You can always tell a proud veteran of our modern GOP.
The United States and its key allies last week fended off a campaign by developing countries to discipline UNESCO’s highest-ranking U.S. official, Peter Smith, a former Republican congressman from Vermont. Smith resigned in March after an audit found he granted “preferential treatment” to a Chicago-based consulting firm that received $2.15 million in contracts — often without competitive bidding.
The move placed the United States — which has long called for greater transparency and accountability at the United Nations — in the awkward position of opposing an initiative to improve accountability and fiscal integrity in the global body.
I guess that he hasn’t yet figured out how to question his critics’ patriotism.
louisms
Another scandal- why should we be surprised? The corruption rampant in the Republican party is fully consistent with the fundamentals of the conservative worldview. People are no damn good, everyone’s basically only out for his or her own selfish interests, so ethical behavior is for suckers.
Sure, Democrats can be just as crooked. But such behavior is at odds with the philosophical underpinnings of liberalism, so, for liberals, an additional impediment (however flimsy) to such behavior exists. Truly amoral folks can certainly rationalize their unethical actions and their greed regardless of political philosophy, but conservatives, given their dog-eat-dog worldview, find such rationalization virtually effortless.
Equal Opportunity Cynic
Actually Tim’s title pretty much says it all. The pseudocons have more or less the same attitude toward the UN as they have toward federal government. They’re against Big Government unless Big Government can enrich them personally, in which case let’s have a big steaming bowl of Big Government!
It’s easy not to let your principles get in the way of personal enrichment if you only start with highly negotiable principles.
Equal Opportunity Cynic
Actually Tim’s title pretty much says it all. The pseudocons have more or less the same attitude toward the UN as they have toward federal government. They’re against Big Government unless Big Government can enrich them personally, in which case let’s have a big steaming bowl of Big Government!
It’s easy not to let your principles get in the way of personal enrichment if you only start with highly negotiable principles.
But such behavior is at odds with the philosophical underpinnings of liberalism….
Give me a break. It’s at odds with the philosophical underpinnings of libertarian conservatism too. If you think Democrats are inherently above corruption, the only thing saving you from another 1994 is the fact that this generation won’t be voting for this set of Republican clowns no matter how bad the Democrats get.
Equal Opportunity Cynic
But such behavior is at odds with the philosophical underpinnings of liberalism….
Give me a break. It’s at odds with the philosophical underpinnings of libertarian conservatism too.
These people no more believe believe in conservative ideals than Dan Rostenkowski or William Jefferson believed in some liberal ideal of self-sacrificial public service.
Equal Opportunity Cynic
Ack, sorry, server having problems tonight. :(
Keith
Someone call the Wolfowitz..STAT!
louisms
EQUAL OP, just where in my post did I say or imply that “Liberals are inherently above corruption”?? How big of an idiot do you think I am? How misinformed as to political realities? You might want to re-read what I actually wrote.
I am convinced that the basic philosophy behind modern conservatism makes corruption and greedy, self-serving behavior easier for right-wingers to justify. Still, as I wrote..
“Truly amoral folks can certainly rationalize their unethical actions and their greed regardless of political philosophy”.
and…
“Sure, Democrats can be just as crooked”.
Or are you gonna blame server problems for your mis-reading (or simple mis-representation) of my post too?
Skarl
EQUAL OP,
Republican politicians (and many Democrats) aren’t conservatives or libertarians (or liberals). They’re power-brokers. They are the products of American corporatism, and they have been acculturated into a competitive, amoral mindset. They may believe that greed is good and government is bad, but that’s just self-justification – what they really believe in is winning. They don’t need to be corrupt – they don’t need the money! – but for them, cheating and theft is a kind of winning, and they need to win.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
If the United Nations becomes fiscally sound, its terrorist allies have won.
Bruce Moomaw
“I guess that he hasn’t yet figured out how to question his critics’ patriotism.”
Actually, he has:
“In a March 12 resignation letter, Smith alleged that he was the target of an anti-American upswell within UNESCO and that he had received death threats. ‘There is a small group who have worked steadily since the unveiling of the reform recommendations to kill the reforms by discrediting me, attacking you, and demonizing America,’ he wrote.”
Zombie Santa Claus
Why don’t we ever hear about the good news coming out of Iraq? Apparently, they’re painting the Adhamiya security wall. That’s always a sign of progress.
BTW, on the subject of Iraq, here’s a fun interview with a contractor. Excerpts:
(Emphasis mine.)
Ho ho ho, bitches!
Equal Opportunity Cynic
louisms,
Since I accidentally ended up with a public revision history, you can see that I modified that sentence in my most recent reply to you. In your OP you make sort of a tepid acknowledgement that there are some corrupt Democrats, but I still disagree pretty vehemently with your thesis which you’re kind enough to restate in your follow-up:
I am convinced that the basic philosophy behind modern conservatism makes corruption and greedy, self-serving behavior easier for right-wingers to justify.
I agree only inasmuch as “modern conservatism” has run off the rails and it daily becomes more difficult to see that small government was ever considered a kindred philosophy. So yeah, to the extent that “modern conservatism” is a synonym for amoral self-enrichment or avarice, sure.
But there used to be ideology behind conservatism, and my point is those of us who still adhere to the ideology have long been aghast at the miniscule commitment that these people have to it. I mean, it’s sort of hard to reconcile these assertions and still claim any sort of ideological motivation, isn’t it?:
Government should be as small as feasible because it’s rarely the best solution to a problem.
Government should be small as feasible except when my friends are on the take.
Sure, Republicans still love their ideology when it makes them money. But they’d never sacrifice anything for it, and that’s why I don’t think they really believe in it.
Equal Opportunity Cynic
Skarl,
My point exactly.
And I’m not one of those who’s just come to this belief lately now that the Bush Administration* has been a disaster. I mean, I thought Republicans were the lesser evil up to about early 2004, but I’ve always voted Libertarian because I thought the big parties were sold out.
The novelty is, I can no longer argue with a straight face that people in swing states should vote for minor-party candidates because the Republocrats are all the same. The Democrats are pretty amoral, yes, but pikers compared to the high Republican standard of theft.
That they’ve pulled this off while claiming to share my ideology, and consequently driven that ideology to utter disrepute, is all the more reason I’m furious with them.
—
*Take that, GHWB! That’s the price for getting your idiot son in office — you don’t even get a simple name for your four years. From now on the words “Bush Administration” will be a somber recollection of national ignominy. Instead of going down in history as a mediocre president, you get to be remembered as the father of the clown who wrecked your party and probably your country. Guess dynastic rule didn’t turn out quite like you’d planned, eh?
RSA
My take on the philosophy of Bush Republicans: Power and wealth should be concentrated in the hands of the deserving few, and I happen to be one of the deserving. You’ve got your greed, your moral certitude, your unwillingness to admit failure (public failure would be personal failure), your clubbiness, and your willingness to use the levers of power and wealth to ensure that you keep it.
The Other Steve
It’s not really “modern conservatism”. If you look at the history of Democrats and Republicans… with the exception of Teddy Roosevelt, the Republican party has long stood for corruption.
That’s because at it’s core, the philosophy of the Republican party is, as RSA says, “Power and Wealth should be concentrated in the hands of the deserving few”. That philosophy naturally supports corruption.
The Other Steve
On a non-related note… the NRA has come out in support of terrorist owning guns.
Kind of pathetic really… I mean the whole bill. I think it’s funny politics, but it is nice to see the Republicans get a taste of their own wedge-issue medicine.
RSA
On the NRA: Wow. Here’s a quote from RedState on this topic:
Locking suspected terrorists up in Guantanamo: Good. Preventing suspected terrorists from buying guns: Bad. Is there any way to reconcile these positions?
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
If we don’t arm the terrorists, the terrorists have won.
Otto Man
Maybe the neocons see themselves as the Jack Palance character from Shane. It’s not fair to gun down the sheepherder unless you throw a pistol at his feet first and tell him to pick it up.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
That would explain why they fucked up the reconstruction of Iraq so badly. You have to piss off the locals and let the insurgents have at the Saddamist ammo dumps before you officially kick off the fight. “Bring it on!”
Hyperion
like all that conservative ideology on display at the Repub debate, i guess.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
Yeah, and it was called, “Fuck you. I got mine. Leave me alone.” Beyond that it mostly consisted of pandering in an effort to retain the levers of power at all costs. Most of that pandering was to the American Taliban, whose ideology is, “Fuck you. Your lifestyle is an abomination. A police state is needed to change all that.”
louisms
Good one, Scruffy.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
Thanks.
Bubblegum Tate
Which is exactly why Ollie North is one of America’s greatest patriots ever.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
ROFLMAO.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
I just realized we haven’t seen Darrell in quite some time. When do you dishonest kooks think Darrell will stop in to set us all straight?
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
My bad. I forgot, it’s probably time for Finals. No Darrell until the summer session starts.
Equal Opportunity Cynic
Meh, you lot inspired me to a longer rant on my blog. Although I obviously don’t agree with the liberal caricature, “conservative = corrupt,” you might be surprised at some of the limitations I recognize in my own ideology. Or maybe not.
Incidentally, do other pissed-off-at-Bush conservatives just not hang around here any more? Are John Cole and i the only ones who take a break from bawling our eyes out about the state of our nation (in sufficiently manly fashion, of course) to proffer our thoughts? If not, where are the rest of us?
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
Nursing Cinco de Mayo hangovers, probably. Either that, or flagellating themselves in Christian Sabbath religious services for ever supporting this horrendous, bungling frat boy of a Decider in the first place.
The Other Steve
Ok, here’s the part you clearly don’t understand.
There is a difference between what a conservative candidate says in public, and what they believe. What they say in public is a bunch of pandering nonsense about how government is too big, etc. blah blah blah. What they really believe is that we need to privatize government so that they can hand some money to their buddy Jimbo.
See back in the olden days Government was pretty blatant about this. You elect Bob, and Bob hires his 200 best buds to be head of waste removal, police, licensing and building new roads. And then they all get nice cushy salaries from the govt.
Well along came some reformers in the early 20th century, and they put a kabosh to that. So the conservatives wandered around in the wilderness, until they came up with privitization…. which allows htem to give the jobs to their best buds, while keeping the records off the books.
In fact every Republican idea over the past 30 years, which is termed as privitization in some form, is all about corruption. Think about it. School Vouchers? Is this about educational choice? Nope, it’s about creating an industry of schools that can suck off the government teat. One after another, they claim it’s choice, but it’s really about funnelling money and it should then come as no surprise then that these ideas COST MORE to implement.
The only time privatization works, is when it’s a commodity business utilized by most of private industry. Food service, janitorial, etc.
But processing tax forms? Give me a break. Processing drivers licenses. Right. These are things nobody else but government does, and privitization doesn’t setup competition at all.
The Other Steve
In summary, you are under the deluded belief that libertarianism is related to Republican or Conservative ideology. It’s not. Libertarian is something that sits outside of either party and operates as a guiding principle.
Tim F.
You would be surprised how many former Bush voters sound like kooky liberals these days. I haven’t taken a census lately but if you ask around (I guess you just did) the numbers around here might surprise you.
Baskaborr
Back in the prehistoric days I used to be a conservative, was a campaign volunteer for Regean’s 80 campaign. But the Republican party kept moving right while I didn’t, so now my opinions haven’t changed measurably but I’m a called a flaming liberal. The day the house voted to impeach Clinton I realized there was no way I could face myself in the mirror to shave every morning if I remained a Republican, so I switched my registration to Libertarian. After a couple of years of watching people who claimed the libertarian title debase themselves by voicing uncritical support for the worst theocratic and authoritarian strains of Republicanism, I bit the bullet and switched my registration to the Democratic party. I don’t agree with every policy of the democratic party, but atleast I’m no longer ashamed of my affiliation. Not sure that qualifies me as a pissed off at Bush conservative, but I’m sure pissed of with Bush.
Equal Opportunity Cynic
The Other Steve:
What makes you think I don’t understand that? The only part where it sounds like we differ is on the historical context, and there only partially. I certainly don’t think all past Republicans have been pure as the driven snow. But figures like Goldwater, Armey, and yes, even Reagan (notwithstanding the deficits) at least gave credible lip service to the small-government stuff.
Now, I’ve always thought their implementation was deficient, which is why I’ve pretty much voted Libertarian and not Republican my whole adult life.
louisms
Well, EQUAL OP, I’ve read your recent comments, and checked out your blog, and I gotta say, you don’t really sound like one of the bad guys, so I’m sorry for getting a bit snippy with you earlier. You’ll never convince me that libertarianism could lead to a practical and responsible form of government, and I still maintain that conservatism is inherently flawed and morally questionable at best-I’m not much for the divine right of kings nor social darwinism- but you’re clearly a reasonable guy whose head isn’t too deeply sunk into the sand of your own preconceptions to face facts. I wish more self-described conservatives were as thoughtful as you. Unfortunately, my experience has been that most are of the Darrell type these days, so desperate to battle liberalism that they reflexively defend anything “their side” does, however indefensible it might be.
The Other Steve
I don’t mean to be snipppy, but this is an area I have spent a lot of time thinking about and your arguments are rather cliche.
Let me propose a though experiment. Ask yourself. Does a organization like Greenpeace have a role to play in the free market?
That group usually provokes an evisceral emotional reaction. Why?
Equal Opportunity Cynic
louisms:
Thanks. I think we on the Right (so to speak) are paying a huge price for the sins of the past. As I see it, the price for embracing Rush Limbaugh-Ann Coulter-style demonization of your opponent is that you shut off any opportunity for productive dialogue with anyone of differing views. And frankly THAT is how you end up with someone as deficient as GWB in the White House, by making caricatures of your opponents.
I’m pretty resolute on my political philosophy but that doesn’t mean that all decisions can be made solely on the basis of ideology. Pragmatism has its place too. If more libertarians felt this way, the LP would be well positioned to step in and occupy the crater left by the self-destruction of the GOP.
Equal Opportunity Cynic
louisms:
Thanks. I think we on the Right (so to speak) are paying a huge price for the sins of the past. As I see it, the price for embracing Rush Limbaugh-Ann Coulter-style demonization of your opponent is that you shut off any opportunity for productive dialogue with anyone of differing views. And frankly THAT is how you end up with someone as deficient as GWB in the White House, by making caricatures of your opponents.
I’m pretty resolute on my political philosophy but that doesn’t mean that all decisions can be made solely on the basis of ideology. Pragmatism has its place too. If more libertarians felt this way, the LP would be well positioned to step in and occupy the crater left by the self-destruction of the GOP.
Equal Opportunity Cynic
Does a organization like Greenpeace have a role to play in the free market?
Of course. People who share their ends are entitled to donate whatever they like to achieve those ends.
Now, to the extent that their means of action is government regulation I’m less happy about Greenpeace. But of course they have the right to take donations from like-minded people in a free market and use them to whatever non-coercive ends they wish.
I get the sense I’m missing your bigger point here.
Darrell
While it’s true that the right, myself included, have been guilty of demonizing the other side.. although I would argue that much of the time the left’s outrageous behavior warrants such demonization, it’s instructive, given your one-sided slam against the “Right”, to examine which side is “more guilty” of demonizing the other. As evidence, I present the tens of thousands of Bush/Hitler signs at protest marches, the “no blood for oil” slogan, the “Bush knew about 9/11” and you know the rest of it. I got news, it ain’t the “Right” who is doing that demonizing. And those sort of demonization-of-the-right tactics and words runs deep on the left.
As to the topic of the thread, UNESCO has been guilty of rampant corruption for decades, while championing decidedly anti-libertarian and anti-American positions. This doesn’t excuse Smith, if he is found guilty of corruption, but it’s important to acknowledge that UNESCO’s far worse sins have been glossed over for too long.
Regarding Smith, there is no evidence that he received kickbacks or other personal benefit from the award of those contracts, so why the rushed conclusion jumping to smear him as “corrupt”? Unless of course, this is just another typical example of the left demonizing the right, facts be damned.
How about this (more likely) scenario? – Smith is leading a politically charged, extreme leftist anti-American organization known as UNESCO. In such an atmosphere, it would be nearly impossible to award contracts on merit, as politics would dominate such decisions. Smith skirted bidding rules to get things done in a way which he felt best, and unless new evidence appears, he, unlike his predecessors at UNESCO, did not personally benefit.
I’m not defending his skirting of the rules. But when you start calling someone “corrupt” without evidence of said corruption, and then use that straw man as proof of “rampant” Republican corruption, well, what you have there is a typical Balloon Juice “reality based” assessment of events.
Zombie Santa Claus
Oh, Christ. Darrell’s back!