|
|
|
|
October 14, 2008
Thank you for spitting!
In a comment to yesterday's post about Chris Buckley's "defection" (if it is that), Sissy Willis quoted in part from a comment left by Gerard van der Leun at Roger Kimball's PJM post on the subject: "Friends such as Roger will criticize him 'more in sorrow than in anger,' but he will still be welcome at dinner parties and other festivities. He will still be welcome in most meaningful conservative circles. He will not be thrust out into the howling winds as he would be if he had been long on the left and declared for McCain."To which Sissy responded: "I don't know nothin' 'bout 'meaningful conservative circles,' but I, for one, won't be soon forgiving or forgetting the cravenness of young Buck and his fellow 'Northeast Corridor Conservatives.'I agree with Gerard that young Buckley will always be welcome at conservative parties. As I explained in the reply to Sissy, I think that perhaps this is not a bad thing. Civility is lacking in politics, and one of the reasons for that is that the left tends to excuse its own rudeness by pointing to the rudeness of the other side. In my muddled meanderings back and forth across what passes for the political spectrum, I learned that in general (sorry to be general; I know there are exceptions), people on the left are far less tolerant of people on the right. But where it comes to defectors (former leftists who became libertarian or conservative), they can expect to be ridiculed, shamed, scorned and shunned, in a way that Chris Buckley never will be by the right. If you don't believe me, try going to a leftie cocktail party and let it slip in conversation (as I have) that you are a member of the NRA. If you're lucky, they'll stop talking to you. At the trendy Philadelphia party when I told a young radio producer for NPR that I was an NRA Life Member (and also an ACLU member), her immediate reaction was a combination of disgust and shock -- as if I told her I was with NAMBLA. She walked away as if I simply did not belong there and would give her the cooties. But when I have disclosed my ACLU membership at conservative events, yes, I have gotten a look that suggests "Ah! A liberal!", but yet what I said is seen as an opportunity for polite debate. This is not a new observation. The right generally hopes to convert people, while the left looks for heretics to condemn. A conservative will regard me as "half right" for saying I belong to the NRA and the ACLU, while a liberal will regard me as completely evil simply for belonging to the NRA. Anyway, if Buckley is welcomed anyway at conservative parties (which I suspect he would be), it would be another illustration of how the right wing is in general a lot more tolerant and even forgiving than is commonly believed. I've attended a number of conservative events, and I've noticed that even bona fide flaming liberals are welcome. (Assuming they've gone there to be polite and not to engage in Code Pink-style disruptions.) Not that most liberals would ever attend such events, but conservatives are remarkably tolerant in that regard. They are more likely to have liberal friends than liberals are to have conservative friends, and I suspect that polling would bear this out. As to the Northwest Corridor Conservatives, while I don't know what to say about the shoes, I think Sissy's point is well taken. There is a certain elitist clubbishness that goes beyond the normal liberal versus conservative dichotomy, and which definitely looks down on the little people, even as it patronizes them. I wrote about this phenomenon in "Oh my God! A real Joe Sixpack in our midst!," and I was shocked to see this morning that syndicated liberal columnist Leonard Pitts, Jr. (writing in the Detroit Free Press, but not at the web site) is quite threatened by the Joe Six-Pack barbarians at the gate: Every politician wants to be seen as Everyman or woman. That's why every primary season brings the curious sight of millionaires in plaid shirts wandering through county fairs eating fried things on sticks. It's why Hillary Clinton hit that bar and Barack Obama went bowling, badly.Bottom line: she is not of our culture! She is a real Joe Sixpack! That the media elites (and all pretenders thereto) fear a Joe Sixpack in their midst was precisely the point of my post, and I am amazed (even flattered) to see it openly admitted by a self-styled member of the intellectual classes. But this is not new either. Back when Andrew Jackson was elected president, elitists worried about the coonskin cap crowd spitting tobacco juice on White House carpets. I'd love to see Sarah Palin spit some juice in the right direction. AFTERTHOUGHT: Before anyone jumps on me, let me say that I realize that Sarah Palin probably doesn't chew tobacco, nor would she spit on the White House carpets. (But even if she or one of her less couth supporters did miss hitting one of Andrew Jackson's official White House spittoons, surely the stains wouldn't be any worse than those left behind by certain previous occupants....) MORE: If the comments here are any indication, liberals are already having fits about spit. posted by Eric on 10.14.08 at 11:27 AM
Comments
I would! But then, I'm always looking for comedy. Eric Scheie · October 14, 2008 12:43 PM This sort of Republican is the reason I have recently changed my voter registration to Anarchist. They are Socialists turned inside- out. They are like cafeteria- catholics, or children playing dress-up with daddy's wing-tips. They are weary and cynical, they are posers. The Republican brand should be dead to any thinking American. I blame GWB as much as anyone. Remember, these people aren't new, they supported Bush 1 over RR in 1980. They thought the world would end with Ronnie's nomination. They prefer to play the part of the loyal opposition. It doesn't interfere with golf lessons. dr kill · October 14, 2008 01:25 PM Sarah Palin is peddling anti-intellectualism masquerading as populism. Everything Sarah Palin has done demonstrates that she is not only ignorant, but *proudly* ignorant. I know that our President does not have to be a biochemist, a legal scholar, an engineer, a historian, and a mathematician rolled into one to be an effective leader, but our President should *value* biochemists, legal scholars, engineers, historians and mathematicians. One of the most tragic features of the Bush era has been the sneering contempt of "elites" Republicans have encouraged. Sarah Palin is the natural product of that strategy: an incurious Miss. Congeniality that thinks winking at the camera and sprinkling her speech with "you betcha's" makes her qualified to lead the most powerful nation in the world. Dr. Nobel Dynamite · October 14, 2008 04:58 PM Doc, over and over I hear people read from that same Obama talking points cue card that Palin is "incurious." (Amazing that so many of you independently started using that fairly obscure word at the same time, isn't it?) What's your evidence? The fact is you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. To the extent that you make statements about Palin as though you knew them to be true, you are a liar. Someone with nothing to add and an inability keep quiet about things you know nothing about. (Wonderful P.J. O'Rourke quote: "I don't know. I'm not a liberal so I'm not an expert on stuff know nothing about.") Sorry doc, but I'm tired of the BS. tim maguire · October 14, 2008 09:31 PM Tim Incurious: showing absence of intellectual inquisitiveness or natural curiosity. What is my evidence that Sarah Palin lacks intellectual inquisitiveness? Good god, man...have you heard the woman speak? Have you heard her try and answer the most basic questions about the world around her? It's like watching a not terribly bright high school sophomore who thought she could wing it through her book report on Dickens. She couldn't name a *single* Supreme Court case with which she disagreed (until she was given a list by her handlers), she couldn't name a *single* newspaper or magazine she reads (because she doesn't), and when she tried to talk about Alaska's proximity to Russia as a foreign policy credential, her answer required no modification to become parody. I'd give her the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to a bad night, but the fact that her handlers have sequestered her after only her second interview certainly suggests that the problem is not with an isolated interview, but with Sarah Palin. Tim, I will put the question to you: what in Sarah Palin's tenure as a candidate for Vice President of the United States has led you to believe that she has anything approaching an above average intelligence? You betcha! Anonymous · October 14, 2008 10:11 PM Boys, boys- I was sneering at elites long before the Bush administration. That's what anarchists do. And read some American history, children. Elite sneering is a national pastime older than baseball. Cut and paste character assassination is new, however. Enjoy your superiority, and your government cheese. Surely Obama will pat your head as he rides by. Such good boys, noble boys, progressive boys, intelligent boys. dr kill · October 14, 2008 10:26 PM dr kill There is a world of difference between sneering at the aristocracy and sneering at anyone who values intellectualism. The former should be encouraged, while the latter has been turned into basic Republican strategy.
Dr. Nobel Dynamite · October 14, 2008 10:52 PM Young Buckley? Gringo · October 15, 2008 06:43 AM Anonymous - Palin put the oil construction contract out to bid and negotiated the deal with the Canadian government. The people with high intelligence forgot to do that. Do not confuse cultural cues with intelligence. I think all four of the candidates are about 1SD above average this election, which is a good deal lower than Bush, Kerry, Gore, and (Hillary) Clinton, who go in at an estimated 126, 125, 132, and 140. Palin's a quick study, that should count for something. She has been doing local and state issues for years, functioning as a manager, and is suddenly put into an arena among people who assume that what goes on in Washington is of surpassing importance. Naming SCOTUS cases is not as important as the general principles behind the discussion. It was not accidental that the question was about names of cases than about principles. It is not just a set-up slyness on the part of journalists, it reflects their belief that being a news junky is one of the qualifications for working in DC. But that belief is erroneous. Barack Obama is likely to forget that Syria and Venezuela are more enemy than friend. I don't think Palin would forget that. I use that because I think Bush's greatest error was in overestimating Putin's reasonableness, and this strongly influenced what he thought the US could accomplish internationally. (For comparison, imagine the lead up to the UN Resolutions and the Iraq confrontation if Russia had indeed been a consistent ally. That overestimation cost us.) Incidentally, I was the president of the Prometheus Society 20 years ago, an international IQ group with a cutoff of 164. I know these high-IQ, curious, seeking, intellectual types pretty well. Some are great, and should be president. Some are just friggin' nuts, and arrogant to boot. They are surpassingly dangerous people to give any sort of power to. Intelligence is overrated. Adaptability is more important. Dr. Nobel Dynamite. As an ex-socialist, I can assure you that the sneering by elites starts much earlier - middle-school perhaps - than the sneering back. It is a gradual dawning on the doers of life that these elites don't actually know that much. So the doers get irritated. Signed, Former Elite Assistant Village Idiot · October 15, 2008 08:54 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
Who's playing the race card here?
"the depravity and cursedness of Western civilization" Happy Birthday, M. Simon! Thank you for spitting! "Someone is lying" (And I don't think it's Granny) Funny for me, serious for thee? Conservative, not! Will You Still Need Me? Weigh the mobs, then vote! No film review yet.... (So how about a distribution pattern review?)
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I can't imagine why any serious person, no matter their position on the political spectrum, would read the Huffington Post.