Conservatives claim victory. Seriously.

I suppose this was to be expected; being unused to defeat and enmeshed in their discredited ideology to the detriment of common sense, conservatives are claiming that the thrashing received by their party and their candidates on Tuesday was actually, somehow, a victory. Karol over at Alarming News opines:

We have work to do but we're already ahead of the curve because we've seen the American people embrace conservative principles. Democrats had to run to the right to win. That's a success for conservatism, even if its a loss for Republicans.

The snarky response would be that America needs more conservative successes like the one we just saw – many more. But even in terms of actual results, this narrative doesn't withstand scrutiny. I recall that after the fall of the Berlin Wall, seventeen years ago today, some communists in the Soviet bloc rejoiced, claiming this was a welcome development that would allow real communism to flourish; it stands to reason that the ideological cousin of communism, authoritarian conservatism, would make similar claims.

However, this election was a victory for a new coalition of centrists and Progressives. Consider, via Media Matters and DailyKos:

Democrats gained at least 27 seats in the House, six in the Senate, and six governorships, along with a majority of state legislatures. These freshmen got elected on decidedly un-conservative proposals, supported by a majority of Americans in poll after poll and now at the ballot box, such as raising the minimum wage (six states passed referenda doing just that), broadening stem cell research, implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations, and allowing the importation of affordable prescription drugs. The only conservative gains I can see are the six new anti-marriage equality referenda that passed; however, they passed over strengthened opposition, and one such ban, in Arizona, was defeated.

It's also notable that these newly conservative Democrats were called 'Pelosi liberals' during the campaign. Which is it, then?

Nor is it evidence of conservative strength that South Dakota rejected its abortion ban. Get real here, people.

However, a word of caution to the left is in order. We won this election because independents and moderates came over to us in droves. There's a certain temptation, especially at the Progressive base, to claim vindication and to govern only from the left. That would be, in my mind, a mistake of Gingrichian proportions; we have an opportunity to consolidate the political center on our side, and to draw clear contrasts with the barking empty suits of the so-called 'conservative movement'. The country is ready for a Congress that doesn't waste its time, and ours, on flag-burning amendments and Terri Schiavo.

The biggest mistake of the 'conservative movement' was its belief that America could be governed by ideologues; if you're looking for a root cause of the catastrophe of the Bush administration and the fall of the Congress, that would be it. However, our national virtue has always been that we are pragmatic and expressly non-ideological. The Democrats' embrace of this trait, fueled in part by former republicans coming over to us – like myself, I might add – was the key to our victory. The true defeat for conservatism isn't in the victory of Progressives; it's in the fact that our victory came about with an ideological diversity that monolithic movement conservatism can't match, and has cause to fear. Sure, some newly-elected Democrats are socially conservative, and many are fiscally conservative; but they're not ideologues, and that's key. Populist, yes, no doubt.

The future belongs to the pragmatic, open-minded, populist Progressivism that fueled, among others, the candidacies of Jon Tester, Jim Webb, Joe Sestak and Kristen Gillibrand. The country has rejected conservatives; but more than that, it has rejected conservative ideologues, with the emphasis on 'ideologues'.

We're now faced with the opportunity to build a new and lasting coalition, to transform the national dialogue, and do some real work for the American people. 'Conservatism' has discredited itself, and now, it's time to build something that works for all of us.

Even for conservatives.


Michael Bouldin's picture

| |

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may link to webpages through the weblinks registry
  • Web and e-mail addresses are automatically converted into links.
  • Textual smileys will be replaced with graphical ones.
  • Easily link to terms in various wikis. For help, see interwiki.
  • Images can be added to this post.
More information about formatting options

Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Visit our sponsors

Upcoming events

Who's online

There are currently 3 users and 1563 guests online.

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Words to live by

I of all people should know better. The civil rights movement in the U.S. told women to stop talking about gender issues because first the fight against racism had to be won. The feminist movement frowned at women of colour raising their issues, insisting that first the fight against the patriarchy had to be won. The nationalist movements in Africa insisted that feminism was a corrupt and decadent western import, and that first we had to capture our earthly kingdoms, and achieve our panAfricanist Nirvana, before we started looking at "side issues". And those of us who are interested in our contemporary political dynamics have fallen into the same pit of not tackling the prickly, the uncomfortable questions now: we are waiting to win the larger battle before we clean our house. There is always another battle or another issue, and the matters that matter to the foot soldiers are postponed for yet another day. Yet, these issues ARE the battle. We fight for freedom --and do not imagine we are doing anything less--because it is the freedom to live our lives the way we want, from the jobs we choose to the people we fall in love with. If we cannot tackle them, then we are not equipped to tackle anything. What are the lines of difference we draw? For what do we engage, argue, participate and in some heroes' cases, take awful risks? For what?


Instant Congress

Don't know your Senators or US Representatives' phone numbers?
Enter your street address and zip code and find out right now.
Street number and name only:
Zip Code (5 digits):


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify