|
You can think of the GOP as an amalgam of the following ideologies:
classical liberalism (libertarianism)
classical liberalism with religion (Rand finds God -- strongest, and also called Paleoconservatism)
Christian Reconstruction
Neoconservatism/Imperialism
Corporatism
Militarism
Nationalism/protectivism
Segregationist or Racism, Supremacism, etc.
1. These are only the main ones.
2. I did not include fascism, because fascism is simply a totalitarian form of any one or combination of the above.
3. Any one GOPper might have an amalgam of the above, and may exclude some of the above, and may even hold contradicting philosophies, i.e. classical liberalism + Christian Reconstruction or protectivism + neoconservatism (but, I would think that this would only be a really dumb GOPper).
4. You also have the other right-wing parties, such as the Libertarian Party and the Constitution party, which claim to be more pure or true to a more limited selection of the above.
You can google "neoconservatism" to find its origins, and it's magical AEI policy fellows, who claim they don't exist and are registered Democrats (as in Richard Perle, whose nickname is "The Prince of Darkness).
Neoconservatism is NOT the basis or foundation of the party. The party has always been evolving, though, and has evolved. Several key factors have allowed the GOP to become so successful, though -- the mobilization of the Christian Right, Free Trade, The Cold War/War on Terror -- and the rise of the neoconservatives helped, I think, to provide a narrative that kind of brought it all together.
Because there are very contrasting and opposing opinions in the "-isms," that I listed above. Free trade (for the corporatists and neocons) stands in opposition to the traditional protectivism of the paleocons, and Christian Reconstruction, at least in the sane sense, should be incompatible with classical liberalism -- but they've actually been able to make a go out of it -- and it is that thread that is probably the strongest -- a weird adherence to the three pillars of classical liberalism: freedom, property and peace, but with a Biblical Twist: nature's god and the rationality of the Enlightenment, which helped to inspire liberalism to begin with, is drummed out, in favor of a Christian narrative to back it.
Most of the GOP consituency isn't full-on Christian Reconstruction -- especially if some of those high-chinned, God-fearing, Gay-hating males knew that the Christians plan to stone them for looking at Maxim.
But they are pretty heady.
The reason we butt heads, between parties, rages deep inside of high-level philosophy -- the contention that whether or not "the God" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence was in fact more wholly inspired by the Enlightenment and Rationalism, or a Christian narrative.
A survey of the philosophical foundations doesn't help much, but it is true, that, along with Christians there appears to be a vein of Enlightenment-Secular Humanist-Thomas Jefferson-Rousseau-Bill of Rights-Anti Federalist-"just society" influence. This is very important, because it is this vein that lends the left credibility in claiming a part of the governance of our nation.
These are very important things for any good Democratic/liberal person to know -- because it can take the wind out of the "Christian Nation" sails. Our Consitution was a COMPROMISE between various factions -- not something handed on a gold plate from God.
The real battle is between modernity and Christian Reconstruction or Christian fundamentalism. These people are no different from the Taliban, only insofar that they're white-skinned and live in American-Style houses.
The GOP contempt for the Bill of Rights is obvious. Their contempt for the well-documented "wall between church and state," is obvious. They are preparing and passing bills, as we speak, to overturn a century of judicial precedent and limit the power of the judiciary, and twist the words of the Constitution to fit their new narrative. Not to mention the damage they've already done to the Bill of Rights, as well as their Amendment-happy tactics.
All this is a tactic, as I said, before, to drive the notion of a secular-based "just society" (or altruistic society) out of our consciousness.
This is where it gets fascist-scary. By doing this, in essence, they are creating a "rebirth narrative," which is the very cornerstone of fascism. Following driving out the left -- the other chips fall into place: claiming the nation for Christ, militarism, corporatism, supremacism, nationalism, etc.
I would argue that the neoconservatives play a VERY, VERY important role in the narrative. First, it assumes a cultural supremacism. Second -- the elitist thing, the Strauss -- it provides rationalization for the manipulation of the people who don't know any of this stuff. MOST importantly, it provides "war without end," which is an extremely necessary component in militarization and even corporatism -- it's how they make the ruling class. GOP tax cuts + war equals the GOP economy. To some extent, the tax cuts do stimulate the economy, but part of GDP growth can also be attributed to massive government spending on militarization. Further, this is not even getting into the grandmaster plan of the corporatists in creating a feudal society -- effectively turning America into a "pit stop" on their way to opening up the East, and owning China before it even opens its sleepy eyes from Communism.
So that's how neocons fit in. I know this is lengthy -- but I think there is a huge misunderstanding of neocons -- who they are and what they do. It would be inappropriate to call your street-level GOP supporter a "neocon."
Some argue that politicians are controlled by corporatists -- I would argue that they are also, extraordinarily on the right, controlled by the intellectuals. I think many of your garden-variety GOP Senators and Representatives do not really grasp too much of this, in its full scope, either -- some of the ideologues do, such as Cheney and Gingrich. Some people think Santorum is bad -- but what I think he is is actually a creation of the intellectuals -- a "manipulated," instead of a manipulator. He is ruled by emotions and sentimentality and zeal.
Any real intellectual KNOWS that the left has a claim to governance in this nation, which makes them one of two types: those who accept it, and those who are actively trying to stamp it out. Santorum is not an intellectual, but a mere convert -- a prototype, if you will, as are many of the ultra-conservatives that you see run in the GOP primaries.
The neocons are the intellectuals, along with the Catholics of Notre Dame -- Gerhardt Niemeyer, etc. -- the hard-core religious classical "C.S. Lewis" philosophers that have the religious stake. I would argue that the Catholics are more dangerous to our Constitution than the evangelicals we've been hearing about -- at least at the higher levels. I think they're both more well-funded and well connected.
I should shut up. But since this is my favorite thing to learn about, I like to ramble on about it.
The GOP will fall in one of two ways -- if enough normal people get up off their asses and vote, or if the party cracks from within, which is entirely possible. Moderates and Conservatives in the GOP are not necessarily sunshine buddies, and have run brutal primary campaigns for dominance of the party. What I think will happen is the Christian Reconstructionists will come knocking for their paybacks, but the Corporatists will decide that all that "Hollywood and Porn Prurience," are pretty good for business.
Where do I see Bush in all this? I think he's not quite smart enough to be either a "manipulated" or a "manipulator." He & his family are corporatists, to be sure, but I'm not even sure that he, himself, is smart enough or CURIOUS enough to be swept up by the narrative. You don't get the feeling that he's calculating -- or at least I don't. And I don't really think his ideology goes much beyond the corporatism -- the neocons are not his ideology, they only help with the corporatist angle. I think Bush, because of his addictions, is probably more pragmatic than some -- and I'm SURE a lot of his religious zeal is merely a Rove-directed pander, as all good GOP operatives should. I do believe he's religious, but I don't believe his own zealousy. I do however believe in the zealousy of the people who put Bush where he is -- the people he's working for, and the people to whom he has to deliver.
Good freaking night.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(719 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
