives at all.  They're Birchers, at best, and the very people whom WF Buckley, et al, hoped to drive from the party.  That was a worthwhile notion! 

Conservatism should be a thoughtful enterprise, not a pitchfork mob.  I hope many of you will take a cue from Christo Buckley, David Brooks, and the truckload of other conservative intellectuals and return to fight for your ideals in a worthy fashion.  The continual mudslinging and scare mongering just make you look pathetic.

Bottom line, Powell was spot on with most of his critique of his party.

Unrelated note:  the comments functionality in this blog is FAR superior to any other blog that I frequent.  Nicely done, and thanks. 

Colin Powell and the GOP

Submitted by oldpapaman on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 11:21.

Colin Powell has always been a "moderate" Republican: he has never supported prolife positions and has only been "conservative" on the use of military power. He was comfortable with George Bush the elder's policies, but not W's. The only good thing he did--which he will try and "correct" once he is in the BHO camp--was to keep openly gay individuals out of the military when he was the CJCS under Clinton. For that I will always be grateful--until he changes his position. Loyalty is not his strong point.

Loyalty????

Submitted by gunthestops on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 11:49.

So are you saying that he should be loyal to a party not to America?  Wan't that the point , he was choosing Obama because he thought he would be a better president for the future of America.  Wish more Americans were like him!!! 

What The Republican Party Is Missing Is A World View

Submitted by Allen on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 11:59.

Obama is presenting America with a platform that presents a world view that proposes to replace the failed ways of Washington. Obama understands that you can't compromise your principles and expect to attract mass support. You have to sell your principles to the electorate. And he has done a masterful job of promoting his ideas of compassion based on class warfare, negotiations in the place of military action, and most importantly a radical change from politics as usual. He is so focused on driving home the last point that his campaign is almost devoid of any identification with the Democrat Party -- he understands they are part of the problem. (See the Democrat Party's poll numbers.)

Republicans would make a mistake to try and win hearts and minds with a piecemeal approach to issues. The Republicans have to adopt a world view that is different than Obama's and as compelling. Asking voters to support candidates because they are endorsed by the Republican Party means nothing these days. By selling out to the Democrat world view on the bail-out, nationalizing education (No Child Left Behind), and immigration the Republicans are seen by their past supporters as a Party that stands for nothing other than getting elected. (There are a few outstanding exceptions, like Cantor, Ryan, Demint,...).

The aforementioned Republicans have conservative principles that are the foundations of a Republican world view that can rival Obama and the liberals. They need to be heard, to be the face of a resurgent Republican Party.

 

Biden Admits Obama is Unprepared for International Crisis

Submitted by lumpy on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 12:13.

 

 

God I remember when everyone thought Powell was the shit!

Submitted by Big Ben 4 liberty on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 12:42.

Back in 1995 I was utterly amazed by the number of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who wanted him to run for president.  They never knew anything about this man or his political views but each group just assumed for whatever reason that he was "one of them".  Then he wrote that autobiography (or perhaps had it ghost written) where  he stated he was pro-abortion rights, pro-gun control and pro-affirmative action so that conservatives rightly realized he was not one of them but many RINOS would still love him as the GOP nominee.  Perot-sters still wanted him for their United We Stand/ Reform party movement and Democrats were actually saying at the time that Clinton should have made the ultimate pro-affirmative action statement by stepping aside for Powell to be the nominee in '96.

All of this confused me at the time, not just about the fact that we really knew so little about Powell at the time, but his performance as the former Joint Cheifs of Staff left so little to be desired. I fully agree with Joe. C's post about his endorsement of Obama.  He is trying for a new cabinet appointment in the utimate affimirtive action candidate's future administration. This man is really an idiot and we should not give a rat's ass what he thinks.

You are right

Submitted by spartacus on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 16:21.

We shouldn't give a care about what Powell thinks, but unfortunately, what this man has done does matter and we do care.

I'm appalled by his proclamation because the average person - who doesn't care enough to really get to know the issues, just listens to what he wants to hear if he's listening at all - will see this as another 'sign' that Obama should be voted president.

It's just a shame.

Where the GOP has gone wrong

Submitted by boyydz on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 12:54.

It's difficult for the GOP to resonate with the public when it fails to (a) communicate a coherent philosophy of government and economics and (b) live by its presumed long-term principles. The GOP is supposedly the party of small government and limited spending. Unfortunately, the six years of GOP majority government led to increasing deficits and national debt. Americans expect the GOP to show spending restraint, balance the federal budget, and begin paying DOWN the national debt. Having failed to do so, Americans rightly question the sincerity of the GOP to its own vaunted principles.

How badly this has hurt the party into which conservatives throw their lot (lacking anywhere else of critical mass to go) is clear. The Dems have nominated the weakest presidential candidate - by any objective standard - since 1900. Despite this fact, the GOP cannot gain traction even in the national election. This is what happens when the American people feel betrayed by their leadership. Republicans longed for an opportunity to govern with a Congressional majority for... well, forever (the 1920s?) In 2001, they finally got their opportunity. While the 9/11 attacks were a tragedy, they provided GWB with the advantage of the ages: a chance for the GOP to be the nation's salvation. Alas, lack of foresight and plain bad luck intervened. Intelligence data that everyone believed turned out to be mistaken, and the Iraq War ended up mismanaged. Today, Americans see it, even with victory looming, as a failure. Their reasons are twofold and spot on: (1) they wouldn't have started it in the first place if they had known the correct information and (2) it has cost a pile of money (around $2T to date?) that they see as misdirected. However, despite this downfall, the people would have still been willing to forgive the GOP if they had managed to control spending outside the Iraq War.

People simply will not forgive the GOP's failure to walk its talk. So endemic is this failure that it leaves John McCain, who by all rights should mop up the floor with Obama given his numerous shortcomings, in an unenviable position of having to strain to develop policy ideas that will coax people to forget the standard GOP small government views. Furthermore, people understandably distrust the GOP to lead us out of an economic problem when the couldn't deliver on its primary thrust.

This is a shame, since the public are being led down a path away from where they want to go since they distrust the GOP so greatly. Party leadership must develop an intraelection plan that renews public trust in the GOP by (a) restating the party's governmental and economic philosophies and (b) delivering Congressional votes that align with those philosophies.

Way past restating; how about proving?

Submitted by johnson springs on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 13:41.

...since they distrust the GOP so greatly. Party leadership must develop an intraelection plan that renews public trust in the GOP by (a) restating the party's governmental and economic philosophies and (b) delivering Congressional votes that align with those philosophies.

Strong messaging is a hallmark of the modern GOP. In the current situation that raises the bar because the message machine has been very effectively championing our principles throughout this period where our leaders were actively betraying them. So I think "restating the party's...philosophies" is way too little, way too late to overcome the consequences of our actions.

We're going to have to prove our fidelity to those principles. And that ain't going to be easy.