WHY ARE CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS, WHO CONTROL THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE FIRST TIME IN LIVING MEMORY, SO VULNERABLE TO THE PHENOMENON OF CRIMINALIZATION?
I dropped by The Weekly Standard
, to read the above, agonizing question proposed by Messers Kristol and Bell. Their answer: We just don't know!
"Is it simple payback for the impeachment of Bill Clinton? Or is it a reflection of some deep malady at the heart of American politics? If criminalization is seen to loom ahead for every conservative who begins successfully to act out his or her beliefs in government or politics, is the project of conservative reform sustainable?
We don't pretend to have all the answers, or a solid answer even to one of these questions. But it's a reasonable bet that the fall of 2005 will be remembered as a time when it became clear that a comprehensive strategy of criminalization had been implemented to inflict defeat on conservatives who seek to govern as conservatives.
For the life of me, I had this bizarre notion that it was because there have been, you know, crimes committed
(Gasp! Shock! Horror!) . Most likely by folks who happen to be, you know, conservative Republicans who abused their positions of authority to either pig out at the trough or get back of those who disagreed with them in petty and vindictive ways. Its just a coincidence, I know! And that it might be a partisan vendetta, wail the authors? Well, I wonder about this partisanship. Who started it? As Edgar Allen Poe wrote: " cui bono are rendered "to what purpose?" or, (as if quo bono,) "to what good." Their true meaning, nevertheless, is "for whose advantage." Cui, to whom; bono, is it for a benefit."
Who benefited from this partisan atmosphere. Could it have been the ruling party? After all, they have remained in power, and have fought what have been described as partisan and divisive campaigns themselves through each of the post 9-11 federal elections to keep that power (the treatment of Max Clelland, anyone?).
I shake my head in admiration. It takes a big pair (or two) to publish this lamentation.
A final observation: We see the outline of the (not so) new conservative talking point: We failed because we didn't have a compliant media that reported what we told them in glowing terms--its the SCLM's fault! That's the Dolchstoss
of the conservative class. We only had the executive and the legislative (and a big chunk of the top judicial) branches. We needed more--we needed the lower courts as well. And clearly, we could have made it if the damn media hadn't stabbed us in the back!
Are these folks part of the reality based community?