Bleeding-Heart Limbaughals: the Rush Away from Conservatism
I couldn't agree more. I believe my medical records are MY medical records. In fact, I believe my financial records are MY financial records. I believe my library records are MY library records. There is no reason for them to be made public or to be shared by telemarketers, financial institutions, insurance agencies, Johnnie Ashcroft, etc. My (wife's) Huey Lewis records are up for grabs, though.
My musings today are not to profess myself as a neodittohead, though. I am here to pose a larger question:
What has happened to Conservatism?
Personal records deserving privacy? When has a conservative ever supported that? That has always been a liberal cry. Conservatives have always fought to open up financial and medical records to the corporate world--to the point where Citibank could conceivably have more knowledge of my health condition than I'd be allowed.
On previous "This Week in 'Conservatism'" episodes, we've seen conservatives argue that we need the government intruding in on our library records, e-mails, church services. They've even fought to intrude in our very homes for "sneak and peak" searches. Do these sound like the same people who used to cry out against big government? Well, they are.
Remember back during the Clinton administration? Conservatives DEMANDED every document regarding the Clintons' activities: like Whitewater, the travel office, the Clinton health care plan, and Marc Rich's pardon. They believed every American deserved to know this information. Now, however, everything is under executive privilege as we try to find out the discussions that went into tax plans, environmental plans, energy bills, Enron, etc. Where is the outcry from conservatives? Oh, there's outcry: outcry that anyone who dares question our bestest buddy the government is most likely in group therapy with bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
Remember when conservatives were demanding that we be fiscally responsible? Well, that has certainly switched. They are throwing money left and right...okay, mostly to the right. But money is certainly being spent. Yet, this administration cut taxes so the government coffers are even more empty than before. What's so responsible about taking in less money and spending more? Let's be honest, though; fiscal irresponsibility isn't a liberal trait. Liberals have been more fiscally responsible by raising taxes to pay for increase spending. At least with Clinton the budget was balanced. Can conservatives make that claim with Bush? Nope.
Then we have the judge appointment situation. Using filibusters, Democrats have blocked four of the Bush administration's nominees for judgedomhood. To hear the conservatives gripe, you'd think that blocking judges was unheard of and unprecedented--especially the ungodly number of FOUR. They're kind of correct, though. In order to find a similar situation, they'd have to go back to (and I hope I don't lose the younger generations on this) the Clinton administration. Yep, the Republicans blocked over sixty of Clinton's nominations. The used a different tactic, but the result was the same. I know sixty seems like a miniscule number compared to four, but I don't know that it is a big enough difference to justify the change in conservative philosophy.
The big one is, of course, honesty. Remember, we were supposed to vote for Bush to bring honor and integrity back to the White House. If you'll recall, Clinton told a few or so lies. Of course, Bush lied on the way to the White House (taking credit for education reform in Texas) and in the White House (no child left behind, tax cut for everyone who pays taxes, weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein/Osama bin Laden ties, etc.). Of course, the funny part of all of this is that Bush set his goal EXTREMELY low (being more honest than Bill Clinton) and still couldn't reach it! He only had to be more honest than someone whose name became synonymous with lying and he couldn't do it! But, once again, conservatives are quick to tell us that truth telling isn't important and the end justifies the means. The end being the end of Saddam Hussein.
The conservative view of Saddam Hussein has flipped so many times I've got motion sickness. First, he's evil and we've got to get him. Then he's unimportant because he's no longer in power. Then we capture him and he's a terrorist mastermind. So now that he's out of the way, we raise the terror alert level. Huh?
Those who consider themselves conservative must just be disheveled! What's next? Worker rights? Funding public education? Consumer rights? Universal health coverage? PROGRESSIVE TAX POLICY? Whoa! Hold on, there, fellow campers! Let's not go into the absurd here. Conservatives still have their base beliefs. There are some things that cannot be touched. You know, like protecting free enterprise and letting a competitive market duke it out for consumer dollars--like for prescription drugs. (Oh, wait ... oops.)
I suppose we should be celebrating the flexibility of the conservatives: taking anyone-who-believes-otherwise-is-antiAmerican beliefs and then believing otherwise. It takes a big person to admit being wrong. Well, the conservatives didn't exactly admit they were wrong. They just re-polarized their compasses. But don't think that I don't appreciate this first step.
So, on behalf of individual rights fans everywhere, I'd like to welcome Rush Limbaugh into our bleeding-heart ranks.
That's a record he should be proud to make public!
return to Commentary index
The opinions expressed here are solely those of the writer and do not neccessarily reflect those of the rest of the family.
© 2003, Mark Wentz