2006 May 08 Monday
Bush Coalition Breaking Apart

Some liberal blogs are arguing that conservatives are trying to disassociate themselves from Bush due to the mess in Iraq and other areas (and these liberal bloggers are even quoting a commenter from one of my posts) and that the conservatives doing this are somehow unprincipled. I'd say that the opposite is true. Conservatives are becoming so shocked by Bush's moves that they are overcoming their loyalties to a Republican leader and returning to principles. This is seen most clearly on immigration where the Right is increasingly angry with Bush's disloyalty to them. They aren't turning against Bush on immigration to score points against liberals or to shift blame to liberals. They are angry with Bush and the Open Borders crowd while the liberals want what Bush wants. John Zogby says no US President has reached as low a level of disapproval on a single issue as Bush has on immigration and border security.

Thirteen percent of respondents in a new Zogby Interactive poll approved of Mr. Bush's handling of immigration, and 9 percent approved of his handling of border security. Among conservative and very conservative people, he was below 25 percent.

Meanwhile, a separate Associated Press-Ipsos Public Affairs poll released yesterday found 45 percent of self-identified conservatives disapprove of Mr. Bush's job as president, and 65 percent disapprove of the Republican-led Congress.

"One of the things clearly that's happening is a breakdown of the coalition that elected and re-elected the president," said John Zogby, who said his surveys show Mr. Bush getting less than 45 percent support among groups such as investors, NASCAR fans, gun owners and Catholics, and just over 50 percent among born-again Christians.

He also said he had never seen any presidential ratings as low as Mr. Bush scored on immigration and border security.

A majority of born-again Christians continue to be Bush's suckers. No, his being a fundamentalist isn't making him a better leader. Wake up. Stop putting your faith in a human. It is contrary to your religion.

81% of Bush's base (or former base) wants the House Sensenbrenner bill to crack down on illegals while, by contrast, Bush wants amnesty, Open Borders, and a massive worker permit program. Is there a depth he can reach in the decline in his popularity on the Right where he'll listen to what people on the Right actually want? If a Republican President wants one thing (which most liberals want too btw) and the vast bulk of the Republicans want another thing then for Republicans to decide he's doing a bad job and that he's a liberal doesn't seem unprincipled to me. It sounds pretty reasonable. His spending, support for racial preferences, immigration policies, and other policies are plenty reason to think the guy is not a conservative.

Bush's argument for continued US involvement in Iraq is a liberal argument. Paleoconservatives argue that the Iraqis are not liberals, not democrats, too dumb to run a democracy, too entwined in consanguineous marriages to have loyalties to the state. Bush's response? We are racists and liberalism has universal appeal. He's making a liberal argument on Iraq. That's why liberals can't manage to organize serious opposition to him on Iraq (you don't hear Hillary Clinton calling for withdrawal). They can't challenge Bush on the empirical evidence without abandoning the assumptions at the base of modern liberalism that hold it has universal appeal the world over. Instead they fantasize about a big right wing capitalistic oil plot (while ignoring the rather organised and intense Jewish neocon desire to help Israel). Only conservatives who have a more pessimistic view of human nature and human biodiversity realists can say why he's wrong for the real reasons he's wrong.

Similarly, he's wrong on immigration for liberal reasons. No, we do not each individually have the ability to graduate from high school or college. No, not all races have intellectual abilities in equal proportion. No, the various races and ethnic groups do not have equal average propensities to commit crimes or fight for individual rights or engage in other behaviors and they differ in these matters for genetic reasons. Liberals are caught up in their taboos and deny the empirical evidence while calling realists all sorts of nasty names. Liberals marginalize the more empirical minded by use of gatekeepers in major media organs and universities who keep out those who commit liberal thought crimes. Bush is one of them.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2006 May 08 10:08 PM  Politics Factions


Comments
John S Bolton said at May 9, 2006 12:39 AM:

I'm reading the above as: ...liberalism, which hold that it has universal appeal... and ... differ also for genetic reasons...
Bush is needlessly exposing himself to high danger of impeachment, when his administration's perfidious handling of majority concerns on immigration and racial issues, gets the democrats back into the relevant commitee chairmanships.
The NYT's front-page article of 5-8th-06, by J. Rutenberg, tells us that Conyers and Leahy have set out their plans to impeach Bush, if they get back in.
Criticism by the media and the professoriate, is as nothing in comparison to leaving the republican base with no great motivation to vote in '06.
Bush needs massive defections of Reagan democrats, just to hold off Conyers and Leahy.
His policy of appeasing the Mexicans, making him soft on immigration, border security and affirmative action; has brought the wolves to his door.
There is a ten or twenty point swing to be had by the administration going all out on immigration law enforcement, sending harsh notes to the Mexicans, and ending affirmative action in the places where it is discretionary, as in the military.
It may be illiberal, but not so hard to live with, as being clawed to death by liberals in congressional power, with a vengeance.

Ned said at May 9, 2006 7:48 AM:

More and more, Bush II reminds me of LBJ. In 1964, Johnson won a landslide victory over Barry Goldwater. Additionally, his party, the Democrats, had large majorities in both houses of Congress. And then LBJ threw it all away. The Vietnam war turned into an unending disaster which alienated his liberal base, and his Great Society government spending boondoggle turned off the conservatives, who tended to support him on the war. In 1968, Johnson, who looked like President for Life in 1964, announced he would not seek reelection. The Democratic convention that year was interrupted by riots, and the eventual nominee, Humphrey, Johnson's VP, was trounced by Nixon in the general election. Republicans won three of the next four presidential elections.

The situation with Bush II seems eerily similar. He won narrowly in 2000 but much more convincingly in 2004, with Republican majorities in Congress. Bush II looked like another President for Life. Now Bush II has his own land war in Asia, which seems to be going no better than the other one in Vietnam. Plus his massive government spending programs and his failure to address the immigration issue have alienated his conservative base. So his presidency, which looked as promising in 2004 as Johnson's did 40 years earlier, seems destined for failure.

Mik said at May 9, 2006 10:29 AM:

"liberals can't manage to organize serious opposition to him on Iraq (you don't hear Hillary Clinton calling for withdrawal). They can't challenge Bush on the empirical evidence without abandoning the assumptions at the base of modern liberalism that hold it has universal appeal the world over. Instead they fantasize about a big right wing capitalistic oil plot (while ignoring the rather organised and intense Jewish neocon desire to help Israel)."

Boy, you have a thing for Jewish Neocons - or is it for all Jews? As polls indicate, unsurprisingly, most US Jews are against misadventure in Iraq while willing to help Israel. Most Jews in public life are opponents of El Presidente Jorge and Iraq Democracy for Shia mullahs project.

In fact ratio of Jewish supporters of Iraq war to Jewish opponents is probably one of lowest among major population groups (moslem fifth column is excluded), yet you keep bringing it up. Why is it? Would you stop, if there was 1 or 2 jews supporting war versus millions against it?

Or would you find something else to single Jews out?

Just curious.


Mik said at May 9, 2006 10:36 AM:

"More and more, Bush II reminds me of LBJ."

You are insulting memory of a good man and patriotic American. Jorge Bush is none of these things.
Jorge refused to do what his oath of office requires him to do and as such he, uniquely among 20th century presidents, fully deserves impeachment.

LBJ is just one of many poorly performing Presidents.


Matra said at May 9, 2006 12:01 PM:

Mik: "Most Jews in public life are opponents of El Presidente Jorge and Iraq Democracy for Shia mullahs project."

I thought Randall was referring to Jewish neocons, not all Jews.

Randall is correct. In addition to "big oil" and reminding us of the missing WMDs the Democrats also like to mention the neocons yet they never point out what motivates the neocons - ideology and Israel. They may be critical of the implementation of democracy and the Bush administration's lack of planning but they don't oppose the whole idea. After all Democrats are still bragging about bombing Yugoslavia in the name of universal human rights.

momochan said at May 9, 2006 12:59 PM:

From where I stand it looks like promoting democracy isn't so much a reason as a excuse. Perhaps a member or two of the Bush Admin's higher ups really truly believe that they could bring democracy to Iraq. However, I think the rest of the bunch seized upon that ideal as a banner -- perhaps retroactively. After all, it was the threat of WMD that was touted the most loudly in the buildup to invasion, not democracy.
As bad as Saddam Hussein was, there are countries in worse shape, notably Sudan. If love of democracy was the true motivation, we'd have gone somewhere else before Iraq.
I heard that some neocons put Saddam in the crosshairs because they didn't want a petty dictator dissing us. Personal punishment, pure and simple.
Whatever the rationale, it's an expensive mess that's much easier to get into than get out of.

Bob Badour said at May 9, 2006 3:05 PM:

Mik,

Mentioning the jewish neocons serves a very important purpose. It reminds us that the most senior advisors to an allegedly conservative president are not conservative and not acting in the interest of the nation who elected him.

If the jewish neocons had not sought out such positions of power and had not manipulated public opinion to support and indefensible war executed by half-measures primarily for the benefit of a foreign people, there would be no point in mentioning them at all.

Are you similarly suggesting we should never mention the fact that the vast majority of recent terrorist attacks were perpetrated by moslems?

Randall Parker said at May 9, 2006 4:11 PM:

Mik,

The Jewish neocons pushed the war because they thought it would help Israel. Read their document A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm whose signatories include Douglas Feith who was Paul Wolfowitz's deputy in the DOD and Prince of Darkness Richard Perle who was chairman of the DOD's Defense Advisory Board. They wrote a document that advised Binyamin Netanyahu to overthrow Saddam's government. Then they got the US government to carry out this policy.

Does it matter that these guys are Jewish? Yes, it matters a great deal. If they weren't Jewish they wouldn't have been promoting the policies they have promoted - much to the detriment of the American people.

Do you think I should ignore their ethnicity? They abuse the immunity to criticism they create by referring to anti-Semites. You help do their work for them and help increase their immunity to criticism. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I hammer at the 2nd generation ideological neocons (as distinct from the 1st generation much more quantitative and smarter social scientist neocons) because they really screwed up on a massive scale. No, they do not get easy treatment from me because they are Jewish. Their ethnic interests cause them to advocate policies that are at our expense.

Oh, and as I've repeatedly pointed out, their policies have backfired and harmed Israel's national security too.

As for Jewish supporters and opponents of the war: Before the war started the majority of American Jews were for it and for it in proportions similar to the population at large. They turned against it more quickly though because they are smarter and more well read than the population at large. We are currently waiting for even the dummies on the Right to figure out that the war was a bad idea. But some of them are very thick.

hadleyvbaxendale said at May 9, 2006 7:40 PM:

Mik, I really don't know where the peacenik Jews are. Wish I did. From where I stand they look pretty bloodthirsty.

Case in point: the Jerusalem Post and Ha'aretz both gave full coverage in the last week to the recent convention of the American Jewish Committee.

See http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=712180&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=3#article712180

See
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961282236&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Now, according to these two Jewish papers, the AJC leaned hard on Howard Dean, the head of the Democratic Party, to announce his intentions of making war on Iran to save Israel. And, Boy!, they just would not let Dean wiggle off the hook. No way! He had to cut his antiwar base loose right there if he hoped to get the Jewish vote. They made him commit to war, to military intervention in Iran to preserve Israel, the State of the Jewish Nation.

Then, according to the Jerusalem Post, they got Bush to follow up a couple days later when he announces that American wouldn't just "support" the Jewish State, but that the USA would "ensure" the survival of the Jewish state. Wow!

Son, I wish I knew where all these alleged antiwar Jews are. I sure as hell wish they would speak up now about the next war the neocons are fomenting with Iran and the AJC is lining up America's goy soldiers to fight.

Oh, almost forgot. Israeli Premier Peres says that Iran can be wiped off the map, too, and that America (natch) should lead the charge.

See http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961301962&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

It just makes me sad, son. I just can't figure out what is so nasty about Israel that American Jews refuse to make aliyah and fight for their own people, their own nation, their own tribe, their own God-given homeland. Hell, with 200 nukes and submarines it ought to be easy to finish off Iran in a matter of minutes without getting Dean and Bush to rustle up hundreds of thousands of goyim to fight. But then again, it would probably genocide to use nukes, am I right? Better American soldiers go in to fight it out on the ground year-in year-out until the Iranians are pacified, right? Just like Iraq?

You know what, Mik? I know what it must have felt like as a Jew in 1880 when the Tsar drafted Jewish kids into the Russian army to fight a foreign war for a foreign religion and a foreign people. Like those poor Jews who just wanted to be left alone to live their lives, we gentiles just want to be left out of the Jewish/Arab wars in the Middle East. Our kids are precious to us, too, Mik.

So the next time you visit with your AJC frinds and relatives, Mik, be sure to tell them. We don't wish you ill, we just don't want our country drafted to fight your wars, that's all.

Daveg said at May 9, 2006 9:05 PM:

This is a great quote from the Walt-Mearsheimer paper on Isreal's supporters and the Iraq war.

Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure. According to Philip Zelikow, a former member of the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now a counsellor to Condoleezza Rice, the ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The ‘unstated threat’ was the ‘threat against Israel’, Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. ‘The American government,’ he added, ‘doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.’

On 16 August 2002, 11 days before Dick Cheney kicked off the campaign for war with a hardline speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Washington Post reported that ‘Israel is urging US officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.’ By this point, according to Sharon, strategic co-ordination between Israel and the US had reached ‘unprecedented dimensions’, and Israeli intelligence officials had given Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq’s WMD programmes. As one retired Israeli general later put it, ‘Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s non-conventional capabilities.’

Israeli leaders were deeply distressed when Bush decided to seek Security Council authorisation for war, and even more worried when Saddam agreed to let UN inspectors back in. ‘The campaign against Saddam Hussein is a must,’ Shimon Peres told reporters in September 2002. ‘Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors.’

At the same time, Ehud Barak wrote a New York Times op-ed warning that ‘the greatest risk now lies in inaction.’ His predecessor as prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, published a similar piece in the Wall Street Journal, entitled: ‘The Case for Toppling Saddam’. ‘Today nothing less than dismantling his regime will do,’ he declared. ‘I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike against Saddam’s regime.’ Or as Ha’aretz reported in February 2003, ‘the military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq.’

Link

Jorge D.C. said at May 10, 2006 2:24 AM:

Mik says:

Boy, you have a thing for Jewish Neocons - or is it for all Jews?

Well if 80% of Jews are on the left and another 15% are neocon (i.e. Trotskyite)...then yes it is entirely reasonable for a bonafide American conservative, constitutionalist, or nationalist to "have a thing" for nearly all Jews. That is simple mathematics.

I don't know what you mean by "have a thing" but I say "have a thing" with Jews as a group means opposition to radical anti-American politics:

The percentage of Jews who are supporters of the 1st Amendment is negligible. Jews as a group are strongly in favor of the institutionalization of hate speech and thought crime. American constitutionalists will find themselves adamantly opposed to Jews as a group on this issue.

The percentage of Jews who are supporters of the 2nd Amendment is negligible. Jews as a group are strongly in favor of incremental gun control with the ultimate goal of confiscation. American constitutionalists will find themselves adamantly opposed to Jews as a group on this issue.

The percentage of Jews who agree with the traditional American political philosophy of "beware foreign entanglements" is negligible. Are you kidding? America's entanglement with Israel is probably the greatest foreign entanglement in the history of nation states. And the diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews are working tirelessly to keep it that way. American nationalists will find themselves adamantly opposed to Jews as a group on this issue.

The percentage of Jews who want the U.S. borders controlled is negligible. Open borders is regarded as a "holy of holies" in the Jewish community. Border enforcement is to be thwarted at every turn and - to the extent necessary - cosmetic enforcement is only a bone that must be thrown to those silly gentiles in order to distract the resisters and get on with the business of internationalizing the nation. American nationalists will find themselves adamantly opposed to Jews as a group on this issue.

Parapundit runs a right wing nationalist website. Is that not obvious, Mik? If you're unhappy with the treatment Jews as a group receive here, why don't you start an Jewish-American right wing nationalist website? One that energetically rejects the anti-nationalist stands that Jews as a group inevitably take.

Quequeg said at May 10, 2006 6:08 AM:

ConceptualGuerilla is a liberal blog that agrees that the Jewish neocons were a very important reason for the invasion of Iraq.

http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/showthread.php?id=342

-- "Oil was a factor in the invasion of Iraq, but it was not the only factor. There would have been no invasion had oil been the only reason for it.
Israel is the reason the US invaded Iraq. Not the only one, but an important one. The Israeli lobby is the Elephant in the Room, or, more accurately, the Elephant in Congress. No one talks about it because, if they do, bad things happen to them."

-- "It borders on treason the way that the Israeli lobby functions in this country.
If you are a immigrant seeking citizenship in the US of A, a condition of citizenship here is to disavow alleigence to any other nation.
Israel is one of the prime reasons I feel so strongly that the US needs to remove ourselves from the ME in every way. Israel is not our problem. We nurtured her for 50+ years, it's time to walk or fall without our help."

-- "Excellent post you anti-semite, you! Post this over at Daily Kos and a lot of people will start calling you the Bionic Skinhead and you'll be troll rated for your troubles."

Wolf-Dog said at May 12, 2006 6:03 PM:

"Well if 80% of Jews are on the left and another 15% are neocon (i.e. Trotskyite)...then yes it is entirely reasonable for a bonafide American conservative, constitutionalist, or nationalist to "have a thing" for nearly all Jews. That is simple mathematics."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On this occasion, the American Jews appear to be highly assimilated, and this is not only in the realm of culture, but also biologically, since the latest statistics show that much more than 50 % of the Jews in the US marry outside their faith (and hence outside their ethnicity.) Additionally, this percentage surpasses 70 % if the statistics are restricted to well educated and successful Jews in the US. In this sense, the argument that the Jews as a whole are conspiring to exploit the United States for the benefit of Israel, is not correct. It is probably true that some individual conservatives in the government turned out to be Jewish, but the Republican party is overall a very non-Jewish "system".

Paleocon said at May 13, 2006 7:29 PM:

Re: opposition of many Jews to the Iraq war, one thing that Kevin MacDonald has pointed out:

A theme of Jewish life is that there are major differences between Jewish activist organizations and the rest of the Jewish population, with the former far more committed, more intense, and more aggressive than the latter. This is a theme of my article "Zionism and the Internal Dynamics of Judaism" and is also a prominent theme in my analysis of neoconservatism as a Jewish intellectual and political movement. The point is that there is a pattern in which the Jewish community tends to be led by its most aggressive, radical elements.

So, even if most Jews opposed the Iraq war - which is possible though I don't think the case is that strong - *organized* Jewry has been extremely hawkish.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©