Revising History (Real and Imagined)
Oh, the glory days. I wish I could go back in time to the mythical Ohio of Steve Kroft's yesteryear. It was quite a jet-setting place, apparently:
Well, I've only lived in Ohio for the past dozen or so years. But apparently I missed that gravy train. I showed the quote to a few natives, and the reaction was, quite naturally, to be insulted.
New American cars every other year? Is this a talking point from displaced auto workers? Steve, how do you possibly justify such a comment? You might as well say that before No Child Left Behind, most children were leaving middle school to pursue Ph.D's, and gee look where we are now. Where does this revisionist disingenuousness (disingenuous revisionism?) end?
Well after reading that, I stumbled upon this assessment by Family Ties creator Gary David Goldberg on how Alex P. Keaton (an Ohio resident) would vote today. Goldberg concludes that Keaton would have "evolved" and voted Obama! Well, Keaton is Goldberg's character and he can say what he likes about him. But it would never happen. Equally obnoxious are the comments. Dozens of "reformed" Alex P. Keatons out there have seen the light and converted to the Dems because of the disgrace the GOP has become.
I simply don't get this. Has the GOP strayed from the vision of Reagan and Gingrich? Of course. Are those sins rectified by an Obama presidency? I don't get it. What are our grievances with the GOP?
To be a social conservative used to imply "law and order" but now seems to mean gay marriage, abortion, and stem cells. The Bush administration has taken no radical stands on any of these issues, though he's maintained tradition. How can Bush be taking us in crazy new directions by leaving us in the same place?
On security, they have a small point. But the Dems all supported the Patriot Act too, and law-and-order types haven't seen much that truly infringes on their (or anyone else's) rights.
On the economy, sure gas is pricey, and the housing market has tanked, and there are lots of foreclosures. But a conservative would look at the laundry list of solutions proposed by the Dems and know we'll be in worse shape for adopting them.
Health care is a problem. It's ridiculously expensive. But how do you attack the problem? Take a market approach or a statist approach? Again, it's clear where conservatives are. Do we simply have a problem of people not understanding what conservatism is? Or not understanding what they believe?
There are those, of course, who change ideology (in both directions). But that's not what I'm sensing. I'm sensing that the Republican party has made a hash of explaining what conservatism is, and the media has helped (after all, GWB is "right-wing"). Check out this comment on the Keaton topic:
Now, if we'd like to "move on" from this point, and want to use the past to make comparisons, let's get our history (and our terminology) right first.
KROFT: Used to be that almost everybody in Ohio and the Midwest took a vacation to Florida, the west coast of Florida in the wintertime, and bought a new Chevy or a Ford or Chrysler every other year.
MIKE THRONE: The one that I have has 175,000 miles on it.
KROFT: Anybody take a vacation to Florida in the wintertime?
SCHOENHOLTZ: No.
JOHN ISON: I haven't taken a vacation in five years.
Well, I've only lived in Ohio for the past dozen or so years. But apparently I missed that gravy train. I showed the quote to a few natives, and the reaction was, quite naturally, to be insulted.
New American cars every other year? Is this a talking point from displaced auto workers? Steve, how do you possibly justify such a comment? You might as well say that before No Child Left Behind, most children were leaving middle school to pursue Ph.D's, and gee look where we are now. Where does this revisionist disingenuousness (disingenuous revisionism?) end?
Well after reading that, I stumbled upon this assessment by Family Ties creator Gary David Goldberg on how Alex P. Keaton (an Ohio resident) would vote today. Goldberg concludes that Keaton would have "evolved" and voted Obama! Well, Keaton is Goldberg's character and he can say what he likes about him. But it would never happen. Equally obnoxious are the comments. Dozens of "reformed" Alex P. Keatons out there have seen the light and converted to the Dems because of the disgrace the GOP has become.
I simply don't get this. Has the GOP strayed from the vision of Reagan and Gingrich? Of course. Are those sins rectified by an Obama presidency? I don't get it. What are our grievances with the GOP?
- Corruption (this is not exclusively our problem, but we actually turn ours out)
- Pork-barrel spending
- Big-government programs
- Ignoring the rule of law with regard to illegal immigration
- Making noises about needing to "solve" global warming
- The war in Iraq (though not the one in Afghanistan)
- Intrusive Christian morality
- Intrusions on personal privacy in the name of security
- The cost of gas
- The "poor" economy
- Lack of "access to healthcare" (greatest euphemism of the 21st Century)
- Head-in-the-sand mentality on global warming (or is it "climate change" given our cold spell?)
To be a social conservative used to imply "law and order" but now seems to mean gay marriage, abortion, and stem cells. The Bush administration has taken no radical stands on any of these issues, though he's maintained tradition. How can Bush be taking us in crazy new directions by leaving us in the same place?
On security, they have a small point. But the Dems all supported the Patriot Act too, and law-and-order types haven't seen much that truly infringes on their (or anyone else's) rights.
On the economy, sure gas is pricey, and the housing market has tanked, and there are lots of foreclosures. But a conservative would look at the laundry list of solutions proposed by the Dems and know we'll be in worse shape for adopting them.
Health care is a problem. It's ridiculously expensive. But how do you attack the problem? Take a market approach or a statist approach? Again, it's clear where conservatives are. Do we simply have a problem of people not understanding what conservatism is? Or not understanding what they believe?
There are those, of course, who change ideology (in both directions). But that's not what I'm sensing. I'm sensing that the Republican party has made a hash of explaining what conservatism is, and the media has helped (after all, GWB is "right-wing"). Check out this comment on the Keaton topic:
I too was Alex Keaton (albeit a rather brown one) in my college-conservative youth. I now believe that Ron Paul is probably the closest thing left to the real Republicans of the 19080s (even with his Christian leanings) — and I voted for Paul in the California Republican primary. But Paul can’t win the general election, so in November, I will do exactly what many of my intellectual colleagues will do. I will “pull the lever” for someone who believes, talks, thinks, and does as I do — Barack Obama.If the person who believes, talks, thinks, and does like you do is Barack Obama, you are not a conservative. Period.
Now, if we'd like to "move on" from this point, and want to use the past to make comparisons, let's get our history (and our terminology) right first.
Comments