The Other McCain on "Other Conservatisms"
Your homework for Monday is to read this piece by Robert Stacy McCain. Here's a teaser:
Beyond this, however, is the basic confusion caused by the fact that no one holds a copyright on the word “conservative,” and there is nothing to prevent anyone from saying, “I am a conservative and therefore . . .” Which brings us to the problem of Rod Dreher, who has provided what he calls “A Conservative Read On Palin’s ‘Going Rogue’” at National Public Radio.
Why was this invitation extended to Rod Dreher? Because he was willing to do what NPR wanted: Slam Sarah Palin.
We will stipulate that it is possible to dislike Sarah Palin — or at least to believe her not to be an ideal Republican presidential candidate — and still be a conservative. But the person who accepts an invitation from a liberal outfit like NPR to be the token “conservative” who attacks Sarah Palin has a few other hurdles to clear. And over these hurdles, Dreher stumbles badly.
When you are finished reading it, please comment for an automatic passing grade. If you finish before Monday, you are a geek. That's fine, just don't go complaining about the popularity of the prom queen and the quarterback. They got their gig and we got ours.
And, oh, yes—extra credit for a full paragraph on the last line explaining how and why it applies in spades to the subject.
(Hat Tip to Dianonymous.)
My favorite passage:
ReplyDeleteUnhappy with their status as small fish in the big pond of mainstream conservatism, the intellectual malcontents try to establish Some Other Conservatism, over which they can reign supreme like the president of the Cool Kids Club, deciding who is or is not worthy of the club’s approval.
But there is an additional factor involved in the Dreher Cool Kids Club -- it is by design so small (in numbers, or in substance) that it can in no way actually affect anything. And therefore it can in no way actually have any responsibility for anything important.
No WalMart. No Roberto Benigni. Little schools, little churches.
See Crunchy Con Manifesto #1 ("We are conservatives who stand outside the conservative mainstream; therefore, we can see things that matter more clearly."), and #7 ("Small, Local, Old, and Particular are almost always better than Big, Global, New, and Abstract.").
And if the Dreher Cool Kids Club were actually to attract some large numbers or attention -- don't worry, the goalposts would move to keep it small, and inconsequential. Its purpose is to be admired by those on the outside.
we never really leave high school, do we? (some of us, anyway)
ReplyDeleteA+, Pikkumatti.
ReplyDeleteYes, your assessment of the smallness which is a feature, not a shortcoming, is right on the money.
It reminds me of what I witnessed last week at our parish. It's the same thing every year, a study in contrasts. On Saturday there was the annual craft's fair in the school gym. It's a loud, messy, sprawling marketplace of homemade goods on wooden tables. There are tons of people buying gifts, a lot of which is junk. But it's priced low; your dollar has serious buying power. And some of the stuff is decent and interesting. All of it is creative.
The next day we are graced with the "Fair Trade Fair" which is sponsored by the Social Justice Committee, which is made up of people who are, BTW, about the nicest you'll ever meet, but they are clueless about business and commerce and their heads are filled with lies about how evil corporations are. This is evidenced by the anti-corporate literature which is in abundance. The fair is pitched by Father at all his masses, but barely advertised anywhere else. He describes the parish as a "Fair Trade Parish", whatever that means.
A cheesy sign pounded into the ground at the corner would probably double their sales, but unlike the Craft Fair they're too cool for that. There are about 5 tables there with overpriced homemade stuff made by people in South America & points cooler than Northeast Ohio and a guy taking orders for overpriced Fair Trade Coffee. There are barely any customers. The sellers act like you are inconsiderate when you don't have exact change, and they chat with their liberal friends about how unfair the world is while their few customers are waiting to make sympthy knick-knack purchases.
I let my 7-year-old son buy some crappy jewelry for his mom because, you know, it's the thought that counts. The lady gave him a picture of Africa and told him he was supposed to write in the names of all the countries. Pathetic.
Judging from the behvior of people who always show up at the Social Justice events, the point of all of it is to make you feel morally superior to the "unfair" mainstream. I suppose I go for a snicker. And the free fair coffee and corporate donuts.
yeah, it's positively mainstream to want to feel superior to the mainstream.
ReplyDelete"Why can't you be a non-conformist like everybody else?"
ReplyDeleteLOL--reminds me of all those precious 19th-century artistes who loathed the bourgeoisie even though they all came from the bourgeoisie and would have gotten nowhere without Daddy's money. :)
ReplyDeleteSorry I haven't been around, y'all, but this assignment is as good a reason as any to drop in.
ReplyDeleteFirst, about the lecturer... I do wish R.S. McCain's byline were more frequently found at HotAir than say, the reflexively anti-Christian bigot, Allahpundit. If it were, I'd visit HotAir more often.
McCain misses a couple obvious points from Rod's essay, points that don't really advance his main argument and shouldn't have been included, but I'll note them here.
1) Dreher almost seems to praise Palin for her cultural populism, but he gets hung up about her dismissal of some Berkeley food snob, as if he actually takes personally the criticism of effete, cosmopolitan foodies. Imagine that.
2) Dreher claims to have been an early Palin supporter, but this initial enthusiasm seems very shallow -- a thin fig leaf for his slamming Palin as someone who (sighing regrettably) used to support the former governor. I mean, look, her economic positions aren't some big revelation from this new book.
3) Some quotes need almost no commentary.
"Sarah Palin is selling a personality, not a platform."
Let's not forget that Rod Dreher, who also criticizes Palin for being shallow, wrote a book promoting a "sensibility" that came down to NOTHING more than elevating his internally inconsistent, frequently hypocritical personal lifestyle -- where local is good, except for his foreign shoes and foreign air-rushed wine.
4) The picture of Dreher at the NPR site is "Courtesy of Rod Dreher." I wonder if NPR made that explicit because, even for Ray the Beret Boy, the photo is off-putting and creepy.
About McCain's article, I wonder if Rod's criticism of Palin -- she's "selling a personality, not a platform" -- is revealing about his own intentions.
McCain writes:
"Unhappy with their status as small fish in the big pond of mainstream conservatism, the intellectual malcontents try to establish Some Other Conservatism, over which they can reign supreme like the president of the Cool Kids Club, deciding who is or is not worthy of the club’s approval."
But maybe it's not about "reign[ing] supreme" over other conservatives by being president of the Cool Kids Club, but gaining access as a useful tool -- emphasis on the word "tool" -- to the REAL club of cosmopolitan intellectuals who tend to the left politically, and who run all the cool magazines and can give you credibility with all the right people.
"The advocates of Some Other Conservatism have much in common, you see, and here’s something else that unites them: Some Other Conservatism can’t win."
But maybe they're not trying to win anything resembling political power for something as impersonal as a cause: they're just trying to win acclaim as a "right-thinking conservative," that is, a faux conservative who can be reliably counted on by the left to bash anything that's effective on the right.
Thing is, mainstream American conservatism is the "fusionism" of the last 50 years, in the tradition of Buckley, Goldwater, and Reagan: it's the combination of traditionalism and libertarianism, the support of traditional cultural institutions AND support for a limited government, with a healthy dose of strength in foreign policy thrown in.
ReplyDeleteThose who emphasize one side of the equation or the other can still be considered conservatives in some sense: the big-government traditionalists want to conserve traditional values, and the otherwise culturally radical libertarians want to preserver THE American value of individual freedom.
But is Dreher really willing to fight to conserve anything other than the shreds of his own reputation?
On paper, Rod Dreher is something of a paleocon traditionalist: socially conservative, but an economic populist.
In reality, the social conservatism is ENTIRELY negotiable: he thinks that the war over the traditional institution of marriage is already over, and he's already proven himself willing to vote for a pro-abortion Democrat over arguably ginned-up environmental issues.
Hell, I recall that he praised Obama for a speech about abortion, NOT because Obama moved an inch from his radicalism that opposes even laws against infanticide, but because he merely urged friendlier rhetoric.
So:
If Rod Dreher is only only half-conservative, and he's willing to throw that half overboard for any reason, in what sense is he reliably conservative enough to offer a conservative perspective on anything?
He's not.
All that matters to the leftist media that throws him the occasional bone is his willingness to attack the right.
And I wonder if all that really matters to him is the notoriety that treachery brings him.
After all, it's not as if he's a particularly good writer or a particularly popular writer, and a guy's gotta eat.
To be honest, I haven't listened to Rod's pathetic anti-Palin bleatings, and I really don't want to. But I did mosey over to Rod's pal Mark Shea's blog, where I encountered a full-bore anti-Palin rant that rather took my breath away. (Some poor schlemiel who dared to disagree was summarily banned. Of course.)
ReplyDeleteMark maintains that Palin is dim, dishonest, narcissistic, and a couple of other things that escape me at the moment.
Evidence, Mark? Pah!! We don't need no stinkin' evidence.
Let's look at those charges, shall we? First: dim. Yeah, that's an easy card to play. Just ask Tina Fey. No need to do rigorous research in order to find out just how intelligent the woman actually is. Nope. Go with the Lamestream Media Meme. How courageous, Mark!
Meanwhile, the woman has governed an entire state, a job that requires a fair grasp of complicated stuff like budgets and legislation. I doubt that too many dim bulbs could handle such a job. Heck, I doubt that a genius like Mark could handle it. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way, no, no. Tina Fey says Sarah Palin's stupid; therefore, it must be so.
The other day, while driving home from a doc appointment, I tuned in to Rush (shhhh, don't tell anyone! I don't want to be typed as a frothing neanderthal thrall of the Rubber-Hose Right or anything, LOL!)...anyway, Rush was interviewing Sarah, and if that lady is "dim," I'll eat my GED diploma. (Or I would if I had one.) She was extremely articulate, well informed, funny, personable, and did I mention articulate? And she did it all without a teleprompter. She made a heck of a lot of sense, too. But hey, evidence, schmevidence. Once the likes of Dreher and Shea have pronounced her "dim," then who am I to disagree? :o
OK, now let's look at "narcissistic." Yep, nothing says "narcissism" like raising five kids, one of whom has Downs Syndrome. All the narcissists I know do this. It's kind of a Narcissist Thing, so to speak.
(And of course, the charge of "narcissism" is rather rich coming from a guy who makes a formal announcement to his acolytes every time he acquires a new "follower" or plans to be away for the weekend...but I digress.)
(cont'd next post)
(cont'd)
ReplyDeleteOK, what about the dishonesty charge? We all know politicians have a reputation for scrupulous honesty, so, if Sarah is caught contradicting herself on even the slightest point, then that should disqualify her from any public role...right? Well, in Mark's bizarro world, at least. But the thing is, it's pretty hard to pin deliberate lies on Sarah. Eleven (count 'em) AP researchers have tried their darndest, poring over her book with the proverbial fine-toothed comb, and yet they've pretty much come up empty. (I don't think saying her family didn't vet her decision to run for VP and then later revealing that she did discuss it with her daughters qualifies as a lie. Unless you believe the word "family" now means "daughters only.")
Well, Mark can't get much mileage out of the AP reporters' scanty findings, so he turns to some hard-left website which has supposedly dug up dirt galore on Sarah. One prime example of Sarah's alleged hypocrisy and self-contradiction, per this website? She claims she loves gays as people and does not judge them, yet she attends a church that (gasp, horrors!!) believes homosex is sinful and that gays must repent of it in order to go to Heaven. Oh, the horror! The scandal!
As someone pointed out in Mark's combox, if this makes Sarah a liar, then it makes all orthodox Catholics liars, too, because we also are enjoined by our Faith to love the sinner (including gays) without condoning the sin.
IOW, if this is the sort of tendentious crappola that Mark appeals to in order to build his anti-Palin case, then he has instantly discredited himself and his arguments, and no one should take him seriously. Which I don't, so I probably shouldn't have bothered wasting pixels on this analysis, but heck, I'm on vacation, and I'm having fun, LOL.
In All the King's Men, the Huey Long character tells the protagonist that, if you dig hard enough, you can find dirt on anyone, even the most morally upright person, the very soul of integrity. In Polyanna, Hayley Mills provides a slight variation on this theme, courtesy of Abe Lincoln: "If you look for the bad in people, you're surely going to find it." Mark Shea seems to have bought right into the hyperactive-dirt-digging mentality, but, as usual, he is highly selective in his application thereof. Palin gets picked apart like a chicken leg, while far less honorable politicians barely rouse a snort from Shea and Dreher and co.
Oh well. What does it matter? These guys are extremely small fry; I doubt Palin has ever heard of either of them. Or that she cares. In any event, a woman who can bag a moose single-handedly can certainly take care of herself. Cain't she? ;-)
Shea and Dreher are pathetic. we've known that all along. But I've come to a new conclusion: anyone who takes either of them at all seriously is pathetic as well.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, the comment section at HotAir is overrun by an apparent troll from Little Green Footballs, a site whose recent downfall into madness was astounding.
ReplyDeleteBut RSM does write about more about Dreher, saying that "he is weak, and allows his weakness to make him envious of strength. The envy turns to resentment and frustration and then he lashes out. The psychologists refer to it as passive-aggressive behavior, but whatever you call it, it is not uncommon."
More:
"Dreher’s beat at NR was arts and culture, not the hard-core politics-and-policy stuff that is the motherlode at a political publication. Perceiving himself doomed to second-banana status, he made his play for cover-story glory with 'Crunchy Cons,' scored a book deal on that basis, was granted a platform to promote it on NRO, etc. It’s his hobby-horse and he’s going to ride it, but it’s a one-way ticket to Loserville which most conservatives will (wisely) refuse to follow.
"So Dreher has isolated himself in a cul-de-sac of his own making, and all he can do is occasionally to emerge and throw jabs at the mainstream. Kind of like a troll, really."
Tough stuff, but while some of it is surely conjecture, I don't think any of it is obviously irrefutable from Dreher's writing: a lot of it rings true.
The thing is, Dreher is trapped in that "cul-de-sac" only insofar as he refuses to leave it. He could return to the mainstream at any time -- though with a tarnished reputation -- or even the more conventional fringes of conservatism, such as the big-government traditionalism that has already been explored politically by Buchanan, Huckabee, and (Dreher's bane) George W. Bush.
But if he were to do so, his writing would have to stand on its merits: on its insightfulness and genuine wit, on its powers in reporting something new or synthesizing new ideas from old facts.
But, even excluding the tarnished reputation from the crunchy-con fiasco, he's NOT that noteworthy of a writer. He didn't get noticed in the mainstream before, and he wouldn't get noticed now.
Diane, you're damn right Palin's articulate. I'm not sure she would have my immediate support for 2012 (or anyone else would, at this point), and I hope that she can successfully fight against the MSM's smear job: if she doesn't, whoever emerges as the political leader of the GOP will be Borked, and he or she WILL HAVE TO DO what Palin must now do, in a shorter span of time.
But she's a helluva communicator.
Dreher? Compared to Steyn, Goldberg, Sowell, and Krauthammer he's nothing as writer.
Compared to even bullpen writers like Lowry and Nordlinger, Rod Dreher has a mediocre mind with an undistinguished ability to communicate what he thinks.
Florence King absolutely nailed him on his sing-song writing style.
The picture of Dreher at the NPR site is "Courtesy of Rod Dreher." I wonder if NPR made that explicit because, even for Ray the Beret Boy, the photo is off-putting and creepy.
ReplyDeleteLOL, Bubba, you read my mind! "Creepy" is the mot juste. I am mystified as to why Rod would provide that particular pic. Maybe he thinks it looks cool. No, Rod, not cool. Creepy. Begins with "c," sure, but otherwise "creepy" has nothing in common with "cool." :o
Bubba, I agree re Allahpundit. The comboxers over there seem to agree, too. I don't know why Michelle Malkin doesn't fire the guy; maybe she feels sorry for him, which I can certainly understand. In this economy, who wants to fire anybody?
ReplyDeleteThere's a far simpler explanation to Dreher's NPR review than McCain's elaborate ideological one.
ReplyDeleteHis main employer, the Dallas Morning News, has severely cut back the salaries of the staff they've still kept and not already just laid off.
Anyone who's followed Dreher's BeliefNet blog can't help but to have noticed the ongoing regular dropoff in comments month after month, an indication of the parallel dropoff in page views in direct proportion to which he gets paid there.
He has responded to this systematic decline by attempting to churn ever more tabloid posts on a par with "Gay Glenn Beck Zombies Directed By Sarah Palin Eat Orthodox Babies Molested By Catholic Priests", but these frantic attempts have only resulted unfortunately in more of his regular, less fringe visitors abandoning him faster in growing disgust.
In short, Dreher did the NPR piece because he needs any paying work he can get. Doesn't matter who, doesn't matter for what. Silken leg of lamb and Vin de FrouFrou doesn't grow on crunchy trees, you know.
totally Kenny. It smells like the weekly world news over there.
ReplyDeleteGosh, OK, now I feel sorry for the guy. (Well, I pretty much do, anyway. Or would, at least a bit more so, if he weren't so darned nasty to those with whom he disagrees.)
ReplyDeleteWhich last point -- in re the Dreherian nastiness -- dovetails nicely with Pauli's exit question in the original post.
Yes, Rod does have a problem with strong, intelligent, independent women. In fact, when he encounters them in his comboxes, and they turn out not to be fawning acolytes, he calls them nasty names straight out of the middle-school playground. So, why should he treat Sarah Palin any differently?
These are deep waters, and, as I do not happen to have a license to practice psychiatry, I guess I won't go there. ;-)
Kenny.... rotfl.
ReplyDeleteI don't feel too bad for the guy. What a dumb business to be in right now. I get whiny calls from the Plain Dealer all the time, and they still throw a free copy--with advertising--in my driveway every Sunday. They are shrinking. Just about anything worth knowing newswise is online.
and EEEEW! did you see this comment from David Frum?
ReplyDelete"This is a woman who has got into a position of leadership by sending very powerful sexual signals. And we see that in the way that men like her much more than women do."
all the creepy girly boys who claimed to be conservatives are exposing their own creepiness because of Palin. She's like litmus paper. (Besides, that's BS that men like her better than women.)
Dreher Frum and Sullivan, head honchos in the "women are scary" club.
Hey Pauli, in contrast to the Plain Dealer giving its papers away, the Dallas Morning News has responded to the industry death spiral by recently increasing their subscription price.
ReplyDeletePredictably, they lost subscribers. In response, the paper responded, regarding those that recently dropped their subscriptions (allegedly) for reasons other than the price increase:
"The 60 percent is people we don't go after anymore," Medici said. "We want to attract subscribers who value our original content and who will be with us for the long term."
You can see why Rod Dreher fits in so well at that paper. If you're not Cool enough to "value" their original content and buy into it for the long term, then they don't want you anyway.
P.S. I would have linked to the story with this quote, but I didn't want to subject y'all to the barrage of pop-up ads that the DMN website launches. Maybe they figger that if their website is annoying enough, you'll read the dead tree edition for $1/day instead.
Pikkumatti, that is so ridiculous, and yet so typical. Anyone with common sense has obviously long left the industry leaving the lunatics to run the asylum.
ReplyDeleteThe call I got from the PD to try to get me to subscribe made a big deal about how they are tailoring everyone's account to their particular zip code. So I'd get an extra chunk of newsprint called the West Side Sun News, which I think they own now. Guess what? I already get that rag tossed in my driveway once a month. They are still living in the seventies, honestly.
K, re: Frum's "And we see that in the way that men like her much more than women do," did he provide data to back that up? Because I wouldn't believe that otherwise.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, there was a TIME poll in October 2008 that concluded: "45% of all women surveyed have a negative opinion of Palin, compared to 42% who view her positively. Fifty-two percent of men have a favorable opinion, while 35% are in the unfavorable camp."
ReplyDeleteI don't think the poll asked about sexual signals, though.
Thanks, Tom. But how much of that is because of her conservative views rather than her gender? Women always vote for liberals/Democrats in heavier numbers than men.
ReplyDeleteDiane, just read your comments re: Shea. It's really too bad he doesn't see how he's behaving, digging as deeply as he needs to in order to find something bad about someone he dislikes. It's the moral equivalency problem infecting almost everyone on the left.
ReplyDeleteWhat a dumb business to be in right now.
ReplyDeleteTrue...but most people trained for it back before it was dumb to be in it. And now they're stuck, more or less.
I'm not sticking up for Rod or his snotty employer here, or for journalists in general, but I do have a soft spot for people in dying businesses because, well, I'm kinda-sorta in the textile industry myself. Actually the apparel industry, but my employer owns a lot of textile plants, and of course the U.S. plants keep getting closed down as more and more factories get moved overseas.
Anyway, there is a local hosiery plant (just down the street from HQ, where I work), and I've been thinking for years, "Those poor people surely must see the handwriting on the wall." For one thing, hosiery sales have been nose-diving for the past 20 years (although they're making a modest comeback now thanks to the current textured-tights fad). Moreover, even if hosiery sales were still strong, this plant would still be a prime candidate for closure, because (as we all know) labor is so very much cheaper overseas. Everyone in our area could see that it was only a matter of time before this plant bit the dust. Heck, my employer is even shutting down its plants in Central America (let alone its U.S. plants) and moving more and more to the Pacific Rim.
Well, sure enough, my employer recently announced that it was shutting down this hosiery-manufacturing facility. Thankfully, it's taking a year to do so, so people have time to look for other work. But my colleagues and I could not help asking each other, "Couldn't those poor people see it coming?" I mean, the handwriting has been on the wall for years, in giant dayglo letters with a bunch of exclamation points at the end.
But what can people do, realistically? You can see it coming, but you still cling to the hope that maybe, just maybe, it won't happen to you. That's especially true when you have specialized skills that can't easily be transferred elsewhere. How many growth industries are out there requiring the ability to operate a hosiery knitting machine?
So, you just remain in the dying industry until the bitter end, and then you're cast adrift.
Rod has a lot more options than hosiery knitters do, at least! It's just too bad that he apparently regards intellectual prostitution (to NPR) as one of those options.
Oh well. Sorry to get off-topic.
(Hope I don't get fired for this comment, LOL. Hey, that's why I'm diANONYMOUS.)
BTW---did you see what FakeAPStylebook said was the plural for "barista"? Journalism students. Bwahahahahaha!!!
ReplyDelete(OK, I'm being baaaad. Sorry....)
And, of course, I must add that textile workers, who earn an honest living by the sweat of their brow, are by definition far more sympathetic than snotty elitist members of the Fourth Estate. That goes double when the latter are Opinion Journalists. ;)
ReplyDeleteLOL. dreher blogs about Frum's article tonight. naturally.
ReplyDeleteI can picture it. Frum, Dreher and Sullivan, miserable forever in a tiny Sartresque room in an eternal pointless argument. First Sullivan and Frum attack Dreher on his homophobia. Then Frum gets attacked by the other two on the terror war. Finally, Sullivan gets taken to task on his slavish Obama support. Sullivan gropes in the dark for a joint, Dreher joneses for French cuisine and Frum looks frantically for a picture of Mark Levin to throw darts at, all the time with the word BACKBENCHER echoing in his head....
ReplyDeleteTrue... but most people trained for it back before it was dumb to be in it. And now they're stuck, more or less.
ReplyDeleteDiane, OK, but i'd argue "less" rather than "more". I knew a guy with a low-paying job in HR. Guess what? He sweat out law school and now he's doing quite a bit better.
Now--I know not everyone is smart enough to do that, or to get an MBA, or to start a business, etc. But here's my point: the most annoying journalists think they're smart enough to do all that stuff. And if not, they sure come off that way. So I still stand by my earlier remarks on the topic.
In the comment thread about Frum's criticism, a Randall Thorpe notes, "Sarah's male detractors seem to share a common malady: An abundance of vitriol compounded by a lack of virility."
ReplyDeleteThe way Dreher and Frum are postively repulsed by effective voices for Buckleyite conservatism -- remember, Dreher nearly wept over Rather's self-inflicted wounds while taking delight in calling Rush Limbaugh a "pillhead" -- I certainly don't think they would be enthusaistic about or even fair towards a Reaganite former governer and VP candidate who was male, but I don't think their behavior is FULLY explicable by Palin's ideology.
They sneer at all Reaganites, but I get the sense that they leer at her.
About journalism, it seems to me that, even without the benefit of further training, anybody who's written for newspapers and magazines has the communication skills to find a different job, if not the common sense.
ReplyDeleteRod Dreher could find a decent, honorable, edifying job working in anonymity -- but I suspect that last bit is the problem.
Then again, who are we to question whether journalism is a divine calling for him...
Diane,
ReplyDeleteWow, Mark Shea is a frothing Palin hater too? I guess I shouldn't be surprised. They don't like uppity women much over at Chez Shea.
I haven't read his blog in ages and will continue not to read it. I have no tolerance for irrational Palin-haters. Frankly, I'm sick of these crazy people.
Pauli -- you're right. And Bubba, too. LOL, I'd forgotten about the divine origin of Rod's journalistic calling.
ReplyDeleteSusan B., I know EXACTLY what you mean. I've taken a hiatus from a forum where I like to hang out because the Palin-Bashers are out in force, and it's just soooo old. Libtard posters are joining forces with neo-Confederate secessionist paleocons (don't ask); they all seem to have a real problem with strong, smart women.
Man, it is getting tiresome. Ack!!
Diane
Rod Dreher could find a decent, honorable, edifying job working in anonymity -- but I suspect that last bit is the problem.
ReplyDeleteDing ding ding!! Give that guy the cigar or coconut!
I suspect you are quite right, and you made me LOL.
I don't know how decent or honorable my own writing job is, but it sure in heck is anonymous. So, ipso facto, it wouldn't suit Rod.
OTOH, it seems to be a tad more resilient and recession-proof than dead-tree journalism.
I remember hearing Mark Steyn talk about his first job writing for a newspaper in London. He was amazed to find out from his co-workers that there was such a thing as journalism school. ("You went to school to learn to do this?")
ReplyDeleteApologies in advance to any journalists in the audience -- you may feel free to take a swing at me with a lawyer joke (journalists only!).
Diane,
ReplyDeleteneo-Confederate secessionist paleocons
I know the type all too well. Usually they are pretty anti-Semitic as well. They are knuckle-draggers, not the good Christian gentlemen they *think* they are.
"Sarah's male detractors seem to share a common malady: An abundance of vitriol compounded by a lack of virility."
ReplyDeleteQuote of the Day, if not the year. :) :)
Susan B, this guy isn't particularly anti-Semitic (although I do know paleos who are, for sure). He is borderline "kinist," though, and he has said some really racist things about Hispanics and blacks. He seems to bear special animus toward Hispanics; indeed, one of the reasons why he has refused to "pope" (despite some attraction in that direction) is that becoming Catholic would require him to rub elbows with "those people." Also, he thinks our bishops are off the chain WRT immigration. Oh well, long story. I've actually known this guy for eons via cyberspace, and he's quite the complex, tortured soul. I have kind of a soft spot for him, despite his ass-hattiness, but that doesn't mean I don't welcome a break from the environs he haunts.)
ReplyDeleteBubba, your last comment was right on. Good to have you back around here, bro.
ReplyDeleteBless his pointy little head.
ReplyDeleteDreher says people just don't like Sarah Palin, except Dreher sure does. She drives blog hits, which keeps him from having to deliver Dominos.
Pity about Heidegger. He'd be a lot classier to pimp for, well, assuming you were so far from the Big Apple publishers you had to pimp scandal for a living. Guy just can't win, can he?
This is one of the best articles re. the treatment of Sarah Palin I've ever read: The Wilding of Sarah Palin.
ReplyDeleteNice company you keep, Dreher, Frum and Shea.
Oh my gosh, Susan B -- that is one of THE best articles ****ever****!
ReplyDeleteThank you!!!!
(I think the author meant "perpetrator," not "perpetuator" -- although both work just fine. Very minor schoolmarmy quibble re an otherwise outstanding article.)
Thanks, Diane. I stumbled upon it on Twitter and was blown away at the way the writer absolutely nailed the misogyny of the left (and certain RINOs and paleos). Like Bubba said, these males (I won't call them men) do lack virility and they know it. And the women who seethe with PDS do so because of their own perceived inferiority. My personal theory is that most of these women have had at least one abortion, and Sarah somehow triggers their repressed rage.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, the article was most refreshing after months and months of putting up with the insanity of the Palin-haters.
Thanks, Pauli; I really should drop by much more frequently than I do, and I'll try to get back in the habit.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I'm not yet convinced that, if Palin decides to run, she'd be the best possible candidate. There really was only one Reagan, but I wish other conservative pols would go the same route in writing years worth of substantive arguments: Twitter posts don't cut it, and while a biography is probably necessary for Palin, it's not sufficient.
In addition to "the speech" for Goldwater in '64 and two terms as California governor, Reagan wrote numerous syndicated columns addressing the issues and explaining conservative solutions, and that was a major reason that, by 1980, Reagan was never dismissed as a dunce who didn't know what he was talking about.
Oh, wait...
I'm serious that it's not yet clear that Palin is another Reagan or Thatcher, and I think that one can make legitimate criticisms. I for one hope that she's not the big-government populist that Huckabee is (Dreher's dislike of her economics positions is an encouraging sign), but maybe in the 2012 primaries an even stronger candidate will emerge.
If Palin's the strongest possible candidate, I'd be much happier supporting her at the top of the ticket than I was with McCain.
And while it's true that the Left has done its damnedest to "bork" Palin, I just don't think they would welcome with open arms any Reaganite conservative, even/especially against an entrenched and possibly defensive Obama administration.
Hell, they through Hillary and McCain overboard in their support of Obama.
They will try to render illegitimate any legitimate political threat. While Palin has already been mercilessly attacked and other potential candidates haven't been, I really think that's only a matter of time rather than some indication that Palin's uniquely unqualified.
And Palin has the distinct advantage of having time to reframe the argument for the next go-around: the sucker-punch that would come for anyone else, won't come for her.
Like I say, discussions about Palin can be had, but since Dreher (and increasingly Frum, which actually disappoints me) cannot be trusted to be fair about conservative personalities like Rush Limbaugh and EVEN conservative principles like the defense of free-market economics, he doesn't have a place at that table.
Bubba, all good points. The dementia of David Frum is particularly troubling to me as well. These people need to learn how to admit they've gone too far in one direction and come back a-ways. They don't have to do it verbally if that would be too painful for them.
ReplyDeleteBubba, I can certainly understand reasoned, thoughtful reservations re Palin as POTUS. The mere fact that the Left hates her with an unholy passion does not mean she should necessarily be the GOP candidate in 2011. IOW, I totally appreciate where you're coming from.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that, even among some alleged conservatives, the objections to Palin are NOT reasoned and thoughtful (as yours are) but wild-eyed and frothing-at-mouth. Not to mention completely irrational. (At the forum I mentioned earlier, one usually reasonable guy gave us a partial transcript of Palin's interview with Rush as an example of her alleged inarticulateness and incoherence. Well, as I mentioned, I happened to hear that interview, and she was extremely articulate and coherent, completely without benefit of teleprompter. But a transcript can make anyone look bad -- people do not speak as they write! And Palin connects her sentences with "and" a lot...so what? I'd far rather have that than all the "ahhh, uhhh, er" stuff Obama spouts. But, anyway, this dude concluded that she "sounded" from the transcript like one of his weaker students' rambling term papers -- hellOOOO, spoken vs. written communication; beeg deefference, Senor! Anyhoo, that's what I mean by irrational criticism of Palin. Even when it's not utterly unhinged a la Andrew Sullivan, it is beyond tiresome.)
Sorry for rambling inarticulately and incoherently, BTW ;) --but, anyway, in sum, I do appreciate where you're coming from, Bubba. I wish more people could express their reservations re Sarah as reasonably and carefully as you do.
Personally, I am feeling more and more that she is our best bet because she seems to be the only one out there who doesn't wilt or flinch or compromise no matter what is thrown at her. I don't know if she's the most brilliant woman in the world, but I'm not sure the POTUS should be a freaking genius. As Sarah herself observed in her excellent recent interview with Greta van Susteren, the POTUS should have the humility to recognize that s/he can't do it all; that's the whole point of assembling a crack team of statespeople and advisers and such.
Anyway, the more the Left spirals into uncontrolled Palinoia, the more I incline to think this woman was Heaven-sent. I guess I'm contradicting myself here (cf. first graf, LOL), but I do tend to think that anyone who elicits this much raw insane hatred from Lefties like Andrea Mitchell and idiots like Dreher can't be all bad. In fact, she must be pretty darned good.
But that's just me.
Diane
Re: David Frum and the Cool Kids Club, even T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII has had him figured out for awhile. (Complete with reference to the "the obscenely fertile Palin clan"). (Language warning, c/o the Fake Rahm Emanuel.)
ReplyDeleteI too have no problem with reasonable, constructive criticisms of Palin. The only thing I don't want to see is her turned into another compromising GOP hack, like McCain. Part of her appeal is that she's *not* some la-di-da Ivy League policy wonk hack. She is able to articulate the concerns of many Americans with clarity.
ReplyDeleteWhen I've heard her speak, to me she comes across as articulate, warm and down-to-earth. Anybody who claims she doesn't speak with clarity is either being a jerk or is just plain stupid.
I mean, read this transcript of some non-teleprompted speaking by Obama. Now *that's* incoherence.