With the neo-con cabal seemingly approaching the end of its destructive run in America, we need to look at the conservative mind to see why we arrived where we are today.

::::::::

With a little luck we can soon bid "goodbye" to the Conservative Revolution and what it spawned, with the words Ronald Reagan used to anticipate what he thought was the demise of communism: "Conservatism is another sad bizarre chapter in human history whose final pages even now are being written" as we anticipate the conclusion of the evil Reagan ushered in.

But first, let's get a good idea of where the conservative mind is by imagining that the political spectrum of the United States is the face of a clock; the analog type, not digital.

We place the moderate at 6 o'clock and the radical at 12.  The Goldwater conservative is at 3 while the McGovern liberal would be at 9.

By placing the far leftist at 11 or later and the far righty at 1 or earlier, we can seen how easy it is for a left-wing radical to easily slip into the far-righty camp with little trouble or the fanatical righty to become a radical lefty.  They are essentially of the same authoritative mind set.  Many fanatical right-wingers, known as neo-cons, were once radical left-wing Marxists or Maoists who easily jumped the midnight/noon division line to lead this nation down the path to where it is today.

Most modern politicians are within the 3-to-9 time frame, but too many at 3 and not enough at 9.

Our most stuck-in-the-mud politicians who resist any change or progress in society would be placed at no later than 3 o'clock while those who advance radical changes would be no earlier than 9.  Hillary Clinton is subjected to the most-vitriol hatred from those at 3 because she was once a 3 but had advanced to about a 6.  That may not be far enough for our time period that will need at least an 8 or 9 to get us out of the mess a succession of 3s has put us in.

On the political right, the most-rabid 3s, such as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity have had a hissy fit over the conservatism of to-be GOP presidential nominee John McCain; the battle being whether he is truly a 3 or may have strayed off the reservation to be a 4 or, heaven forbid, a 5.

Where Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama fits on this dial is still unsettled.  His call for change suggests he is to the left of 6, but lack of specific details of his envisioned policy agenda ~ other than a lame healthcare plan, fiddling with taxes and the minimum wage ~ leaves one wondering if he passes 7, or even gets to a 7. But then, Franklin Delano wasn't FDR until after he got into the White House and faced the task of cleaning up the mess Cal Coolidge and Herbert Hoover left him.

As Howard Zinn states in The Progressive:

"Today, we can be sure that the Democratic Party, unless it faces a popular upsurge, will not move off center. The two leading Presidential candidates have made it clear that if elected, they will not bring an immediate end to the Iraq War, or institute a system of free health care for all.

"They offer no radical change from the status quo.

“They do not propose what the present desperation of people cries out for: a government guarantee of jobs to everyone who needs one, a minimum income for every household, housing relief to everyone who faces eviction or foreclosure.

"They do not suggest the deep cuts in the military budget or the radical changes in the tax system that would free billions, even trillions, for social programs to transform the way we live."

Paul Krugman of the New York Times echoed those sentiments in a recent column, stating:  "Now, nobody would mistake Mr. Obama for a Republican ~ although contrary to claims by both supporters and opponents, his voting record places him, with Senator Clinton, more or less in the center of the Democratic Party, rather than in its progressive wing.

"But Mr. Obama, instead of emphasizing the harm done by the other party's rule, likes to blame both sides for our sorry political state.  And in his speeches he promises not a rejection of Republicanism but an era of postpartisan unity."

It appears that neither Zinn nor Krugman see Obama as much past a 6, if that far. How that might differ when Obama ~ or Clinton ~ moves into the White House we do not now know, but it doesn't look likely to be monumental.

There are always variations of where politicians fall in the 3-to-9 spectrum as 3s can, and some do, progress to 4s or even 5s, but seldom farther; while some 9s will regress to 8s or 7s, but seldom farther.  Those who do not vary their positions are either the 3s, who cannot learn from their mistakes; or 9s, who are dead certain of their commitments.

Many 3s who cannot learn from past mistakes had been on the GOP campaign trail, hoping to succeed a president who hasn't learned a thing in seven years of making mistakes.  They constantly called for more tax cuts with the idea they will stave off a second George W. Bush recession; ignoring the fact that a series of tax cuts for the very wealthy and for corporations is what created the debt approaching $10 trillion and which threatens the financial well-being of the nation.  They argued that tax cuts would pay for themselves by spurring economic growth and that growth will result in tax receipts for government that more than exceed the amount of taxes reduced.  Not true.

Even the architects of the first wave of tax cuts in the Reagan administration never claimed that.  They projected that for every $10 in tax cuts, the economy would increase tax collections by $3.  But that left a $7 deficit.  After Reagan engineered a huge tax cut in early 1981, sure enough, tax receipts eventually climbed, but the deficit also increased by billions.  In fact, tax receipts in the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush regime climbed 82 percent while population increased 12 per cent and inflation was up 70 percent.  To keep tax receipts consistent with population and inflation growth, Reagan obtained from a Republican Senate and conservative House much higher taxes on the workers of America to offset the tax reductions that went to the aristocracy.  Tax cuts might be a good idea when the government is running a budget surplus, but when it is running a deficit, as was the case when Reagan took office with a manageable deficit, results can be disastrous.

One of the greatest mystifications of the conservative mind is its view on the effect on the economy by spending.  The conservative will rail all day long about the harmful effects of "government spending" on the economy, claiming it is the root of all societal problems.  But when a recession looms, as is the case with both recessions of the George W. Bush reign, conservatives were front and center about giving several hundred dollar rebates per person to be spent in the economy.  It doesn't matter who uses the dollars ~ government or individuals ~ the money given out by government is "government spending."  The difference is that individuals may spend it all on foreign items, if spent at all, and the money will flow out of the US economy.  If government spent the money to buy a fleet of American-manufactured autos or upgrade the nation's infrastructure, the money stays in the US economy and produces better results.  

No greater testimony that righties can't learn from the past are the approval ratings of Bush consistently between 25 and 33 per cent.  It boggles a sound mind to think that up to 100 million Americans actually think this man is doing a fine job, let alone a passable job, or at least, not a horrible job, as president.  There is a valid reason that right-wingers refuse to learn even though there is no excuse not to learn.  If a conservative would seek knowledge that is easily accessible on the internet, in any library or elsewhere, there is a danger that everything a conservative has believed would be proven wrong.

On the international stage, we can remember when the World War II far-right regimes of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan starved hundreds of thousands of wartime prisoners ~ those they didn't murder first ~ while the leftist American administration took reasonable care of foreign prisoners.  In one instance, Italian prisoners of war incarcerated in Seattle received much better treatment than did the black American GIs who guarded them.

On political rights.

As Scottish ~ and newly naturalized American ~ comedian Craig Ferguson jokes on his late-night television talk show, "If it's written down, it has to be true."  Conservatives view our rights in a similar way because they claim that a right "has to be written down if it is to be true."  Conservatives can't find certain rights written in the Constitution, therefore those rights don't exist in their minds.  A Bill of Rights was not included in the original Constitution because many Founders said that to list a few rights in writing would lead future generations of Americans to believe that the only rights that existed and are to be protected were the few written down.  They said that government would then run roughshod over those rights not named.  They were absolutely correct, as conservative arguments attest.

Conservatives can't find a right to privacy, to marry the person of one's choice, to be left alone by government, to have an abortion, to burn an American flag in protest, to protest a government action, to sue a government agency or numerous other rights not written into the Constitution, so they claim there are no such rights.

They often have a distorted view of where rights come from.

On campaign finance reform, Texas GOP libertarian Rep. Ron Paul (a conservative 3) said, "The First amendment unquestionably grants individuals and businesses the free and unfettered right to advertise, lobby and contribute to politicians as they choose."  In slamming the Supreme Court for the Roe v. Wade decision Paul claimed the judges created "new rights out of thin air."

Richard Nixon (a 5) once proclaimed that the right of free speech didn't extend to "abuse" of speech, therefore that right could be rescinded by government since government granted the right in the first place.

Inept former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (a 3) once testified before Congress that the Constitution didn't grant a right of Habeas Corpus, only protected it if it were to be granted by law.

Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia, a 3 who couldn't find a right to privacy in the Constitution, said that if the people want such a right, they should just pass a law securing that right.

In all these instances, right-wingers are saying that government is the source of all our rights.

The Founders didn't say that; in fact their statements mean just the opposite.  In the Federalist Papers, John Jay said Americans would be giving up some of their rights in order that the new government have necessary powers.  To give up some rights clearly means rights existed before the government was formed and therefore government couldn't be the source of rights.  When a Bill of Rights was included, the Ninth Amendment protects those rights "retained by the people," again clearly saying rights existed before government came into existence.

While Paul continues to claim that he is a "champion" of the Constitution and restoring the Constitution to its proper place in America is a primary goal and his fanatical supporters claim he is a constitutionalist who was the only candidate capable of doing that restoration, his statements indicate he knows nothing about the Constitution.

He told a reporter that, "I think the Roe v. Wade situation was a big mistake and the states sought to have the right to decide on the issue.  So I would deny jurisdiction to the federal courts on abortion."  First off, states have powers, people have rights.  Secondly, the Constitution that Paul claims to champion says judicial power extends to "all cases" arising under the Constitution, so Paul as president wouldn't have a say on what jurisdiction federal courts have.  And courts don't rule on abortion, they rule on the laws.

Paul added that, "I don't see it (abortion) as a privacy issue.  I think it's only a life issue.  As an obstetrician, I can verify the fact that life does exist.  It's (fetus) very much alive and it's very human and I have a legal responsibility for it.  If I do any harm, I can be sued for it.  If an individual kills a fetus, they can be hauled into court for it.  So it's legal life.  To say that life doesn't exist ~ if someone kills a fetus in a car accident, they have to answer to this.  So why is it life one time and not another time?"

That statement has many problems, but the one important issue is that the Constitution clearly says that the Constitution's legal authority applies to "persons born;" it doesn't say "persons to be born" or "fetuses which may be born."  And it doesn't define what life is or what is "legal life."  And it doesn't say when life begins, only when constitutional jurisdiction starts.

The Constitution that Paul claims to champion, but doesn't understand, says that laws made by the American government are to be based on powers the Constitution places with government.  There is no power for government to regulate the reproduction process.  That makes procreation an "immunity" and the Constitution says states may not infringe on the "privileges and immunities" of Americans.  Paul is not a champion of the Constitution.

To assess Reagan again we must consider that he also said: "To paraphrase Winston Churchill, I did not take the oath I have just taken with the intention of presiding over the dissolution of the world's strongest economy."  But that is exactly what his policies started.

On economics, taxes, protecting rights or any other public issue; to paraphrase an old slogan: "a conservative mind is a terrible thing to use."

Authors Bio:
*****************************************************



Thomas Bonsell is a former newspaper editor (in Oregon, New York and Colorado) United States Air Force cryptanalyst and National Security Agency intelligence agent. He became one of American journalism's leading constitutional experts through years of study at Georgetown University Graduate School of Government in Washington, D.C., and tries (without much success) to be patient with people who argue endlessly on subjects they have never studied. He is the author of "The Un-Americans: Trashing of the United States Constitution in the American Press", a critique of the mainstream media for ignorance of, or disdain for, our constitutional principles of self-government. He left newspaper work years ago, disgusted at the direction the Fourth Estate ~ under the mismanagement of ineffectual, out-of-touch, can't-do executives ~ was taking away from honest responsible journalism and the observation that there was no place in the mainstream media for a progressive, or liberal, constitutional "expert". Bonsell is an honors graduate of Woodbury College (Los Angeles, California) with a bachelor of business administration degree. He is profiled in Marquis Who's Who in America. (Self-portrait, above, was handled to make author/artist appear prettier than he actually is.)

Personal motto: Have brain; will use.