Sunday, March 4, 2018

Don Surber: Ex-conservative Charen discovers liberal love

Don Surber: Ex-conservative Charen discovers liberal love: I was going to tweet this thought, but then I decided I don't work for Twitter. I work for me. Besides, I need more than 280 charact...


Updated, 3.4.18:

Well, I did a little research on Goldwater, and no, he was not racist.  As a matter of fact, he seemed to be turning liberal in his later years.

Actually, Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because it was an overreach.  If you look at what it has become, you would have to agree that he was right.  Absolutely right, which may sound "extremist", but truth is truth.  You don't water down truth.  It is, or it isn't.

Originally posted, 2.26.18:

I like Surber, but then he says some stuff that raises my antenna up a bit.

He calls Goldwater a racist.  Hello?  Sorry, but opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not necessarily an act of racism.  This falls into the habit that seems so prevalent these days of calling anybody who doesn't fall into the groupthink a "racist".  I'd have to see a lot of evidence that Goldwater was racist, and this alone does not qualify for that.  Racism is a pretty serious charge that gets thrown out there way damned too often.

Goldwater was a flawed candidate, in my opinion.  He just wasn't a clever man.  Somebody wrote his nomination acceptance speech for him, and it made him look like an extremist.  Goldwater fell into that trap himself.  He had nobody to blame for that but himself.  Here's a paraphrasing of what Goldwater said:  "I would remind you that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.  I would also remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice!"  Stuff like that croaked Goldwater politically.  You just cannot have that much zeal in politics.  Words have to be carefully used.

Goldwater also managed to get himself linked up with the use of atomic bombs.  The famous "daisy" teevee ad followed.

Besides all that, there was a great deal of dislike between the Rockefeller Republicans and the conservatives.  The conservatives needed the Rockefeller types.  I know.  I know.  We don't like 'em any better today than then, but we still need them to win.  Thing is, we just cannot allow them to get too much control over us.  But they sure don't like us at all.

George P. Bush comes to mind.  I have been paying attention to state races a bit more, and his name seems to be on the downswing.  If we kick them out, they may retaliate like they did in 1964.  That is why Johnson's victory was so massive.  The Rockefellers voted for LBJ.  They will do it again if we don't watch it.  I dislike the Bushes now.  This wasn't always the case, but there's something wrong with that outfit.  But we cannot just cast them aside.  They will take revenge.  That is their nature.

Finally, conservatism gets redefined a lot.  I have a lot of trouble with open borders types calling themselves conservatives.  I also have a lot of trouble with people equating corporations with capitalism.  Also with free trade uber alles--- aka globalism.  Trump is challenging that, and that is what gets these people's panties in a wad.  Trump is sending conservatism back to its roots, so to speak, and these people are mad as hell about it.

Surber rips the National Review, which doesn't bother me much, since the National Review has made me mad in recent times, but then... they haven't gone completely batshit crazy liberal, either.

Trump gave Mona Charen an opportunity to speak.  She was rude.  But that is what you get sometimes.  Trump may regret being nice to them, but then, he hasn't always been so nice.  I wouldn't jump too hard on Charen and her ilk.  We may need 'em.

Reagan's success was in keeping the GOP united.  Trump is trying to do the same.  It isn't helpful to try to tear each other apart.

No comments: