Reliquary needed for fragments of the True Conservative

By ann summers

Who are true conservatives, the dope-smoking homophobe Bill Buckley, the late druggie Andy Breitbart, George “Cubs Win!” Will, Ron “Goldbug” Paul, Billy the son of a Trotskyist Kristol, Chuck “Grecian Formula” Krauthammer… More importantly, who among the current nutbag of 2016 GOP hopefuls can be called at least partially a true conservative.

For example, what part of libertarianism makes a True Conservative and what part of conservatism makes a True Libertarian. How minimal are their ideals of governance based on a minimal state and what diminishes their “truth” on that basis – what is the limit of “statism” if you have to choose between Hayek or Mr. Hilter.

C’mon all you RWNJ lurkers – make clear your ideological theories because frankly until you whip them out they all do appear flaccid in the face of Tom Cole’s true conservatism.

“Paul Ryan has played a major role in advancing the conservative cause and creating the Republican House majority. His critics are not true conservatives. They are radical populists who neither understand nor accept the institutions, procedures and traditions that are the basis of constitutional governance.”  —– Senator Tom Cole (R-OK)

Sigurdur Hjartarson and his elephant penis, stuffed and mounted on a wooden board. Photo: Reuters

penis museum, Iceland (which true conservative, like Rasputin did for the Tsars, will donate his member for posterity)

The Shroud of Truism, a tissue on the bedstand of true conservatism (sans trickle-down lotion)

This entry was posted in American History, Capitalism, Conservatives and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Reliquary needed for fragments of the True Conservative

  1. mhbtest says:

    Maybe you can/could turn your pen to trying to clear the fog that is the nonsense in the labels so badly used : Conservative / Liberal and inflections between.
    Maybe this is a job for WordCloudy.

    We live with serious false equivalences in our thinking that warps the lens through which we see and understand basic issues:
    Conservative = Republican = Right
    Liberal = Democrat = Left

    The ubiquitous use of these foolish synonyms conflate levels and classifications and meaning in a way that distorts them all. Not the least, but as an example : when the ambient meaning of such terms as “conservative republican” are so shifted in meaning so that , as has been said, Regan could not be nominated as a republican in todays environment…. And yet, we use the same words to describe a republican of that era and today, and thus conflate the meaning of one and apply it to the circumstances of today.
    I see this as a foundational error in our thinking, and communication… Thus we cant think, and we do not communicate anything of true value in the public square when using these terms.
    The so-called “debates” especially the Republican ones, are rife with this level of non-sense.

    My 2bits.

  2. mhbtest says:

    Sorry, forgot to note, but maybe it is obvious : responding to your opening line : Who is the true conservative?
    I think until we can un-muddle the language we wont ever be able to have a meaningful discussion. We’ll be forever afflicted by the Fox News syndromes which , like Humpty Dumpty simply use a word and give it a fluid meaning however it serves the purpose of the moment..

    “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

  3. mhbtest says:

    Good grief… to clarify yet again.. sorry… Enjoyed the article… My point is obviously a take off, not a rebuttal or criticism of the main piece. It is obvious right?

  4. Aridog says:

    Every time I read or hear the term “True” prefacing the term Conservative, Libertarian, Progressive, or Liberal, I cringe. Just who gets to decide this? It’s the application of these qualifiers that divide us, it would seem to me. Somebody please tell me the litmus test for any of these “True” ranks. I fear the answer is the media and the pundits….don’t “think” just react to terminology. Lord love a duck…we are so toast if we’ve reached that point.

    If the Obamster gets to “evolve” then so do I and I do almost everyday based upon arguments and details, not terminology. I prefer to just call ourselves “Americans” in the USA. I live in and within spitting distance of 3 major “minority” enclaves and I assure you most of them consider themselves “Americans” and would be insulted if one were to suggest otherwise based upon what is deemed “true.”

  5. Aridog says:

    It’s rare when I agree with President Obama, but it has happened on some small issues I can scarcely recall now…even if he seems to be always playing catch-up, and terminally naive. So does that simple fact make me not a “True” conservative? I’d bet there are those who think so. If I find that Hillary Clinton utters a true word very fleetingly, does that disqualify me? AS I said: Lord love a duck….

  6. Aridog,
    Right on the labels. I truly dislike labels because they are far too confining. I saw a bumper sticker a while back. It was on a pickup truck that had the tailgate down. In the back of the truck were two fifty-pound bags of dog food and a portable dog kennel. No dogs in it, but about the right size to hold two large dogs. There was a CB radio antenna on the roof of the truck cab. In the back window was a decal with the car number of a popular NASCAR driver. A large bumper sticker was on the rear bumper. It said:


  7. Aridog says:

    Chuck Stanley … you just have to love that bumper sticker.

  8. Labels are not the same thing as names.

    Let that sink in.

    As Marcus Aurelius advised, “This thing, what is it in itself, in its own constitution? What is its substance and material? And what its causal nature [or form]? And what is it doing in the world? And how long does it subsist?”

    Knowing the names of things is understanding their true nature by their properties and actions. A label is like Cliff notes. As often as not, incomplete and/or inaccurate. For example: the label on the box says “representative republican democracy” but if you look at the properties and actions the name is “oligarchical plutocratic fascism”. Following the advice of that great Stoic leads one to notice quite quickly how many labels in this world are not the names of things. A label can be distorted, either purposefully or incidentally, but names go to the essence of things.

    And that is your moment of philosophical reflections on rhetoric and the power of definitions.

  9. Of note, “Karl Rove Calls Bernie Sanders ‘An Elderly Dyspeptic Bilbo Baggins'” reads the headline.

    The irony of a man nicknamed “Turd Blossom” by people who both know and allegedly like him labeling anyone is really quite delicious.

  10. Aridog says:

    Something that always makes me want to bang my head against a wall is Karl Rove, wherever he appears, when he breaks out his little “white pad” as if I’m either deaf, dumb, or both. Some one needs to take it away from him and never give it back 😀 Seriously.

    PS: His link to Fox is puzzling…no one listens to him after his vociferous & dead wrong prognostications in 2012. Maybe if they gave him a red clown nose and a baggy suit? Whot!

  11. pete says:

    First, Iceland is a really bad place for the penis museum, but I guess it saves space having it there.

    mhbtest, that’s the nature of labels, what you call it depends on who does it.
    If your guy changes their mind, it’s called an evolving opinion, if the other guy does it then it’s flip flopping.
    Labeling was one thing the old turd blossom always understood.

  12. Aridog says:

    What I object to is the unmitigated gall of those who add the label “true” to any other nominal label. Who appoints them to this role? We’re not a nation of such distinct & arbitrary divisions and to assume it is obscene. Since we seem to be evolving in to such divisions I’m less confident we can survive as “Americans.”

Comments are closed.