Thomas Friedman Finally Gets It: The GOP Isn't Conservative, It's Radical
Who knows what finally made Tom Friedman come around.
Maybe it was watching the live stage version of Tod Browning's Freaks -- otherwise known as the 2012 GOP Primary -- for the past year. But he finally stopped writing those "We need a third party that's exactly like Obama's Democratic Party" columns and correctly identified the problem for once:
...when all the Republican candidates last year said they would not accept a deal with Democrats that involved even $1 in tax increases in return for $10 in spending cuts, the G.O.P. cut itself off from reality. It became a radical party, not a conservative one. And for the candidates to wrap themselves in a cartoon version of Ronald Reagan — a real conservative who raised taxes, including the gasoline tax, when he discovered his own cuts had gone too far — is fraudulent.
Until the G.O.P. stops being radical and returns to being conservative, it won’t provide what the country needs most now — competition — competition with Democrats on the issues that will determine whether we thrive in the 21st century. We need to hear conservative fiscal policies, energy policies, immigration policies and public-private partnership concepts — not radical ones. Would somebody please restore our second party? The country is starved for a grown-up debate.
Some of us have been saying this since, oh, about twenty years.
A party that refuses to raise taxes on anyone, ever, when taxes are at historic lows isn't conservative, it's radical.
A party that wants to roll back successful programs like Social Security that have been a bedrock of American society for nearly three quarters of a century isn't conservative, it's radical.
A party that's openly at war with Progressive Era reforms like unions and child labor laws isn't conservative, it's radical.
A party that refuses to make cuts in defense when the U.S. currently spends more than the next 14 countries in the world combined isn't conservative, it's radical.
A party that denies the scientific consensus of climate change isn't conservative, it's radical.
A party that seeks to repeal a law that was decided by the Supreme Court nearly four decades ago isn't conservative, it's radical.
A party that advocates the forced deportation of 12 million immigrants isn't conservative, it's radical.
A party that denies basic facts about the deficit isn't conservative, it's radical.
A party that wants to pull out of landmark treaties the United States helped write isn't conservative, it's radical.
A party that invites white supremacists and fringe organizations like the John Birch Society to its most important conferences isn't conservative, it's radical.
A party whose leaders compare the President of the United States to Adolf Hitler and Stalin on the floor of the House, who threaten impeachment if they don't get their way, and who sow doubt about the President's citizenship isn't conservative, it's radical.
A party whose presidential candidates claim that states should be able to ban contraception and that the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional isn't conservative, it's radical.
And so on.
You're a little slow on the uptake -- but better late than never, Tom.
for decades, and Lil' Tommy's been going down on it regularly, and he finally notices the Emperor's got no clothes on?
Well, "Hooray for our side!"
Personally, I don't care what this self-important fluffer of the rich has to say about anything.
Hey, Tom Friedman - "SUCK ON THIS!"
Asshole...
Your post should be sent to every elected Democrat with a request they use it as a campaign speech regularly.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
I second that suggestion.
A full page ad in all major (and not so major) newspapers before the primaries and general elections.
Lush Blimpball will give Tommy a tongue lashing and little Tommy will be back pedalling this in his next column.
Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
A FU to Friedman.
I was going to ask how many Friedman Units did it take for him to wake up.
Blue Texan, your post is downright PERFECT! I'm linking folks to read this, as it brilliantly (and simply) captures the radical sickness that is modern conservatism.
One of my biggest complaints is that people like Erick Erickson and Jim DeMint call themselves "conservatives" when they're nothing of the sort. They're radicals. I was thinking about doing a post like this for a while, and then Friedman's column popped up and gave me an excuse.
Radical positions are no longer called radical positions by the media, they're called "conservative" -- and that's a problem, because that word actually has a lot of positive associations.
Your right perception is important and the framing of words go a long way but Conservatism is based on lies, bigotry, and proven phony snake oil ideology. Lol which you know quite well.
"Framing the issues: UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics"
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/...
in order to occupy the space once occupied by Republicans isn't liberal, it's conservative.
Because if Jim DeMint is considered a "conservative" and Obama is considered a "liberal" by the press/chattering class/mass middle, we're screwed.
That's why we need to call it what it is -- right-wing radicalism, not conservatism.
Because ifJim DeMint is considered a "conservative" and Obama is considered a "liberal" by the press/chattering class/mass middle. We're screwed..what with the purist branch of the GOP with it's Club for Growth sorts of things- pushed the old Rockefeller wing of the GOP into the arms of the Democratic Party over the last few decades. If you're a liberal Democrat whose focus is on cultural issues- LGBT rights, abortion rights, separation of church and state- that isn't a bad thing. Over economic issues...Notsomuch.
It used to be that both parties were more diverse. Both parties could hash out compromises from within before making compromises with each other. The left was as far from the center as the right. But the GOP became a monoculture, and the Democratic Party became unbalanced when the Rockefeller Republicans joined the pre-existing ConservaDems to form the DLC, tilting everything to the right. The way around the situation isn't to splinter the Democratic Party, but to force the GOP- as it currently exists- to implode, setting up the DLC types as the new party of the right.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Wow Andy, you sure nailed it with that last sentence.
If I were a psychopath, I would join the republican party, and get in on the gravy train taking the Teabircher morons to the cleaners.
is that both parties are going where the money is. The division in the Democratic party is between people who place ideology before money and people who place money before ideology. Back when campaigns were cheaper and unions were stronger, the lefties actually had a voice. But now that unions are weak, it simply doesn't pay to be ideologically pure. The Republicans, on the other hand, can afford to be ideologically pure without alienating their sugar daddies.
As long as it's legal- constitutional, even- for corporations to game the electoral system with boatloads of cash, someone's going to be the first hold out their hand to take advantage, leaving any opponents who keep their hands in their own pockets at a disadvantage. Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
conservative energy policies and conservative immigration policies. Welcome to the democratic party.
*like
The Reslug party is destroying and devouring itself and the world will be better off because of it.
The first thing on his list is wrong. They ARE willing to raise taxes on some. They're perfectly fine with letting the payroll tax cut expire for the middle class. They just won't EVER raise taxes on the ' achievers' at the top.
Disagree with calling them radicals.Reactionsries would be accurate. Radicals believe the system is bad where reactionaries believe that only a more structured system is always the answer to contain people.
They are not "Radical", they are batshit insane. Call them what they are, show them for what they are, and the sooner we can be rid of them.
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." -- Robert E. Howard
I agree. They're lunatics with no actual principles beyond hating their fellow Americans. If they had principles then the tea-baggers would be right there with the Occupy people. Instead, they hate the Occupy people because they're "liberals". And that's their ideology - having someone to hate.
So the plutocrats must be getting worried because Friedman is dispatched to decry the results of their handiwork. The "Tea Party" was never anything but astro-turf intended to recapture the news cycle in the midst of the health care debate. Anyone who missed the role Freedom Works played in this, and the hundreds of thousands spent on "lobbyists" like Mrs. Thomas, and believes otherwise should see me about a really good deal I can offer them on a bridge. The "Tea Party" played its role in 2010. Now, however the insanity it loosed threatens to swamp the party the plutocrats own. They can't have that, especially with the upcoming Presidential campaigns. So, the mustache of understanding is dispatched almost exactly one Friedman unit from the time most Americans will tune into the actual mudfest that will be the campaigns post conventions. Who cares what he says, we all know what he means.
There's nothing . . . absolutely nothing . . . half so much worth doing as simply messing around in boats.
Actually it IS Conservatism. Fact: Conservatism always was , is and will be bigoted hate and fear with self centered power and greed rounding out the edges. And there is so much more wrong with Conservatism...
The GOP Is Conservative, It's Radical and it's TREASONOUS!
A party that's openly at war with Government IS conservative, and it's radical.
A party that's openly at war with Liberals IS conservative, and it's radical.
A party that's openly at war with affordable Health Care IS conservative, and it's radical.
A party that's openly at war with workers rights IS conservative, and it's radical.
A party that puts $$$ profit before people IS conservative, and it's radical.
A party that HATES EVERYBODY AND EVERYTHING THAT DOESN'T LOOK, THINK, ACT OR BELIEVE LIKE THEY DO IS conservative, and it's radical and it's Bigotry and it's flat out wrong and dangerous to a civil society. We fought 2 bloody World Wars over that already
"A party that refuses to raise taxes on anyone, ever, when taxes are at historic lows isn't conservative, it's radical." is not an accurate statement.
The Republicans are supporting raising taxes on working people. An example is the employee payroll tax cuts that the Republicans are willing to let expire as are other tax breaks and cuts which have created jobs. It's just the 1% and the corporations they own that the Republicans refuse to raise taxes on and are fighting to give taxpayers money to (negative taxation.)
-A party that supports the privatization of prisons and the incarceration of millions of African-Americans and other people of color for profit, is criminal
-- A party that defunds public education, demeans teachers, and denies our children of their chance at a decent future while supporting private, for profit schools, is criminal.
- A party that does not support health care for all by choosing Medicare for all in lieu of private, for profit health insurance for the privileged few (and those lucky enough to still have a job), is criminal.
- A party that boasts it wants a smaller, less intrusive government that will not interfere in our individual lives, and passes laws that restricts/denies access to contraception and abortion, forces women who've been raped to carry babies to term, and in all other ways wishes to control the bodies/lives of women, is criminal.
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
We agree (in this household) wholeheartedly.
FB
99%
The GOP will come up with some new fake outrage next week, and Little Tommy Friedman, age 7 (Atrios's construction), will not think for one second "Hey, this is that same bunch of people who last week I realized hate America and want it to fail."
He'll look at their latest outrage wide-eyed and innocently, and he'll say that golly, it sounds like a good idea and the Democrats really shouldn't be so intransigent, and they (not the Republicans) should come up with some kind of compromise that looks like X (where X equals "what Democrats are actually proposing as opposed to the fake position they're taking in Little Tommy's mind). And when the GOP rejects that, he'll say OK, that's cool too.
Thanks to Fox, I think eventually, every single thing or person of notoriety will be attacked as part of Obama's socialist conspiracy.
Whether you're Ellen, Clint Eastwood, Miss Piggy, Kermit.....everyone gets a turn, well except maybe for Kirk Cameron, Victoria Jackson, and Ted Nugent.
I don't believe in God. Teach a man to be a good citizen and you have solved the problem of life.
-Andrew Carnegie
The World is Flat is a wonderful book. It's the perfect height to replace the broken leg on my sofa.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
broken leg on your sofa?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
walking down main street they forget about the fascists. Well, the fascists are here and they are marching down main street goosestepping. They are the conservatives/republicans.
Awesome!
When is this coming out in a bumper sticker?
Gold Medal winner in my book.
If I were a psychopath, I would join the republican party, and get in on the gravy train taking the Teabircher morons to the cleaners.
May I suggest changing the misspellinfin this paragraph:
A party whose leaders compare the President of the United States to Adolf Hitler and Stalin on the floor of the House, who threaten impeachment if they don't get their way, and who sew doubt about the President's citizenship isn't conservative, it's radical.
Sow - intransitive verb:
1: to plant seed for growth especially by scattering
2: to set something in motion : begin an enterprise
Sew -transitive verb:
1: to unite or fasten by stitches
2: to close or enclose by sewing
Doncha hate it when you try to point out something like that, and blow it yourself, hehe!
May I suggest changing the misspellinfin this paragraph:
Cheers!
FB
99%
What can I blame that on? The phone didn't ring to interrupt me, it must be the cat's fault for pestering me to feed him, pet him and/or let him out. Yeah, that's it, its the cat's fault.
Another "senior moment" or mad cow disease I suspect!
you named yourself after.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Because I live in a quaint little drinking village (one with a fishing problem) I named myself after the patron of breweries.
If I named myself after grass it would have been Maui Wowie!
At least you're not alone ;p
FB
99%
Fixed.
..what you are calling radical, tens of millions of Americans just see as normal.
That's why the Republican party will never be wiped from the face of the map via the voting booth...because all the radical things you post in your article are just mainstream demands, requirements & beliefs by tens of millions of Americans.
It's one thing for a liberal website to label the Republican party as radical.
It's another thing for a liberal website to call out the tens of millions of American who are themselves far right radicals.
****
A party that refuses to raise taxes on anyone, ever, when taxes are at historic lows is what 50 million Americans want.
A party that wants to roll back successful programs like Social Security that have been a bedrock of American society for nearly three quarters of a century is what 50 million Americans want.
A party that's openly at war with Progressive Era reforms like unions and child labor laws is what 50 million Americans want.
A party that refuses to make cuts in defense when the U.S. currently spends more than the next 14 countries in the world is what 50 million Americans want.
A party that denies the scientific consensus of climate change is what 50 million Americans demand.
A party that seeks to repeal a law that was decided by the Supreme Court nearly four decades ago is what 50 million Americans demand.
A party that advocates the forced deportation of 12 million immigrants is what 50 million Americans demand.
A party that denies basic facts about the deficit isn't conservative, it's the core definition of at least 50 million Americans.
etc.
See, it's the American people who plays the monster in this scenario. Not the Republican party.
When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in excess body fat & carrying a misspelled sign.
Millions of people were John Birch Society members in the '50s and '60s, and they were radicals.
Look, most people are low information voters who don't know that Obama is to the right of Nixon on economic policy. That's partly the media's fault.
50 million Americans is a minority. There's 312 million people in the US.
Don't try to make millions of purses out of SO ears.
SOW here is a more realistic estimate:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jo...
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
..don't think 50 million people can sway an election in a country where we cry for joy if 1/3 of the population votes, then you should not be writing for this website.
When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in excess body fat & carrying a misspelled sign.
I read this and I still think Friedman is basically saying, "We need a third party that's exactly like Obama's Democratic Party." Well, it's more like, "We need a second party that's exactly like Obama's Democratic Party."
It's the same schtick. Basically, only one party is reasonable and he doesn't like that. Before, he used to suggest a third party enter and become reasonable. Now he just wants the second party to become reasonable. Same basic story though.
He knows in his heart that the Democrats are the only reasonable party, but "very serious people," and definitely not ones in the media who are scared to death of being labeled with a "liberal bias" just can't bring themselves to publicly support the only group they find reasonable. It's icky and full of hippies or something.
...there's a lot that's left to be desired with the Democrats in the Senate and even Obama's brand of the Democratic Party.
The Republican party truly reflects the stupid ideas crammed into the heads of Fox viewers!
Get rid of the Radical Right would be a nice start. But the problem in Washington isn't only the existence of a Radical Right. Nor is it only that the so-called Democratic Party is more like a Republican Party. The problem is that there is no Party in Washington that is left of center (you know, the place where the Democratic party used to reside). Its sad that the best we can hope for in 2012 are Democrats who act like Reagan Republicans.
...but it frankly scares me that people like Tom Friedman are considered intellectuals in our society. He's a mediocre journalist who won a few pulitzers for reporting from war zones or pontificating on terrorism -- noble vocations indeed, but not exactly rocket science. So when he turns this laser-like wit toward domestic policy you can rest assured it's more fluff than substance.
Beware of anyone promising a future full of yesterdays.
necessarily.
Conservatism is defined as the political ideology which identifies itself with the preservation of power/social/economic structures as they exist, or have traditionally existed. As such, republicans are indeed conservatives.
I assume that the problem with that definition is that it applies to a big chunk of the Democratic party as well, ooops.
So good luck Mr. Friedman, may you guys find that elusive true conservative Scotsman one of these days. I am sure it is right next to the true capitalism, real socialism, proper communism, and the ever so elusive Christ-like christian.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
Conservatism is defined as the political ideology which identifies itself with the preservation of power/social/economic structures as they exist, or have traditionally existed. As such, republicans are indeed conservatives.
But Social Security has been around for almost 80 years, child labor laws have been around about 100, and progressive taxation, about the same. And they want to be rid of all three. Not to mention stuff like the EPA, founded by a Republican, which has been around for 40 years -- and they want to do away with that as well.
All the programs you have mentioned threaten, even though they do so ever so slightly, traditional power structures, which are pyramidal in nature: the rich/powerful at the top, the poor at the bottom. As such, they are indeed considered a threat by conservatives.
Which is why the conservative (republican mostly) hatred towards SS, labor laws, progressive taxation, the EPA (even though it was started under a republican administration), etc, is nothing new.
Just because a program is old it does not mean it is conservative, similarly a brand new political strategy is not necessarily progressive. The Bush tax cuts have been around for less than a decade, and I would not consider them to be "progressive" in the least ;-)
Edit: I can't say I understand why a supposedly leftie blog is concerned with the efforts of a tool like Friedman to rehabilitate the "good" name of conservatism. ?
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
economy in check for decades as well. That went well, didn't it?
me-oww!
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
;-)
Of course there is the remote possibility that a specific ideology is practiced with varying degrees of adherence. I know crazy stuff. E.g. someone who is conservative but still sane enough to recognize that preserving a power structure on a planet polluted beyond human habitability is kind of stupid.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
Before the radical purists of the right started forcing GOP candidates to "no new taxes" pledges, Republicans would hold their noses and vote for them, or- ZOMG!- even introduce (though that's a rarity) them. Pre-Southern Strategy, GOP candidates could actually support the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act- hell, Jerry Ford, who represented this district for 25 years, was pro-Choice!
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
...who got blown out in '68 because he came out against the war in Vietnam! Republicans can't even think about doing that any longer (and, yes, Ron Paul supporters will take umbrage with this, but that guy, even in the crazified context of the modern GOP, isn't really a Republican, is he?).
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Hell more republicans supported the civil rights act than democrats, and the democratic party was the pro-slavery block in the XIX century in stark contrast to the republicans of Lincoln.
That has nothing to do with the fact that today's republican party is indeed "conservative."
PS. Perhaps Ford is not the best example, since his pardon of Nixon was a clear example of conservative ideology trumping the rule of law.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
But on the lasting issues, not the fleeting issues, he was pretty damned good.
Yeah, but today's GOP is a product of hijacking and exiles. That's the point that Friedman is finally coping with.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
in the least, he being one of the principal players in the demise of the rule of law in this country, for example.
But hey, I am also not a conservative. So for colors...
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
I don't mean preferable to a good liberal-progressive, but good in that he would compromise when he saw the need to do so. I preferred his immediate successor, a Democrat named Dick VanderVeen, who lost the office to a p.o.s. Republican named Hal Sawyer (whose granddaughter happens to be a friend- who disagrees with a lot of her late grandfather's positions).
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
40 or so?
me-oww!
Now he's the Moustache of Fuller Understanding.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Not exactly right for each example but this is part of the problem.
A party that refuses to raise taxes on anyone, ever, when taxes are at historic lows isn't conservative, it's radical and the opposition party is compliant.
A party that wants to roll back successful programs like Social Security that have been a bedrock of American society for nearly three quarters of a century isn't conservative, it's radical and the opposition party is complicit.
A party that's openly at war with Progressive Era reforms like unions and child labor laws isn't conservative, it's radical and the opposition party is compliant.
A party that refuses to make cuts in defense when the U.S. currently spends more than the next 14 countries in the world combined isn't conservative, it's radical and the opposition party is complicit.
A party that denies the scientific consensus of climate change isn't conservative, it's radical and the opposition party is compliant.
A party that seeks to repeal a law that was decided by the Supreme Court nearly four decades ago isn't conservative, it's radical and the opposition party is complicit.
A party that advocates the forced deportation of 12 million immigrants isn't conservative, it's radical and the opposition party is complicit.
A party that denies basic facts about the deficit isn't conservative, it's radical and the opposition party is complicit.
A party that wants to pull out of landmark treaties the United States helped write isn't conservative, it's radical and the opposition party is complicit.
A party whose presidential candidates claim that states should be able to ban contraception and that the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional isn't conservative, it's radical and the opposition party is compliant.
But the freaks in Tod Browning's movie were capable of kindness, friendship and compassion, and tried to look out for each other. So . . . nothing like today's GOP.
Comments are restricted to registered users only.
Login - Register