Tuesday, 13 June 2006

Furious Partisanship

If anything can sum up the current, successful modus operandi of the conservative movement in America, I believe it is the concept of furious partisanship.

Not only has its aggressive style caught and kept the Democrats on the defensive (a rare position for the party not in power), it has also made them look weak, indecisive and uncharismatic. Crucially, it drew the liberals into fighting a partisan political war that forced them to define themselves by moving further to the left and therefore further from the power in a predominantly conservative nation that balks at liberal over reach.

It’s not been without its problems however, the GOP has lost the stronghold of California to the Democrats with its race and religion tactics; California was always more interested in Republican individualism and laissez-faire approach and for now is a bedrock for the Democrats (with however, a Republican-lite Governor).

It has also spawned an awful array of fanatical, conservative, pseudo-commentators, which spew forth the right-wing agenda with an admirable degree of chutzpah: Ann Coulter (who seems to be getting more grotesque with each outburst, the attack on the 9/11 widows being particularly vulgar as it was delivered in a cocktail dress) and Bill O’Reilly (caught up in yet another terrible gaff over his comparison of Malmedy and Haditha) being prime examples.

But these figures of hate are useful tools to keep politics in the United States polarised and this plays directly into the conservative’s hands.


  1. Another insightful, well-thought-out post ... Thank you and please keep these posts going, I truly enjoy their stimulus to my thinking.

  2. Not only is Ann Coulter getting more grotesque with every outburst, she is getting more air time than she deserves.
    Personally I wonder if she says the things she does so that she can sell her worthless books and pad her bank account.

    I had wondered what other people had thought of Coulter's snide remarks and our failing political system, and you certainly nailed it... we should be very afraid.

    I hope more people read this post, and the word goes forth!

  3. I thought Ann Coulter was supposed to be going to jail for voter fraud. When is that happening. Also, when is her m2f sex change scheduled to be finished, it seems like it's been going on for ages!

    (Look, somebody has to be immature enough to comment on her naaaassssty physical appearance, so it might as well be me.)

  4. Shoot them, appoint responsible leaders. Simple answer.

  5. Okay, the complicated answer is to embrace the parts of the Conservative agenda which actually have a purpose and/or a point in human history.

    Fiscally conservative tactics pursue two basic paths--one to grow, the other to shrink. Economic growth is pretty much the same game regardless of partisan dedication.

    What has become "Conservative," however, was not always "right-wing," and investment in education has always been near the top of importance in long-term strategy.

    The difference, roughly, between Left and Right today is that, despite the enormous gains of humanism during the 20th Century, the neo-Conservative movement regressed its mindset back to imperialist stupidity, and restratified society, so that the "better" sons and daughters of the American people receive the education necessary to advance.

    It is, sadly, untrue to say "Left" politics are much different, but let's applaud them for making more noise about the poor and disabled people they leave behind whenever they grab the reins of power.

    Still, under strictly-operated principles, Conservative financial business is able to create large cash reserves. Of course, Nazis usually resort to "shrink" in order to create these surpluses, and in every case they spend them on themselves, throwing the odd tax cut--which is met by a four-fold cut in services, to the American idiot to make him think he is getting bang for his buck.

    A conservative fiscal tactical approach, which generates large cash reserves can be complemented by a reinvestment of those reserves in things which stimulate economic growth. This is where Canada used to have a party worth a shit, called the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

    The PCs used stringent fiscal policies balanced more or less toward a socially-responsible construct under which all citizens were privy to a basic set of life-dependent services (FREE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE, etc), human rights (in spirit, anyway), and a sense of civic decency which made us the envy of the free world, the moles to the south notwithstanding.

    This kind of pinko politics always irritated Washington, because, regardless of which party is in power, the American system exists as an exploitative bureaucracy under the guise of a libertarian protector of practically nonexistent rights.

    The single issue which has irked Washington for the past fifty years is healthcare. Every Canadian citizen pays a certain amount of taxes, which is chipped toward a health insurance system which used to be, before serious American interference, the best in the world.

    This goes to point, and sums up America. The old Canadian system, recently destroyed by the usurption of the Canadian seat of government by a hostile foreign-backed rogue party, existed in the name of the Crown, but drew its power THROUGH the people, not FROM their lives.

    The benefit of the citizen always leads to the benefit of the nation, and in the single most important aspect of life, the physical health of one's body, bringing the miracle of modern healthcare to every citizen brings strength and morale to the entire country.

    America exists to take from its people. It is not a faceless entity, and is composed of a privileged class of less than thirty thousand people. From three hundred million, not to mention the billions they exploit outside their boundaries, these few privileged people literally steal their livelihoods.

    This is the Ratio Esse of America, illegitimate though it is. Conservative or Liberal, each would do a decent job of government if each performed their tasks as appointed by their election by the People.

    However, whether Buttface or Democrat, the aim of leadership is to take from the People at home and abroad. Under this single guideline, issues of fair trade, good faith, military prudence, sobre thought, or other noble traits are considered unnecessary, and almost universally despised by American "thinkers."

    This is why America is universally hated. They are the fat kid on the block who'll hit your kid sister with a bat if you don't surrender your lucky charms, and they'll never be anything other that.

    As the bully should be ignored, so should the world turn its back on America. Disentangle ourselves from its web of treachery, and it will fade like yesterday's piss stains in the snowbank.

    I think people will be sad to see the piss stains go, however.

  6. Not to take anything away from your post Daniel, but the above comment has to be the most lucid piece of writing from the col.dr. that I have ever seen. (the second one of course)...

  7. Col.dr's comments, are good compliments to your post.

  8. Bud and Renegade Eye: I agree and that's why I love the Col.Dr! But I've a response to his comment...

    I think economics is skated over a wee bit too quickly by the Col.Dr, America has yet to have a true neo-conservative budget programme, the nearest it got was Clinton's time in office.

    I also don't think that America is anywhere near an imperialist mindset, I wrote a lengthy post on the American Empire which roughly came to the conclusion that under current leadership it couldn't acheive that goal and frankly it doesn't want to. I also hold issue that noe-cons want an elitest society as the movement has formed by Jews from poor quality college backgrounds; on education it is actually about opening it for all.

    I agree that the current conservative fiscal doctrine is one of 'voodoo economics' again but it is a repairable ill, what is more alarming is that the American people have fallen for it twice and still think their economy is strong.

    Where I think the noble Col.Dr has it down pat is the statement: "the American system exists as an exploitative bureaucracy under the guise of a libertarian protector of practically nonexistent rights", libertarian being the crucial word here as this is basically the feel of most of American government since the beginning of time with noble exceptions of FDR and Johnson who focused on many of the elements Col.Dr discussed but one of them did it in times of war and poverty and the other lost power by this liberal over reach and this is what it comes down to.

    Col.Dr, I don't think its Washington that is irked by good social policy but the American people, they don't want it, they don't buy into it hence my research into why Americans are so much more conservative than any other advanced nation.

  9. Very accurate comments on me skating economics, because it's too easy to focus too much on the letter of doctrine, and miss the practical exercise which always happens.

    I'm also flitting between Canadian and American Conservatives which are cut from the same cloth, but operate under two different sets of rules. Let me explain.

    Premier Mike Harris implemented a severe set of cuts to social services when he took over Ontario. However, he reworked the internal social framework, which for a few years worked out amazingly. Basically, those without work received a basic income, while opportunities for them were increased through "independent education," which means the government supplied the resources and planted a number of Independent Learning Centres.

    Those who wanted it could go and take it, and in a truly "fair" environment, which still retained the basic standard of living for all Ontarians, the economy moved forward miraculously.

    However, Big Business was not made happy, because for the most part, it was dominated by multinationals looking for cheap labour. They believed the Harris government would drive the standard of living so low, people would work for five bucks an hour and be grateful to Da Boss Man.

    As is often said, politics are the shadow business cast on society. And so it was that, after the services were cut, the framework which retained the socialist structure was reworked at the insistence of a few powerful foreign (American) nationals with, to understate it, a lot of money.

    Then, to ice the cake, funding for education was basically removed period. The Harris government was toying with the idea of eliminating public education altogether, and formed the idea of a programme which in the USA became the school vouchers programme which shocked the entire world with its cruel abandonment of the nation's youth.

    Made in Canada by Conservatives who didn't know when to quit.

    A responsible government, whether Conservative, Leftist, Communist, Bug-Eyed or Whatever Inc., could provide the ideal circumstances for all tiers of society to thrive, and advance throughout the natural social strata as they may or may not choose, by following sensible principles, and sticking to them.

    My point with dabbing at economics is, the reason for the existence of government is supposed to be to provide these, but the practice of government is all too often to exploit the people, disguising the scam behind democratic language, and to push hidden agendae as far as the polls will let them get away with.

    It is this spirit which is imperialist. I have no illusions that America actually wants to take over the world--the administration costs would send every accountant in their stable running for Mexico.

    I do believe, however, that the American Establishment has the intent of imposing a military hegemony over the bulk of the world it cannot exploit economically, so that it may reap from fields in which it has not sown.

    In this, my core hatred of their existence becomes simple. I believe that if they want to make big profits globally, they should do it fairly, and save their ammunition on the nonexistent chance there's really an idiot out there who would attack the nation.

    To make the leap from economic supremacy to military oppressor--from the view of someone who has seen dead children--is too great a horror to legitimise. I would no sooner qualfiy Idi Amin, Abu Nidal, Adolf Hitler, or Atilla the Hun as decent, "honourable" folk than give respect to the kind of nation which would use its advantage only to take more from others at such dreadful costs.

    And it's really that simple.

  10. But the Democrats are not moving to the left. They support the war, any call for a scale-back involves not an end but only "redeployment" somewhere else, they support an end to the estate tax for those worth more than $4 million, they cannot even articulate an opposition in any "moral" identity politics issue that is secular. The Democrats are towing the ultra right-wing line all the way.

  11. The Democrats did move to the left originally and now they remain paralysed by the furious partizanship or at the very best, aping conservative tactics.

  12. They;re all the same. We have no real opposition to the Republicans, and the entire government is corrupt. A few days ago a reportedly corrupt black democratic politician was voted out fo the Ways and Means committee before he was charged with anything, which is interesting since DeLay was allowed to to remain in his position and resign with what some people might call honor. Equality doesn't exist in our government. Honesty doesn't exist in our government. It's all lies and double standards. And I have to figure out how to raise a child here.


Please do not be under the misapprehension that this blog has a laissez-faire comments policy where commenters can get away with whatever they want to say on account of their ‘freedom of speech’.

Blurred Clarity has a stringent comments policy. So anything off-topic, diversionary, trollish, abusive, misogynist, racist, homophobic or xenophobic will be deleted.

Cheers duckies.