Category Archives: conservatism

The “Racist Tea Parties” debate

My RealClearPolitics.com column, Tea parties racist?  Not so fast, has drawn not one but two responses on Salon.com.  The first is from Prof. Christopher Parker, a political scientist at the University of Washington and the lead investigator on the study of the racial attitudes of Tea Party supporters on which my column was largely based.  The second is from Salon.com editor Joan Walsh, whose article based on Parker’s findings, “The Tea Partiers’ racial paranoia,” I  mentioned and criticized in the column.

When Prof. Parker’s study was first released, it was widely discussed as evidence that the Tea Party movement was driven in large part by racism.   The proof was in the numbers: as Salon.com’s David Jarman summed it up, in a “Who are the tea partiers” article that for some reason can no longer be found at its original URL,

Among whites who approve of the Tea Party, only 35 percent said they believe blacks are hard-working, only 45 percent believe blacks are intelligent, and just 41 percent believe that they’re trustworthy.

Salon.com editor Joan Walsh, whose article also seems to have disappeared but is cached here, sarcastically inquired,

And Tea Party supporters don’t like it when anyone notices the racists in their midst?

As I found when I obtained a fuller set of numbers from Prof. Parker (by now, all the data are on the UW website), the actual picture was far more complex.  Continue reading

12 Comments

Filed under conservatism, race, U.S. politics

Not enough government?

On TNR.com a few days ago, William Galston criticizes David Brooks’ “Moderate Manifesto,” which accuses Obama of overreaching on an ambitious government-expanding agenda.  Says Galston:

[T]here is no question that the Obama budget contemplates a growth of the federal government relative to both the states and civil society. This is what happened under FDR, driving the conservatives of the time to paroxysms of rage. Today’s conservatives are doing what Ronald Reagan never did–namely, relitigating the merits of the New Deal. It’s not clear whether Brooks intends to join them. If so, he should either argue explicitly that the New Deal was a mistake, or distinguish between today’s needs and those of the 1930s. If not, it’s hard to see the prima facie case against Obama’s course.

Well, leaving aside the merits of the New Deal, there is one major difference.  In 1940, total federal, state and local spending in the United States equalled about 19% of the GDP (up from 13% in 1930).  Today, it’s close to 37%.  (The data can be found here.)  Growing government from a small base is — to point out the obvious — not the same as growing it from a large base.  A Rooseveltian expansion of government today would push its size to some 56% of the GDP.

Meanwhile, on Salon.com, Michael Lind castigates Obama for not being pro-big-government enough and for espousing market-oriented “neoliberalism,” a liberal adaptation to the tyranny of conservative free-market fundamentalists.  (Back in June, Lind wrote that conservatism had already been defeated.  Never mind.)   He dislikes the cap-and-trade approach to pollution, preferring command-and-control.  He is angry that Obama wants to encourage private initiative and investment to develop “green” energy, instead of organizing a government research program civilar to the one FDR created to develop the atomic bomb.  (If Lind cannot see the difference between a weapons program with a very specific goal and the development of alternative energy sources in a vast and complex economy, trying to explain is hopeless.)  He hails FDR as the model of centralized action that Obama is failling to emulate, since FDR “imposed a single, simple, efficient tax to pay for a single, simple, efficient public system of retirement benefits.”   You’d think it was only “free-market fundamentalists” who have warned about the problems an aging population creates for Social Security.

By the way, here, Lind says that “socialism” is a racial code word in the same manner as “welfare queen.”  But of course; that’s why there’s all this talk of “European” or “Swedish” socialism.  Because when Americans think “Sweden,” they think “lazy shiftless blacks.”  Makes perfect sense.  Does anyone take Lind seriously?

And here on Slate.com, Jacob Weisberg explains why Obama is not a European-style social democrat and why “European socialism” wouldn’t work here even if Obama endorsed it.  He makes an interesting case.

(Cross-posted on RealClearPolitics.com.)

5 Comments

Filed under conservatism, economy, liberalism, socialism, the left

Fools rush in

(Yes, another tired pun on the word “rush.”)

What do I think on the great debate about Rush Limbaugh and the GOP?  I don’t think there’s any way in which it can be good for the Republican Party to be seen as in thrall to The Mouth That Roared, any more than it would be good for the Democrats to be seen as in thrall to their big fat idiot.  (I will say that I don’t think the DNC chairman wouldn’t call Michael Moore’s rhetoric “incendiary” and “ugly” for fear of alienating his fan base, but I also doubt that Moore would be the star speaker at a gathering of liberal activists.)

Jonah Goldberg defends El Rushbo here.  Among other things, Jonah asks why it’s wrong for Rush or any other conservative to say that he or she wants Obama to fail, considering that Obama’s agenda — to “remake America as a European welfare state” — is one that conservatives naturally oppose.  But there are many ways to say the same thing.  I, for instance, would say that I hope Obama succeeds in turning the economy around, but fails in foisting upon us the big-government programs he is seeking to enact.   Surely, Rush Limbaugh is smart enough to figure out something like this.

Jonah also asks:

Besides, since when did hoping for the failure of ideological agendas you disagree with become unpatriotic? Liberals were hardly treasonous when they hoped for the failure of George W. Bush’s Social Security privatization scheme.

No, but they were certainly called unpatriotic or downright treasonous — and rightly so — if they hoped for the failure of American troops in Iraq.  Maybe war is different; but hoping for bad news in the midst of a major economic crisis does not seem much more attractive than hoping for bad news in the midst of a war.  I would also add that if the Social Security reform did go through, any liberal who stood up and said that he or she hoped it would end in disaster and bankrupt millions of seniors would quickly become public enemy No. 1 to Rush and others — Exhibit A in the case against America-hating liberals.

Obviously, I don’t particularly care for Rush.  I don’t listen to him a whole lot.  I know that, unlike some of the talk radio screamers, he doesn’t insult and berate callers who disagree with him.  I know that, compared to Michael Savage, his show is an oasis of civility, and that in some cases he has readily apologized for using ugly language.  I do, however, know that Rush’s stock in trade is demonizing the opposition and treating Americans with different politics as the enemy.  That, as far as I’m concerned, makes him part of the problem.  Jonah mocks Tom Daschle for complaining about Rush’s broadsides in 2002, but those broadsides really were pretty extreme; Limbaugh basically accused Daschle of treason for criticizing the Bush administration’s conduct of the war and called him “Hanoi Tom” and “Tokyo Tom.”

I do wholeheartedly agree with Jonah’s proposal to bring back Firing Line — the old show hosted by William F. Buckley that featured rational, civil, interesting conservative-vs.-liberal debate.  An online version of Firing Line would be good as well.  I’d participate.

(Cross-posted to RealClearPolitics.com)

5 Comments

Filed under conservatism

The S-word and the F-word

obama-marx-reason-cover1

Updated March 7 at 7:45 pm — please read below the cut!

My column on the brouhaha about Obama as a “socialist” appears on RealClearPolitics.com (and on Reason.com) this week.   Short answer: Yes, Obama’s proposals advance and enhance the welfare state and government involvement in the economy (and yes, I think this is a bad thing); no, this is not any sort of radical departure from the existing system (as my Reason colleague Veronique de Rugy has noted, Obama’s budget “simply expands the Bush policies of bigger government and increased centralization”); and to compare this to Communism by invoking, as Mike Huckabee and others have done, the decrepit ghosts of Lenin and Stalin verges on obscenity.

Now, we have a debate between my friend Ron Radosh and The New Yorker‘s Hendrik Hertzberg on whether Obama’s policies are leading us toward “fascism American style.”    Continue reading

3 Comments

Filed under Barack Obama, conservatism

Now he tells us

National Review’s Rich Lowry on Bush’s Top 10 mistakes, and two items that drew my attention.

Not reading enough history. Bush has admirably applied himself to an extensive reading program as president, but if he had absorbed more history before taking office — particularly about military matters — he’d have had a better grounding to make important decisions.
….
Underestimating the power of explanation. By temperament and ability, Bush was more a “decider” than a “persuader.” He’s not naturally drawn to public argument, giving his administration its unfortunate (and not entirely fair) “my way or the highway” reputation at home and abroad.

I remember a different tune from Rich Lowry. Here’s my take on it in my own 2002 Reason column “Intellectual Warfare“:

“Maybe we don’t want a presidential candidate who can pronounce Kostunica or recite the constituent parts of Yugoslavia,” wrote National Review Editor Richard Lowry. … Sometimes, especially at National Review, the animus against braininess has overlapped with a crusade for traditional manliness — the idea being that book learning is for wimps.
Appearing on the Fox News show On the Record to discuss a recently released documentary about Bush on the campaign trail, Lowry hailed him as “a more traditional, red-blooded guy” than Al Gore: “He’s tough. He’s manly….He’s not very reflective.” To Lowry, it turns out, even familiarity with “hip” pop culture products such as Sex and the City — a familiarity that Bush, in the documentary, appears to lack — denotes excessive intellectualism and elitism. “Bush probably knows more about NASCAR, which is more tuned into what most Americans care about, than any of these reporters writing about him,” he commented.

And from another column:

In October 2000, at a Cato Institute symposium on the presidential election, National Review Editor Rich Lowry spoke of a “war on masculinity” in America and asserted that Bush appealed to the voters because he exemplified an action-oriented, nonintellectual manly resolve.

Oh yes, that Cato symposium; I remember it well, especially Lowry’s enthusiastic praise for Bush’s lack of bookishness.

Now it turns out book-learnin’ (and a little bit of reflectiveness) can be useful after all.

As Glenn Reynolds would put it: Heh.

Leave a comment

Filed under anti-intellectualism, conservatism, George W. Bush

The wages of populism: Joe the Journalist

If you think I’m making too big a deal out of anti-intellectualism on the right… then check out the latest from the Pajamas Media “citizen journalist,” Joe “more-than-15-minutes-of-fame” The Plumber:

I’ll be honest with you. I don’t think journalists should be anywhere allowed war (sic). I mean, you guys report where our troops are at. You report what’s happening day to day. You make a big deal out of it. I think it’s asinine. You know, I liked back in World War I and World War II when you’d go to the theater and you’d see your troops on, you know, the screen and everyone would be real excited and happy for them. Now everyone’s got an opinion and wants to downer–and down soldiers. You know, American soldiers or Israeli soldiers.

I think media should be abolished from, uh, you know, reporting. You know, war is hell. And if you’re gonna sit there and say, “Well look at this atrocity,” well you don’t know the whole story behind it half the time, so I think the media should have no business in it.


To quote the line I’ve paraphrased before from the Russian comedian Mikhail Zhvanetsky: “Words fail. At least, printable ones.”

A very appropriate quote, actually, considering that Mr. Wurzelbacher’s musings strongly remind me of Russian Putinistas who justify censorship of unpleasant news because, heck, you don’t want to “downer” the public.

I know that media reporting on wars often leaves a lot to be desired. But … well, Bill Roggio on the Weekly Standard blog pretty much says it all:

[W]hile embedded as an independent reporter in Iraq and Afghanistan several times, I have seen journalists do some appalling things. I could probably write a book about it, but honestly I’m far more interested in the war itself. Despite what I have seen, I believe the media should have access during conflicts. Shutting the media out would entirely concede the information to al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, etc. who are increasingly developing sophisticated information strategies. Yes, there is bad and slanted reporting coming out of the combat zones, but there also are good reporters out there who can get the story right. The public needs to hear these stories to understand the nature of the war.

The real irony here is that PJTV, a 21st Century, Internet-based news organization is sending a reporter–who doesn’t want reporters to report on war–to report on a war. And apparently Joe would love to return to the days when the news was influenced by the government and seen at the theater.

Precisely.

Could this be the beginning of the end of American conservatism’s fatal-attraction love affair with populism? Or am I being too optimistic again?

11 Comments

Filed under anti-intellectualism, conservatism, media

NAS conference notes 2: Barack Obama and the colorblind vision

Remember when conservatives talked about the vision of a colorblind society and about moving past racial preferences?

In the past couple of years, this issue has been out of the limelight. Last November, a ballot measure to ban the consideration of race in public college admissions and other government operations succeeded in Nebraska but was narrowly defeated in Colorado, after a vicious smear campaign that linked the initative to the Ku Klux Klan and questioned the high salary paid to one of the leaders of the anti-preferences movement, African-American businessman Ward Connerly. Several similar measures were kept off the ballot in other states.

What now?

It’s interesting that two speakers at the NAS conference who are strongly associated with the anti-preferences movement — both decidedly right of center — spoke of Obama and his election with unrestrained and unabashed enthusiasm. At the opening session, my good friend Abigail Thernstrom, co-author with her husband Stephan Thernstrom of the classic America in Black and White, called Obama’s election “a historic turning point” and “a racial conversation-changer.” She also noted that a black man’s ability to win a contest for the White House came as no surprise “to those of us who have been following polling data and have long believed in the racial decency of ordinary Americans.” The fact that the leader of the free world is now a black man, Thernstrom said, has to make it easier and more attractive for people to move beyond race and race consciousness — and harder to justify preferences with arguments about the alleged intractability of racism. “The younger generation is coming of age in a racially altered world,” Thernstrom said, and eventually campus politics will have to catch up.

Maybe Abby is an optimist, as someone suggested in the Q & A; to that, she replied she was cautiously optimistic. It is worth noting that Obama has suggested (in vague terms) that affirmative action should refocus on class, not race.

On Friday, one of the luncheon speakers and award recipients was Ward Connerly, the man hailed as a civil rights leader by some and derided as an “Uncle Tom” by others. At the NAS luncheon, Connerly got a standing ovation. (One of the few people who remained seated, and did not applaud, was the AAUP’s Cary Nelson.)


Connerly is an amazing speaker; gracious, warm, energetic. He opened his speech by saying, “We are here in the nation’s capital a few days before an event that will demonstrate something most of us in this room have always believed: that America is a fair country and that the colorblind vision works.”

Connerly noted that he did not vote for Obama, but believed he deserved to win: “He ran the best campaign and made the strongest case. I accept this verdict by the American people, and I wish him success.” (Here, there was a burst of applause from which about half the people in the room abstained; including, I might add, Victor Davis Hanson, who sat on the dais.) “He will be inaugurated only feet away from where Martin Luther King gave his historic ‘I have a dream’ speech. I am sure that the spirit of Dr. King will be smiling on him,” Connerly continued, recalling King’s “deep patriotism.”

After discussing the recent fortunes of the civil rights initiatives, Connerly noted that “the issue is not just getting beyond racial preferences but getting beyond race. The election of Barak Obama confirms that.”

I think Connerly and Thernstrom are right; and I think the kind of conservatism that has a future today is their kind. I’m an optimist, too.

(Ward Connerly photo courtesy of the American Civil Rights Institute.)

2 Comments

Filed under Barack Obama, civil rights, conservatism, race

NAS conference notes 1: Culture and politics

I’m back from the 13th conference of the National Association of Scholars, a 21-year-old organization dedicated to combating political indoctrination on college campuses and defending the traditional curriculum. While the NAS has no formal political affiliation, it has a decidedly right-of-center bent, and I thought the conference would offer an interesting glimpse into what conservatives and right-of-center moderates are thinking right now, just before the Obama transition. (Not to mention that NAS conferences are always fascinating and offer a welcome diversity of opinions.)

So, here’s Part 1 of my observations from the weekend. The highlight of the conference, no doubt, was the debate on academic freedom between NAS president Peter Wood and American Association of University Professors president Cary Nelson. Nelson has criticized “politically correct” speech codes and asserted that he opposes “the destructive power of idenity politics”; however, he is also on record as being highly critical of the NAS’s “war on political correctness,” and his speech boiled down to “Sure, the NAS is right about some things, but you guys really overstate the case and despite some individual cases of PC run amuk, there is no problem of a dissent-stifling liberal orthodoxy on campus.” Much of the anti-PC critique, Nelson argued, is made in “ignorance or bad faith,” and is aimed at discrediting, marginalizing, and demonizing left-wing, proggressive faculty. (As an example, he cited the American Council of Trustees and Alumni 2006 report How Many Ward Churchills?; Nelson argued that Churchill, who referred to the 9/11 victims as “little Eichmanns” who had it coming to them, was actually quite atypical both because of his “over the top” rhetoric and because of the peculiarities of his fraud-laced career. True enough; but the real thrust of the ACTA report was that Churchill-type ideological extremism was far from unique.)

Nelson lost me when he asserted that, contrary to conservative critiques, women’s studies is no longer a bastion of orthodoxy. The proposition that “women are universally oppressed by the patriarchy,” he claimed, is no longer the dominant assumption in Women’s Studies and hasn’t been in nearly 20 years. That may be technically true; the problem is, to the extent that male oppression of women is no longer the sole dogma of the field, the dogma has changed only to accommodate other left-wing orthodoxies and “oppressions”: for instance, any critique of the oppression of women in Muslim societies must now be mediated by the understanding that such critiques can be used as a tool of Western imperialist oppression of “brown” men. How many WoSt courses would be receptive to discussing the idea that innate sex differences may partly account for the unequal distribution of women and men in some fields?

Then again, Nelson probably thinks that’s fine; indeed, he took a swipe at those who criticize women’s studies for insisting that all gender differences are socially constructed — as if they should give any weight to the patently ridiculous idea that women may innately have less aptitude for math or music! (I didn’t get a chance to ask Neltson any questions during the Q & A, but I did manage to buttonhole him after the session. Is it right, I asked, to exclude from academic discourse the view that there are some biology-related cognitive and behavioral differences between men and women which may affect the gender composition of some professions? Nelson’s initial response was to dismiss any possible validity of this view; finally, he grudingly conceded that it should not be suppressed, and even, in an aside, that Lawrence Summers probably should not have been fired for voicing such a view. He also noted that the AAUP had, under his leadership, criticized the disinvitation of Summers to speak at a dinner at UCLA.)

Nelson also took the NAS to task for ignoring orthodoxies that don’t fit the “left-wing” mold — for instance, sociology departments that elevate quantitative research to the point of excluding students interested in the qualitative method, or economics departments that fail to teach “very timely” skepticism toward the free market. “But the NAS ignores that and focuses on Women’s Studies,” declared Nelson. “You’re like mullahs who condemn heresy but bow 500 times a day toward Wall Street, or the ruins of Wall Street.”

Think that was snarky? Well, things got really interesting when Peter Wood took the podium and opened his speech with a brief discussion of an essay Nelson had published about an earlier NAS conference, in 1997 in New Orleans, deriding the group as a gathering of old men resentful of change and younger losers anxious to blame their failures on left-wing orthodoxy in academe, all of them consumed by bitterness and fear. (I attended that conference, which featured a great speech by Shelby Steele, and that’s not how I remember it.) Wood cautioned that “behind this affable exterior, there is actually a good deal of malice.” A hit, a very palpable hit, which Nelson took with a great deal of equanimity; it takes some chutzpah to accept an invitation to speak from a group you’ve satirized in this fashion.

During the Q & A, several people cited instances of academic orthodoxy they or members of their family had experienced personally; one of the statements, from a very passionate young woman studying at the University of Arizona, illustrates the complexity of evaluating such complaints. “Here are some of the things I’ve heard from my professors,” she said. “The US could stop world hunger if we just spent less on defense. American soldiers are no different from terrorists and essentially pursue the same objectives. China is not a Communist country.” (Is the last of these necessarily an example of left-wing propaganda, or a recognition of China’s moves toward a market economy?) The young woman was also unhappy that in a journalism class, she was required to read The New York Times or The Los Angeles Times for class reports and credit, but was not allowed to substitute The Washington Times; it didn’t help that she repeatedly referred to the latter as “The Washington Post” until corrected by someone from the audience. Now, I will say that depending on the type of journalism class it is, it might be quite appropriate to give only those reading assignments. But a comparative analysis of The New York Times and The Washington Times might be interesting as well.

Nelson’s response to all the anecdotal material was that he couldn’t comment on them without knowing all the facts. The larger issues, though, is that in all too many academic departments, there is an atmosphere in which left-of-center politics are assumed, and equated with virtue. Tthat’s a problem, not just for conservatives or libertarians but for the exchange and flow of ideas. And sometimes, this orthodoxy does blow up in ugly ways — for instance, during the Duke sexual assault hoax case, which went unmentioned at the Nelson/Wood panel.

But meanwhile, what about conservative politics? On the first day of the conference, Victor Davis Hanson of the Hoover Institution and National Review Online gave a speech about the importance of classical education, arguing that the study of Western culture and the Greeks in particular is indispensable to an understanding of the human condition and its limitations. Hanson lamented that “the general public has lots all idea of what the West is; they live in it and enjoy the benefits of its daily commerce and its consumer culture, but they don’t have any notion of what its founding principles are.” Hence, he noted, the widespread willingness to give credence to arguments for moral equivalency between Western democracies and totalitarian regimes.

So far, so good; and Hanson reserved some of his criticism for the right, for the rise of vocationalism and the decline of the idea that the liberal arts should give people a grounding in a common culture, shared history and literature, etc. But there is another elephant in that room: isn’t any conservative effort to promote classical culture these days going to come into conflict with the rise of conservative populism, and its frequent appeal to hostility toward the educated “elites.” When I asked Hanson about this, he flatly denied that such a problem existed; the real problem, he asserted, was the elites’ prejudiced attitude toward Sarah Palin, as evidenced by the difference in the treatment she got compared to the coddling of Caroline Kennedy. (That’s coddling?) Hanson also assured me that if he saw a real trend of anti-intellectualism among conservative commentators — for instance, the claim that “instinct is superior to reason” — he would oppose it and speak out against it.

A good portion of Hanson’s luncheon speech the next day, when he was receiving an NAS award, was also devoted to a defense of Palin; he noted morosely that “those of us who are conservatives or moderates are somewhat bewildered by the last election,” and specifically by the attacks on “‘Palinism,’ defined by some as ‘know-nothingism’ or ‘anti-intellectualism.'” Hanson lamented that conservatives like David Frum, David Brooks, Kathleen Parker and others “deplored Palin’s lack of knowledge of foreign affairs,” and commented, “All I can say is that it’s very hard to spend your life in Wasilla, be a mother of five and get to be Governor of Alaska and take on the power structure that she did.” (Isn’t that rather like the rationales for affirmative action?) Hanson concluded by saying that Palin represents “conservatives values lived through experience.”

I have no problem with the fact that Palin had no Ivy League degree, and I certainly don’t think that being a certified intellectual should be among the qualifications for political leadership. But the contradiction between conservatives’ attempt to be custodians of culture and the Know-Nothing populism often spouted by Palin’s champions is striking. And unless conservatives address the fact that some people in their camp contribute to hositlity toward the educated, this is not going to change.

Yes, some of the conservative hostility and suspicion toward intellectuals stems from the susceptibility of many in the intellectual class to genuinely pernicious ideas (from communism in the old days to radical race and gender theories today). But the responsibility of educated conservatives — the kind who gravitate to NAS conferences — should be to do what they can to ensure that the marketplace of ideas remains diverse. And when some of their political allies seem just as happy to consign the educated to “enemy territory,” it’s time to beat the alarm.

4 Comments

Filed under anti-intellectualism, conservatism, intellectuals, National Association of scholars

Christmas meditations

A New York Times essay offering a different take on the perennial classic It’s a Wonderful Life sparks a lively discussion in the comments.

The essay argues that the small-town life Capra’s hero embraces at the end is, in fact, terrifyingly and asphyxiatingly oppressive, and that the movie is all about resigning oneself to the loss of dreams, to being trapped in a life of compromise, small-mindedness and conformity. He even asserts that the “Pottersville” of the alternate reality in which Jimmy Stewart’s George was never born — filled with booze and vice — is a lot more fun than boring New Bedford, where The Bells of St. Mary’s is all that passes for entertainment.

Some commenters agree, and also point to the movie’s disturbing gender ideology: without George in her life, his wife Mary (Donna Reed) has become — the horror! — a single, childless librarian. One poster mentions (approvingly) that Ayn Rand hated this movie because of its emphasis on self-sacrifice and the compromises of adult life. Others defend close-knit communities as well as the idea that adulthood is about accepting compromises and limits, and that life’s true satisfaction comes not from chasing adolescent dreams but from family, friends, and community.

This is where I’m always reminded of a famous Niels Bohr quote:

“The opposite of a small truth is a falsehood; the opposite of a great truth is another truth.”

There is a great truth in the Randian/libertarian celebration of the free individual, of the stubborn pursuit of one’s dreams and visions, of the struggle against limits. There is also a great truth in the conservative/communitarian vision that emphasizes relationships and acceptance of reasonable compromises and limits. Both of these starkly different approaches to life have value — are, in fact, necessary to a healthy culture, which needs both roots and wings. (I believe the origin of this metaphor is this quote by American motivational speaker Dennis Waitley.) So do the vast majority of individuals, even if some can be perfectly happy pursuing their individualist dreams with no human ties and some can be perfectly happy living completely for others.

Of course, each vision also has a seamy side. A lot of “autonomous individuals” who pride themselves on never compromising and never “settling” are not Randian Howard Roarks but obnoxious, egotistical jerks with a very exaggerated notion of their own talent. A lot of lives that revolve around family, community and self-sacrifice are poisoned by undercurrents of bitterness, resentments, and suppressed conflicts. And so on.

But in the spirit of the holiday, let’s focus on the positives. Here’s to roots and wings. And to the fact that American culture is big enough to accommodate Frank Capra and Ayn Rand.

3 Comments

Filed under Ayn Rand, Christmas, conservatism, libertarianism

More Palin: The other side of the culture war

Yes, more Palin. Bear with me.

We all know that there have been some very nasty attacks on Palin from some feminists, as well as a lot of condescension from the Maureen Dowd types who look down their noses at a small-town, gun-owning, Walmart-going, Bible-believing mom with five kids. But it takes two to do the culture-war tango.

For instance, in The American Spectator, one Jeffrey Lord rightly deplores the feminist attacks on Palin. Then he goes on to say:

This election is now being fought openly between, as Whittaker Chambers once described the same fight in a different era, “those who reject and those who worship God.” Between those who believe “if man’s mind is the decisive force in the world, what need is there for God?” — and America’s own Joan of Arc, Sarah Palin.

If Barack Obama is an atheist, that’s news to me. And I certainly hope that Palin doesn’t actually see herself as Joan of Arc on a God-given crusade. (It’s interesting how the left-wing caricature of Palin is barely distinguishable from the right-wing icon.)

Praising Palin’s decision to keep her baby with Down’s Syndrome and to encourage her pregnant 17-year-old daughter Bristol to bear her child, Lord writes:

Twice over in two now ongoing and very public situations, Sarah Palin has focused on the love of God rather than herself. To those who have vested their life and career comfortably believing there is little need for God because what of what rolls around aimlessly in their heads and those of their like-minded friends at any given moment, to those who view government and the power of the state as an object of worship, this is taken as a serious, gut-level threat. A threat to the existence of their own very carefully structured non-religious secular value system.

Glossing over Lord’s apparent assumption that Palin expects to have no personal joy or satisfaction from her special-needs child or her grandchild, and that her decision was solely a sacrifice to God, this is a pretty nasty portrayal of secularists. Further down, it is compounded by nasty swipes at insufficiently masculine liberal men (“Glutted with Hollywood pâté, Al Gore would have a coronary trying to keep up with Palin, who probably wouldn’t be bringing along any seriously good wine as he races through the backwoods. Once off the basketball court, Obama would be clueless on snowshoes with a gun and a charging moose”).

On a less hysterical note, Jonah Goldberg in National Review defends Palin against the “she’s not a real woman” attacks … and then sneers that the same people would consider “a childless feminist who looks like a Bulgarian weightlifter in drag” a real woman. On Townhall.com, Kevin McCullough speculates that “modern feminists” hate Palin because she’s a real woman:

She has a manly, and (according to several women I’ve overheard) handsome husband. She is content in their life together as a couple where each goes out and works hard. As a mom she is parenting her kids giving them what mothers give best, and her husband, gives what only a father can.

She’s not afraid to don some lipstick and use her comely attraction to romance “her guy” one night, and turn around and beat back corruption as a fierce defender of what is right the next day.

As opposed to, say, the notoriously unwomanly Geraldine Ferraro (married mother of three) and Nancy Pelosi (a married mother of five whom a poster on Michelle Malkin’s blog charmingly described the other day as “the result of mixing June Cleaver with Code Pink, Steroids and a strap on”)?

And a final item, by Jim Brown at OneNewsNow:

A pro-life activist suggests one of the reasons liberals despise Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin so passionately may be because she gave birth to her son despite a diagnosis of Down syndrome.

… Mark Crutcher, the president of Life Dynamics Incorporated (LDI), notes that in America today, 90 percent of all Down syndrome children are killed in the womb.

“I wonder what the people who are doing that — the parents who are ‘choosing’ to have their child executed — what they think when they look at Sarah Palin and her family, when they see the example of that family welcoming a Down syndrome child in and loving that child. I wonder what those people think,” Crutcher contends. “I also wonder whether this is where you’re seeing some of this hatred and venom that’s coming from the godless Left directed at [Palin]. I’m beginning to wonder if Sarah Palin isn’t rubbing their noses in their own shame.”

What hateful tripe. If 90 percent of people who find out they are carrying a fetus with Down’s Syndrome terminate their pregnancies, there must be quite a few non-liberals among them (and even, I daresay, quite a few conservatives). And frankly, if Sarah Palin’s example is going to be used as a moral club to beat those who make the choice to terminate a pregnancy under those circumstances, an angry response will be justified.

7 Comments

Filed under antifeminism, conservatism, left and right, Sarah Palin