This review is from: Conscience of a Conservative: A Rejection of Destructive Politics and a Return to Principle (Hardcover)
To me, the title is an oxymoron. I can fully endorse Mr. Flake's introductory definition of "conservatism", but of course the devil is in the details. There is indeed a valid discussion to be had about the appropriate role of government vis-a-vis allowing "market forces" to determine what is and is not done in a society. The trust of conservatives in "free market forces" is often blinded by dogmatic ignorance. Take health care, which even most economist describe as a classic example of "market failure". Or take the conservatives railing against "income transfer" (from high to low), when in fact evidence shows that for decades now "income transfer" has been flowing dramatically from poor to rich.
But all that aside, the inherent incongruence between "conservative" and "conscience" can be most dramatically seen in the actions of our current Congress. Here we have a Senate which proposes a Bill which virtually no one in the Senate wants to see become law (the Skinny Repeal), in the completely unjustifiable hope that a "reconciliation" between the House and Senate will come up with a doable bill, when each house separately could not do so. This is truly unconscionable, and all but three GOP Senators voted for this FARCE; only TWO of those Senators can be given credit to have acted consistently and honorably, with a conscience, and both were women. John McCain's role was anything but consistent (with his own words), and a little dubious in his self-serving grandstanding.
But back to Mr Flake. In comparing his words with his actions, one can only come to the conclusion, that he is a complete flake (sorry, I just can't help myself). Only someone whose actions are reasonably in line with his words can be said to have a conscience and act honorably. Mr. Flake, however, has voted consistently with the GOP leadership and rank-and-file, which he himself criticizes vociferously. So, yes, Flake is a complete flake.
All that aside, I still felt the book was a worthwhile read, because, I believe, his tracing of the history of the degeneration of the conservative movement, embodied in the current GOP, is right on target.
But all that aside, the inherent incongruence between "conservative" and "conscience" can be most dramatically seen in the actions of our current Congress. Here we have a Senate which proposes a Bill which virtually no one in the Senate wants to see become law (the Skinny Repeal), in the completely unjustifiable hope that a "reconciliation" between the House and Senate will come up with a doable bill, when each house separately could not do so. This is truly unconscionable, and all but three GOP Senators voted for this FARCE; only TWO of those Senators can be given credit to have acted consistently and honorably, with a conscience, and both were women. John McCain's role was anything but consistent (with his own words), and a little dubious in his self-serving grandstanding.
But back to Mr Flake. In comparing his words with his actions, one can only come to the conclusion, that he is a complete flake (sorry, I just can't help myself). Only someone whose actions are reasonably in line with his words can be said to have a conscience and act honorably. Mr. Flake, however, has voted consistently with the GOP leadership and rank-and-file, which he himself criticizes vociferously. So, yes, Flake is a complete flake.
All that aside, I still felt the book was a worthwhile read, because, I believe, his tracing of the history of the degeneration of the conservative movement, embodied in the current GOP, is right on target.
No comments:
Post a Comment