How clueless can you be?

Opining that John McCain deserves his own self-description as a “proud conservative,” John at Powerline professes himself “surprised at the extent to which conservative activists really don’t like him.”

Maybe John is surprised because his main basis for thinking of McCain as a conservative is that he has been “solid on the biggest issue of our time: the global war on terror.” In other words, supporting Bush’s hyper-Wilsonian crusade to democratize the world makes McCain a conservative—a status that, as John sees it, is not contradicted by McCain’s support for the most radical open-borders scheme in American history, by his calling Americans racists and nativists for opposing it, by his statement that the historic American culture is a bad thing (since America, according to McCain, is a better country now that it has no common culture), and by his simultaneous call for the infusion of Hispanic “blood” and “culture” into the U.S.

When exponents of an ideology, in this case neoconservatism, confess their inability to comprehend obvious features of the world around them, in this case the fact that a radical anti-nationalist and anti-traditionalist politician is not seen by conservatives as a conservative, it is time for them to turn out the lights.

- end of initial entry -

Ben writes:

A lot of this clueless behavior stems from what I have heard many times from “conservatives.” That after all is said and done, when it all comes down to election time, the only thing that matters is security. It doesn’t matter what their stand on abortion is, immigration, culture, morals, etc. The only thing that matters when you go to vote is this: Will this politician keep my family safe?

One way in their minds of determining whether a person is fit for President or “keeping us safe” is his or her support for the forever Iraq war. Staying in the endless war of Iraq, accomplishing nothing, makes them feel safer.

Unfortunately, this reality makes not only McCain a legitimate candidate on the Republican ticket, but also Rudy.

LA replies:

Yes, absolutely. The classic statement in this regard was John Podhoretz’s celebratory comment, after 9/11, that now we didn’t have to think about the culture war anymore.

What is neoconservatism? The reduction of politics and culture to a single, simple, easily understood and easily exportable formula, such as “freedom” or “democracy,” combined with the political elevation of the neocons as the disseminators and teachers of this formula. The reduction of all political and cultural concerns to the concern for physical safety follows the same neocon pattern.

Of course, the protection of citizens from attacks on their persons and property is the first duty and purpose of government. But to portray such protection as virtually the sole purpose of government, so that all other values get cast aside, is destructive of the political good. That neocons and Republicans have engaged in this kind of reductionism since 9/11 could be seen as an understandable response to the left’s anti-Americanism and indifference to security concerns, but that still doesn’t make it right.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 17, 2006 11:33 AM | Send