Hugh Hewitt endorses a Democratic victory in the election, or that's what I assume when he says, that a Democratic majority means "endless investigations and gridlock." Doesn't that sound great?
I remember a conservative pundit once glibly endorsing gridlock during the Clinton years by saying something along the lines that a stalled government can do less damage. The current Republican fascination with the kind of power that only comes with a large, centralized, and imperial government exposes many as erstwhile pretenders at small government conservatism, much less as nothing near small "r" republicans. But I can't help thinking that this obviously insincere anti-government sentiment is now entirely appropriate.
We should be asking ourselves how it came to this, and if the small government movement was a manipulation from the start.
And I realize: having read much of this sort of Hewitt-Limbaugh prevarication, there is still no discernible argument coming from the last true defenders of Bush's War as to why there should be no accountability for the many bloody mistakes (not even hoping beyond hope that they will soon be brought to reality regarding the massive, multi-faceted crime that the war is in reality). Even those who have fallen back on the least (to my mind at least) defensible position, I supported the war and believe it was the right thing to do but denounce the ineptitude of its implementation (these folks may need to, as we used to joke in the military when someone asked what we were going to do when we got out, prostitute themselves on a street corner for a time to get their self respect back) should, perhaps more than anyone, wish to see someone hang.
Clark Stooksbury is a native, and current resident of Knoxville, Tennessee. He is a former assistant editor at Liberty magazine; and has written for The American Conservative, Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, First Principles Journal, Reason and Knoxville's weekly paper, Metro Pulse.
1 comment:
I remember a conservative pundit once glibly endorsing gridlock during the Clinton years by saying something along the lines that a stalled government can do less damage.
The current Republican fascination with the kind of power that only comes with a large, centralized, and imperial government exposes many as erstwhile pretenders at small government conservatism, much less as nothing near small "r" republicans.
But I can't help thinking that this obviously insincere anti-government sentiment is now entirely appropriate.
We should be asking ourselves how it came to this, and if the small government movement was a manipulation from the start.
And I realize: having read much of this sort of Hewitt-Limbaugh prevarication, there is still no discernible argument coming from the last true defenders of Bush's War as to why there should be no accountability for the many bloody mistakes (not even hoping beyond hope that they will soon be brought to reality regarding the massive, multi-faceted crime that the war is in reality).
Even those who have fallen back on the least (to my mind at least) defensible position, I supported the war and believe it was the right thing to do but denounce the ineptitude of its implementation (these folks may need to, as we used to joke in the military when someone asked what we were going to do when we got out, prostitute themselves on a street corner for a time to get their self respect back) should, perhaps more than anyone, wish to see someone hang.
Post a Comment