- BitsBlog - https://bitsblog.theconservativereader.com -

Cooperation with Who, Again?

I’m afraid I have to take a chunk out of the backside of Rick Moran: [1]

Rick Moran [2]

Rick Moran

The Baucus bill hasn’t a chance of surviving a conference committee between the House and Senate. But it might have if the GOP worked to improve it rather than be terrified of their wild eyed base who sees any cooperation with the Democrats in trying to govern the country as tantamount to a betrayal of conservative principles.

The fact of the matter is, that under these conditions any bill that becomes law is going to be a direct betrayal of the ideals of minimalist government. On that basis, who was going to take them seriously when they start preaching that ideal? Nobody, and rightly so.

Please consider whom and what it is you’re suggesting compromise with.

Oh, and Rick? I think your reference to Disraeli dubious at best. Parse this quote of his out within the context of the British form of government.

“No Government can be long secure without a formidable opposition.”

When a Brit refers to a “Government” he’s not talking about a government in the long view, over a period of decades. He’s talking about a British government as constructed from election to election in thjis case, in the 1830’s. Bringing that up to date, a Margaret Thatcher led government, or a Tony Blair led government as examples.

Translated then into our American context, in the current situation, what Disraeli is saying is that the Democrats won’t last long because of their self-destructive tendencies, assuming they have nobody to oppose their own idiocy. A look at both the lack of traction Republicans are getting just now, in spite of the self-destructive tendencies of Democrats would seem to confirm this point.

Let’s also remember that the book in question also gave us the quote:

Conservatism discards Prescription, shrinks from Principle, disavows Progress; having rejected all respect for Antiquity, it offers no redress for the Present, and makes no preparation for the Future.

… an assertion that is so plainly and unarguably dead wrong, that it’s a wonder anyone but outright liberals will quote him at all.