Ross Douthat on The Cult of Ike, or A Celebration of the Perennial Conservative Mendacity by Almost Marx

Here is some well timed, politically useful, hypocrisy from the pen of Ross Douthat. What better way to distract voters in this time of the battle between misogynist, theocrats and jingos, that is the Republican Party of 2012, than with the Cult of Ike. The Republican Party has made it’s top priority, since 1964, to purge the Eisenhower Republicans out of the Party, and they have succeeded. But the celebration of Ike is handy for producing a usable nostalgia in service to a Party transformed by that highly successful purge. A question occurs to me: Did the Eisenhower Republicans come back as the Blue Dog Democrats? Here is a key passage from the essay:

“In part, this underestimation is a result of the political persona Eisenhower cultivated — an amiable, grandfatherly facade that concealed a ruthless master politician. In part, it reflects the fact that his presidency has always lacked an ideological cheering section. Liberals (who preferred Adlai Stevenson) generally remember the Eisenhower administration as a parenthesis between heroic Democratic epochs, while conservatives (who favored Robert Taft) recall a holding pattern before their Goldwater-to-Reagan ascent.”

How easy to overlook the facts that Eisenhower chose Richard Nixon as his Vice President and John Foster Dulles as his Secretary of State, or is that a demonstration of his being ‘a ruthless master politician’. As a Modern Conservative,after Rove, Mr. Douthat can celebrate even admire the cardinal virtue of ruthlessness,perhaps the singular philosophical contribution of the Social Darwinism masquerading as Conservatism. I would venture to say, that a monument should be built to the Eisenhower Republicans, who were purged from the GOP.

Almost Marx

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.