Why I Never Do This
By: Mark W Adams

I'll let Booman explain, why I never link to NRO without at least a short snark if not a lengthy explanation -- with a little help from Curmudgette at My Left Wing.

Or maybe you should just join Johann Hari as a fly on the wall of the Hate Boat:

"The Muslims are breeding. Soon, they'll have the whole of Europe."

"Just take a couple of these anti-war people off to the gas chamber for treason to show, if you try to bring down America at a time of war, that's what you'll get."

"If the Ku Klux Klan supports equal rights, then God bless them."

"They should suicide-bomb that place,"
[The UN]

"I went to Paris, and it was so lovely." Her face darkens: "But then you think – it's surrounded by Muslims."

"They all look the same! Can you tell them apart?"

"The coverage of this war is unbelievable. Even Fox News is unbelievable. You'd think we're the only ones dying. Enemy casualties aren't covered. We're doing an excellent job killing them."
Those were actual quotes from the folks aboard the Good Ship Lobotomy, a cruise sponsored by the National Review, the folks who provide a forum for the heirs to the Third Reich at The Corner and cater to the human rubbish that by accident of inbreeding or incalculable dumb luck consider themselves fit to belong to the ruling aristocracy -- all the while professing their patriotism to a nation dedicated to the idea that their ilk is ill-suited to govern the rest of us.

That was the audience for a revealing view of the two sides of American conservatism represented by the intellectual cornerstone of his creation, National Review founder, William Buckley, and the destructive Frankenstein monster it has become in the person of John Podhoretz -- one of "Bill's Children" as they were christened by President Bush.

The gulf between Buckley and Podhoretz is stark both in approach and perception of reality. Buckley's pragmatism and refusal to invent or believe scenarios for which there is no evidence to justify a defense of the administration, the war, or the growing unpopularity of their policies. Unlike Podhoretz, who insists the WMD's were hidden in Syria, no one was ever tortured at abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and Bush is a Hero and will attack Iran any day now; Buckley is dismissed all too readily by the movement's elite -- "a coward," "an old man," demented. Podhoretz advocates even more war, bombing Iran, more aggressive posturing, and insists that the "amazing success" of Iraq war is "a triumph. It couldn't have gone better." To say Podhoretz has been mainlining "Kristol" Meth is not an exaggeration.

In separate interviews, Buckley declines to characterize his "children" as turning into serial killers after leaving the nest of good old fashioned commie hating, but theorizes that Saint Ronnie RayGun would not have handled this mess in a way that remotely resembles our current state.

But Reagan is long gone, A figurehead in life, now an icon for those with clouded memories and an inability to discern fable from fabler, or the intellectual curiosity to appreciate historical context and the assorted nuances embedded in their monolithic world-view.

Buckley, the cold warrior, like Reagan, represents a monolithic stance against an enemy we vanquished -- not through force of arms, but economic superiority. Surely we would have "lost" the Cold War had we allowed it to become a hot one -- even if we eliminated our enemy in the process. Unlike the current conflict, we were facing an enemy that not only desired our annihilation, but could accomplish that end. No doubt there would have been a disproportionate number of these right wing ghouls emerging from their well-stocked bunkers to cheer such a "victory" while scouting around for some cheap immigrant labor to clean up the fallout raining down on their driveway.

The very fact that we are engaged in actual combat with our foe today pre-supposed the notion that the "enemy" Podhoretz rails against as a threat to our very existence is a poor substitute for the rigidity of purpose required to see us through to "victory" over the Soviet Union, a nation these people conveniently forget decided of it's own accord -- by virtue of some enlightened leadership -- to change it's unsustainable course of arms and ideology over the welfare of its citizens.

But these die-hard conservatives don't get it -- they don't want to. They embrace a fascist ideology, and change the meaning of the word to avoid the requisite cognitive dissonance. That's how it's always been. It's always been them versus us. Good versus evil. Naturally, the best way to avoid recognizing the demon within is to demonize the other guy -- and if you act like the last "other guy," make sure you call it something else.

Nonetheless, their preferred form of government is a benevolent dictatorship of the elite merged with an economic environment dedicated to the freest of free markets to facilitate the best possible return on their corporate investments. Taxes? Except for the limited benefit they provide in keeping their world market place secure and running, the idea of one red cent being used to benefit "those people" is abhorrent. What they cannot twist their twisted minds around is that a nexus between government and business -- corporatism -- is the very definition of fascism, an existential enemy worthy of the current hysteria directed at the Muslim world.

Fascism of course is a dirty word. However, they embrace efficiency of it, the control of the resources, the maximization of profits, the suppression of the inconsequential concerns of the indigenous population and individual liberties of "those people" in favor of the advancement of their own tribe -- the white, wealthy westerners to whom God himself has blessed with the burden of deciding the fate of all mankind -- from the lido deck they await the fascist revolution.