your link to the review of greg anrig's book is wrong- it's a link to the brownstein review.

Let me say this about your argument that there is a difference between Reagan and Bush. I have no doubt that the only reason Reagan didn't do the things that Bush has done is because the groundwork had not been laid to do so. Since Nixon there has been a slow and steady movement towards the place that we find ourselves in today. If the political climate had been, in Reagans time, what it is today it is my belief that he would have made the same kinds of power plays that we've seen from Bush. However, in Reagans time the checks and balances were for the most part still in place and viable. It wasn't until the constitution had been sufficiently eroded with the congress (both houses) in republican hands and the press adequately cowed that any of this could be pulled off. While 9/11 made a suitable catalyst to accomplish this power grab, I have no doubt that they still would have attempted their power grab without it.

As for Buckley and Coulter, the only difference is one of vocabulary.:)

Yesterday, Gary Kamiya in Salon made the case for my faction, the decline-and-fallers: “However much liberal critics (like this writer) might disagree with them, Republican presidents from Ford to Reagan to the elder Bush generally refrained from radically changing American institutions, law and values.

They didn't control Congress. Bush did. It's quite possible that they weren't worse than they were for lack of opportunity rather than lack of desire -- I think this is demonstrably true in the case of Reagan, who always had Tip O'Neill to deal with at the beginning of each day. Bush had nobody -- and it showed.

But I also think that things have fundamentally changed since those days in the Republican Party. Look at some of the states Reagan won in his elections -- California, Delaware, NY and so on -- and realize that any Republican who got out of the primaries doesn't stand a chance in those states today, even New Yorker Giuliani, who has turned himself into a sort of pro-choice winger for the primaries. Limbaughism and the politics of the years since have pushed the party, and its brand image, to the right.

I'm not sure why Ford is lumped in with Reagan, BTW. Ford was more of an old-school, pragmatic conservative, whereas with Reagan, you see the seeds of the black/white, us all good/them all bad, we kick their ass so make my day, mentality that has come to symbolize Republicanism.

Crooked cops, crooked lawyers, crooked judges, crooked politicians, crooked doctors, crooked scientists, crooked clergymen -- but no crooked journalists. An amazing record for an amazing class of people.

Yesterday, Gary Kamiya in Salon made the case for my faction, the decline-and-fallers: “However much liberal critics (like this writer) might disagree with them, Republican presidents from Ford to Reagan to the elder Bush generally refrained from radically changing American institutions, law and values. They possessed some internal governor that prevented them from going too far, some deeply rooted sense of civic parameters.”

You're kidding right?

McCarthy? Jesse Helms? The John Birch society? McArthur? Curtis LeMay?

Remember Nixon? Secret bombings in Cambodia, enemies lists, wiretaps, burglaries, plotting murders, etc. etc.

Reagan? Iran contra? Secret dirty wars all over central America? Meddling in the middle east, bombing Lebanon, playing footsie with Quaddaffi? James Watt? Rita Lavelle? Anne Gorsuch? Deregulation? Deindustrialization? Deficits dont' matter? Hyperinflated military budgets? Star wars?

Bush I? CIA connections up the ass? Connections to the florida drug trade? Panama? Iraq? Somalia? Good lord.

These assholes had no internal limits, no commitment to civil government. They were utterly indifferent to the constitution, were thoroughly corrupt, and pursued violent revolutionary agendas.

Reagan and Bush did pull exactly the same stunts and games.

Rose coloured glasses are blinding you.
Reagan undertook a systematic campaign of subverting the constitution, as we saw in Iran-Contra. He also made a practice of destroying government internally by putting ideologues like Watt, Lavelle and Gorsuch into positions where they could and would literally destroy the programs they had been assigned to implement.

As for Bush I, stop and think about his two supreme Court nominees: Bork and Thomas.

re: Remember Nixon? Secret bombings in Cambodia, enemies lists, wiretaps, burglaries, plotting murders, etc. etc.

Nixon was not a conservative. He just played one come election time. Come on, he went to China, proposed national health care, proposed a gauranteed minimum income, enacted wage and price controls, eliminated the draft, initiated federal affirmative action, and started the EPA. I'm not apologizing for his sins, which were legion (and some quite serious), but Richard Nixon was significantly to the left of Bill Clinton-- or Hillary, for that matter.

The very definition of a conservative vs that of a liberal (progressive) tells the whole story. The liberal seeks to make things better. The conservative seeks to undo the things that made things better. So, no there cannot be a decent right. The right is consumed with greed and hatred.

Hoppy in Sacramento

OK, sorry, fixed now. It's not linked on the Monthly site yet, though the magazine is out.

And now we've learned that if something liberals try doesn't work, the answer is not in electing conservatives.

What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority. Molly Ivins

Well, I hope you don't advocate for a one party system.
In reality liberals can't fix own screwups and conservatives can't fix own screwups.
If left to their own devices, leberals screw the country as much as conservatives.

Yes, there is a decent right.

His name is Ron Paul. 

"You say I'm a dreamer.  We're two of a kind.  Looking for some perfect world that we both know that we'll never find." - Thompson Twins, "Hold Me Now"

In Nixon years, some part of the contemporary right wing ideology were either non-existence, or had significant internal opposition within GOP. Dirty air and water and clear-cut forests are not inherently right wing issues, but they became so.

Reagan can be implicated with all aspects of "ugly wingnuttism", although the orthodoxy was still settling, therefore Reagan Administration was relatively heterodox.

I think that Gingrich revolution finished what Reagan started, namely converting GOP into a political machine with a very high degree of consistency. People with different opinions about enviroment, budget, imperialism, reproductive freedom etc. were purged or cowed into mumbling submission, and of course the effect is cumulative.

Self styled conservatives have a problem. When they left that train? Some did, so-called paleo-con. Some paleo-cons nevertheless defenced their orthodox collegues more often than not.

It was claimed that Ron Paul is very decent except for being a virulent homophobe and racist and having totally retorgrade ideas about social welfare.

American politics were sustained by corporate money, or at least by well-to-do donors, so liberal politicians had no chance to develop any kind of grim leftist orthodoxy. If anything, they had the opposite problem.

Right wing politicians had no powerful break protecting them agaist that danger.

When you here some discussions you may conculde that this country could become a dull place under the rule of a coalition of feminists and bicyclists. We bicyclists have a lot of justified grievances, we are discriminated by police, neglected by traffic engineers, honked at, wounded and killed, ah, the revenge would be sweet. Gas would be priced at 10 dollars and that would be just the start. Feminists have chips on their shoulders as well.

davai-- 

    In a vibrant two-party system, Republicans and Democrats would debate many of the things they have debated in the past: state's rights vs. the federal government, trade agreements (how strict should they be?);unemployment vs. inflation, whether health care reform should be put in the hands of the public sector or the private sector (or whether they should compete with each other), immigration policies; gun control;  mandatory sentencing guidelines; the importance of paying down the deficit; just how progressive income taxes should be; whether we should have a draft; the details of how to address global warming; the details of how to achieve campaign finance reform. (As a progressive, I have a point of view on these issues, but I can see how reasonable men might disagree.)

What they wouldn't debate  is whether we should violate international law by torturing prisoners, whether the President has the right to go to war without advise and consent from Congress; whether the president has the right to lie to the American public about the need to go to war; whether for-profit companies have the right to profit on a war without competitive bidding; whether the vice-president or any cabinet member should consult with for-profit industry, behind closed doors, when setting govt policy regulating that industry; whether the administration has the right to authorize covert operations to overturn a particular government; the importance of equal rights to educational and other opportunities for minorities and women; whether income taxes should be progressive; separation of church and state; whether the SEC should do its job; whether the FDA shoud do its job, whether we need to protect the environment and address global warming--and since there is support both from conservatves and from liberals that we need campaign finance reform, I hope they would not debate the need--just how to go about doing it.  

. . . whether the President has the right to go to war without advise and consent from Congress . . . .

Well, of course he does. It's right in the Constitution -- in Article . . . Article . . . er, Article . . . oh, never mind. It's in there somewhere.

. . whether a woman has the right to have an abotion.
Well, of course she does. It's right in the Constitution -- in Article . . . Article . . . er, Article . . . oh, never mind. It's in there somewhere

No wonder you can't find it, davai.  You're looking in the wrong place.  It's an Amendment -- the Fourteenth, I believe.

There will be no decent right or left until the voters get rid of the special interests followers running the Congress.

The only Substantial thing our "representatives" have had the will to agree on in the last six years is to drain nearly a trillion from the taxpayer-funded treasury for a war and earmarks.

Question of the day: It's our money, so why can't they also agree on a billion-- or something other than meaningless scraps--- for anything we've asked for like solutions to renewable energy, border security, education, food safety, emergency management, social security, healthcare, etc.? Could we have solved ALL those problems with the amount of our taxpayer dollars they were willing to spend in Iraq?

---------------------------------------------
SPECIAL INTEREST STRATEGY 101:

1. Count on voters to complain but not do anything as we buy the seats in government and gerrymander the democracy out of America. Throw voters a bone now and then and they'll accept the low standard of having to vote for the lesser of two evils.

2. Count on voters to see themselves as powerless victims--with the help of media and the "special-interest-media expert's" smoke and mirrors.

3. The voter's won't see past the smoke to the solution: eliminate special interest influence from both parties by Not Voting For Any Candidates Who Take Donations.

Fellow voters: how long do you think it will take for some real leaders to surface when the entry fee to a seat in our government is no longer having to put one's integrity on the special interest chopping block? Any traitors who have been posing as public servants will run for the hills rather than stand next to real leaders with integrity.

4. Count on voters to forget what the invincible American spirit has been able to accomplish in the past (end to slavery; going to the moon; women's right to vote; civil rights, etc).

5. Count on voters to presume defeat and be too busy buying their next TV to notice that their government has gone off the rails and taken the country along for the ride.

6. Don't worry: even though voters of all parties want the government to represent them and not special interests, they also don't see they could lobby for a constitutional amendment that requires publicly funded elections.(public funding means all candidates have the same amount of money and nobody can buy a seat in our Congress or Oval Office)

Instruction: As good representatives of special interests, just keep fanning the flames between the red and blue states by talking about abortion and reminding voters of the areas where they disagree. This way, the voters will all fail to see how similar the majority of their interests really are and they'll never imagine the huge mutual gains they could attain if they worked together and got rid of us.

7. Don't worry: the voters would rather have something to argue about (left vs right) than to take action. They prefer to sit on the couch and wash their brains with special interest propaganda.
----------------------------------------------

Even John Edwards--who I want to like--makes me cringe when he insults the voters by telling them how when he is president, he will help get rid of the special interests. "Hello, John. As you know, the voters don't need your help to do that! Just in case you don't win, how about being a truly honest leader and explaining that to the voters?"

(Is it possible that he is planning to be the next best thing to George Washington and lead a mass mobilization for an amendment or to nix voting for candidates who take donations. But I've only heard how he wants our votes)

Look past the smoke trials left by the special interest trolls roaming out there!

Guess which party Bull Connor belonged to.

Briefly, the domestic functions of government - a welfare vs night watchman type of state. In foreign policy, probably realism vs interventionism vs war warriors vs diplomacy.

What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority. Molly Ivins

Yeah, but all those guys left the Democratic party when Richard Nixon made racism a better offer.

A little bit of history that MGMax likes to ignore.

It's why you've got such a reputation for integrity on this board. ROTFL :D

"All those guys" perhaps, but the person being spoken of specifically here, Bull Connor, never, as it happens. But don't let facts stand in the way of constructing a flattering self-image.

Obviously, seeking reputation on this board is the last thing I'm interested in. It would be easy enough; all one has to do is say the same thing as everyone else, and nothing someone hasn't already said, and do so with the greatest affected outrage.

MonkeeMax,
Is that you David Frum?

This distinction is important because there are many ways in which leftism is conservative and conservatism is liberal

But I understand why it is fun to rant against enemies as you would like them to be as opposed to your political adversaries as they really are. This has been the rights modus operandi since Al Smith in 1924, demonize demonize demonnize.

Define punative tax system MonkeeMax, I mean since the overall tax burden in the USA is vertually flat right now, what will it take to satisfy your ideological certainty? Should we return to the ancien regime in France where the top was completely exempt from taxation and only the little people pay?

Yes it was conservatives who smashed the regulatory system. How's that working out for you Brownie? Do you like samonella in your peanut butter? How's about lead in your toys? Maybe more particulate in the air you breath. How's about monopoly electricity pricing or monopoly propane pricing. You loving the economic 'freedom' now buddy? The right described the economy in ways that would make their theories work, but the economy in the real world does not work that way. A mature political movement would adjust, instead we get ideological purity statements.

When do we start rounding the revanchists up and machine-gunning the kulaks?

You're a terrifying personality MonkeeMax.

Connor railed, "the nigger loving Kennedys, want to change our way of life, down here". [citation needed] He wanted Birmingham to ignore John F. Kennedy's death. Connor stated, "Lee Harvey Oswald, a southern hero like John Wilkes Booth".

Yeah, Bull Connor was such a sterling Democrat. He really was standing up for all those FDR/New Deal/Great Society ideals. He was a much more dedicated Klansman than he was a Democrat.

Connor suffered a severe stroke in December 1966 that largely ended his political career. Had he lived and remained vital, he would certainly have joined the great march of the Southern Racists to the Republican party.

Not that any of this actually matters to you. You talk about 'affected outrage' but you are a walking poster boy for it.

Spare me your second rate horseshit.

You keep conflating the ancien regime Southern Democrats with the current Democrats. Certainly you know the difference: The old Southern Dems were vile haters, like the current Republicans. The current Dems are cowards and panderers. Little comparison.

MonkeeMax,
You're nutty. Much like little Davey Frummer. Unfortunately for America you are in good company with an elite squad of reality twisting 'thinkers' to covort with at Heritage and AEI and you have 30 million indoctrinated souls (the 27%ers) to make your mischief.

There is no admiration for Ron Paul with centrists, he's just another extremist candidate from an extremist party, the GOP.
But again you have a softness for defining your adversary in the most convenient and self serving terms.

Your comment on Zimbabwe is an insult to the millions of victims who have died under communist rule. Why are you such a moral relativist? Next you'll be telling me that Hillary is Pol Pot because she supports SCHIP. You should apologise to the forum here at TPM for saying something so defammatory and vile.

The ends are meeting the center indeed, the republican party under Bush/Cheney and the AEI brain trust are approaching the former Soviet Union in their basic governing philosiphy, the relationship of the ruler and the ruled, the supremacy of security over freedom, the hyper aggressive stance in foreign policy. Conservatism has become inverted Communism not anti communism. Liberalism is anti communism.

Based on your definition of punitive tax system you are cleared to vote for all liberal and social democratic parties in the OECD. None of their tax policies will retard long term growth, the regression analysis has been done, the results are in. The truth hurts I guess Maxy.

There is no free lunch Maxy. Deregulation has winners and losers. I am not as certain as you are that prices have come down in absolute terms in all the industries listed, American wireless is still expensive as hell. As a liberal I want the market to operate with as little hinderence as possible, just let the government do what the market wants it to do: set universal standards. And keep the samonella out of my damn peanut butter.

Larry Kudlow is that you?