The Future Looks...Childish

This past weekend the American Conservative Union held the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), its annual jamboree. After watching the young man in the above video, Jonathan Krohn, deliver a two minute speech on the "principles of conservatism" I found myself asking a very simple question, "is this the future of the Conservative movement in America?" I couldn't believe what I was seeing, a room full of middle-aged conservatives cheering a 13 year-old as he expounded on the merits of the conservative ideology. Granted, he wrote a book on the subject and would be very articulate were he a 30 year old, let alone a boy of 13.

Jon took special care to create the distinction that conservatism is not about politics or the Republican Party, but rather, about principles. In fact, he sees conservatism as set on 4 major pillars of principle:

1) Respect for the constitution
2) Respect for Life
3) Less government
4) Personal responsibility

First off, perhaps Jonathan can clue us in to what "respect for the constitution" means. I mean he does know that he is sharing the dais with former Bush administration officials, right?!? These are the guys who didn't even bother to introduce amendments (though Bush did threaten one to outlaw gay marriage) to change the constitution, electing instead to use it as toilet paper or possibly to roll J's with. They must have been smoking something, because they seemed to forget all about being the party of less government when they jammed through the Patriot act and endorsed spying on American citizens at within the US. What about Bush's never ending "war on terror" fought without congressional oversight, including the imprisonment of just about anyone without being charged, without the right to view the evidence against him/her, and without the right to receive counsel or contact family members? Perhaps the "war on terror" makes all of that irrelevant. OK, what about the recently released Bush administration memos demonstrating Bush's attempt to completely toss aside the first amendment?

Secondly, what exactly is "respect for life"? Oh, that's right, you're talking about abortion, of course. Funny how people who view a cluster of cells (that may or may not have a nervous system depending on the stage of its growth) as life worth respecting, are simultaneously the most fervent supporters of the death penalty and other forms of killing. The conservative leader for the past 8 years has been George W. Bush, the man who has executed more people than any other governor in the history of Texas (he averaged 1 death every 9 days). Not to mention the fervor with which the modern conservative movement has campaigned for US military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan and prayed (probably in the literal sense) for a war with Iran and North Korea. Almost got 'em too! I suppose I lack the intelligence or religious spirit to comprehend the distinction that the deaths those conflicts created are exceptions to the "thou shalt not kill" principle on which so many conservatives pride themselves. It must be that the deaths of untold thousands of Iraqis and Afghans (overwhelmingly innocent civilians) were acceptable under the "respect for life" principle. They were probably just the wrong kind of life.

Third, less government. Right, George W. Bush champion of the conservative movement and its leader up until a few months ago is the largest spender of government money since Lyndon Johnson and outspent LBJ based on the percentage increase in spending per annum. And no, it wasn't all on the "war on terror". W spent big time on No Child Left Behind, which promptly left all children behind, a Medicare prescription drug plan that was roundly rejected as a failure even before it was implemented, and finally by not vetoing a single Republican-controlled congressional budget despite the countless "earmarks" which bloated and busted its seams. Let's not also forget to reiterate the Patriot act, the creation of Homeland Security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which Bush ingeniously engineered to be financial solo acts. Schmuck.

Finally, we have personal responsibility, which, as far as I can tell, is a euphemism for, "you’re poor...tough shit." And this is where Johnny boy’s use of the word "principle" really pisses me off. Tell me Jon, ye who hath never held a job or paid bills, how principled are those individuals on Wall Street? In the banks and investment houses? Those, like your host ACU, who lobbied Congress to deregulate markets so banks and brokerages could offer crap home loans and repackage them into crappy derivatives, who have made it harder for ordinary Americans to declare bankruptcy while simultaneously making it easier for corporations to do so? How about your major conservative supporters at Enron and WorldCom? Oh, I forgot, you were only 4 when they helped get Bush get elected with money they ripped off from average Americans who wanted to use their toaster or call their grandma.

You were probably still wetting the bed Jon and that's fine, you were 4 - and that's what 4 year-olds do (I think). Which is precisely my point, Jon is indicative of the state of conservative politics in America. When a group of adults can identify within the rantings of a 13 year-old the essence of their political ideology, a time out is in order. Having parroted back at you the same trite, smug and archaic nonsense that has been so thoroughly rejected by the rest of America is perfectly fine if, as Jon suggests, Conservatism isn't about politics or party, but about principles. It’s fine so long as Conservatives don't mind resting on their political laurels for a while. I wonder if principles make for a comfortable seat.

~ Old Major