An incoherent P.J. O’Rourke dithers on about why Republicans have betrayed conservatism. On the most important national questions-cum-calamities—perpetual immigration and war—he seems to think more of each was the way to go. That is if I understand the man’s bafflegab (perhaps I don’t).
If anything, led by deracinated neoconservatives, Republicans’ move to the left on immigration has been their downfall. And if O’Rourke’s own support for an ill-begotten war doesn’t yet excite disgust deep down, what hope is there for the rest? As I said, “GOP; RIP.” Here’s O’Rourke, if you can stomach him:
“Our attitude toward immigration has been repulsive. Are we not pro-life? Are not immigrants alive? Unfortunately, no, a lot of them aren’t after attempting to cross our borders. Conservative immigration policies are as stupid as conservative attitudes are gross. Fence the border and give a huge boost to the Mexican ladder industry. Put the National Guard on the Rio Grande and know that U.S. troops are standing between you and yard care. George W. Bush, at his most beneficent, said if illegal immigrants wanted citizenship they would have to do three things: Pay taxes, learn English, and work in a meaningful job. Bush doesn’t meet two out of three of those qualifications. And where would you rather eat? At a Vietnamese restaurant? Or in the Ayn Rand Café? Hey, waiter, are the burgers any good? Atlas shrugged. (We would, however, be able to have a smoke at the latter establishment.)
To go from slime to the sublime, there are the lofty issues about which we never bothered to form enough principles to go out and break them. What is the coherent modern conservative foreign policy?
We may think of this as a post 9/11 problem, but it’s been with us all along. What was Reagan thinking, landing Marines in Lebanon to prop up the government of a country that didn’t have one? In 1984, I visited the site where the Marines were murdered. It was a beachfront bivouac overlooked on three sides by hills full of hostile Shiite militia. You’d urge your daughter to date Rosie O’Donnell before you’d put troops ashore in such a place.
Since the early 1980s I’ve been present at the conception (to use the polite term) of many of our foreign policy initiatives. Iran-contra was about as smart as using the U.S. Postal Service to get weapons to anti-Communists. And I notice Danny Ortega is back in power anyway. I had a look into the eyes of the future rulers of Afghanistan at a sura in Peshawar as the Soviets were withdrawing from Kabul. I would rather have had a beer with Leonid Brezhnev.
Fall of the Berlin wall? Being there was fun. Nations that flaked off of the Soviet Union in southeastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus? Being there was not so fun.
The aftermath of the Gulf war still makes me sick. Fine to save the fat, greedy Kuwaitis and the arrogant, grasping house of Saud, but to hell with the Shiites and Kurds of Iraq until they get some oil.
Then, half a generation later, when we returned with our armies, we expected to be greeted as liberators. And, damn it, we were. I was in Baghdad in April 2003. People were glad to see us, until they noticed that we’d forgotten to bring along any personnel or provisions to feed or doctor the survivors of shock and awe or to get their electricity and water running again. After that they got huffy and began stuffing dynamite down their pants before consulting with the occupying forces.
Is there a moral dimension to foreign policy in our political philosophy? Or do we just exist to help the world’s rich people make and keep their money? (And a fine job we’ve been doing of that lately.)”
Update (Nov. 11): John Zmirak of Taki’s Magazine concurs about the “senile” P.J.:
P.J. O’Rourke is now officially senile. Pour a stiff glass of bourbon before wading into this farrago of parrot-sh*t. The problem with conservatism, for P.J. as for Frumbag, is conservatives. They should learn to put up with forced desegregation and worthless public schools, gay marriage, abortion, colonization by hostile, nationalistic foreigners, and the use of the U.S. military to fight other country’s wars. In return they might, just might get… drumroll please: fiscal responsibility. Yeah, we’ve never spent a dime on all that federal equality micromanagement and foreign conquest, or all those uninsured unskilled laborers. That’s funded by pennies from heaven.
The same pious homilies are echoed by most of conservatism’s custodians—just enough “insight” to make themselves appear as though they’ve retained something of their faculties and have embarked on a quixotic quest to confront their excesses and errors; but not quite enough to show Republicans up for the rudderless sorts they are (for the most).
As always, Republicans are great at dimming and dumbing down debate.
Unfortunately, The Weekly Standard is a neoconservative publication.
Reagan wanted to fight commies overseas and socialism at home but chose to do the former while neglecting the latter. P. J.’s humorous essay is correct that the Republicans never took on the New Deal and just proposed more of the same (Leave No Child, Prescription Drug, Agribusiness…). He is also correct about fiscal responsibility – but McCain/Palin proposed more wars, more spending, and more tax cuts. Basically, the Republicans and P.J. have NO real philosophy beyond grabbing power. P.J. objects to the Southern Christians that dominate the G.O.P. (they were Democrats 50 years ago) but that is basically the “core” and it is now their party. I do not see any movement outside of Ron Paul to return to any basic principles. Republicans will always try to win by being Democrat-lite on immigration and welfare and out warmongering them on foreign policy. They prefer losing by mimicry (and enhancing the Warfare-Welfare state with some rhetorical meat thrown to religious traditionalists) rather than to risk losing by having a coherent set of principles involving limited government, fiscal responsibility, and self-reliance. {{You are correct about P.J.’s inconsistencies but modern “conservatism” US or UK style is just a mass of inconsistencies}}
It seems that O’Rourke would choose to destroy the nation of the United States by illegal and legal third world immigration, just to have cheap lawn care and fast food; I suppose that is how cheap he and his ilk values the nation of the United States of America, and how highly he and his ilk value the destruction of the United States, for the motives of the New World Order totalitarian One World Government of crooks and thieves.
I would like to know why the Republicans (in particular Bush) are being singled out as warmongers. It seems to have been a major factor in the election.
Now, before I get slated for supporting wars let me state clearly – I don’t.
All I want to know is why Republicans are singled out. Why not Democrats as well. Before the US invaded Iraq, was it not put to vote? Did the Democrats vote against the war? What would say Clinton have done post 9/11? Did Clinton not support the invasion.
Admittedly I only took an interest in US politics fairly recently, so if I got it all wrong please educate me.
[You are generally right that the Democrats are not blame free; but the Republicans have been in power. They initiated the policies.–IM]
“[You are generally right that the Democrats are not blame free; but the Republicans have been in power. They initiated the policies.–IM]”
The Dems also brought this on by choosing elective wars in Kosovo and Bosnia, two places that we had no business being. This was the precedent for our interventions all over the planet.
Republicans, at one time the party of non-intervention, spend their days dreaming of new wars and emptying the treasury. They can’t die fast enough for my taste.
O’Rourk used to be biting and clever. Now he’s jus biting.
So the Republicans are dead?
Good!
The terminal cancer started along time ago when they gave up their classic liberal principles.
They have been right wing socalist for decades.
Can anyone define what “conservatism” consists of other than a jobs program for a group of special interests clustered around the Republican party?