Nothing livens up the Pauli-blog like a little of the Crunchy One's fine work. Well, down here in Dallas, we are frequently treated by some of Rod Dreher's output landing on our front door step. In today's edition of the local rag,, we get the following moral relativism, Crunchy-style, regarding the Greatest Senator of Our Time:
Today, it's almost unthinkable that a politician could get away with what Ted Kennedy did, which is good. Still, it's worth thinking about how much we lose because a Ted Kennedy is not really possible today.
Whatever their motives, if the people of that era hadn't been so tolerant of a Ted Kennedy's vices, America would have been a different place – and, for liberals, a worse place. Why are so many great men also morally mad? Moralism may make for a more sane politics – it's certainly more sanitized since the day the priapic lion of the Senate roared after whisky-soaked lunches at Capitol Hill brasseries – but it also makes the world safer for mediocrity.
The great thing about writing a blog post about what Rod Dreher writes is that his words speak for themselves.
[P.S. For a description of what Crunchy refers to as "Ted Kennedy's vices", I refer to the GQ article by the late great Michael Kelly. According to Rod Dreher, if only we would tolerate a few "whiskey-soaked lunches" like those described in the article, we would continue to receive the greatness that comes with it. Good thing Senator Dodd continues to serve, or we'd have to muddle along without his great leadership, too (read the Kelly article).]
This is from the guy embarassed by GW Bush and Tom Delay.
ReplyDeleteWhy is a Ted Kennedy "not possible" today? Remember sonny boy Patrick's 2am drug-induced car crash? What about Barney Frank? hello? Those 2 are still in office, and my guess is people are ignorant of the incidents.
Golly, I don't think I agree with a single clause of that excerpt. It sure sounds insightful, though, what with those priapic brasseries and all.
ReplyDeletedreher sounds more inane by the day, and everyone has noticed. I'd say about half of the comments on his blog tell him how full of crap he is. The blog reads like the National Enquirer, except the National Enquirer is more sober.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of sober... my GOD! Thanks for that GQ article, Pik. I had never read it. That story of the contact lens... and hitting on that underage chick....
ReplyDeleteNow there's a fellow who could write. RIP Michael Kelly.
Tom makes the best point. Following are the assertions in the quote. With which do you agree?
ReplyDelete1. Politicians cannot get away with what Ted Kennedy got away with.
2. A Ted Kennedy is not really possible today. [Like he was 4 days ago.]
3. The people of Ted Kennedy's era were tolerant of his vices. [please don't repeat this one within earshot of my mother-in-law. or my mom, for that matter]
4. Politics is more sanitized since Ted Kennedy could achieve and maintain an erection at lunch time.
5. Moralism makes the world safer for mediocrity.
Let me get this straight...Dreher is saying that politicians who are drunken, misogynistic boors are more "colorful" and exciting, whereas decent and moral politicians (what few exist) are boring mediocrities. Am I right...is that what he's saying?
ReplyDeleteSo it offends Dreher's aesthetic sensibilities that we don't have enough drunken politicians who molest waitresses and leave girls to die in submerged cars? And he sees moral people as dull and uninteresting?
Apparently, Dreher's sense of right and wrong is based on how much you entertain him. What a moral retard he is.
I think what he's saying is that the more sober and chaste we require our politicians to be, the more mediocre they will be.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read his full article, so I have no idea if or how he defends his claim. It doesn't strike me as self-evident, and even if true I'm not sure why it would be a bad thing.
I guess it depends on what "great" means. Dreher says "Why are so many great men also morally mad?" in the context of his piece on TedK. So by that, I take it to mean that he thought that TedK was "great".
ReplyDeleteI don't think Dreher was referring to TedK's girth by "great". So about all I can figure is that he thinks that substantive greatness correlates with moral madness. Which is ludicrous, but of course which makes the DMN editorial page if for no other reason that the point is hidden in the usual Dreher-drivel (e.g., "Crucially, Mad Men is neither scolding nor celebratory toward its characters; its irresistible pathos comes in its exploring the final years of an ancien régime . . .").
Oh yeah, the rest of the piece deals with how Rod thinks TedK was like the guys in the TV show, and that "it was simply understood back in the day that that's how men were". I'm not kidding -- read it for yourself.
BTW, it is a certainty that Dreher was fully aware of Ted Kennedy's horrible acts described in the Kelly article. I don't think the words "priapic" and "brasseries" landed in the same sentence by accident.
ReplyDeleteFrom the Kelly article : "The two most infamous Terrible Teddy stories make the point. Both take place at Washington’s La Brasserie, where Kennedy is a favorite customer." And, yes, one can see the connection between "priapic" and those stories.
Which makes Dreher's point even more disgusting (to me, anyway) -- not only was Dreher aware of the depth of Kennedy's depravity, but it was on his conscious mind at the time he wrote the piece.
Yup, we're sure missing out because of our intolerance of those vices.
To put things simply, dead girls are OK. Live boys on the other hand.... I mean, even after reading the Kelly piece, was Kennedy even half as bad as the bishops? And the dance he did on the picture of Chris Dodd's face, isn't that a truly virtuous exhibit of sacramental conviviality??
ReplyDelete(yeeeeeah, I'm hammered.... SWEEeeeeT ROSIE O'GRADEEEEEEEEEE!!)
I'd say about half of the comments on his blog tell him how full of crap he is.
ReplyDeleteAnd he doesn't delete them? Vous kiddez-moi!!
OK, I'll hazard a guess as to where Dreher's coming from with this. It's kinda-sorta the old Romantic Conceit -- great men are above bourgeois morality blah blah de blah. It's that daemonic Romantic Heathcliffian shtick. I had a roommate once who bought this crap to the nth degree. She was the biggest narcissist I've ever known.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'm giving Dreher too much credit for intellectual coherence, though....
I was raised Protestant, and I can say that the Kennedys are the perfect foil to use against Catholicism. It's a fallacious argument--ad hominum to the core-- but it worked/works damned well. The straw from whence it was made has been propped up for decades by countless of ignorant Catholics acting like the Kennedys were exemplary Catholics. The only people who can see through this are those who reject identity politics, Catholics who left the Democratic Party or who at least loathe the its social progressive direction with all that entails.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the Kennedys is instead of just becoming "lapsed Catholics" like a lot of celebs and public figures, they weild their religion, flashing the outward symbols of Catholicism in a way which is sort of startling to a non-Catholic. The news of the times the church has distanced itself from the Kennedys is usually buried, whereas everyone gets a big dose of Kennedy-Catholicism whenever it's seen to help them out.
the only northeastern catholics (thanks welborn) that get misty eyed about the Kennedys anymore are, well, elderly and true dumbasses. the media wants you to believe we all give a shit about the Kennedys. We don't and haven't for 40 years. in any case, none of this Kennedy generation identify as culturally catholic anyway. I can't really picture d Maria Shriver darkening the door of a church, except for a funeral/wedding.
ReplyDelete"irresistible pathos"?
ReplyDeleteWill someone please send this guy back to Writing School??
Elderly people vote in greater numbers. Here's a group which gets misty eyed: the media, Catholic or no. But I suppose Chris Matthews is covered under "true dumbasses". Check out the pictures here and here. I think media people like to shove it out there because they no the Vatican is against the Kennedy agenda and so it's sort of a slam against "conservatives".
ReplyDeleteBut I hope your right; most Catholic people with whom we hang around roll their eyes about the Kennedys.
Whoops, second link bad... here it is.
ReplyDelete