« The Madness of Iraq | Main | Consider the Source » Conservatism = Torture29 Oct 2007 10:17 am When in doubt about what to blog about, read the Corner: "McCain Not Sure About Mukasey" [Rich Lowry] I wonder if there'll come a time when the editor of National Review circa 2038 wonders when it was, exactly, that the decision was made to make robust enthusiasm about torture a defining value of the American conservative movement. Comments (27)
Have you ever seen a little flotilla of ducklings change directions behind the mother duck. They turn as one. I'm no longer confident of Free Will. When you see lots of people abandon beliefs with a snap of the finger, it doesn't make you sanguine about the value of human beings. We don't appear to be more rational than billiard balls. 
I'll add in a vote of 'no', in support of Rob. Brad DeLong has posted some snippts from Buckley Himself about racial politics in the 50's and 60's. The only reason that old Biff didn't sport a confederate flag bumper sticker was that such things were for the lower classes.
Are these the same conservatives who opposed Harriet Miers because she wasn't "pro-life" enough for them?
Rob's absolutely right. An implicit core tenet of modern movement conservatism is that self-reflection makes you gay. Not going to happen.
I think you would be hard-pressed to find another issue for which the conservative and religious right have been more intellectually and morally bankrupt.
The National Review has turned itself into a Bush cheerleader rag. A picture of Rumsfeld on the cover with the urbane headline, "Yes!" A profile of possible next president George Allen, explaining that everyone thought President Bush was awesome, until he mysteriously became a "hate figure for the Left." Is there enough funding for that sort of thing going forward?
"An implicit core tenet of modern movement conservatism is that self-reflection makes you gay." Apparently, for Larry Craig and quite a few others, this is quite literally true, if by 'makes you gay' one meant 'makes you realize you are actually gay'. .
Were conservatives ever anti-torture? I won't believe it.
C'mon people, waterboarding isn't "torture." Just ask John Stossel.
Isn't Lowry a personal protege of Krauthammer, whom I think was the earliest and most enthusiastic torture-advocate, except perhaps for Dershowitz.
Conservatives have a name for Conservatives intellectually honest enough to admit they might actually be wrong: Liberals
These are the same people who got a million Iraqis killed. When the Hutus do it to the Tutsis everyone is horrified and appalled at the "genocide". When are we going to admit that, the President and the Vice President of the United States are war criminals who committed unprovoked genocide in Iraq?
So much to comment on this topic, but I will limit myself to two things: 1) I cannot believe it is helpful to the Republicans to be the pro-torture party. People just have a visceral reaction against torturing others. We need to encourage their public embrace of torture. 2) Is it possible that continued debate over torture will reduce our inherent revulsion to it? With torture discussion commonplace does it become more widely accepted? I sure hope not, but am no convinced. So that may mitigate against point 1.
It's a closed system, Matt, an "island of narcissism," as Adorno styled it. They never have to admit they're wrong because they never allow anyone in their circles to say so.
Apparently Judaism also embraces torture, so the Republicans can at least claim a sort of sadistic ecumenicism.
Not to single out Israel, of course. There are plenty of other worthy applicants for the torturers club, such are the exigencies of modren life.
These are the same people who got a million Iraqis killed. When the Hutus do it to the Tutsis everyone is horrified and appalled at the "genocide". When are we going to admit that, the President and the Vice President of the United States are war criminals who committed unprovoked genocide in Iraq? Hell, the Hutus had more cause to slaughter the Tutsis than we did to cause the deaths of those 1,000,000 Iraqis. The Hutus' security was much more realistically at risk than ours was. If the level of security risk we faced from Iraq is enough to justify 1,000,000 deaths, then anything goes. George Bush and Dick Cheney should be tried at the Hague and imprisoned for life. For real.
Is it wise to pin the torture merit badge on the Bush administration? I mean they can take me out and torture me if I try.
Have you ever seen a little flotilla of ducklings change directions behind the mother duck. They turn as one. Careful, Jeffrey! You're treading perilously close to radical Transhumanist thinking!
This article is incorrect. Conservatism does not equal support for torture. A true conservative is against torture. A true conservative is against any coercive act that infringes on the rights described in the constitution. A true conservative is against an unconsitutional war. A true conservative laments the lack of respect for the rule of law and lack of respect for the checks and balances that have been ignored over the years. The current bunch call themselves "neo-conservatives," but they are as mis-named as they are foolish and evil. In reality, they are imperialist hypocrites and their horrible meddling has hurt millions at home and and millions abroad. Their pathological disregard for law, the mis-use of trillions of dollars of our tax money, and the many injuries and deaths are unspeakably horrible. Bush and those other evil jackals currently in power are not conservatives. All of the republicans that voted for Bush in the last election are not conservatives. I ask that people please research what true conservativism means-- But what it doesn't mean is torture.
That would require introspection, which is not a quality conservatives value.
"I ask that people please research what true conservativism means-- But what it doesn't mean is torture. Posted by B Reyes" I've done the research and find that American Conservatism is based on fantasy and wishful thinking.
Mooser, your anti-Semitic comment was sickening. No, Judaism does not embrace torture. Even if you have examples of Israeli soldiers committing abuses, that in no way provides evidence that torture is a Jewish value. Plenty of people in Israel also eat pork; are you going to claim next that the kosher laws embrace pork? Surely we can take a stand against torture without using that as a pretext for Jew-baiting.
for B Reyes: A true conservative is against any coercive act that infringes on the rights described in the constitution... well, you've done a pretty good job of briefly describing libertarianism there, B. which is not at all the same thing as conservatism. the question of whether conservatism was ever against torture is an appropriate one. but in truth, conservatism is defined as rigid defense of the status quo. on the one hand, they've always seemed apt to violence and sadism in defense of the privileged. but on the other, the status quo of political sentiment just ten years ago was that torture is monstrous and inhuman, something that only cardboard villains or nazis would do. so in that sense i would have to say that condoning torture is not a conservative position but a a reactionary one. that's more the truth of what passes for "conservatism" these days, whether it's the "movement conservative" who wants to return to the days of the robber baron, the neo-conservative who wants to resurrect machiavelli, or the so-called christian right who think it's all been downhill since the days of nehemiah.
Even if you have examples of Israeli soldiers committing abuses, that in no way provides evidence that torture is a Jewish value. I chose to read Mooser's comment as mockery of those who read any criticism of the actions of Israel or American Jewish-based political groups as anti-semitic. Because what he just said is *exactly* the frame that a lot of those folks are working from -- if Israel does it, it's a defining feature of Judaism and thus off-limits. Saying it like Mooser does here makes the bankruptcy of that argument very clear though, doesn't it? I prefer to believe that was intentional on Mooser's part and not a hate spasm coming out.
I also don't believe that ostracizing an entire philosophy and political ideology as conservatism by equalizing it to torture is a sign of intelligence and intellectual honesty by the poster. And before all of you whine back at me for saying what should be seen as the obvious, you should never ever confuse ideology with people and interests. Conservatism is not about conserving "status quo" but a set of beliefs and what should be dogmas to the society, just like the *gasp* Constitution and the enforcement of *gasp* law! These don't apply to the current admin at all, that is plainly obvious. They aren't conservatists, they only care for power, greed, corporativism, and, yes, status quo. And before you whine again me back saying, "but yo, those are conservative principles LOL!", wrong again suckers. Read this: Conservatism, according to wikipedia's own whiners is: “maintenance of the social ecology” (Scruton) ... or, in other words, conservatism is about sustainable societies!! Yes, that's right, to conserve, to preserve a balanced ecological social system. And if you want, stick this up to your neo-con pals everytime they label ecological movements as liberal poo-poo.
Comments closed November 12, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Given that in 2007 they don't look at the decision that in the 1960s that robust enthusiasm for racial segregation was a defining value of the American conservative movement, I'm saying no there won't be a time.
Posted by Rob | October 29, 2007 10:28 AM