The clueless, compromised conservative establishment
Tony Blankley, whom I had once respected until he became too much of a toady to Bush, writes in the Washington Times:
Despite the sobriquet “the Comeback Kid” given to Mr. Obama by the brilliant, normally politically spot-on conservative gentleman and columnist Charles Krauthammer, Mr. Obama has not come back.Krauthammer supports every plank in the social-liberal and sexual-liberationist agenda. He supports homosexual “marriage.” He has called exclusion of homosexuals from the military a form of “discrimination” and suggested that it is morally equivalent to the exclusion of blacks. He has said that all privately owned guns should eventually be confiscated (see first comment at this entry). He has never articulated a single conservative principle in his life, whether constitutional, economic, or social. Even while opposing Obamacare, he declared that socialized medicine is inevitable. After Obamacare passed, when the entire conservative movement was determining to repeal it, he stated as some kind of absolute fact that it will never be repealed. Yet Blankley would have his conservative readers believe that Krauthammer is a conservative. Such a remark is not about truth, and it’s not about conservatism. It’s about the Conservative Establishment über alles.
In this video from Brent Baier’s program on Fox last February, conservative sage Krauthammer declares that “our morés have changed in the last 16 years” (meaning homosexual conduct used to be wrong and now it isn’t?), and that keeping homosexuals out of the military is discriminatory, while his fellow “conservative” from the Weekly Standard, the empty-faced, affect-free Stephen Hayes, also supports the inclusion of homosexuals in the military.
Daniel S. writes:
For men like Charles Krauthammer and Stephen Hayes, being conservative means wishing to impose liberal democracy on the rest of the world, especially the Middle East, by force if need be. All the principles elaborated by traditional conservative figures like Russell Kirk and F. A. Hayek mean little to such men, as they care not for the permanent things. It all ultimately boils down to one thing for them: revolutionary democracy. Hence, they don’t care about destroying ancient Christian communities in Iraq and Kosovo for the sake of democracy being established in the Muslim world. Hence, they don’t care about open homosexuality in the military, because a homosexual soldier is just as useful at spreading democracy in the Middle East or the Balkans as a heterosexual soldier. They don’t care about mass Hispanic immigration, because they see the Hispanics as a source of potential soldiers to go fight for Middle Eastern democracy.LA writes:
We’ve gone over the issue many times. See this rending February 2004 discussion about the hopelessness of “conservatism.” Some speak of withdrawing. But how does one withdraw from one’s own society?Jim C. writes:
Blankley wrote:LA replies:
Good point. But I think “seriously damaged his credibility as a pundit” is an overstatement.”
Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 28, 2010 08:49 AM | Send