Creating Their Own Reality

On the heels of Conservapedia now comes QubeTV, the conservative YouTube. Apparently watching videos has a well-known liberal bias.

I've got an idea, why don't they just take over a little chunk of Alabama and call it "Conservamerica," because their prospects in this actual country are remote:

President Bush's unpopularity and a string of political setbacks have created a toxic climate for the Republican Party, making it harder to raise money and recruit candidates for its drive to retake control of Congress.

Some of the GOP's top choices to run for the House next year have declined, citing what Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) called a "poisonous" environment. And Republicans' fundraising edge, an important advantage over the last five years, has dwindled.

With GOP clout diminished after November's election losses, the Republicans' national committee and their House and Senate campaign committees together raised the same amount as the Democrats in the first quarter of the year — and Democrats ended the period with more cash in the bank. At this point four years ago, Republicans had more than twice the money Democrats did.

"The reality is the Republican brand right now is just not a good brand," said Tim Hibbitts, an independent Oregon pollster. "For Republicans, the only way things really get better … is if somehow, some way, Iraq turns around."

Considering there's been no discernable change in strategy; considering that even the "good news" from Al-Anbar is nothing more than proof that Iraqis want foreign elements out of their country, including the US; considering that the Iraqi security forces have little training and less money; considering that leader of the Iraqi government is pursuing a shadowy, theocratic, Shiite sectarian agenda by using a secret office to override Interior and Defense Ministry dictates;

Well, good luck with "Iraq turning around."

And it's clear to anyone who's not a rabidly partisan Bush defender that this is the case, that the failure in Iraq will cost the GOP dearly for decades to come. Bob Novak is publicly predicting a loss of GOP seats in 2008, which would be unprecedented after such a big victory like 2006. And David Brooks sees blood in the water as well.

On Capitol Hill, there is a strange passivity in Republican ranks. Republicans are privately disgusted with how President Bush has led their party and the nation, but they don’t publicly offer any alternatives. They just follow sullenly along. They privately believe the country needs new approaches to the war against Islamic extremism, but they don’t offer them. They try to block Democratic initiatives, but they don’t offer the country any new ways to think about the G.O.P. They are like people quietly marching to their doom.

And at the presidential level, things are even worse. The party is blessed with a series of charismatic candidates who are not orthodox Republicans. But the pressures of the campaign are such that these candidates have had to repress anything that might make them interesting. Instead of offering something new, each of them has been going around pretending to be the second coming of George Allen — a bland, orthodox candidate who will not challenge any of the party’s customs or prejudices.

To Brooks, who is right in this column, the fealty to various conservative interests has put the party into gridlock, unable to reverse course on Iraq or anything else. And none so less a leading conservative light as William F. Buckley had this to say:

The political problem of the Bush administration is grave, possibly beyond the point of rescue. The opinion polls are savagely decisive on the Iraq question. About 60 percent of Americans wish the war ended — wish at least a timetable for orderly withdrawal. What is going on in Congress is in the nature of accompaniment. The vote in Congress is simply another salient in the war against war in Iraq. Republican forces, with a couple of exceptions, held fast against the Democrats’ attempt to force Bush out of Iraq even if it required fiddling with the Constitution. President Bush will of course veto the bill, but its impact is critically important in the consolidation of public opinion. It can now accurately be said that the legislature, which writes the people’s laws, opposes the war [...]

It is simply untrue that we are making decisive progress in Iraq. The indicators rise and fall from day to day, week to week, month to month. In South Vietnam there was an organized enemy. There is clearly organization in the strikes by the terrorists against our forces and against the civil government in Iraq, but whereas in Vietnam we had Hanoi as the operative headquarters of the enemy, we have no equivalent of that in Iraq, and that is a matter of paralyzing importance. All those bombings, explosions, assassinations: we are driven to believe that they are, so to speak, spontaneous.

When the Romans were challenged by Christianity, Rome fell. The generation of Christians moved by their faith overwhelmed the regimented reserves of the Roman state. It was four years ago that Mr. Cheney first observed that there was a real fear that each fallen terrorist leads to the materialization of another terrorist. What can a “surge,” of the kind we are now relying upon, do to cope with endemic disease? The parallel even comes to mind of the eventual collapse of Prohibition, because there wasn’t any way the government could neutralize the appetite for alcohol, or the resourcefulness of the freeman in acquiring it.

General Petraeus is a wonderfully commanding figure. But if the enemy is in the nature of a disease, he cannot win against it. Students of politics ask then the derivative question: How can the Republican party, headed by a president determined on a war he can’t see an end to, attract the support of a majority of the voters? General Petraeus, in his Pentagon briefing on April 26, reported persuasively that there has been progress, but cautioned, “I want to be very clear that there is vastly more work to be done across the board and in many areas, and again I note that we are really just getting started with the new effort.”

The general makes it a point to steer away from the political implications of the struggle, but this cannot be done in the wider arena. There are grounds for wondering whether the Republican party will survive this dilemma.

The need to create a new reality is so great for Republicans because the current reality is so bleak. They can say that the election of 2006 proved that the middle is ascendant, and that Democrats are taking extremist positions, but honestly their heart doesn't even seem in it anymore. Republicans used to thrive in the minority but now they are just sad figures, marking time until they are completely out of
power.

UPDATE: This reminds me, I should get my tickets for the Failure of Conservatism Conference. Maybe in an alternate universe some Bush defenders will put together a "Failure of the Party that Just Won Power in the Congress" conference.

This Really Exists?

Man, if conservatism wasn't actually real, nobody would believe it. They made a conservative version of Wikipedia called Conservapedia. I'm late to this party, and humorous takedowns are everywhere. But it's almost impossible to ridicule conservatives anymore when they have this much of a gift for self-parody. They actually define judicial activism as either when liberal judges make laws that conservative don't like, or when liberal judges don't strike down laws they don't like. And the invisible hand definition is loads of fun:

The "invisible hand" is a force that ensures the highest economic prosperity in an unregulated system. When a man is looking out for himself and accomplishing his own ends he is inadvertently contributing to the invisible hand. Consider the following scenario: Joe, an average guy, wants peanut butter with which to make himself a sandwich. Bill, the grocer, wants peanuts with which to make and sell peanut butter. Frank, the farmer, grows peanuts. Frank will sell his peanuts to Bill who will make peanut butter and sell that to Joe who will make himself a sandwich. Frank and Bill have worked together and contributed towards Joe’s sandwich without even communicating! This is the essence of the invisible hand: that the economy can continue, even flourish, without government aid or interference, and do so at maximum efficiency.

Except Bill the grocer gets undercut out of the market by General Foods and other multi-mega-corporate peanut butter manufacturers, and Frank's farm was taken over by the bank because agribusiness kept him out of the market. So Joe has his sandwich, but won't give his change to Bill and Frank, who are out begging by his house, because they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

I'll be charitable and say that their intelligent design definition is pretty sound in calling it "an irrational religious-backed campaign to reject the teachings of the Theory of Evolution." But the article discussing the theory of evolution is frankly hilarious, in that the more sane conservatives are ripping the true crazies apart.

This is the first entry I checked out to see what Conservapedia was like, and to see if it's really the quality source it claims to be. Sadly, it is not. What a terrible, unscientific, irrational, and ideological understanding of the Theory of Evolution. Conservatives should be ashamed to have this be a representation of Conservative understanding of scientific issues. Thoughtful conservatives who want the straight science of evolution need to look elsewhere. I won't be back.

There's too much information to counter in this entry, but let me just leave you with this: Dogs can't turn into cats? No, and modern squids won't turn into people, either. But we can look back at the evolutionary history and see where different species branched off from a common ancestor. Cats and dogs are closer to a common ancestor than people and squids are. That is, unless someone produces evidence that overturns our understanding. That would be pretty powerful evidence. Kind of like if someone discovered that there's really no gravity.

Conservapedia: now hated by liberals and conservatives! What unity!