What strikes me as indicative of the phoniness of the "conservative renewal" now being preached by FOX-news, Sean Hannity, and the rest of the movement noisemakers, is its inseparability from the group that ran this country between 2001 and 2008. It is hard to watch the GOP-peanut gallery parading as redeemers of the Right, without noticing familiar faces from the Bush II years. Assisting in the spectacle are Karl Rove, Cheney, and Cheney's kin, Bush's press secretaries, and in fact just about every GOP operative of the last decade who has been reinvented as a FOX contributor. No one from our side has been recruited for the show and as far as I can see, there is very little space there for Ron Paul-enthusiasts.
My GOP loyalist friends have explained that this repackaging of neocon-controlled and centrist, reaching-out-to-minority Republicans is necessary to build a new coalition. But these friends are so emotionally wedded to the GOP that they refuse to notice what is happening, even when Sarah Palin has been revealed as a feminist tool of neocon powerbrokers. Moreover, the GOP did not always behave in this truckling way. When Reagan became a serious presidential candidate, he did not suck up to those in the Nixon and Ford administrations who had pursued what Reagan considered a policy of appeasement toward the Soviets. Reagan would have nothing to do with Henry Kissinger, whom he rightly or wrongly linked to a misguided policy of détente.
The present misnamed "conservative" renewal sponsored by FOX is largely an ingathering of tired old faces, and mostly from the properly discredited Bush-neocon administration. The addition of the emoting Glenn Beck to the mix doesn't change things. For one thing, Beck's guests are usually the same old partisan neocons that one can see on other FOX programs, or else sycophants who echo what Beck has just said. For another thing, Beck never challenges the neocon-Bush foreign policy and seems quite happy with what W did to expand our collective crusade for democracy. He also has an annoying habit of belaboring certain phrases about "taking back America," "returning to the vision of the Founders" or references to the 18th-century radical Tom Paine. And then we have Glenn slobbering over Sarah Palin and Jonah Goldberg, who are his frequent honored guests.
In my view, which I have expressed repeatedly, there is no way to chart a new course on the right, unless the neocon advisors and neocon subsidizers and Bob Dole look-alikes can be thrown out. Until this happens the "conservative renewal" that we hear is coming in the wake of Obama's ascendancy will never take place -- or it will be simply a repeat of Bush II, with Romney or Huckabee fronting for the folks who ran the last GOP administration. Barring change at the top, that is the most we can hope for, after the Tea Party demonstrations -- and Sean Hannity-Mike Huckabee book tours are over
On another, not quite related note, Richard Spencer is entirely correct about the mendacious treatment of the murder by bludgeoning of the former South African white activist Eugene Terre'Blanche. Not surprisingly, the most one-sided account, and by implication the most pro-ANC one, that I've seen was in the neoconservative, Murdoch-owned New York Post. Not content merely to reproduce the biased interpretation of the murder and the relatively modest goals of the Boer separatist group which Terreblanche headed, the paper identified the murdered Boer farmer as a "hate monger," and it showed him beneath a symbol on a flag that we were supposed to mistake for a Swastika.
The ANC and the current South African president Jacob Zuma are depicted in the same coverage as a peaceful force genuinely disturbed by the "terrible deed" against Terre'Blanche. We are never told that black rule in South Africa has resulted in the increasing and sadistic slaughter of the remaining whites, on a scale that Ilana Mercer reveals in a forthcoming book, which is still looking for a (neocon?) publisher.
Clearly the New York Post would find such vicious behavior to be unacceptable, if Arabs were perpetrating it against Israelis. Why is it more acceptable if Bantus are slaughtering Dutch and English Protestants? Don't those endangered people have a right to protect themselves? It is this odious double standard -- Larry Auster, please take note! -- which has turned erstwhile friends of Israel on the real right into often carping critics. As for the neocon lackey class, I wouldn't expect them to notice such glaring hypocrisy.