Another one of those “this would be funny if it weren’t so sad” moments. Or is it the other way around?
via Andrew
I’ve tried to write about a few of the redeeming qualities conservo-pundits do possess recently, if only to round out the endless criticisms of said pundits from the alt-right. But I’m not sure I can stomach it any more. I think the best policy is to just ignore the frauds or to write them off in as few words as possible – and then point to real, thoughtful conservatives and their contributions. Like this piece from Joe Carter at First Thoughts, for instance:
These St. Georges slaying the liberal dragons are placed beyond reproach. You are no more allowed to question the right’s preferred cult of personality—CoulterHannityBeckLimbaughPaulLevinRandPalinWhoever—than liberals can challenge Obama. Even thinking contrary thoughts about these figures is enough reason for them to question your conservatism (if not your patriotism, manhood, and love for small animals).
The result is that the conservative movement is becoming increasingly ineffective, insular, and irrational—in other words, we’re becoming the mirror image of the political left.
This reliance on personalities rather than ideas is particularly worrisome. Conservatism has never exactly been a bookish movement. And since the rise of talk radio during the Clinton-era, we’ve become accustomed to having ideas and issues presented to us in the form of pre-digested talking points.
But it doesn’t have to be this way, does it? Isn’t it possible that we could create a movement where people read books—real books, not insta-books ghostwritten for a former Morning Zoo DJs or brick-sized political novels about narcissistic atheist industrialists? Is it too much to ask that ideas be presented to us in a sober manner rather than like a dramatic reading of the apocalyptic Left Behind novels? Shouldn’t we hold our pundits and politicians to the same standard of behavior—no screaming, lying, talking gibberish, or fake crying on national television—that we expect of our children?
If not then the movement has morphed into something beyond recognition. I don’t know what this syncretic cult of libertarian populism should be called, but its certainly unworthy of the label “conservative.”
One minor quibble — the idea that liberals aren’t free to criticize Obama is nonsense. Witness the criticism he has gotten from the left flank for his tepid support of a public option. Or his inaction on closing Guantanamo. Or his slow pace of reform with regard to gay rights.
Other than that, I agree with the above.Report
Exactly.
Carter writing such nonsense opens the entire essay to question. How could Carter even entertain, for one fleeting moment, the idea that Obama is off limits from his left? Where does this man live?
Things that make you go hmm.Report
That was the bit that bugged me too. There are plenty of liberals who criticize Obama – just not based on the same things as the conservatives do.Report
Obama has been in office for over nine months and yet the only significant criticism I’ve seen coming from the left is Krugman and Greenwald. Who else is criticizing him in public? Liberals may grumble amongst themselves, but I don’t see a lot of open criticism? Am I simply missing it?Report
do you read any of the lib blogosphere???????Report
Krugman and Greenwald are pretty significant liberal voices, and I don’t see them being denounced by other liberals for their criticisms, either, like conservatives are when the criticize the talk-show/Beckist right. Ta-Nehisi Coates on the Atlantic has a mix of praise and criticism. Sullivan (if you consider him a liberal) has plenty to say against Obama’s acceptance of torture.Report
I would also submit last night’s “Saturday Night Live” skit about Obama.Report
You are obviously missing it — Obama nearly from the beginning has been held to be highly suspect as a “true” progressive — at least since the FISA flop, if not during the primary. The question is why have you missed it?Report
America Blog
Daily Kos
Huffington Post
Talking Points MemoReport
And then there is Frank Rich. Rich is pretty constant in his criticism of the administration.
“Obama would have looked stronger if he’d stood up more proactively to the screamers along the way, or at least to the ones not packing guns. As the Roosevelt biographer Jean Edward Smith has reminded us, it didn’t harm the New Deal for F.D.R. to tell a national radio audience on election eve 1936 that he welcomed the ‘hatred’ of his enemies.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13rich.htmlReport
I can’t say I’m surprised by this. Beck’s faux-emotionalism was one of the creepiest aspects of his persona.
Joe Carter is right to say that the conservative movement is not chiefly influenced by the likes of Burke and Hayek, but I wouldn’t exactly describe it (or Ayn Rand) as libertarian populism (more like anything-but-communism). Carter completely glosses over the militarist aspects of contemporary conservatism, allowing him for example to paint Ron Paul (who for all his faults is nonetheless an outsider) as a movement god Whose Words Must Not Be Questioned.
Did I say “glosses over”? I meant IGNORES COMPLETELY. This is like talking about Idiocracy without mentioning the bell curve.Report
As I wrote in the comments section to the original post, it’s not Paul that’s the problem. Like Palin, he has ceased to be a real politician (in the eyes of many of his supporters) and become the embodiment of their ideals. While Paul put himself up as someone who should not be criticized, his supporters often do. (Though to be fair, the Palinistas are even worse. I used to support Palin too. But she is not the person her supporters are making her out to be.)Report
Joe, trying to have a conversation with libruls!
How nice!
That’s kind-a like talking about the Book of Romans in a whorehouse.Report
“Hey, baby. I’m interested in proving I’m not a Romans 1:27 kinda guys. You wanna prove that you’re not one of those Romans 1:26 kinda gals?”Report
Please Sweet Jebus, let this not lead us to another long discussion on circumcision.Report
I’m the farthest thing from a librul, believe me.
(For now, anyhow.)Report
As a matter of fact, you said that the right had a cult of personality that cannot be criticised (a dubious assertion on its own) and included Paul (and Ayn Rand!) amongst that number. But whatever.
I simply don’t see what’s wrong with the ideals he embodies, which represent a breath of fresh air compared to the conservative establishment of the past.
I’m interested in your reasons for completely ignoring militarism as an important (heck, the main) component of movement conservatism.Report