|
October 21, 2008
Facing the music?
Now that Philadelphia conservative radio talk show host and columnist Michael Smerconish has "decided" (for Obama), M. Simon is disgusted. So am I. In fact, I am so disgusted that I don't know what to do. I realize that everybody's mind is made up so what could I say that chould make much of a difference? Well, in Smerconish's case, I guess I can say something. I'll say that he has struggled for years to be an independent moderate conservative, and he has been relentlessly subjected to outrageous personal attacks -- against which I defended him repeatedly. Considering that Smerconish works in Philadelphia where Obamamania has reached fever pitch, he's probably thinking about things like his future employment and getting along with people he works with. Who knows, considering that the attacks on him in the past have bordered on outright advocacy of violence, he might even be concerned about physical safety. If so, many of the red meat conservatives would call him a coward. (An easy charge to level for those who either don't have children or live in safely conservative communities.) But that's just my speculation, and it's only one side of the equation. On the other side is a lingering, mutual grudge held between many traditional Republicans in the Northeast and the red meat, WorldNetDaily style right wing. I don't fit into either camp, but I do know that these people hate each other with the kind of bitter personal hatred that arises more from lifestyle issues than from actual political differences. When I moved from the west coast to Philadelphia shortly before the 2000 election, I was a bit surprised to learn that people I have known since I was a kid and always considered hard core Republican loyalists (of the country club variety, but always dependably Republican in every election), were suddenly griping over the perception that the party had been taken over by religious nuts. While these people could handle even the hated Dick Cheney, the religious conservatives push them over the edge. I think that years of systematized hatred directed towards them by the left has softened them up -- to the point that many of them are about to "go wobbly," and I worry that once they see Obama ready to win and the GOP collapsing like the House of Usher, they might be ready to bolt. I understand the desire to bash them, but I wish people doing that would remember that most of these people are not political ideologues or activists; all they want is to keep their money and be left alone to enjoy their damned country clubs and not be preached at by religious zealots who obsess over abortion and the " Hey, well, at least I hate golf, OK? In that regard I'm an anti-country club bigot, am I not? Is that good enough, or do I have to be more, um, ideological in my anti, um, "traditional" Northeast Republican wrath? (Yeah, the quotes are for irony; it seems that some folks have tried with some success to replace "traditional" with "traditional" and everyone's confused, because everyone thinks everyone else's "values" suck or something.) Like them or not, these country club Republicans have been in the GOP for many years, and this urge to chase them out of the tent reminds me of what happened to Joe Lieberman. If they don't feel welcome in their own party, and the other side beckons nicely, common sense suggests what might happen. I only hope that people like Chris Buckley and Michael Smerconish are rare exceptions and not a trend. On a personal level, as usual I find myself personally annoyed by social conservatives. Nothing new there. But you'd think they'd have the sense not to engage in culture war baiting right before an election. Last night, I clicked on Glenn Reynolds' link to a piece by the widely read and respected social conservative Roger Kimball and because I'm also against Obama and socialism, I assumed I would agree with Kimball wholeheartedly. And even though I did agree with 90% of what Kimball said and found his central point well taken, I found myself upset by his final conclusion which tried (at least, so I thought) to blame the Obama phenomenon on the deleterious effects of rock music. So I did something very rare for me; I left a comment: Electric guitar?Woodstock? Values, habits, tastes, and pleasures?I probably shouldn't have said that (I was, after all, raised in that country club culture that considers disagreement to be disagreeable), but I was a little hot under the collar. Communitarian culture war arguments have a way of getting me down sometimes, and I don't think musical tastes should be politicized. Besides, classical musicians tend to heavily support Obama. Does that mean classical music is linked to advocacy of socialism? I probably should have been more indirect and sarcastically blamed Stravinsky's Rites of Spring for the culture rot that these people so detest. But see? There I go with a bigoted phrase -- "these people" -- as if I'm reduced to doing what I condemn. I should just shut the hell up, and write about pit bulls or some safer cultural issue. This was a minor disagreement, and it wouldn't have merited a post had I not learned about Michael Smerconish. As it happens, I have defended Sarah Palin in more posts than I can possibly count, and I tried to stress that an alliance between libertarians and social conservatives is what the would-be rulers most fear. I realize that I am writing from a libertarian perspective, but I don't think things like musical or sexual tastes should matter. What ought to matter is whether people want to use the power of the state to enforce these things. But that falls on deaf ears when people think they are under personal attack. Frankly, blaming my tastes for the fall of the West is the sort of thing which many years ago might have inclined me to make an emotional mistake and vote for Barack Obama. What makes this all the more painful is that McCain is a centrist who is trying to unite the party, and heal the deep divisions. I admire him for doing that, and find it quite ironic that he's alienating traditional (ugh! that word!) country club Republicans in the process. This does not bode well for attracting independents and disgruntled Democrats, which he needs if he is to win. So, despite my differences for a lot of reasons with a lot of the people in the "tent," I can only say that I will vote against socialism. I wish the country club Republicans who are bolting in anger or fear would think again. Smerconish, by the way, has been in the unenviable position of getting it from both sides for years. Believe it or not, he has been subjected to vicious leftist attacks for liking the wrong kind of music: I'm not saying there's a definitive link between a taste for shit hippie music and a penchant for sadly reactionary politics (although one should note that fellow right-wing opinionist Ann Coulter is a wicked keen Deadhead), but check out the mastalk.com intro page, and you're greeted with the hairy cocaine-stutter of the intro to Van Halen's "Ain't Talkin' 'Bout Love."Hey, I'm a Deadhead too. Is that why I like McCain? Who knew? After pausing to bash Smerconish's bald head, the author continues with more music-bashing observations: And that's why I love the choice of mock-rebellious poodle-metal as the theme music for the Smerconish site. It steals the clothes of rebellion. It has all the poses and postures of radicalism down pat, but ultimately it's the most conservative of music forms. It comes on like the love child of Emma Goldman and Che Guevara, all the while choking on cheesy corporate cock like the forelock-tugging lickspittle it really is.When I was in high school the kids used to just say that the other kids' favorite musician "sucks." No one thought to defend the wisdom of his repugnance. In retrospect, such innocent repugnance seems wise beyond its years. BOTTOM LINE: I wrote this post because like it or not, a number of Republicans are in danger of bolting their party and voting for Obama (something that is being encouraged by the Obama campaign). I don't think this is a good time to engage in pre-emptive recriminations. There will be plenty of time after the election. posted by Eric on 10.21.08 at 11:25 AM
Comments
Excellent point, and very well thought out. I have watched the traditionally Republican Philadelphia suburbs go from Republican to Democrat as they filled and overflowed to once-rural areas. (Bear in mind, though, that even in the old days, the religious right was never popular among the suburban GOP crowd.) It is smart for the GOP to go after the rural voters. But if their numbers are diminishing, they also need to work on reversing the growing appeal of liberalism, especially over lifestyle issues, which have little to do with the federal government. Eric Scheie · October 21, 2008 12:18 PM If M. Smerconish had just said that racial healing was the most important thing for him in this election and that only Obama could do it to his satisfaction I could buy that. What made his explanation ring false to me was all the ancillary material that was so obviously backwards. I could even argue against Obama as a race healer. But it is not an argument that is obviously false since he does have not just 95% of the black community but also a significant portion of the white community behind him. M. Simon · October 21, 2008 12:26 PM If you want to attack the urban drive towards liberalism, you need to point out (in a Reaganesque way) that while we may turn to the Federal Government as an organizing factor in larger urban centers, government almost always makes things worse. Further, you need to emphasize the fact that we don't have one government (as most people tend to believe) but at least three: federal, state and local. And the problem with liberalism in practice is that it moves power away from the city where they live and puts it in Washington D.C. where no-one cares. Sadly this requires a more subtle intellectual approach to conservatism verses liberal/progressivism that most people don't have--and so most people turn to a kind of rural tribalism (conservatism) verses urban feudalism (liberalism). It would also require better civics classes and a reversal in media news reporting, which have all acted since the Civil War to convince the public that there is only one government, the one in D.C.
William Woody · October 21, 2008 01:29 PM Sorry; my original point did have something to do with musical tastes: There are the stereotypes of the rural country-music loving hick verses the Haight-Ashbury dead-head liberal--which, when you scratch the surface, has more to do with demographics than musical tastes. William Woody · October 21, 2008 01:44 PM First of all, what the hell is an "independent, moderate, conservative?" that has to be one the dumbest things I have seen lately (and that takes some doing). If you can't make up your mind, it would be best if you'd just shut up. Second, the idea the O! will magically produce "unity" in the country is a concept that borders on insane. He is, by all accounts, a socialist who has spent his entire life surrounded by, mentored by, and educated by Marxists, socialists, radicals, and racist demagogues. And Smerconish thinks that this douchebag will usher in "unity?" Nope. The Cold Civil War is immanent, and it will be due to the likes of Smerconish and the chickenshit "country-club" RINOs you speak of. Well, you'll get the government you derserve, I guess. Me, I'm going back to Idaho. ginsocal · October 21, 2008 02:37 PM I'm merely trying to describe Smerconish according to the way he's been described and is commonly perceived: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Smerconish+%22moderate+conservative%22&btnG=Search http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/view.php?id=12574 And most damningly of all, on your website Ted Nugent refers to you as a ?moderate? conservative.He certainly tries to sound independent. In the common parlance, Smerconish is moderate to conservative. Saying I should shut up does not change this. I don't really care what he is, and whether the terminology works wasn't my point. These terms have become meaningless. By the way, what is conservative? I don't know.... http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/10/post_914.html I think I'm a libertarian, but many would disagree. you'll get the government you derserve I will, and you won't? Eric Scheie · October 21, 2008 02:50 PM I was advising Smerconish to shut up, not you, although the attempts to defend such a squish are unbecoming. Further, there is NO justification for anyone who claims to be moderate, conservative or libertarian to vote for someone who, by all accounts, will increase the size, cost and intrusiveness of the federal government in ways heretofore unseen and unimagined. They are already planning to revive the Fairness Doctrine, and my guess is that they will try to inject it into the internet, as well."Country-club Republicans are not likely to escape. Obviously, I am voting against The One(TM), as many times as I can get away with (where's ACORN when you need them?). Should this empty suit win, clearly I will NOT deserve the government that results. Only those misguided saps that vote for him are richly deserving of the coming federal body cavity search. ginsocal · October 21, 2008 03:36 PM There are a lot of people who do not follow politics. A lot of people who are willfully ill-informed and ignorant, and who are hell-bent on maintaining that status. A lot of these people are very well-educated and live in the cities and inner-ring suburbs. And right now liberalism and casual socialism, in the person of Barry Hussein Obama, has never been cooler. Who doesn't want to be cool! Who doesn't want to sleep with hot chicks and hot studs! And in the cities, and inner ring suburbs, for the over-educated uneducated, cool rules. They're smart enough to dress up in positions on the issues -- environmental holocaust, arrogant US foreign policy, affordable health care -- but it isn't about issues and ideology. It's about cool. And Barry Hussein delivers the "cool" in hearts, diamonds, clubs and even spades. Rhodium Heart · October 21, 2008 03:52 PM But here's what I don't get: why are the moderate, "country clubbers" taking their wrath against religious conservatives out on John McCain of all people? That's why I don't think the Liebermann analogy is apt. Liebermann was tossed after flaming out in the 2004 Presidential primaries and losing the 2006 Senate primary. McCain, in contrast was nominated by the Republican Party as its standard bearer in spite of religious conservatives, and is, ideologically, about as close to the country clubbers as a Republican can get while still being viable enough to win the nomination. And the country clubbers STILL want to bolt. Their little pique with Bush is causing them to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and, for the life of me, I don't get it. Sean P · October 21, 2008 06:01 PM I've lived all over this country, from country club Sarasota to rural conservative Idaho and many points in between. In my impression the ‘country club republicans’ are not particularly conservative, except as concerns their money and their personal prerogatives. All else is pretty much lefty type liberalism, NIMBYism, and the usual class based prejudice mixed in. Perhaps there was a time when these types actually had some connection to the rural or working classes, but not any more. Other than some nebulous affinity for a 'conservatism' for which they cannot even state any first principles these people are as intolerantly 'tolerant' as any avowed progressive. They do not wish to seek any accommodation with the religious right, they just want them gone. It is their way or the highway, and that's not going to happen. If their judgment is so skewed they are willing to throw their lot in with the likes of Obama just to get away from the ‘fundies’ then there is not much to be said for keeping them. I wish them luck when they realize they have fallen in with, among others, the religious left. Who, while more open to the gay community, and possibly better dinner party guests, have their very own brand of intolerance and stridency. A stridency they clearly and openly advocate the government impose upon all others. And that's the real rub for those of us who value liberty. Our best chance to beat back Leviathan is to stick together and reach an accommodation within the right. An accommodation based on the fundamental conservative principles of limited government for everyone, and the idea that long standing traditions should not be tossed aside except for very good reason. We should be able to agree that America is the type of place that can tolerate a myriad of differences (I would use the term deviancy - not intended as a pejorative, merely as a descriptor of activities that fall outside of the norm - but do not wish to give offense or imply negative judgment where there is none) while not expecting that tolerance means force of law. In my own experience it is the religious right that better understand that a government that can give you whatever you want is also a government that can also take it all away. If the country club set has forgotten, or simply does not care about, these principles then I cannot see any lost support for our cause. ThomasD · October 21, 2008 09:26 PM Blonde in a Boat fuytruiiil · October 24, 2008 03:36 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
October 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
October 2008
September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Computer Wars
Worth A Bucket The case for gridlock Putting on Ayers Joe's tax dollars at work! (Against Joe.) Discounting the theory Respectable dedication? The Wrong Parties the singularity of the narrative A. Hitler Big Obama Fan
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I think the split between "country club conservatives" and "the religious right" is a fracture which underlies a more fundamental problem. The split, I believe, revolves around demographics, not around "the left" softening up the country club republicans and causing them to fear the religious right--after all, it's not like the religious right has had the same cachet as they did in the 1980's.
If you look at a map, with few exceptions urban centers tend to be liberal/progressive, and rural areas tend to be conservative.
Rural areas tend to encourage individualism: the culture tends to revolve around the neighborhood church as an organizing principle, and because there are so few people, individuals can trust each other and can be "self-regulating" around moral and ethical principles.
But once the population density gets above a certain level (and I'd love to see someone use the census information and voting information to figure out where that number is), people tend to start distrusting their neighbors (who may number in the hundreds of thousands), and their churches (whose morality do you follow when there are dozens or hundreds of different churches?), and turn to government as the organizing principle.
I think it's why many "country club republicans" have turned liberal and started distrusting the religious republicans. I'm sure they also have started to believe in Obama's "clinging to their guns and bibles" comment as well: the rural areas are now the "others", and their quaint ideas are either stupid (because it's not like us in the big city), or dangerous.
It could be that 9/11 hid this demographic fact by temporarily pushing the country to the right--in the face of the fall of the World Trade Center it's hard not to be an American first and support a larger military to protect our way of life. But now that people are no longer worried about terrorism, it's easy for this demographic shift to a more liberal-progressive world view to reassert itself.