What's The Difference Between A Conservative And A Reactionary Or A Fascist?

19th century American poet, essayist and champion of individual freedoms, Ralph Waldo Emerson, had a pretty good definition of what it means to be a conservative in his The Conduct of Life: "All conservatives are such from personal defects. They have been effeminated by position of nature, born halt and blind, through luxury of their parents, and can only, like invalids, act on the defensive." Sounds about right to me, although the mass media they own sure doesn't paint them so, not in the 21st century.

In fact, reading the Beltway-centric media about politics can only leave the uninitiated utterly confused about what a conservative is. The Beltway media never-- never, never, never-- describes political conservatives as reactionaries, fanatics, fascists or even authoritarians. Conservative Democrats and mainstream conservative Republicans are routinely dubbed "moderates" and virulent racists and certifiably insane right-wing extremists are often contrasted with actual GOP conservatives by implying they are more conservative, whatever that's supposed to mean.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines conservatism as "a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change" and "the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change." They don't even offer a cohesive definition of a reactionary or reactionarism, although they suggest synonyms like "archconservative, brassbound, button-down (or buttoned-down), die-hard, hidebound, mossbacked, old-fashioned, old-line, old-school, orthodox, paleoconservative, conservative, standpat, traditional, traditionalistic, ultraconservative, and unprogressive" and antonyms like "broad-minded, large-minded, liberal, nonconservative, nonconventional, nonorthodox, nontraditional, open-minded, progressive, unconventional, and unorthodox."

Fascism is defined as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."

For now, we'll leave out a different definition implicit in the results of a just released Bloomberg poll that found, by a large margin (55-34%), that Americans believe Republicans are acting “more out of antagonism towards Obama” than out of a "deep belief in their vision for the country." (By contrast, Americans believe by 54-36% that Obama is more driven by his vision than by antagonism towards Republicans.) Because what we're talking about here is the Republican Party civil war and the media's refusal to even recognize a language to explain it coherently.

Monday evening Henry Decker as the National Memo tried distinguishing from the conservative Establishment and the fascist-oriented extremists by referring to the latter as true conservatives.

For years, GOP activists have insisted that their party can only return to the White House by anointing a “true conservative” as the party’s standard bearer.

But a new Bloomberg Politics Poll turns that Republican precept, and a few other pieces of conventional wisdom, on its head.

The poll, released Monday, tested former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s chances against five Republicans-- former Florida governor Jeb Bush, New Jersey governor Chris Christie, Texas senator Ted Cruz, Kentucky senator Rand Paul, and 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney-- in hypothetical 2016 presidential matchups. It found that Clinton holds solid leads over all five, which is hardly a surprise considering her overwhelming name recogntion advantage (94 percent of voters have formed an opinion of Clinton-- 52 percent view her favorably and 42 percent view her unfavorably-- while less than 80 percent have an opinion on each of the Republicans aside from the well-known Romney).

But the underlying data should give Republicans pause as they consider their options in what is sure to be a contentious presidential primary. Although the right constantly preaches that only one of their own can win the White House, the poll finds the more moderate Republicans running much closer to Clinton than the Tea Party-aligned candidates. Clinton leads Bush, Christie, and Romney by 6 percent each in head-to-head matchups. Meanwhile, she holds an 8 percent lead over Paul, and a 13 percent edge over Cruz.

Cruz and Paul’s right-wing reputations appear to be hurting them with voters. When asked which candidate better shares their values, Clinton leads Bush and Romney by just 6 and 3 percentage points, respectively. By contrast, she leads Paul on that measure by 13 points, and Cruz by 15. Christie lags behind Clinton by 14 points on this measure, perhaps illustrating some residual damage from his George Washington Bridge scandal. In any case, it seems clear that voters are not identifying with the most conservative Republicans in the field.

Over on the right, there is less reluctance to differentiate between the extremists, racists and fanatics and the rest of the conservatives. Yesterday The Federalist was railing against the big GOP donors who are trying to side-line the 2016 far right contenders.

Although the specifics are still hazy, the New York Times reports that a group of deep-pocketed Republican donors and bundlers have hatched a plan to clear the GOP field of all insurgents to make room for a favored “establishment” candidate-- preferably Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, or Mitt Romney. But there can only be one.

This strikes me as a dubious strategy for a number of reasons. But the main point of the Times piece is to inform everyone that Republican powerbrokers intend to get ahead of the intraparty squabbling that accompanies the long primary season because, in the end, all of that ugliness only helps elect Hillary Clinton.

...[T]here’s scant evidence that bypassing crowded primaries enhances a party’s chances of winning a national election. If you take a look at some of the “wide-open races” (ones without preordained vice presidential successors) over the past decades, you’ll find that plenty of candidates prevailed in the general after winning competitive-- and sometimes acrimonious-- party contests. Ronald Reagan in 1980. Bill Clinton in 1992. George W. Bush in 2000. Barack Obama in 2008. In some cases, it was the establishment that was won over in the process. All of these races determined the course of party politics for years.

These days, there is incessant whining about the slog of the primary and debate season from the media. This might just be a perfunctory complaint. But it’s also wrong. Politics has a ton of problems, but too much debate isn’t one of them.

We’ve all heard that primaries help hone a candidate’s skills or test the candidate’s organization or allow us to see how a candidate reacts to intense scrutiny. True. But sometimes a primary makes the candidate. A lot of people watched Obama beat Hillary-- and inevitability-- in 2008. The Obama mythos was secured before he ever had to repel a real GOP attack. By the general election, it was probably too late to stop his momentum. I bet Hillary wished there had been a compressed primary season that year.

And 2016 might be a bit different in other ways, as well. After seven years of functioning as the opposition, Republicans may actually have to sort out some substantive differences on policy. Coronations do not lend themselves to self-examination.

Jeb Bush recently told the Wall Street Journal that a Republican nominee should be willing to “lose the primary to win the general without violating your principles.” I imagine what he likely meant to say was that a principled candidate should be willing to make his case on Common Core or immigration reform, even if his positions are detested by most rank-and-file conservatives. Those are certainly debates worth having. And with the probable inclusion of Rand Paul in the mix, there will also likely be debates centered on foreign policy, domestic spying, criminal justice reform, and other issues that big donors would rather avoid.

Then again, if you’re interesting in generating recrimination and anger, there is no more effective strategy than having a complete disdain for your party’s democratic process. Attempting to crowd out competition with big dollars isn’t new. But let’s not forget that those designated kingmakers of the GOP in the Times piece have had a tendency to make appallingly bad political choices.

No one can deny which end of the GOP Texas crackpot Louie Gohmert is part of. He was the only co-sponsor of Yoho's forced deportation bill who voted against the bill because he claimed it was a trick not to deport enough people. And he opposed the defense funding bill for similar reasons.

The Hill is the perfect example of a Beltway operation unable to figure out what to call the radical right. Headline from Monday: Conservatives complain House GOP leaders ramming through spending bill. "Conservatives?" Meaning John Boehner and and his team aren't conservatives?

House conservatives are griping that Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is putting the squeeze on them by rushing through a $1 trillion spending bill in Congress’s last week in session.

Appropriators are expected to roll out the legislation early next week, giving critics scant time to figure out what’s inside before they cast their votes by the end of the week. The government would shut down on Dec. 12 without a new funding bill.

“Here we are doing the appropriations bill the last couple days” before a government shutdown, conservative Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kansas) said in an interview this week. “That’s not to squeeze Harry Reid. That’s to squeeze us.”

Boehner critics say there’s no reason the Speaker couldn’t have brought the spending package to the floor this past week, giving the House more time to consider it.

But doing so would also give more time for the right to build a case against it.

...Boehner signaled it's unlikely he'll make any significant changes to the package’s framework, ignoring demands by immigration hard-liners to include language to de-fund the implementation of Obama’s immigration actions, which could give legal status to up to five million undocumented workers.

GOP leaders appear to have much of their conference behind them, though many conservatives are expected to vote no.

“I think the fix is in,” Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) told The Hill.

He wanted GOP leaders to bring the spending package to the floor this past week with stronger immigration language. That way, the House would have had time to respond to any changes the Senate made to the legislation.

Boehner instead called a vote Thursday on a messaging bill that rebukes Obama’s immigration move, a measure the Senate will not take up.

“I’ve implored them. I’ve begged them. I’ve spoken in various meetings so that we wouldn’t be up against some crisis… This is not the way it’s supposed to be done,” Salmon said.

Some conservatives acknowledge that they’ll have no chance of blocking the cromnibus if House Democrats decide to get on board. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warned Republicans Friday not to bog down the package with “destructive” riders, including proposals to roll back environmental regulations or halt a new law that legalizes marijuana in D.C.

But sources in both parties said they expect a good number of Democrats to cross the aisle and vote for the spending plan in the end. Especially since it’s based on months of work from House and Senate appropriators from both parties.

 

Let's hear directly from AZ GOP Rep. Matt Salmon's gay son Matt

The "It Gets Better" video posted by "Matt in Phoenix"

"It's impossible to be brave without first being afraid."

-- young Matt, replying to a comment posted on his video

by Ken

Howie wrote this morning ("Republican Homophobia in Arizona? Jeff Flake Vs Matt Salmon") about the weekend TV babbling of a couple of Arizona right-wingers, Rep. Matt Salmon and Sen. Jeff Flake, dancing around the issue of same-sex marriage.

The interesting wrinkle is that Representative Salmon has a son who happens to be gay. The congressman made clear that on the issue of marriage equality he's no Rob Portman, not having "evolved" to the "station" that the Ohio Republican senator "apparently has." You'll recall that the senator has changed his position to favor same-sex marriage in good part owing to the evolution set in motion by learning that his son Will is gay.

When Senator Portman went public about Will being gay, it was widely and understandably pointed out that it's a shame this was the only way he was capable of having his consciousness raised. At the same time, he deserved some credit for having it raised.

However obvious it may be, I keep pointing out that the sea change in public opinion about the LGBT community has everything to do with more and more previously hostile or indifferent Americans realizing that they actually know LGBT people -- among their family and friends and coworkers -- and have come to understand that their sexual orientation is simply part of who they are; it doesn't make them better or worse people.

Which brings us back to "Matt in Phoenix," who posted the "It Gets Better" video we see above -- from the inspiring series of videos made by LGBT folks from all walks of life speaking to younger peers to encourage them in their struggles with the same issues they've grappled with. "Matt in Phoenix" is of course the younger Matt Salmon.

Today on washingtonpost.com's "Post Politics" blog, Rachel Weiner posted a piece, "Rep. Matt Salmon: Gay son hasn't changed my views on gay marriage," that includes both the video of Representative Salmon's interview which Howie posted this morning and his son's "It Gets Better" video. Now I don't want to downplay any of what Howie pointed out about the older Matt's right-wing extremism.

But just as it was fascinating to see Yale junior Will Portman's parents through his eyes, as he told his story in a Yale Daily News guest column (which I wrote about in "It's a pretty standard coming-out story, with a couple of wrinkles (like it's a U.S. senator's son)," I think it's intriguing to be able to see young Matt's parents through his eyes.

In her "Post Politics" post Rachel Weiner notes that young Matt --

leads the Arizona Log Cabin Republicans, a pro-gay rights GOP group. In a 2010 interview with the Phoenix New Times, the 22-year-old revealed that he was dating Kent Flake, the second cousin of Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). In the article, both young men discussed coming out to their conservative Mormon families.

"The first time I had a conversation with [my father] about it, it did not go well. He was very upset and said some things right off that I know he doesn't really feel," Salmon told the paper. "He's never called me any slurs or anything like that, but he made it clear he didn't like it." The younger Salmon said his father came to support his activism even if he didn't agree with it, but that the struggle for his family's complete acceptance continued.

"It took me 20 years to accept that I'm gay, and to live openly and understand equality issues," he said. "I can't expect them to do it in four months."

Matt's "It Gets Better" video is totally lovely, and I hope you'll watch in its entirety -- to hear him talk about what it was like growing up Mormon and realizing that he was gay, or about summoning the courage to confront the bullies who had beset him in high school -- and having them apologize and even congratulate him on his courage.

I've transcribed just the portion dealing with Matt's parents, and even here what you won't get from the transcript is the image of his emotional upheaval even in 2011 as he talked about it, or the way his tone lightens and he even smiles when he talks about being able to talk to his parents about his dating problems.

I didn't know if my family would ever come around. My parents were very politically opposed to gay equal rights. My mom was president of the organization in Arizona that drafted the 2006 amendment to ban gay marriage in Arizona. She even asked me to help her edit it sometimes. . . . My dad is also a Republican politician. He was in Congress, and he's running for Congress again [in May 2011].

I can tell you, since I've come out, things have changed with my family, but it wasn't until I realized one key thing: If I wanted them to love me and and fully accept me, I had to love and fully accept them too, despite their opinions that might not agree with mine. My parents, they won't see LGBT rights as an issue. They don't see it as a legal issue, but my dad in his campaign now, he has come out publicly and talked with pride about me. My dad told me, and he told a reporter also on the news, that he was proud of me for standing up for what I believe in, for standing up for gay rights. Even though he may not agree with them, he was proud of me for doing it, because that was the way he raised me. And it's true, he did.

I talk to my parents about guys that I've dated, or troubles that I'm having with boys and things like that, and they give me their honest advice, even though they could say, "I don't want to hear it. I don't like you dating guys." They don't. They say, "Maybe he's not right for you. Maybe you should look for somebody else. And someday you'll find a man that makes you happy." And I'm sure that I will.

AT THE TIME YOUNG MATT POSTED HIS VIDEO . . .

. . . there were three comments, and he replied to all of them. I think both the comments and his replies are fascinating.

th3g00dstuff88: Great video Matt. I have a question for you: Are you still LDS? How has the church responded to you being gay? Thanks.

I fully resigned from the church about a year and a half ago. But, I've realized that even though I am not a member any longer, I will always be a Mormon. You can leave the membership, but you can't leave the culture. The church responds as they would, sweep it under, try to retain me while telling me I'm a sinner and considered less than straight members. But, how the church responds doesn't matter, because only I decide my life path, nobody else.

Shyguyx12: Thanks for this great video!! I wish that I was as brave as you.

well, it's impossible to be brave without first being afraid.

kellykak98: I'm sorry what you went through. Your story is very touching. I just hope you know that not ALL Mormons, Catholics, etc. and republicans aren't homophobic. My mom is Catholic and my dad is a Mormon and i was raised Catholic. I'm a conservative republican--more conservative than my parents haha! I'm also a lesbian. I'm 16 years old. My parents LOVE me and don't want me to change! Us Christians love our children no matter what! The ones who don't obviously haven't read the Bible. They aren't true.

I still hold to a lot of republican ideals as well. I understand the individuality that is inherent in humanity.

FINALLY, A CHALLENGE TO REP. SALMON

Young Matt tells us that you and the missus don't see LGBT rights as a "legal issue." Really? So you think your son should be subject to being summarily fired from any job just because he's gay? Or being thrown out of his home, or denied the opportunity to rent or buy one because he's gay? Or being denied a whole range of legal "privileges" -- like common property ownership, hospital visitation, or inheritance, things that are so taken for granted by straight folk that it never even occurs to them to think of them as "privileges."

I put it as a challenge to Senator Portman to do something else, pretty much anything else, to show that he actually grasps the basic issues of human rights involved, though I did offer by way of suggestion (always trying to help, I am) that he might sign on as a co-sponsor of the reintroduced Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). I understand, Representative Salmon, that you haven't evolved to Senator Portman's station on marriage equality. But are you starting to get any glimmering that there may indeed be not just a legal issue but a whole bunch of them attached to what you so casually dismiss as "LGBT rights"? None of which you apparently believe your son should be legally entitled to.

AND IF YOU THINK ISSUES LIKE COMMON PROPERTY
OWNERSHIP AND INHERITANCE ARE TECHNICALITIES . . .

Tomorrow I want to share a "for instance" that was passed along to me today and had me punching the walls. If it doesn't outrage you, then there's really something wrong with you.

#

Republican Homophobia In Arizona? Jeff Flake Vs Matt Salmon

In 2004, when the GOP introduced a constitutional amendment to forever ban same-sex marriage, it failed to get the needed 2/3s majority in the House. 191 Republicans (+36 bigoted Democrats) voted for it. 158 Democrats and 27 Republicans voted against it. Three of the Republican closet cases-- David Dreier (R-CA), Mark Foley (R-FL) and Jim Kolbe (R-AZ)-- voted against it. Most of the hypocritical GOP closet cases, like Ed Schrock (R-VA), Denny Hastert (R-IL), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Dave Camp (R-MI), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Phil English (R-PA), and Jim McCrery (R-LA), voted for it. Rob Portman's son, Will, was still 7 years from coming out so, of course, Rob Portman voted for the anti-gay constitutional amendment. And then for DOMA. He's evolved now... after his son came out. But not all congressional parents of gay children have. Matt Salmon is a raging homophobe, an all-around bigoted hatemonger, a hero of the far, far right fringe of the House GOP. He has a gay son-- and he's still voting against equality for gay people. Listen to his son:




Salmon, a hate-filled anti-gay Mormon, is a freshman but his congressional homophobia goes way back to when he was in Congress between 1995 and 2001. He left Congress to run (unsuccessfully) for governor, losing to Democrat Janet Napolitano, who his vicious campaign accused of being a closeted lesbian. Aside from general right-wing claptrap, Salmon's first stint in Congress is best known for his unsuccessful attempt to get Ronald Reagan's face carved into Mount Rushmore. After losing to Napolitano he became a lobbyist for an Inside the Beltway telecommunications group. He was widely considered one of the sleaziest and most disreputable lobbyists in town, setting him up perfectly for another run at Congress after redistricting created a blood red seat in Mesa and the eastern Phoenix suburbs, AZ-05, which includes much of his old district and from which Jeff Flake was retiring to run, successfully, for Jon Kyl's open Senate seat.

Perhaps you watched Senator Flake on Meet the Press yesterday. Flake, also a Mormon gay-hater, has a very homophobic voting record but, unlike Salmon, he senses the winds of change that are blowing down the American highway. Oh, don't get me wrong, Flake is still pretty much a dedicated homophobic bigot-- if not as extreme as Salmon on the issues-- and has every intention of voting against marriage equality for as long as he's in Congress, but what he told Chuck Todd is that he realizes it's "inevitable" that the GOP will change to being less of the hatemonger party-- and perhaps soon.

Todd: Let me ask you on gay marriage. Could you support a Republican presidential candidate some day who supported same-sex marriage?

Flake: Oh, I think that’s inevitable. There will be one and he will receive bipartisan support-- or she will. So I think that yes, the answer is yes.

Todd: And where are you on this issue, you say it’s inevitable. Are you... Lisa Murkowski, a Republican colleague of yours called it evolving on the issue; are you evolving to use her words on this issue?

Flake: I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman I still hold to the traditional definition of marriage.

As you can see in the video above, Salmon likes his gay son-- but not enough to support equality for him. Interestingly, he broke with right-wing extremists who still insist God never created any gays and that it's a "lifestyle choice." In the interview, Salmon seems to endorse his son's assertion that he was "born this way." Which kind of undercuts the whole bigotry thing the Republican Party-- and Salmon-- are clinging to.

“I’m just not there in believing in my heart... It doesn’t mean I don’t have respect, it doesn’t mean I don’t sympathize with some of the issues, it means I haven’t evolved to that station, Rob Portman apparently has.”

Sounds like Salmon thinks "evolution" is a good thing and that it's just a matter of time. It also sounds like he's a political coward more eager to please the extremist neanderthals who back him than to support his own son and do what he appears to already knows is the right thing to do.

Matt'n'Jeff, GOP Mormon bigots from Arizona with a message of deranged homophobia