« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Bill Kristol Announces the Death of Conservatism

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  January 26th, 2009 at 09:51 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Are any of you surprised by this? Seriously.

I knew the moment I found out he was having dinner with Obama that this would happen. A batted eye lash, a smile, and a shared meal gets you pretty damn far with Bill Kristol. Never mind that despite posing as a conservative for years, Kristol has been anything but a real conservative.

If Reagan’s policies had failed, or if he hadn’t been politically successful, the conservative ascendancy would have been nipped in the bud. So with President Obama today. Liberalism’s fate rests to an astonishing degree on his shoulders. If he governs successfully, we’re in a new political era. If not, the country will be open to new conservative alternatives.

We don’t really know how Barack Obama will govern. What we have so far, mainly, is an Inaugural Address, and it suggests that he may have learned more from Reagan than he has sometimes let on. Obama’s speech was unabashedly pro-American and implicitly conservative.

So that’s it — if Obama succeeds, conservatism is dead and if he fails conservatism thrives. Never was such brilliance expressed in the New York Times. But wait, it gets better. Obama’s speech was conservative, though conservatism is dead.

That makes such sense!

The fact is we know Obama’s economic policies are going to hurt. They will not help. His stimulus plan contains more money for grass seeds for the National Mall than for helping small businesses.

Liberalism never works. But batting eye lashes at Bill Kristol will apparently get him naked quick.

About the only commendable thing worth noting in Kristol’s column is the last line:

“This is William Kristol’s last column.”

I guess he’s off to work for Barack Obama now.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    Does it keep its soul in an eggshell or something?

  • randy streu

    actually, it keeps it in a briefcase.

  • devCharles

    I think Bill Kristol is the most universally disliked political commentator there is. The left doesn’t like him. We on the right see him for what he is. A shill for the highest bidder. I find him to be pedantic and vapid. I remember him describing neo-conservativism before on the daily show. Exact quote:

    “It’s liberalism grown up style.”

    What a tool.

  • http://conservablogs.com/publiusforum/ Warner Todd Huston

    I generally like Kristol (don’t agree with him on everything) but… DUDE! Bill, BABY… making your last column an announcement that your side is finished… boobie… is THAT the way to sign off in enemy territory??

    Doesn’t it seem as if Kristol just threw up his hands and quit?

    One would think that a last column would be more along the lines of the happy warrior, not the “AW CRAP, WE LOST” type!

    We’re dooooomed. We’re never gonna make it…

    Seriously, Bill boobala. What was WITH that?

  • Dan McLaughlin

    burned again and again, only to keep rising from the ashes.

  • jakee308

    Heh. Kristol has always reminded me of some brit/patrician officer from the Revolutionary war. I am more and more seeing the positives in O’s election; there can be NO doubt on the politics and the lack of restraint on the part of the Left-Wing Media. Many who were touted as conservatives have shown themselves to be anything but. The Democrats will do ANYTHING to get elected (that’s why they always suspect the Republicans of this behaviour in elections cause they know they would). GOOD RIDDANCE TO THEM ALL!

    btw; my comment title is for a redstater who made a big deal out of my characterization of McCain’s nomination as “a t*rd in a punch bowl”. Which I felt was pithy and to the point but was castigated for the “juvenile imagery” by a moderator. Hmmph. I wasn’t off the mark by much was I? the word I used was mild compared to how I’m guessing a lot of you out there feel about how the “media strawman” nominee ran his campaign. Anyone else out there think he was totally shocked by Palin’s popularity? I think she was chosen to DAMAGE the campaign without J.M. having to lift a finger and be revealed as either ineffective or a willing puppet in the effort to get a black man elected to president.
    Gee, do you think I’m still wrong about what was put into our election punchbowl c17wife?

  • liberalrepublican

    The economy is going to slowly get better. It would with anybody president.

    The economic power of this country doesn’t come from Washington policies.

    Now, I believe some of Obama’s policies are going to hurt more than help and make it take longer to get back to growth.

  • red_oakster

    OK, the article is a bit weak. Conservatism WILL live to fight another day, and the Obama honeymoon will come to an end. But Kristol is a conservative and has been for a long time.

    His record on life issues, including embryonic stem cell destruction, is outstanding and he has made the Weekly Standard a stalwart in that respect (as Professor Robert George recently noted). He was right about the need for more troops in Iraq long before the war started to go badly. When he was in government, he made Dan Quayle’s office the center of conservative initiatives within the Bush 41 administration.

    And in 1993 and 1994, his Project for the Republican Future fought successfully to make opposition to the Clinton health care plan the key strategic priority for the GOP. It was that opposition when even the Heritage Foundation was looking for a compromise with Clinton, that set the stage for the Republican comeback in the 94 elections.

    I happen to disagree with Kristol and David Brooks when they go off in the “national greatness’ direction, and perhaps you can criticize him for supporting McCain sometimes (though his daughter’s involvement with the Thompson campaign probably signals where his sympathies lay in 2008 and Tom Coburn gets thrown off the reservation for that as well).

    But this notion that Kristol is somehow part of the problem, rather than a huge part of the conservative solution just does not survive even a minimal review of the facts.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    If you think Bill Kristol is some sort of conservative stalwart, and you only have comparatively minor issues with David Brooks, then I don’t think you can easily be reached with the truth.

  • red_oakster

    I didn’t say I agreed with Brooks, and equating Brooks with kristol on most things is absurd.

    So Robert George can be reached with the truth either. He’s not a conservative either? Your club is getting pretty small.

    I would also note that you did not offer one refutation of the facts, only an insult.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    You could have expressed this same thought in a far more factual manner rather than playing “told you so”. How really do you expect her to reply to you? I can tell you that she’s not exactly going to grovel before you.

    And to put on my chivalry hat – “don’t you be treating a lady like that”!

    Though I know she’s fully able to handle guys like you without my help…

  • repubshatetheusa

    [Turns out that for too many it's only when they can take credit for it. Scram, Sparky. - Moe Lane]

  • TxCon

    for the past 8 years? It certainly wasn’t in this country.

  • Wayne

    stop it. You’ve convinced me, liberalism is so much better than anything on the planet. Bubbie, the dems ran congress for the last two, and effectively for the last 4 years, with the filibuster available to them. So, again tell me, who didn’t want Fannie and Freddie regulated? Who profited immensely from them, besides the 0 and his staff?
    I don’t have to get out of the way, I have at least as much invested in the country as you do, and I doubt that YOU will fix anything, other than your next latte.
    Moe, another candidate for the blam stick.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    Nobody ever says, “I disagree with Ronald Reagan and Ted Kennedy about [whatever]“, because they are polar opposites, and you would almost certainly disagree with each for completely different reasons. You grouped Kristol and Brooks together with your usage, so I made the entirely reasonable assumption that you view Kristol and Brooks on a similar plane. Why bring up noted crap-weasel Brooks at all, since using his name cements no conceivable conservative argument?

    Now you say that equating Kristol and Brooks is absurd, and that maybe I should explain why I think Robert George is not a conservative. [who is Robert George?]

    Truly you have a dizzying intellect, and I don’t think I can keep up with you. I yield.

  • jhayes

    >>>>So that?s it ? if Obama succeeds, conservatism is dead and if he fails conservatism thrives.

    After the damage done by Bush to conservatism ( or his rather odd version of it), it would certainly seem like an opening for the “other side” to make their best effort at pulling the country out of the economic crisis that we are in.

    But frankly, I don’t think he will be able to pull it off.

    Not that I want him to fail, or anything…. ;)

  • Praying

    butyou can’t kill the message (we hope)

  • AceInTX

    and thought the kneejerk reaction to it was overblown…but calling out a fellow Red Stater by name 6 months or so later is very bad form…

  • AceInTX

    vsv if Obama Succeeds Conservatism is dead and if he fails Conservatism thrives…not an impossible proposition though I don’t hold with it…why is it that we have so many Republicans working to help him succeed?.

  • AceInTX

    the NYT keeps around as token conservatives to give credit to their claims of objectivity such as Bill Safire, Paul Crugman, David Brooks Etc…Kristal isn’t always wrong but he’s wrong at least as often as he’s right…and he’s often right for the wrong reasons.

  • Bob_Frazier

    I could not help but notice your quote at the end of your posts. I did not realize until today how much modern liberals deviate from traditional liberalism. Your definition of liberalsim almost reads like conservatism, but definitely not modern liberalism..

    Liberals believe in indiividual rights (unless you are a child in the womb, or you want to use incandescent light bulbs, or want to choose which car you would like to drive), equality of opportunity (unless there is an affirmative action law in the way which liberals support), extensive freedom of though and speech (unless you run afoul of the political correctness police), limitations on the power of government (almost laughable given our new President and Congress), the rule of law (ah, immigration. Drug laws. Ponography, well you get the point), free exchange of ideas (“fairness doctrine? See comments about extensive freedom of thoughs and speech). A market or mixed economy (where are the liberals arguing for a free economy).

    Broadly speaking, I think you need to revise your quote…..

  • itrytobenice

    doesn’t always work.

    Yes, someday the US economy will pick back up, but if BO gets even a fraction of his way, it won’t be until long after he’s gone.

    His energy restrictions, union kowtowing, health care monopolizing, capitalism bashing, success taxing plans *can* destroy our economy.

    We are not exempt for a life of France or Germany.

  • nc

    I went and read Kristol’s piece, and I would not read it the same way you do. I think Kristol’s argument is that if Obama’s presidency is a success, the political game changes (not that its over). Basically, Kristol is saying that Obama has a chance to remake liberalism from the self-doubting, guilt ridden liberalism of the McGovern-Carter party, to a new liberalism that is more attune to the more old-fashioned liberalism of TR, FDR and JFK, that took great pride in America. If Obama is successful in that regard, he does take one of the cards off the table that Republicans have been able to use so well against Democrats — the patriotic card.

    If Kristol is correct about Obama’s goal of tying a new liberalism back to the Founders and a love of America (and, I think thats still an open issue), I do indeed think that political game will have changed. Whats controversial about that? It does not mean its over, it just means we may have to change the way we’ve played the game.

  • Ned Reck

    Maybe Bill Kristol can star along with Bill Crystal in the sequel…

    City Slickers, the Legend of the Loveable Liberals.

    Ned Reck

  • nc

    I don’t think he said anything in the article that suggests Conservativism has failed as a political theory. He is suggesting that a successful Obama administration will set up a new political paradigm. I think he may be overstating that just a bit (he is an opinion columnist after all), but I don’t think his position is terribly controverserial.

    Look, FDR’s mastery of politics shut the Republicans out of the White House for 20 years; Reagan led the Republicans to a 12 year dominance of the White House. I think its reasonable to suggest that if Obama is as skillful as those two politicians, we may have some trouble as a political movement for the next 8 to 12 years. That does not mean Kristol is hoping for that result. He is simply predicting a possible (or even a likely) scenario. If we don’t like it, we have to figure out a way to change it. But blaming Kristol for using his eyes and brain, does not solve the problem.

  • eyedsman

    jerk reaction and give Bill a break. The piece does not say that conservatism is dead but that its influence in Washington had crest (for Now) and liberal BO is in a unique position to redefine the political landscape by reconnecting liberalism with its patriotic strain. That being said however, I do understand the visceral reaction to the piece because I see bill as a national security conservative and feels that more than anything else it tells that his uneasiness for liberals will be lessened should they recover the patriotic plank of the political spectrum.

  • http://www.fredmaidment.com Fred Maidment

    I think Palin was a look toward the future.

    McCain could see that the tide was going out on Conservatism. He could see that, because of the errors of Republicans in Congress who ignored their constituents and spent the daylights out of the budget, the rising tide Obama was almost insurmountable.

    I think McCain chose Palin for two reasons: She acts like a conservative; she looks, in many ways, like an average American (five kids and college at a state university with a PTA-mom background); and she is young enough that, when liberalism over-reaches in 4 or 8 years, she’ll be there to challenge it.

    I think this was very much the reason for the media’s over-reaction to her. They called her a bimbo; they called her a beauty queen; they made fun of her education and lambasted her for her large traditional family; they invented scandals everywhere so that people would see her as just another “dumb broad” Republican woman.

    And they clearly succeeded in your case.

    Is Palin the “miracle” conservative? I doubt it. She’s no Ronnie Reagan. But is she the gawd-awful nincompoop the media would have us believe? Hardly.

  • bc3

    Yet many confuse neocons with conservatives. Bush was led down the primrose path to the detriment of the GOP and conservative movement.

  • mbecker908

    And, under this administration, economic power will most certainly come from Washington. It is coming, and will continue to come, in the form of bail out after bail out. Bush opened Pandora’s Box and we may not be able to close it.

    Look at TARP. Look at the autos. Just watch the “stimulus”. Next up: the feds will be bailing out state and municipal governments. CA is handing out IOU’s in lieu of tax return checks. Several states are talking about a mandated 30 day unpaid leave for state workers. It has the potential to get REALLY ugly, and the more the feds attempt to intervene the worse it will get.

  • http://www.fredmaidment.com Fred Maidment

    Obama and the current Democratic Congress can easily damage our economy to the point where the recession is extended.

    In fact, I think that’s their goal.

    If one looks at the stated policies of Obama (and I’ve covered this to some extent and will one day have a full post in my diary), they favor big corporations, unions, the super-wealthy, exporting jobs and inefficiency.

    Obama’s stated policies are harmful to small business, individual achievers, the poor and middle class, and American workers.

    I think Obama’s real goal, and the goal of many in Washngton, is to create a protected ruling class, a permanent aristocracy. If they remove the incentives for individual achievement, they can limit the number of new entrants into the political class.

    But that’s just me spit-balling.

    Still, I see the next four years going much like Carter’s, economically, or like FDR’s 8-plus years before the start of WWII: It got better, but not before it got a lot worse.

  • http://www.fredmaidment.com Fred Maidment

    n/t

  • http://www.fredmaidment.com Fred Maidment

    in your sig. Where can I get the full-size?

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    N/T

  • AceInTX
  • kuhlmanngj2

    [Thanks. - Moe Lane]

  • bs

    You shouldn’t use mommy’s computer without permission, especially for one-handed posting.

  • DONTREADONME
  • $peciallist

    did he sign up for 3-4 accounts at the same time?…lol

  • DONTREADONME
  • E Pluribus Unum

    Look, you can defend this article if you want. Technically he’s not terribly far off with his data, but he’s doing what he always does. He’s painting conservatism in the least hopeful light possible. He makes a career out of it – and his Weekly Standard is the flagship paper of the Permanent Minority DC Squish Republican wing of the party.

    So it’s just fine that he predicts great success for Bambi, because that’s right in line with what he always does. And at some point you have to ask yourself if he wants anything better for conservatism.

  • jakee308

    that she screamed for a moderator to kick me off the site for my comment and made the up self important announcement that I was using up her bandwidth. I consider THAT poor etiquette. fortunately the moderator was a little more restrained(but still incorrect). I wouldn’t have minded if she argued about what I said and how I characterized McCain’s nomination. No she did the LEFTIST kind of thing and wanted to have me shut up.
    so since I was proved correct in my opinion by my fellow citizens, I just wanted to point that out because she acted so imperious, I thought it apropos to return the favor.
    As to her being a lady, I have no facts in evidence to that assumption.

    As to “guys like me” what’s that supposed to mean? I think that guys like you should butt out and mind their own business. Isn’t it obvious that a “guy like me” isn’t going to listen to guys like you?

    Have a nice day!
    /

  • bk

    Did anyone catch the parallel to Sotomayor?

    Kristol wrote this right after the inauguration. He said it was an almost conservative sounding speech, but we don’t know how he’ll govern. It’s fair to say now that he’s governed mostly as we expected.

    After the Sotomayor hearings he could have written that she gave almost conservative sounding answers for the most part, and we don’t know how she’ll rule. Gee, I bet in every split decision we can predict exactly which side she’ll be on, just like we could have predicted most of Obama’s moves.

    In both cases they said what people wanted to hear and then took purely predictable leftist actions.