After Iowa, the Conservative Brand is Dead

Too often, in discussing the useless sack of GOP candidates, I’ve felt the need to describe them with quotes (as in the “conservative” Mitt Romney, etc.).  This is because what we have seen is a dilution of the brand to the point that the word “conservative” can sometimes be swapped with the word “douchecock” (or “frothy cock” when applied to Santorum).

There’s a reason for this.  It’s because, just like their liberal counterparts, conservatives lack a consistent philosophy.

Now when I hear conservatives talk about limited government, free markets, and personal responsibility, I’m cheering.  But then the candidates they pick perpetuate the government state, and in fact, make it worse (shall I list all the economic sins of W here?  Yeah) by expanding departments that never should have been (Department of Education), creating new entitlements (the Medicare drug “benefit”), and crony capitalism at its worst (the bipartisan assraping known as TARP). And then there’s the military, in which we spend more and more on supporting bloated forces around the world in tons of stuff that doesn’t fall under defense or war (which the purpose of a military), and less on the R&D which will make it cheaper and easier to win the next time we need to blow someone up.  And for the record, not spending more every year is not a “drastic cut,” you silly sons of bitches.

Even “conservative” (and I use the quotes again because I’m getting stupid damned mixed messages here) icons such as Rush Limbaugh was going on about where big government was a good thing.  (listening as I type, his first hour on Wednesday, defending the frothy mix).

And that brings me to the second part of the hypocrisy of the “conservative” movement: the social conservatives.

Now I have assigned myself the label of a conservative libertarian.  I came up with this for a simple reason.  I get where the social conservatives are coming from.  But I append that to the libertarian philosophy because the danger of trying to decide social and moral issues through the political process is that the person writing the law may not share those values (if you’re a Christian conservative, think Sharia or Hare Krishna or pagans or whatever group flips your dinger (I’m available to rewrite the social code)).  And it’s in this insistence on growing the government to enforce social mores which should be handled at the local level, or maybe at the state level on a few things, and at the federal level almost NEVER.

Pick your social issue, apply another religion’s morality, and tell me if you like it.

And increasingly, even those who still value traditional morality recognize that in an ever-growing government, all it takes is some idiotic democracy, a bad election result, it doesn’t take much for the state-defined morality to be redefined.

Which brings me to the Iowa results.  The contest split three ways, between the establishment’s bitch, Mitt Romney, the social conservatives’ frothy ass monkey and anti-Mitt flavor of the week, Rick Santorum, and the crazy libertarian, Ron Paul, with some outlier for Newt (who’s hanging on) and the now departed (W 2.0) Perry and (Santorum Lite) Bachmann. Update: Perry didn’t drop out for some retarded reason.  Like we care….

Ron Paul’s third place finish is disappointing to those of us who are tired of retreading the same shit every 4 years (last time was McDouche, Romney (who did the same he did this time), and Huck-a-Duck).  And while it’s disappointing that the majority are still not living up to the principles they espouse, there’s hope that the debate is starting to shift from the current amalgam of government-growing statism and quasi-libertarian to lip service to an actual debate on the pros and cons of government in our daily lives.  Because once we stop falling for the hollow rhetoric and even more hollow slogans (“(no) Hope and (only) Change (left in your pocket)” in 2008 versus “Believe in America (What the fuck ever that means)” from Mitt in 2012), then perhaps we can actually address the perils of ever-growing government which will, unchecked (and the likely nominee ain’t gonna do it), lead to the end of this country.

Which is why, in my next post, I’m going to explain why the labels of conservative and liberal are becoming increasingly surrounded in bullshit, interchangeable with Republican and Democrat, and no longer representative of the majority of the country (much like the current two parties).  I’d add that now, but I do want you to come back more than once.


About patrickmspeaks

Father, tech-head, political sage, and the Illustrious One of (little) 3x2 fame, I have been blogging for a few years now, and want to stretch in new directions, discover new things, and redefine redefining just for the fun of it. Nonetheless, having produced a pointless paragraph about me, I'll stop before something bursts.
This entry was posted in Philosophy, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to After Iowa, the Conservative Brand is Dead

  1. soapster says:

    Any suggestion Ron Paul was a third place finish Patrick is a bit premature if one understands the caucus system. The only numbers that matter are delegates. No delegates to the RNC were decided last night. Only delegates at the precinct level volunteered to work their way up the food chain to try go to the RNC, or to try get their buddies to go to the RNC.

  2. You are correct on that level. However, media perception is reality at the national level, and will drive momentum outside the candidate’s base. And the fact is that the numbers reported show Romney first, Santorum working up a froth from just behind, and Paul a respectable third in the vote totals. And that means that his showing in New Hampshire just got a lot more important. He has to do better as a matter of percentage to stay in it.

    On the plus, if he can capture enough delegates and the other candidates don’t give up their delegates, then there’s a chance that this goes to the convention with a fight. It’s still a long shot winning much of the base, but even in defeat it could pull the nominee in the right direction.

  3. soapster says:

    Unless there has been a rule change, if a candidate drops their delegates become unbound. They can’t give them to another candidate. IMHO, it’s effectively a two man race at this point between Mitt and Paul. Santorum, while doing well lastnight, has very little money and very little organizational structure. Same with Newt. Perry has the money but little organization. It’ll be interesting to say the least but as a die hard Paulista, I still say that all in all…the future (with or without Ron Paul as president) is about idealism, purism, beehives, anarchism, wiki-gov, communism, libertarianism; call it whatever you want, it is about hyper-decentralized but super tight and individually empowered voluntary collectives that achieve order and harmony through emergent means.

  4. Ooooookay?

    I wouldn’t go quite that far. I’d just settle for not having government dick holding my dick while I piss. Or try to manage any other part of my life. Or any one else’s. After all idealism drives the idea of Utopia, which is always bullshit. Real life is just a matter of the managing least amount of santorum when the assfucking is over.

  5. Toad734 says:

    “I’d just settle for not having government dick holding my dick while I piss. Or try to manage any other part of my life. Or any one else’s. ”

    Well then, Ron Paul is certainly not the guy…He wants to legislate what people can do with their own reproductive organs (and who the can put them in) and wants Christianity to be the state religion. But when it comes to limiting government in other ways (drugs, wars, regulation) he is probably the only consistent conservative view out there.

Comments are closed.