Log in
2012 May 21 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2008/10/24/the-looming-democratic-hegemony/
0
0
  |   50 comments

While the shouting and screaming of hostilities and pejoratives has 12 days left to run its course, it appears from the polls that the 2008 elections are winding down to a Democratic landslide.  The RealClearPolitics poll-averaging of state-by-state races shows that the only way McCain could win would be to pull a rabbit out of the hat not only in all of the states currently listed as toss-ups, but also in at least two states listed as currently favoring Obama.  Even the flirtatous fling with old-school racism that is the hoped-for “Bradley effect” among some (much smaller than reported in the anti-Republican media) segments of the Republican base is probably insufficient to rescue McCain’s Republican version of the inept 2004 Kerry campaign.

In USA Today‘s Op-Ed section, Chuck Raasch sees echos of 1992, when a Republican meltdown led to a phoenix-like rebirth in 1994, after Democrats in the White House and Congress overreached in their haste to enact what they felt was a mandate for political transformation.  The question for 2008, however, is whether enough remains of a coherent Republican majority to form the basis for such a resurgence?

Prospects for a quick Republican rebirth are slim.  The problems with the Republican Party today run deeper than in 1992, when the Republican coalition was merely briefly demoralized rather than openly fractured.  By 2008, classic conservatives of the William F. Buckley bent are increasingly weary of the open anti-intellectualism of the talk radio base, foreign policy realists are frustrated with the aggressive and militarized remake of Wilsonian liberalism that has been misnamed “neoconservatism”, and pro-business fiscal conservatives are sick and tired of outrageous growth in discretionary spending under Republican leadership.  In 1992, Republicans enjoyed the luxury of having been out of control in the legislature for over four decades.  In 2008, the Republican record of poor performance is recent and relevant.

Republican rebirth is also likely to be inhibited by intensified institutional barriers.  In 1992, Republicans were just beginning to gain dominance in the relatively new medium of talk radio.  In 2008, Democrats are threatening outright repression in the area of free speech, using tools like the Fairness Doctrine, campus speech codes, and even the power of the Attorney General’s office in the state of Missouri to systematically eliminate outlets for the re-emergence of a Republican political coalition that could challenge their new hegemony.  The willing and even eager complicity of a strongly left-leaning television media establishment makes it almost impossible for any Republican message to even be heard before being distorted and misrepresented in ways that make it very easy for Democrats to win the debate.  From its redoubt on unregulated cable, only FoxNews holds a position that is difficult to assail in opposition to the media bias trend, but even FoxNews is under relentless attack by Democratic partisans determined to eliminate even that last vestige of opposition, and it is unlikely that FoxNews will receive much access to the centers of power in a Democratic hegemony.

The internet environment is similarly dismal.  The blogosphere is dominated not only by Democratic partisans, but by the most vicious and relentless among them.  Using the Memeorandum color widget, it is possible to see visually the huge numerical advantage that the left enjoys on the blogosphere.  Even “The Moderate Voice” is dark blue these days.  The problem is exacerbated by the aggressiveness and intolerance of the left-leaning “netroots”.  The leftist blogosphere uses its position of advantage not to push the idea that they are right, so much, but that anyone who disagrees with them is actively evil, if not downright inhuman.  The road from such intolerance to outright suppression of dissent is short and well-travelled.  If a Republican resurgence were to begin among the netroots, it would require the establishment and promotion of a much larger pro-Republican infrastructure that would take time.

To partisan Democrats, much of this report of hegemony is happy news (even as they avert their eyes from some of its more dictatorial self-reinforcement mechanisms).  The”long march through the institutions” begun in the 1960s may finally be reaching its zenith, culminating in control across the board and the long-awaited opportunity to definitively punish its enemies.  The problem is that unchecked single-party rule has a distinct historical tendency to begin consuming its own.  After the Republicans are crushed, who’s next?  In the increasingly intolerant and purist atmosphere of party politics, what acts of dissent will result in expulsion from the dominant partisan elite?  Once there is no risk of losing power, the tarring and feathering of Joe Lieberman may be merely the first of a long series of ideological purges towards the goal of a more pure and purist Democratic Party.

Of course, this is a counsel of my fears and the result could be much more benign.  It may be that Democrats will rediscover their genuinely liberal roots, value tolerance and diversity as more than just mere buzzwords, and refrain from abusing their power in political institutions the way that many of them have in academic institutions.  But the vitriol and interolance that daily spews forth from frighteningly many of the Democratic partisans in the blogosphere and media does not give easy cause for hope.

  1. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74451 ›
    C Stanley Depressing but probably accurate, Jason. Personally I think that in the Reagan revolution the Buckley conservatives and the socons found a way to come together in ways that don't seem possible now. I'm not certain why that is, but my gut feeling is that Buckley's coalition has now become embarrassed to associate themselves with the 'anti-intellectual' Republicans. I think that's a shame, because in disassociating from those people they only associate with liberals who are perhaps not anti-intellectual but are false intellectuals in many cases. As evidence of this embarrassment induced shift, I'd put forth the pundits like George Will, Chris Buckley, and some of those who are politically fiscal conservatives but social moderates like Hagel and Powell. I am not a huge fan of Krathaummer, but I admired his column today endorsing McCain (and rebuking his colleagues who have endorsed Obama) because he seems to understand that you can't always get everything you want but you have to attempt to get what you need from a candidate.
  2. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74452 ›
    Jason, Managing Editor I know that every time I hear talk radio hosts railing against "academic eggheads", I want to slap some sense into them.  Conservatism has a vibrant intellectual tradition that has been all but completely forgotten by the anti-intellectuals that currently dominate the conservative movement.  It is too easily forgotten how Reagan used to speak with a voice that was well-educated and well-read.  Conservatives now seem to champion a lack of knowledge or reading -- they practically brag about it. And that is a recipe for perpetual decline, because it willingly accepts a divorce between conservatives and young people who constitute future elites.  It gives the most intolerant leftists in academia exactly what they want: monopoly.
  3. Michael van der Galien Two thoughts come to my mind:
    1. You can't excuse them, but you can understand them, I at least. The domination of 'liberals' in academia is very real, with professors and other teachers at universities purposefully trying to influence their students into becoming good little liberals just like them. If you're a conservative, you start automatically rebelling.
    2. But it's not the right approach. You have to fight; conservatives once fought on the intellectual field as well, and where highly successful in influence and reach.
    3. When conservatives don't fear but embrace intellectualism, they win the debate. That too is a lesson they should have learned from the last 30 years or so. Even someone like Reagan may have expressed himself often in slogans, easy to remember sentences, etc., but he was only able to do so because he truly understand his conservative philosophy, he understood conservatism in an intellectual sense. Limbaugh conservatives may have been necessary evils for the GOP and for conservative intellectuals, but certainly not more than that; they were not the ones who shaped conservatism, but who practiced its principles almost unconsciously in their daily lives. But the backbone of a truly successful conservative movement has to be intellectual.
    Kirk, Goldwater, Buckley and Reagan all understood this, which was why they were so successful. These were intellectuals, they were the true force behind the conservative revival.
    Interestingly, you now see a conservative revival in Britain as well. How are they making a comeback there? They have an intellectual backbone now, which they did not have for almost two decades. One they have it again, they become successful.
  4. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74458 ›
    C Stanley I agree with all of that, but Reagan in particular exemplified the kind of intellectualism that's also grounded in the wisdom of the common man. It didn't pit intellectualism against 'the folks', it unified the two. So although I can understand your cringing, Jason, at those on talk radio who speak against intellectuals, I think it should be recognized that what those people are reacting to is the false intellectualism that often comes from academia and the MSM.
  5. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74460 ›
    Jason, Managing Editor Sorry, but I can't accept that anymore, Christine.  I used to try to take that limited interpretation, but some of them (e.g. Limbaugh, Ingraham) go out of their way to emphasize that there are no exceptions to their comments about professors.  And, most importantly, they ignore emails to them that attempt to highlight useful exceptions that could form the basis for a conservative intelligentsia. I used to love Jerry Doyle, but lately he is on an absolute, sweeping, no exceptions jihad against all academics. His rhetoric allows for no nuance, no exceptions, no deviations.
  6. Michael van der Galien At the same time Jason, something to remember: conservatives working in academia are often ridiculed, marginilized, may end up missing promotions / new jobs, and as a student, you're not exactly embraced by professors either, unless you find that rare moderate or moderate conservative professor. 
    The problem of the Limbaugh conservatives, I think, is that they do not respect intellectualism in any way. They hate it. Not even intellectual conservatism. They hate it, period. If Buckley were an up and coming young man now, Limbaugh could very well declare war on him.
  7. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74464 ›
    C Stanley All I'm trying to say is that it works both ways, Jason. Are there any prominent conservative intellectuals today who allow for exceptions to their moratorium on people that they consider too boorish to be taken seriously? When one group in a loosely bound coalition feels too embarrassed or offended by another group, the coalition falls apart and won't be reunitied unless all of the parties agree to focus on their common ground instead of their differences.
  8. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74465 ›
    C Stanley The problem of the Limbaugh conservatives, I think, is that they do not respect intellectualism in any way. They hate it. Not even intellectual conservatism. They hate it, period. If Buckley were an up and coming young man now, Limbaugh could very well declare war on him. See, I think that's based on a caricature and not reality. I rarely listen to Limbaugh anymore but I know I've heard him speak in glowing terms about Buckley- he's a big fan and he speaks positively about that kind of conservatism (or at least he used to, and I don't believe that's changed.) Limbaugh undoubtedly attracts a lot of people in his audience who don't respect conservative intellectuals, but I don't think that's true of him at all. Perhaps he should do more to promote this respect to his audience, but I don't think he himself is the problem. Frankly I have to say that I think we just don't HAVE any Buckley's today that command that kind of respect- that seems to be more of the problem from my perspective.
  9. Michael van der Galien
    Frankly I have to say that I think we just don’t HAVE any Buckley’s today that command that kind of respect- that seems to be more of the problem from my perspective.
    Not of Buckley's stature, yet, but there are some good conservative thinkers, professors, etc. out there. They haven't Buckley's stature, because they're not allowed to get it and... because, in the end, people will need stop looking for the new Buckley (or Reagan for that matter), and simply look for 'a new intellectual leadership,' regardless of how they behave, think, are, etc.
    But there are some very good ones out there. They write columns regularly, even every day at some conservative outlets. They're there. Just give them a chance and stop marginalizing them.
    (you don't do that by the way)
  10. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74467 ›
    C Stanley Well, honestly I'm not seeing a lot of the up and coming intellectuals you refer to. I guess it seems that low intellectual product is becoming more and more the norm from all parts of the spectrum (look at Fox News and the way they attempted to capture the anti-liberal sentiment with fluff news with a conservative bias, and then MSNBC ups the ante with their mix of comedy and news, etc.) We're descending into anti-intelletualism on all fronts, it seems to me, and that's partly the fault of the intellectuals themselves who aren't providing product that captures the public interest. Buckley himself, despite being about as 'elite' as one could get, was also very talented in his ability to express himself in a manner that captured attention.
  11. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74468 ›
    Jason, Managing Editor Here is a quotation from Rush Limbaugh just yesterday disparaging conservative intellectuals -- note the total lack of any room for exceptions: I've been trying to analyze what's happening to the conservative movement on our intellectual side.  By the way, and I don't consider myself on the intellectual side at all; neither do they.  Intellectuals are people that have what they think is an IQ and an educational commonality.  Of course I'm disqualified from any of that, thankfully so, because I don't have a college degree, I eschewed college to pursue my dreams.  But they're all over the place and the realignment here on the conservative side that's taking place is on the basis of so-called intellect. And yes, Michael, I am more aware of how conservative students and even professors feel marginalized than you are, I would wager.  But the problem is exacerbated when non-academic conservatives turn their backs also.  I know first hand that conservative and moderate students will gravitate towards conservative and moderate professors if given the chance.  If conservatives declare no-exceptions jihad against the professorate, however, those students will have no where to go because liberals and far leftists will be the only things around. Bottom line: the current dominant brand of conservative anti-intellectualism is self-destructive and a major impediment to a conservative revival.  If conservatism declares itself an ideology that is closed to young college students, it will die.  It will just plain die.
  12. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74469 ›
    Jason, Managing Editor It is worth remembering, by the way, that Buckley's brand of conservatism actually began in colleges -- God and Man at Yale.  And the "Reagan Revolution" in the 1980s and the "Contract with America" revival in 1994 were built on an underlying intellectual framework of think tanks like Heritage and scholarship like the Olin Foundation. Those are ossified or dead now and there exists little interest among conservatives for reviving or rebuilding them. Conservatism is on the verge of absolute intellectual surrender and it has no one but itself to blame for that specific element of its decline.
  13. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74471 ›
    Jason, Managing Editor that’s partly the fault of the intellectuals themselves who aren’t providing product that captures the public interest When the only thing that the ill-educated public is interested in is "Dumb and Dumber", the impossibility of intellectual appeal is intrinsic, not a matter of choice.  But I have found that people will rise to a challenge if it is given by their admired leaders.  If there was some major conservative figure like Limbaugh or Ingraham who was promoting an intellectual revival, there would at least be a segment of conservatism that would take up the cause.  But all the major conservative leaders seem to be pushing as hard as they can in the other direction, towards not just the neglect of intellectualism, but its specific demonization.  To many conservatives, intellectualism and knowledge and education is increasingly seen not merely as irrelevant, but as actively bad.
  14. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74472 ›
    C Stanley I don't understand how the quote you provide is so terrible, Jason, or where you see no room for exceptions. I don't even get the context of what he was saying (though in light of recent events, I wouldn't doubt that it was a rebuke of those who consider themselves intellectual like Chris Buckley, who in my view is guilty of what Krauthammer accused- considering his own social calendar above actual principle.) Anyway, from what I can tell of that quote which sounds like a brief excerpt of a longer point being made, it doesn't sound to me that Limbaugh is disparaging of the idea of intellectual conservatism, just that he doesn't think the current people who consider themselves intellectual are good examples of what such people should be. The fact that he praises his own lack of intellectualism doesn't mean that he doesn't admire true intellectuals (and I googled to find this because I knew I recalled him saying that Wm. F. Buckley had been his hero)
  15. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74473 ›
    Jason, Managing Editor Oh.  One name of a potentially valuable conservative intellectual -- Jonah Goldberg.  His book Liberal Fascism is not what you may have been led to think it is based solely on the title or the unsurprisingly scathing reviews from liberal reviewers.  It is highly intellectual, rigorous, and most of all, honest and self-reflective.  I plan to use it in a seminar on political ideologies some day.
  16. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74474 ›
    Jason, Managing Editor I and think you're just spinning now, Christine.  If there are examples of conservative leaders in talk radio or even in the legislature who are encouraging an intellectual revival, why don't you provide those examples for us instead of asking us to prove a negative? If there exists a vibrant community of conservative intellectuals that are respected by the broader movement that I have somehow overlooked, I am more than happy to be proven wrong here. If you can point out that pro-intellectual movement in conservatism for me, in fact, I will be thrilled to concede the point and move to join their ranks. But I don't think you can provide those examples. I think a few potential candidates exist -- Goldberg, D'Souza among them -- but I think most of the broader movement doesn't read books, takes pride in not reading books, and joins Limbaugh and Ingraham in sneering at people who do read (and write) books.
  17. Michael van der Galien Jason, I agree with your comment #12 - It's what I said as well, albeit you use slightly different names (I'd say that "The Conservative Mind" is also a great example: lets not forget that Russell Kirk wrote in as a teacher of a college in Minnesota I believe, and it was a response to the fact that conservatives were portrayed as 'anti-intellectual' etc.). However, it won't die, and I will tell you why: conservatism is deeply ingrained in mankind. There will always be many, many conservatives. It will only take a severe beating, after it will stand up again, by a new intellectual movement. The anti-intellectuals so prevalent in the GOP today will simply start losing elections, the country will then move to the left in policies, until a new school of conservative intellectuals stand up and turn the tide. But that takes a while. It is, by the way, all quite historical; it's history all over again. About 'conservative ideology': in its very essence, I think that conservatism has to be what Kirk, Buckley and Burke  said - no ideology, on a set of hard to define general principles, and a natural skeptic view on mankind and its ability to 'progress.'
  18. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74476 ›
    C Stanley Jason, you're assuming I agree with your central point which appears to be that you believe that the problem is a lack of encouragement by conservative talk show hosts for intellectualism. I did already mention that I can see that being one point of perhaps valid criticism of Limbaugh- that he's not encouraging intellectualism enough, or not promoting respect for the need for healthy intellectual conservatism. But you refuse to admit that there just aren't a lot of conservative intellectuals out there right now who aren't jumping ship over their own embarrassment- IOW, the respect between intellectual conservatives and non-intellectual conservatives has to work both ways. Point taken about Goldberg (haven't read his book yet but I intend to.) But that sort of goes to my point about the need to package conservative intellectualism in ways that will capture attention (ie, his book title.) It may be annoying that this is necessary, but it's incumbent on those with a message to spread to use whatever means are necessary to get people to take notice.
  19. Michael van der Galien One name of a potentially valuable conservative intellectual — Jonah Goldberg.  His book Liberal Fascism is not what you may have been led to think it is based solely on the title or the unsurprisingly scathing reviews from liberal reviewers.  It is highly intellectual, rigorous, and most of all, honest and self-reflective.  I plan to use it in a seminar on political ideologies some day. Jonah is actually one of the people I thought of when I said conservatism has the intellectual backbone, if it would only be used.
  20. Michael van der Galien But you refuse to admit that there just aren’t a lot of conservative intellectuals out there right now who aren’t jumping ship over their own embarrassment- IOW, the respect between intellectual conservatives and non-intellectual conservatives has to work both ways. Of course, there are many such people, but I think that their jumping ship isn't just due to their own embarrassment, but also, seriously, due to the lack of respect for intellectual leaders in the GOP right now. Should it be a bit of both? Of course, they all need each other in the end in order to win and to influence the country positively. BTW: that quote from Limbaugh was, in my opinion, very telling and quite a good example of what I consider Limbaugh conservatives. It's one of those typical rants against all those who dare use their brains. The 'getting out on the fields to get the work done' mentality is very important when you actually work on a farm, but when you don't, it's not - you need intellectuals who do the thinking, and footsoldiers who do the working. The latter seem to have declared war on the former, and they did so well before this election. Hell, for the past two years I've written about it frequently, about the need for American conservatism to reform itself, etc. For such a reformation you need intellectuals, not Palins.
  21. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74481 ›
    Jason, Managing Editor
    C Stanley: But you refuse to admit that there just aren’t a lot of conservative intellectuals out there right now who aren’t jumping ship over their own embarrassment- IOW, the respect between intellectual conservatives and non-intellectual conservatives has to work both ways.
    Christine, I think it is you who are doing the assuming here. You are assuming that my comments are limited to addressing the recent phenomenon of a few conservatives endorsing Obama. But you you look back, you will find I have never mentioned them and they never came up in this thread until you mentioned them. My criticism of conservative anti-intellectualism is far broader, deeper, and long-standing than just the last few weeks or months. It goes back years and has been intensifying over time, from what I can see. The idea -- prevalent in the Republican Party right now -- that people who read books and teach at universities are all, every-single-one-of-them, nothing but a bunch of librul eggheads is destructive. Pretending that it doesn't exist or that it isn't tremendously powerful among conservatives right now isn't going to help.
  22. Posted by Grewgills
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74483 ›
    Grewgills "In 2008, Democrats are threatening outright repression in the area of free speech, using tools like the Fairness Doctrine, campus speech codes, and even the power of the Attorney General’s office in the state of Missouri to systematically eliminate outlets for the re-emergence of a Republican political coalition that could challenge their new hegemony. " Do you really believe this or do you just feel that you need to slam the left when you are criticizing the right? I don't think that the fairness doctrine is necessary at this point in time, but it existed for quite some time without the effects you are ascribing to the slim chance of its potential rebirth.  Campus speech codes reached their peak some time ago and Republicans dominated at least one branch of government and at times all three branches throughout that apex.  The brown shirt crap is nonsense and you should be embarassed for pushing it. "The willing and even eager complicity of a strongly left-leaning television media establishment makes it almost impossible for any Republican message to even be heard before being distorted and misrepresented" Again this is a foolish assertion.  Obama has enjoyed more positive coverage than McCain, but that is largely McCain's doing.  Bush received more positive coverage than either Gore or Kerry during the 2000 and 2004 elections despite (because of?) howls from the right about their bias.  There certainly are biased sources.  Fox and MSNBC have found a balance in cable news for those who want their news prefiltered for their political ideology.  Certainly many on the right use talk radio (and those you rightly disparage) as their primary source of news.  Whether you are right, left, or center there are plenty of outlets for you to get your news through whatever filter you want. "The internet environment is similarly dismal.  The blogosphere is dominated not only by Democratic partisans, but by the most vicious and relentless among them." The left were the early adopters and the political community on the internet did most of its growth under spectacularly poor leadership by the rigtht so it is not at all surprising that the left holds an advantage in numbers on this arena.  Unfortunately the most popular sites on both the left and right blogosphere are dominated by the most incindiary and least reasoned voices.  Hopefully the divisive ranting or at least interest in it will drop off significantly after the election. "The”long march through the institutions” begun in the 1960s may finally be reaching its zenith, culminating in control across the board and the long-awaited opportunity to definitively punish its enemies." This paranoia sounds much more like something I would read at redstate or powerline than what I viewed as a rational center right blog. "The problem is that unchecked single-party rule has a distinct historical tendency to begin consuming its own." Isn't that what we are seeing now on the right and a little over 25 years ago on the left.  Within our system this is a feature not a bug.  The self consuming party erodes its own power base and loses. "But the vitriol and interolance that daily spews forth from frighteningly many of the Democratic partisans in the blogosphere and media does not give easy cause for hope." Why only mention the Democratic side of it here?  The vitriol comes from both sides with frightening regularity.  Which you view as more caustic now doubt depends on your personal ideology.  That probably answered my own question. "Jonah Goldberg.  His book Liberal Fascism is not what you may have been led to think it is based solely on the title or the unsurprisingly scathing reviews from liberal reviewers.  It is highly intellectual, rigorous, and most of all, honest and self-reflective." I don't have enough time to go point by point, but intellectual, rigorous, and honest it is not.  Both the premise and arguments are nonsense hackery.  If you really want to get into it I will when I have more time.
  23. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74486 ›
    Jason, Managing Editor I really believe what I write, Grewgillis, and it is rather presumptuous and insulting of you to assume otherwise. I wonder if you also question the sincerity and honesty of bloggers who criticize the right or whether that is reserved exclusively by you for bloggers who DARE to say anything critical about your side? Anyway, the reason that I believe that there is a risk to the freedom of speech from the left is because I have seen so many examples of it in action already. Campus speech codes are written and deployed specifically for the reason of suppressing any and all political points of view that depart from the leftist consensus. The Fairness Doctrine is being (re-)proposed specifically for the purpose of shutting down the one and only medium that is not dominated by the left. And some of Obama's supporters in Missouri directly proposed using the power of the state to investigate and intimidate groups that were critical of Obama. I'm not imagining or making this stuff up and I am not citing it just to provide an illusion of balance. Maybe you need to wake up and be honest enough to admit that your side has its share of demons. I didn't say anything about "brown shirt crap" and you shouldn't be so dishonest as to accuse me of saying things I didn't say.
    Hopefully the divisive ranting or at least interest in it will drop off significantly after the election.
    I think that is highly unlikely, especially since so many of the partisans from the left will refuse to even admit that any viciousness exists on their side or, in the alternative, they acknowledge it only as long as it takes to shift the conversation into "but the Republicans are even worse". In short, viciousness from the left will continue to accelerate because so many of the readers will respond in exactly the same way you have.
  24. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74487 ›
    Jason, Managing Editor
    I don’t have enough time to go point by point, but intellectual, rigorous, and honest it is not. Both the premise and arguments are nonsense hackery. If you really want to get into it I will when I have more time.
    I am curious -- have you read the book yourself, or would you be relying on what others have said about it?
  25. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74494 ›
    C Stanley Should it be a bit of both? Well, I thought that's what I said when I argued that it's a two way street? It seems to me that Jason's the one who thinks the burden is on the non-intellectuals to promote intellectualism, without also admitting that the intellectuals need to be more acceptant that they also need the non-intellectuals. I disagree with you, BTW, Michael, when you say that we don't need more Palin types. I think it's absolutely essential to find public figures who are good communicators- that was Reagan's gift, after all, far more than his personal capacity for intellectualism. You guys seem to forget how he was mercilessly derided by many of the intellectuals of his time, including the conservative ones, for being a lightweight. But it's only when you have someone like him that you can persuade the masses of people that the intellectuals' ideas have merit. By definition, the average person isn't able to really assess the intellectual ideas, so you have to have a conduit.
  26. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74495 ›
    C Stanley Jason, if I'm misunderstanding you, I'm sorry- and you are right that I brought up the recent bunch of conservative intellectuals who are suppporting Obama. I did so because I'm assuming that might be the context behind the Limbaugh quote- because generally speaking I don't believe he's anti-intellectual even though he believes in his own 'wisdom' as a non-intellectual. Please understand that I DO agree that intellectuals are important and shouldn't be universally condemned. I've even agreed that Limbaugh should use his soapbox to promote this. I just don't see that you are also acknowledging the other important part of that- the need for intellectuals to not be condescending or leave a movement high and dry because they're embarrassed to be associated with the non-intellectuals of the movement. If we assume that there is antipathy between intellectual and non-intellectual conservatives right now, I guess my point is that much of that comes about because of arrogance of the intellectuals and the backlash that produces. That doesn't excuse those who participate in the backlash, but there's blame to go around.
  27. Michael van der Galien Christine, but my point is that Reagan was actually well versed in conservative thinking; he had read the books, he knew how to communicate the conservative message so well precisely because he understood the conservative philosophy. As of yet, Palin has not shown she does. She seems to me to be a conservative who doesn't really understand conservatism; the conservative movement needs such people, just not as their main representatives. As for the attitude of intellectuals: I'm pretty arrogant on that. I believe that the intellectuals should pretend to be fond of those footsoldiers, but they don't have to mean it. The problem is that they have to recognize that without those foot soldiers their policies won't be implemented, so they need them, and as a result they should at least treat them with due respect publicly. Privately, they are free to hate their uneducated guts, of course.
  28. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74497 ›
    Jason, Managing Editor
    Well, I thought that’s what I said when I argued that it’s a two way street? It seems to me that Jason’s the one who thinks the burden is on the non-intellectuals to promote intellectualism, without also admitting that the intellectuals need to be more acceptant that they also need the non-intellectuals.
    I love the use of the word "admitting" to imply that someone believes something that they have not, in fact said. It is a hilarious means of shifting the burden, though frankly I expect it from people other than you, Christine. And I actually just don't grant your premise, Christine. I see no sign that the Republican party or consveratives generally have been dismissive or abusive towards non-intellectuals in anything akin to the open contempt that many leading conservatives show towards intellectuals. I don't see conservative intellectuals condemning people who live in red states as hicks or buffoons the way that anti-intellectuals condemn academics as universally eggheads and airheads, for example. In short, I don't agree that any parity of mistreatment exists on its face. If conservatives had actually been dismissive towards non-intellectuals, it would be difficult to explain how they keep electing them and promoting them to other positions of prominence in the conservative movement. But if it helps you get past this fixation to address what I actually AM saying, let me say that I think non-intellectuals should have an equal role in any political movement. The common sense perspective is just as important as an academic perspective and, when it comes to issues of pragmatism, can even be essential to supplement high-minded theories. Also, I thought I had learned to expect better from you in not misrepresenting what I argued. I never said that non-intellectuals had a duty to "promote intellectualism" (whatever that means), just to not actively disrespect it in a sweeping, no-exceptions way. BIG difference. I agree that good communication skills are essential. Indeed, I took a lot of mockery from Michael and Rick for having said that I consider "just being a good speaker" as a core element of the job of President and not some merely ancillary talent. But if the content of the message is empty or, worse, actively hostile towards intellectual achievement, I don't think that good communications skills are sufficient in and of themselves as the basis for leadership. Reagan's political genius was a result of the combination of great communications skills and a well-read underlying education both from himself and his speechwriters (led by Peggy Noonan). That he was derided by leftist intellectuals of his time was an unfairness towards him and his advisers, not a reason to affirm or condone of anti-intellectualism as a philosophy.
  29. Michael van der Galien
    If conservatives had actually been dismissive towards non-intellectuals, it would be difficult to explain how they keep electing them and promoting them to other positions of prominence in the conservative movement.
    In all honesty, I do see that now. We can see it every day, we can see it in the reaction of the intellectuals to Palin, and their attacks on her (unintelligent, stupid, "a cancer," and so on). But - to me, this reaction, this attitude came after conservative intellectuals receiving considerably less respect than they did years ago. BTW: one thing to keep in mind, if a liberal intellectual would ever dare disagree on something important, say affirmative action, he would face mass persecution by his fellow liberals.
  30. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74502 ›
    C Stanley Christine, but my point is that Reagan was actually well versed in conservative thinking; he had read the books, he knew how to communicate the conservative message so well precisely because he understood the conservative philosophy. As of yet, Palin has not shown she does. OK, I can agree with you there. I really didn't mean it as a defense of Palin personally, just of her 'type'. I think she's a very talented politician and she seems intelligent enough to have great potential IF she does catch up to speed. LOL about the arrogance part- I don't really disagree with you there either, about intellectuals privately hating the non-intellectuals- well, I guess I do disagree a bit because I'm definitely a person who believes that BOTH intellectualism and common sense have important roles to play.
  31. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74503 ›
    Jason, Managing Editor
    BTW: one thing to keep in mind, if a liberal intellectual would ever dare disagree on something important, say affirmative action, he would face mass persecution by his fellow liberals.
    For reasons I have never been able to understand fully, many liberal intellectuals seem to place a very high, almost religious, value on political conformity. The result, as we can see in cases such as Berkeley's McWhorter, is a vicious reaction towards those they see as "betraying" the group. It also causes many of them to defend the indefensible, as in the case of Ward Churchill.
  32. Posted by c3
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74505 ›
    c3 Good dialougue.  I'd suggest the underlying theme is the chasm between "intellectuals" and the advocates of their viewpoints and the "proletariat" and the advocates of their viewpoints.  All is sweetness and light when the advocates are essentially saying the same thing and the political winds are in their favor.  All is not good when the advocates disagree AND things go wrong politically.  Hence where Republicans are at now. It works in both parties: "I feel good when we talk about a fair society and just rewards for workers but don't talk to me about the Steelers or Disneyland or the sermon you heard last week"   -OR- "I agree that free market allow small businesses to grow and that a strong national defense allows our country to be safe and prosper but you should know I don't like country music,  I don't own a gun and did I mention I'm Jewish" (DISCLAIMER: Please don't assume I'm disparaging Jews.  I'm just surprised at how many "cultural conservatives" assume Christianity and therefore stumble when discussing things with David Brooks, Jonah Goldberg etc.) With the Dems now "doing God talk" and with the economy doing so poorly they have the upper hand in engaging the "non-intellectual"  but I know that pendulum will swing (after a few more "clinging guns..." comments).  I also know that the popular political media (i.e. talk radio, blogosphere, "trash book" mentioned above...) will facilitate the growing chasm between "intellectual" and "proletariat".  We need to keep talking.  So homework forthe intellectual: -listen to country music -watch a whole season of "American Idol" -go bowling And maybe "Joe six-pack" could: -read a book (preferably by a guy he's never heard of) -talk to his son or nephew who just finished their college economics course -go to the local art museum and try to "get" one of those abstract paintings And in keeping with the nature of this blog, both should find something out about politics in another country.
  33. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74506 ›
    C Stanley I don’t see conservative intellectuals condemning people who live in red states as hicks or buffoons the way that anti-intellectuals condemn academics as universally eggheads and airheads, for example. Well, obviously the more intellectual conservative pundits don't say things so directly, Jason, but I can't see any other explanation for some of them supporting a candidate that is in direct contradiction to their core philosophy than their derision for the 'common folk' attitudes and their embarrassment at being associated with them. I'm sure I can find you some quotes if you'd like, but I doubt that you even disagree with me on that (though I don't know, and I'm ducking as I write that because you keep blasting me for misunderstanding you or supposedly attributing things to you that you haven't said.) I realize I'm again pointing out the specific cases of intellectuals who are endorsing Obama, and you're likely to criticize me for that- but I'm sorry if I have to disagree with you on the relative importance of that pheonemon. I truly do believe that it is a touchstone for the anti-intellectual backlash that you are complaining about. If intellectual conservatives were able to articulate reasonable arguments for supporting Obama (even the old standard of claiming that it's better for the GOP to sit out in the wilderness, or to let progressivism have its day so that the public will wake up and once again embrace conservatism) I don't think that they'd be getting the heat that they've been getting. When their arguments are so lacking in intellectual heft, it's hard to explain it in any other way than their embarrassment over the new strain of GOP populism and non-intellectual appeal. If conservatives had actually been dismissive towards non-intellectuals, it would be difficult to explain how they keep electing them and promoting them to other positions of prominence in the conservative movement. It seems to me that one good example of that was the promotion of GWB- and how much of the emerging trend of conservative intellectuals 'going to the dark side' (heh) is due to their embarrassment over how that turned out?
  34. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74507 ›
    C Stanley BTW, Jason, I googled and found the context of the Limbaugh quote that you commented on, and sure enough he was obviously talking about his disdain for the current conservative intellectuals who are supporting Obama (which in his opinion is a support for style over substance, and a result of embarrassment over GOP folksiness.) Here's the link to the full thing (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102208/content/01125113.guest.html)- certainly some areas where I'd disagree with him, but I still don't see AT ALL the point you drew from it- where does he leave no room for respect for intellectualism instead of the way I interpret it, that he's fed up with the current leaders of the conservative intellectual movement?
  35. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74508 ›
    Jason, Managing Editor
    Well, obviously the more intellectual conservative pundits don’t say things so directly, Jason, but I can’t see any other explanation for some of them supporting a candidate that is in direct contradiction to their core philosophy than their derision for the ‘common folk’ attitudes and their embarrassment at being associated with them.
    So, the only possible reason that anyone who believes themselves to be conservative and intellectual could support a candidate that you disagree with is that they have contempt for non-intellectuals but are keeping it a secret lest the people they have contempt for find out about it? Anyway, like I said, the conservative contempt for intellectuals PREDATES a few conservative intellectual endorsements for Obama. Thus, those endorsements cannot be the CAUSE of the contempt. That's what makes this whole bit about the Obama endorsements irrelevant to this thread. So I guess if you bring in that current context and ignore the longstanding prior context, it is possible for you to spin Limbaugh's quotation as relatively benign. But since I have been hearing similar and worse sweeping condemnations of intellectuals and academics coming from Limbaugh and Ingraham and others for years, I cannot accept your spin as valid.
  36. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74510 ›
    C Stanley But since I have been hearing similar and worse sweeping condemnations of intellectuals and academics coming from Limbaugh and Ingraham and others for years, I cannot accept your spin as valid. Well, perhaps if you had provided some of those as examples, instead of the one you chose? So, the only possible reason that anyone who believes themselves to be conservative and intellectual could support a candidate that you disagree with is that they have contempt for non-intellectuals but are keeping it a secret lest the people they have contempt for find out about it? Generally it's dangerous to say that there is only one possible interpretation- but all I'm saying is that I can't think of any other interpretation. I did mention other arguments that I could consider valid for those people to support Obama (I wouldn't necessarily agree with them but I wouldn't find them illogical.) The arguments that ARE given by some of those people though, are not logical as far as I can see and so I don't know how else to interpret them.
  37. Michael van der Galien
    The arguments that ARE given by some of those people though, are not logical as far as I can see and so I don’t know how else to interpret them.
    I do agree with that sentiment. I have literally yet to read an explanation of one such Republican endorsing Obama that makes sense. Powell, for instance, explained very well what the problem with the GOP right now is (or can be depending on your perspective and whether or not you agree with him) but he failed to make 'the case for Obama.' Same with Christopher Buckley. He failed tremendously.
  38. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74516 ›
    C Stanley I have to add too, that I agree with Limbaugh on this- the arguments that I've seen from such conservatives amount to praise of Obama's style and a leap of faith that his style will matter more than his substantively liberal policy positions. Chris Buckley was particularly guilty of this IMO- and as Ed Morrissey pointed out, if I remember correctly- because somehow he tried to make the case that Obama would have to govern as a centrist even though there's no evidence to support that and quite a bit of evidence that would lean in the other direction.
  39. Posted by Grewgills
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74553 ›
    Grewgills "I really believe what I write, Grewgillis, and it is rather presumptuous and insulting of you to assume otherwise." Just doing a hyperbole check. "I wonder if you also question the sincerity and honesty of bloggers who criticize the right or whether that is reserved exclusively by you for bloggers who DARE to say anything critical about your side?" Yes, I do. I included some criticism for those on the left in my previous comment, perhaps you missed it. I tend to avoid sites like KOS and DU because of both tone and content. I generally don't bother to comment anywhere but center right (OTB etc), center left sites (Washington Monthly etc), or at Reason. The tone is generally much better and the conversations much more interesting. "Campus speech codes are written and deployed specifically for the reason of suppressing any and all political points of view that depart from the leftist consensus." I am not a fan of speech codes, but that is an unfair characterization of what they are and what they do. "The Fairness Doctrine is being (re-)proposed specifically for the purpose of shutting down the one and only medium that is not dominated by the left." Come on now. With all of the stations available on cable it is not accurate to say that televisions is 'dominated' by the left. Neither is the internet 'dominated' by the left. There is more left leaning political discourse on the left, but that is not because anything is preventing right wing political discourse on the internet. FM radio is dominated by music and AM radio is dominated by right wing talk and sports. The fairness doctrine would force many of the AM talk stations to offer some left wing talk to balance all of the right wing talk. That would mean that some right wing talk would go away. I guess we disagree on how disappointing that loss would be. "I didn’t say anything about “brown shirt crap” and you shouldn’t be so dishonest as to accuse me of saying things I didn’t say." Sorry if that was not your intent. Recent posts here accusing the left of totalitarianism and the proclivity of many on the right to go there when making the liberals are destroying free speech argument and the praise of "Liberal Fascism" might have me a little over sensitive on that issue. "I think that is highly unlikely, especially since so many of the partisans from the left will refuse to even admit that any viciousness exists on their side or, in the alternative, they acknowledge it only as long as it takes to shift the conversation into “but the Republicans are even worse”. Haven't you and Michael been making essentially that argument in reverse? The recent post here by Michael on liberal totalitarians certainly did. My reading of you is that you are of like mind. My apologies if I am mistaken. "I am curious — have you read the book yourself, or would you be relying on what others have said about it?" I borrowed a copy but to be honest I was unable to stomach the entire thing. I have also heard several interviews where he attempted to defend his thesis. If you want to debate the merits of his argument that's fine with me, but I don't want to thread jack. "BTW: one thing to keep in mind, if a liberal intellectual would ever dare disagree on something important, say affirmative action, he would face mass persecution by his fellow liberals." and your evidence to support this assertion is? On the larger point of your original post, anti-intellectualism has a long history in America and has been shared by most of the populist movements in this country. Most recently it has been the republicans that have been using it to fire up the social conservative base, but you don't have to look too far back to see Democratic populists doing the same thing to rile up their base. It is an unfortunate reality in American politics and one we would be much better served without. The time I spent in the Netherlands was a welcome respite from those attitudes, though that could have been a factor of staying almost exclusively in the West or in University settings.
  40. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74555 ›
    Jason, Managing Editor
    I borrowed a copy but to be honest I was unable to stomach the entire thing. I have also heard several interviews where he attempted to defend his thesis. If you want to debate the merits of his argument that’s fine with me, but I don’t want to thread jack.
    Based on your sweeping and pejorative comments thus far, I have no confidence that you have actually read or understood his argument. It appears you have the misconceptions about his argument that are common among those who merely heard the title or who merely read a review on a leftist web site. I have found the same problem from those who pass judgment too quickly on "Michael Moore Hates America". The fact that you claim only to have "borrowed" the book and the fact that your condemnations are vague and sweeping and do not cite any specific thing even in passing fit the profile of a jump to conclusion based merely on the title or on rumor from a hostile critic (who probably didn't read the book themselves). At some point in the future, I will be posting a review of the book. You are welcome to prove me in error at that time. As for speech codes, I've been deeply involved in the issue from both the outside and inside for over a decade. I am quite confident that I am not exaggerating or misrepresenting the content or effects of campus speech codes. And as for the Fairness Doctrine, the Democrats in Congress have been obligingly clear in specifying their partisan intentions to use the power of the state to shut down a medium that they believe is inconveniently and disproportionately useful to their political opponents. I suspect that if the partisan shoe was on the other foot, you would not be so sanguine and that your ideological allies on the left would be explicitly throwing around the exact same "brown shirt" characterizations that you strain to find implicitly from me. P.S. If you assume that Michael and I (or anyone else) have a "like mind" on any given issue merely because we manage and post on the same web site ... well, it may be a sad testimony of the kind of ideological homogeneity people have learned to expect from the blogosphere, but it isn't sound thinking or thorough reading on your part.
  41. Michael Merritt
    Sorry if that was not your intent. Recent posts here accusing the left of totalitarianism and the proclivity of many on the right to go there when making the liberals are destroying free speech argument and the praise of “Liberal Fascism” might have me a little over sensitive on that issue.
    Michael isn't the only writer here, you know. Maybe you ought to go read the endorsement Jason just gave to Barack Obama before you go judging him or this site.
    and your evidence to support this assertion is?
    One name: Joe Lieberman On to the intellectual vs. anti-intellectual conservatism debate, I don't pretend to have the deep knowledge all three of you clearly do. But I agree with Jason that the campaign against the intellectual has been far before any Obama endorsements by conservatives. For several years you haven't had to look far to see an anti-intellectual say, "Aha! He went to [insert name of Ivy league school]. Elitist snob!" Personally, I think the intellectual conservatives ought to take back the elitist moniker. After all, what's wrong with being more intelligent? The "snob" definition of the word is only but one of several definitions. The trouble is that the entire word, snob, intelligence, and all, has been used to brand the other side as "not representative of the average Joe," at least in recent years. When the debate in 2000 came down to "who would you rather have a beer with," the red flags ought to have been there. Now here we are eight years later having this debate. Yet, Christine does make a few good points as well. The argument that there is a necessity for an alliance with the anti-intellectuals is probably right. Despite that moniker, they also have some good answers. They're probably more likely to be a little more grounded in reality for one thing. After all, intellectuals are, by definition, always thinking, right? Sometimes an answer requires more common sense than theory.
  42. Michael van der Galien Gregw: perhaps you should read more posts, not just those of others, but also mine. As for the left: since no disagreement is allowed there with orthodoxy, they're pretty totalitarian, yeah.
  43. Posted by Grewgills
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74640 ›
    Grewgills "Based on your sweeping and pejorative comments thus far, I have no confidence that you have actually read or understood his argument." If that makes you feel better fine. I did not/ am not going into specifics on this because I don't want to threadjack. "At some point in the future, I will be posting a review of the book. You are welcome to prove me in error at that time." If I still have time and this site still interests me at that time I will see you there. "As for speech codes, I’ve been deeply involved in the issue from both the outside and inside for over a decade." I can say the same. "I am quite confident that I am not exaggerating or misrepresenting the content or effects of campus speech codes." As I said I am not a fan, but the intent and effect are not as you and certainly not as Dershowitz present. "Congress have been obligingly clear in specifying their partisan intentions to use the power of the state to shut down a medium..." Again with the hyperbole. Even if the (unnecessary) Fairness Doctrine is reinstated it will not 'shut down' the medium. It would spell the end of some of the less popular conservative shows and force the creation of more left leaning shows. It would probably spell the end of Air America as any popular host left (are there any?) would be sucked up by the other talk stations to fill the needed slots. "If you assume that Michael and I (or anyone else) have a “like mind” on any given issue merely because we manage and post on the same web site …" I assume you and Michael are of the same mind on this point because of other posts and comments by the two of you I have read here recently. Note I did not claim that any of the other site authors are of like mind on this issue. Claudia for one appears to have fundamental disagreement with the two of you on this issue if I am reading her correctly. "One name: Joe Lieberman" What Republican has vocally opposed the war, attacked members of his party for supporting the war, and is still embraced by the Republican base? "The argument that there is a necessity for an alliance with the anti-intellectuals is probably right." For any party to have lasting success in American politics there must be an association of intellectuals, faux intellectuals, and non-intellectuals. Generally there is an unhealthy dose of anti-intellectuals in these associations as well. In the current split the Republicans have more than their share of anti-intellectuals and Democrats have more than their share of faux intellectuals. "Gregw: perhaps you should read more posts, not just those of others, but also mine." I have read and commented on posts by you, Jason, and Claudia. I had particular disagreement with your posts on the 'totalitarian' left and left comments there to that effect. It was those posts that caused me to think that you and he were of like mind on the issues of party orthodoxy and vitriol. "since no disagreement is allowed there with orthodoxy" Nonsense. "they’re pretty totalitarian, yeah." Nonsense predicated on nonsense.
  44. Michael van der Galien Nonsense. Riiiight. How many leading Democrats do you know who actively oppose abortion? Or who believe creationism should be taught in schools? Or who still support the war in Iraq? Right.
  45. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74651 ›
    Jason, Managing Editor Obviously, Grewgills, you have no reluctance to hijack the thread with anti-Iraq War obsessions and your unfounded ruminations about who is or is not of "like mind" (wherein your inaccurate characterization of my political views persists even after Michael Merritt specifically corrected you -- you can't claim to have only had partial access to corrective information). Those off-topic diversions reveal your excuses for your reluctance to prove your knowledge about Goldberg's book to be a sham. But since you are still going to use the "didn't want to threadjack" as a shield, it is now also a bind on you. Any comments you make that contain ANY off-topic material will be deleted from now on. You set the standard when you thought it relieved you of having to stand behind your comments, now you can live with it permanently.
  46. Michael van der Galien Jason: what's interesting is that you actually... endorsed Obama yesterday. Yeah, you rightist lefty-hater!
  47. Posted by Grewgills
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74672 ›
    Grewgills "But since you are still going to use the “didn’t want to threadjack” as a shield, it is now also a bind on you. Any comments you make that contain ANY off-topic material will be deleted from now on." Presumably questions or comments posted by you or other contributors will be considered on topic. In defense of my reluctance to engage in a detailed way about Goldberg's book, it would be long and could easily take over this thread. If you want that debate that here I will be happy to join you in it. I do think that it would be more appropriate to do that in another thread, but it is your site. Let me know. "Riiiight. How many leading Democrats do you know who actively oppose abortion? Here is a partial list: Ronnie Musgrove, Jim Esch, Kathy Dahlkemper, Steve Driehaus, Bobby Bright, Travis Childers, Bill O'Neil, David Boswell, Michael Montagano, Doug Heckman, Don Cazayoux, and Parker Griffith. All of these are currently running for or elected to national office as Democrats. If you look at the state level anywhere in the South or Mid-West you will find scores more. "Or who believe creationism should be taught in schools?" I don't know of any and would hope the number would be quite small unless you look to the state and local level. There again if you look to the South and Mid-West you will find far more than I am comfortable with. I wish the number who support this nonsense on the right were much smaller. Fortunately there are many on the right who have chosen the correct side of this issue. "Or who still support the war in Iraq?" That greatly depends on what you consider support. Unless you mean unconditional support for the war and how it is being carried out it is quite a considerable number. That would include most of the DLC and blue dog Dems. "Obviously, Grewgills, you have no reluctance to hijack the thread with anti-Iraq War obsessions" The single Iraq war comment I made was in response to a comment on party orthodoxy which is a topic of this thread. Lieberman was used as an example to point out Dem orthodoxy on the Iraq war. I countered with a question about Republican orthodoxy on the same topic. If the argument is being made that one party enforces orthodoxy on a policy and the other does not then counterexamples need to be made. What Republican has actively opposed the war and has not been attacked by the base? Again this is not a question about my judgements on the war. That would be for another thread. This is merely a question about party orthodoxy on the current conflict. As I see it there is far greater diversity of opinion on this in Democratic circles than in Republican circles. In both circles there is a vocal minority, perhaps plurality, that dominate the conversation. "your unfounded ruminations about who is or is not of “like mind”" Perhaps you misunderstand what I meant by like mind. This essay of yours contains many of the same characterizations of the left and its potential upcoming hegemony were put forward by Michael in his posts about Democrats as totalitarians. I take it now that you both stand behind these statements and I see these statements as remarkably similar. In what particular do you disagree? "Yeah, you rightist lefty-hater!" That is not what I said nor was it implied.
  48. Posted by Michael Merritt
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74676 ›
    Michael Merritt
    What Republican has vocally opposed the war, attacked members of his party for supporting the war, and is still embraced by the Republican base?
    You asked for proof of any Democrats who have been attacked for differing with the party line on a major issue. I answered with a fairly prominent name. So you ask the completely opposite question? Why? What're you trying to prove here? The answer is probably not many, though they haven't exactly been shown the door entirely. Chuck Hagel is still an active Republican, though he's retiring at the end of the term. On other issues, such as environmentalism and global warming, I seem to recall that John McCain is regularly attacked by some elements of the base and far right for his views. So is Newt Gingrich, that leader of the Contract for America, because he dared to share a couch on TV with Nancy Pelosi. There are many partisans on both the left and right. Jason in particular of writers on this site has taken great pains to point that out in some of his articles. So what's your point in bringing this up?
  49. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74679 ›
    Jason, Managing Editor Grewgills' behavior on this thread is a fairly useful demonstration of what we seem to be able to expect from Democratic partisans -- whenever confronted with criticisms of extremism in their midst, they just issue blanket denials accompanied with attempts to change the subject with "the other side is worse" non-excuses that no parent would even accept from a five-year-old but which a major part of our political culture seems to think is a magical trump card. Given the incapacity and intolerance among so many Democrats for even the slightest accountability and criticism of their own leaders, I have significant concerns about their ability or willingness to avoid abuses of power during a Democratic hegemony or respond appropriately to abuses of power when they do occur. In seeking to deny my points using time-worn counterattack technique, Grewgills has inadvertently made my point for me, as have the legions of other reflexive auto-enablers of Democratic extremism and purity in the blogosphere.
  50. Posted by Grewgills
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #74708 ›
    Grewgills I can't help but be reminded of one of my favorite Python bits, "Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, Didn't you?" "whenever confronted with criticisms of extremism in their midst, they just issue blanket denials" You have accused me of mischaracterizing your arguments and now you make this statement that completely mischaracterizes the point I have been making. Nowhere have I denied that there are extremist elements within the Democratic coalition or that they are vocal. They are there and that is undeniable. Where I disagree with you is in how much of the party is made up of these elements and how well they are able to push forward policy. I believe you err far to the high end in your assessments. "accompanied with attempts to change the subject with “the other side is worse” Pretty much that argument has been made in reverse by Michael in his liberal totalitarian posts. (Republicans may occasionally get out of hand but Democrats are totalitarian.) I am merely pointing out that contra yours and his arguments, what we are seeing in today's American politics is heightened partisanship and vitriol in both the left and the right, but that the worst of it is confined to a very vocal minority. To make blanket condemnations of one party for its excesses while excusing the same of the other side is neither fair or honest. I support neither speech codes or a return to the fairness doctrine, but think your characterization of them is inaccurate and unfair. Pointing this out is not denying extremism amongst those on the left it is arguing against your characterization of these admittedly bad policies. Where we differ here is apparently in whether or not these bad policies and potential (though unlikely) policies deserve elevation to liberal bogeyman status. I have responded to the challenge to bring up Democrats that go against the base on both abortion and the war. I notice you have not acknowledged that. Those examples I think run counter to your assertion to some unequivocal forced orthodoxy on all important issues in the Democratic party. Most people in a party do agree with the key planks of that party or they would not be members of that party. Beyond that any claims of orthodoxy have been grossly exaggerated. "You asked for proof of any Democrats who have been attacked for differing with the party line on a major issue." Leiberman did more than simply disagree with a party policy position. He attacked his fellow democrats for opposing his position and actively campaigned for Republicans against Democrats. Anyone in any party who does that will be reviled by the base of that party and will be kicked to the curb unless they have something very valuable to offer (caucusing with them to give a senate majority for example). Within both parties there are substantial disagreements even on some key issues and the persons who go against the party line are going to face pressure. That does not mean that they are driven from either party with a few rare exceptions. One of several Democrats that disagreed with the majority party position on the war was marginalized and that one did more than simply disagree. There are a few Republicans that have been shown the door for disagreeing on this very polarizing issue. As far as my partisan bona fides go: I am certainly to the left by American standards but only registered as a Democrat this year so that I could vote in the primaries. I had not previously been a member and I voted third party in 2000 and against Bush (not for Kerry) in 2004. When the next political season rolls around I will reassess and chose my party affiliation accordingly. You have made at least as many assumptions about me as you have accused me of making about you.
1