Perpetually Ignoring "The Permanent Campaign"
By Brian Lambert
One of several tantalizing connections between George Packer's New Yorker piece, "The Fall of Conservatism" and former Bush administration press spokesman Scott McClellan's new book, What Happened is this notion of a "permanent campaign".
The Packer article is an instant classic, likely to be seen as remarkably prescient come November. In it he describes the rise of modern conservatism from the ashes of Richard Nixon's embarrassing flop in the 1962 California gubernatorial race, peaking with Ronald Reagan, befouled by Tom DeLay, and now crashing abysmally with George W. Bush (or whoever actually actually made the decisions in this administration, and we all know who that is). Packer describes MSNBC pundit Pat Buchanan working with Nixon (and strategist Kevin Phillips, who has had a dramatic ideological epiphany throughout the years) to create a long-term strategy of "polarization", or "positive polarization" as they described it, which would exploit wedge issues built on race and "elitism" (anti-intellectualism) and feed off the fears, prejudices, and, frankly, lack of sophistication of key blocs of voters in a way that would assure modern Republicans a steady run of election successes. Really classy stuff.
By any measure, it worked astonishingly well. Packer argues that conservatism is dying an ugly death today because the problems created by a series of Republican politicians with every interest in winning elections and almost none in governing (they won office convincing the rubes that government was their enemy, so why would anyone expect them to manage it effectively once they were in power?) have created problems so severe (out of control costs of health care, energy, a crashed credit market due to gaming and lack of oversight, a weakened dollar—a fat chunk of the run up in the price of gas—as a consequence of trillions in borrowing) that voters are rightfully bored with ideological grandstanding and want the bastards in DC to actually, truly, you know, "do something".
Packer writes:
"Instead of governing, the Republican majority in Congress—along with right-wing authors, journalists, talk-radio personalities, think tanks, and foundations—surrendered to the negative strain of modern conservatism. As political strategy, this strain went back to the Nixon era, but its philosophical roots were older and deeper. It extended back to William F. Buckley, Jr.,’s mission statement, in the inaugural issue of National Review, in 1955, that the new magazine “stands athwart history, yelling Stop”; and to Goldwater’s seminal 1960 book, “The Conscience of a Conservative,” in which he wrote, “I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones.”
In short: Do nothing, permanently.
McClellan's book, which I intend to read as soon as I can buy it at steep discount, seems to primarily confirm everything "left wing bloggers" (thank you for that one, Karl Rove) have been saying since before this Bush was installed in office: namely that the overriding strategy of the Bush team was/is nakedly cynical, which is to say nothing more than a device to maintain a state of a "permanent campaign", constantly polarizing and selling to maintain power with little or no aptitude or demonstrable interest in properly managing the biggest, most successful brand in democracy.
Packer refers often to Newt Gingrich's 1994 "Contract With [on] America", which I vividly remember at the time was cheered by veteran political reporters here in town based on the criteria that it was at least "new ideas". Really? "New ideas"? As in constructive ideas for governance or new schemes for the next campaign? It didn't matter. The legitimacy of the Contract's value to the public was for others to assess; for straight-line news folks, it was enough to report that it was "new".
Although I was never a fan of Gingrich's (his moments of farsighted lucidity are invariably submerged by his relentless gaming of government for partisan advantage—instead of public service), his "Contract" seemed exactly what Packer is talking about today: namely, a purely tactical strategy to neuter a stumbling Bill Clinton and restore Republican power ASAP. (The brilliance of Clinton's counteroffensive was having a far better read on the public than Gingrich and allowing the Republicans to hang themselves with their '95 government shutdown.)
Right wing pundit Jonah Goldberg tried his hand at slapping Packer down by taking the same position now suddenly popular with so many garden variety conservative talk radio hosts, each of whom aggressively, ritualistically, and enthusiastically practiced the same permanent campaign of polarization for their personal commercial advantage.
Goldberg writes:
"I agree with most folks quoted as saying that the GOP is in deep trouble and that conservatism is something of a mess these days as well. But for Packer, these terms — conservative and Republican — sometimes seem like interchangeable terms, while for me they are not. I think this may be one of the reasons why I thought the piece was so structurally flawed. He begins by arguing, asserting really, that conservatism begins with Nixon in the late 1960s, when Tricky Dick crafted a strategy of exploiting resentments, which any student of intellectual conservatism knows is simply wrong. Nixon did not like or trust the [William] Buckleyites and the Buckleyites were hardly wild about Dick either. This fact should help one keep in mind that treating conservatism and the modern GOP as interchangeable is an analytical error of the first order."
You don't have to slap your forehead and shout, "Bulls**t," Kevin Drum over at the Political Animal already did, responding:
"No political ideology lives in isolation. We judge communism by how Mao and Stalin implemented it, we judge 60s-era liberalism by how LBJ and the Democratic Party implemented it, and we judge social democracy by how Western Europe has implemented it. That's how you judge movements: by how their real-life adherents put them into practice, not by reference to a utopian vision of how they should be implemented if only we lived in the best of all possible worlds.
"Nonetheless, now that the Republican Party has been brought low, an awful lot of conservatives are jumping ship, claiming that it really doesn't represent them at all. But look: when the GOP made common cause with evangelical extremists, conservatives cheered. When the GOP accepted Grover Norquist's tax jihad as sacred writ, conservatives cheered. When Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay all but declared the GOP the party of corporate welfare, conservatives cheered. When George Bush declared war on the Middle East, conservatives cheered. Somehow Burke never really entered the discussion. But now that it turns out these positions have been pretty much played out, Burke is back in and Karl Rove is out. That's just a little too convenient."
The mainstream press angle here is that the establishment news corps, specifically the network press, has rarely (if ever) come close to noticing, much less acknowledging, Packer's thesis. (I look forward to hearing them quibble with it.) As standard-bearers for "even-handed" reporting, moral equivalency has always reigned. The corrosive, "polarizing" strategy of conservatives—from race-baiting "states rights" to Dixiecrats, to jeremiads about gay marriage, to immigration hysteria, to that evergreen lament about elitists—is treated as nothing substantially different than Bill Clinton whipping up voter fears about Republicans coming after their Social Security benefits. All exploitation is equal. Just like every scandal (Oval Office sex or a trumped-up trillion dollar war) is equal, even when it so clearly is not to a majority of Americans.
The issue—my curiosity here—is wondering what amount of professional journalistic inquiry and skepticism is required to move a Big "J" journalist from equivalent, balanced coverage to proportionate coverage? At some point, it seems to me, your credibility requires you to say, frequently, "this, folks, is a lie."
Tonight, NBC's David Gregory, a.k.a. "Stretch" to W, was asked by Chris Matthews (yes, I admit I watched but only until the Twins game started) if McClellan was right and that the "liberal press" (McClellan's description) was "too deferential" to the administration in the run up to the war? To the surprise of absolutely no one, Gregory said they/he was not, that he asked all the right questions, and that it is not his job to hector a sitting president with accusations of lying and fraud.
Well, as we all know, no one in the White House press corps was ever in any danger of letting that happen. You know what happens. Bye, bye returned phone calls. The rebuttal to Gregory—and Brian Williams and Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric, who were together this morning discussing the McClellan accusations and declaring jobs well done all around—is that although you probably don't stand up at a White House press conference and say, "Sir, you are a lazy, lying sack of ****, and here's why," there is also no rule of good journalism that requires you have to "play along" with the administration sales campaign after posing a couple fleeting, tart questions before going all "patriotic" and wheeling in Pentagon-paid generals—4,500 times—as long-winded strategist/pundits and assigning "dissenters" to the news periphery.
The fact the networks have buried that New York Times story on the bought-and-sold military analysts is appalling. Another disgrace compounding their timid skepticism prior to March '03.
As most understand now, and as many "left wing blogger" types understood then, maintaining high-profile skepticism about what was going down prior to the Iraq war would have been the correct thing to do at the time. Those who didn't failed at their jobs. (Gregory conceded, "We got it wrong.") A few in the media tried, such as Phil Donahue, who was fired from MSNBC in February of 2003—despite being the network's highest-rated show—after being told in a memorable dictum from management that he needed "two conservatives for every liberal" he put on the air. (And yes, the sight of MSNBC making itself over as The Obama Network smacks a little too much of commercial calculation.)
Among the many encouraging revolutions suggested by the growth of the blogosphere is the one that chronicles the work of our most visible reporters—with their problematic access to power—and makes a public noise when they fall back on "balance" in the face of long-term, grossly disproportionate cynicism and corruption.
© 2008 MSP Communications, Inc. All rights reserved
It seems to me that the bottom line of this week's big story-----McClellan and the criticism of pre-War reporting-----is that none of us can take any story from the Government (this Administration's or Barack Obama's)at face value. There is far too much spin in our age of public relations, far too much manipulation and pressure upon networks and journalists for whom continued access is power. Glenn Greenwald at Salon today discusses Jessica Yellin's revelation that ABC execs sought to ensure a patriotic slant on pre-War coverage because we were in a period of unabashed jingoism. The failure to toe that line cost both Phil Donohue (as you noted) and Ashleigh Banfield their jobs at MSNBC. At MSNBC, for Christ's sake, where they now give Keith Olbermann free rein to tell the President to shut the fuck up. We've got networks caring more about numbers of viewers than journalistic integrity, and we've got a Government that is little more than a propaganda machine. It's a sad, god-damned situation. From start to finish.
LAMBERT: First, why would anyone believe the hand-outs from any administration? World class reporters are there to vett this stuff and tip us to what is true and what isn't. At least that has been my assumption ... for too long, obviously. I hope for something better from Obama. I do not see him as a "wedge issue/polarization" candidate, but I've been wrong before. what really annoys me about Gregory's defense of his work, and his concession that "we got it wrong" is that, again, it comes off as, "Oops, sorry about that. We'll do better next time." The BIG problem is that what they got wrong -- badly wrong -- was the decision to go to war, not whether some appropriations bill was loaded with too much pork. When you screw up on the biggest imaginable story/issue I used to think there would be consequences. But that's another example of how wrong I can be.
Posted by: A Son of Mississippi on May 29, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Hmmmm.
I just spent $62 on gasoline this morning.
Now I understand I was misled into a fiasco in Iraq, and it cost me $5500 (so far).
I guess REPUBS are not very careful with my money, but they are good at protecting EXXON Oil's.
It is good though that 28% of the country still supports Bush - which gives us the first accurate number on how many mentally challenged people live in the US.
LAMBERT: The impact of a dollar weakened by astonishing deficit spending, (Iraq war), a chronic "strategy" of the same "polarization" shtick, is another story that is getting precious little analysis in the mainstream press. One estimate I heard puts it at 25% of the escalation of the price of oil over the past year.
Posted by: Ish Kabible on May 29, 2008 at 10:15 AM
A few of your assumptions are false. They don’t serve very well to rationalize a visceral glee at the fall of the Bush presidency. And there is glee to be had, mind you. I think we’ve really been failed on the currency front, in a way that Bill Clinton in particular had overwhelming success.
The W administration can not in any way be credited with the invention of the permanent campaign. This very term was used 15 some years ago to describe the Carville / Begala / Stephonopolis war room. And oddly, I watched the George H. W. bio on TPT a few weeks ago. That show seemed to posit that H. W.s administration invented the permanent campaign. I didn’t agree with that assertion, although I thought the show was well done and free of left wing hokum with some minor exceptions.
I’d be interested to know what the current definition of a wedge issue is. Calling Mr. Frank, calling Mr. Frank. Political science has apparently determined the inclination to vote for redistributionist, er, ‘progressive’ economics and their candidates is always presumed. A wedge issue is anything that would interfere with that. Richard Nixon, Pat Buchanan, and Lee Atwater may very well have been proud of their mastery of whatever dark electoral arts, but there are no ‘wedge’ issues. There are just issues. I imagine there’s a good political scientist out there who’s made this case, and I may make it a project to find him
I read this article (http://www.slate.com/id/2191959/) yesterday in Slate, and it would seem to make the case that the culture war was a legitimate battlefront, in which liberals or progressives made an inadequate stand.
You folks have gotten away with caricaturizing the Contract with America for a decade now. Which of its planks do you take issue with? It was pretty bold at the time, and sincere, but…abandoned. Your Drum quote speaks to that.
I do like the first paragraph of that Drum quote, and I can’t disagree. Although it reminds me of the discussion we just had in which you refused to associate communism with its crimes and heavy hand – Ceausescu in particular.
LAMBERT: Who "abandoned" the Contract With America? It was the Republicans game. My point is that it was insincere, at least as anything more than a sales/campaign tactic, and therefore DOA. And did I say George W. "invented" the permanent campaign? I agree with Packer who says that it was the appalling cynicism of this administration, which allowed the Tom DeLays of the world to corrupt the bureaucratic strength the party had built up and displayed rank indifference to actually governance - Katrina, economic programs, health care, etc. -- that pounded the stake through the heart of the beast.
Posted by: 108 on May 29, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Are you suggesting that -- gasp! -- today's 'old media' has slowly -- with some exceptions, but not many -- morphed into veiled PR hacks for the political (and corporate) establishment? That the old quid pro quo of access for political cover from reporters, editors and publishers is now SOP?
But, then again, you are a blogger and therefore can't be trusted ;-)
LAMBERT: It is a revolutionary accusation, isn't it?
Posted by: new media guy on May 29, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Brian:
One of your best analyses. The challenge is to get the word to the people. Olbermann's rants, however right-on, reach the choir. Where is Eric Sevareid when we need him?
LAMBERT: Olbermann should take TIME TV critic, James Poniewozik's criticism to heart. (The part about approaching, "self parody".) Less is more in most cases. What I'd like to see is someone like Ted Koppel unfettered from the "access dilemma" calling it as he sees it.
But thanks, Gary. (Gary Gilson is the former executive director of the Minnesota News Council.)
Posted by: Gary Gilson on May 29, 2008 at 10:52 AM
I applaud your expectation that journalism vigorously pursue truth in its reporting. As you well know, the holders of money and power have an incredible drive to display and protect that which gave them such......and honesty isn't always a good self defense.
Perhaps the blogosphere, with its profound democratizing effect, is a hopeful ray of light that reminds us of our darker side.
LAMBERT: Well I'm wondering if there isn't old fashioned monetary value in reporting from other than the compromised "access" perspective, i.e. ("Say that on air and you'll never get a thing out of from me again"). The "moral equivalency" shtick has serious flaws.
Posted by: Sparky on May 29, 2008 at 11:46 AM
What has set my teeth to grinding is the MSM's focus on the highschool-like personal aspects of McLellan's "revelations. It's like they're deconstructing the break up between the school quarterback and the head cheerleader. Who cares? All the usual suspects from the administration past and present are rounded up and allowed to get away with telling us how disappointed they are in Scott, and that this is not the Scott they knew. Der! But, again, who could be moved to care in the least about your psychic pain at being outed by one of your own as a band of dissembling quisslings and weasels?
Hey, Ari, weren't you the guy who, like a villain from a Speilberg movie, so archly and ominously warned the assembled WH stenographers to be "very careful" about what they say?
Mawkish and self-serving in the extreme.
LAMBERT: Fleischer was on CNN late last night with Paul Begala, still selling the "Bill Clinton thought there were WMD in Iraq" trope. (Begala, clearly loving the sight of the pilings falling out from under the House of Bush, slapped that down quite nicely.) But to your point, whatever happened to a "cross examination" interview? McClellan BTW is on Olbermann tonight.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on May 29, 2008 at 11:47 AM
All along I've been kind of wondering, whos George Packer and why should I care? I thought maybe he was a William F Buckley like character. I dont know why I thought this.
I see now hes a NYT reporter and he made his bones writing for Mother Jones. I don't dispute the notion of cynacism and insincerity, but I just can't take this seriously. A chronicle of the downfall of conservatism from someone on the lunatic fringe who I'm sure very much wants it to fall.
LAMBERT: Your skepticism might be better starting with, "Is he wrong?"
Posted by: 108 on May 29, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Old habits are hard to break. I think the problem traces to journalists going from ink-stained wretches and social pariah for their untoward questioning of the motives and vested interests among the ACTUAL elite, rumpled slobs who would NEVER be invited to all the right parties, to coruscating celebrities who now live to rub elbows with the rich and powerful, a club to which they have long ago been admitted.
I still contend the desire to be liked and accepted by the "right" people trumps your man Froomkin's assertion that the frisson of "calling bullshit" has gained fresh currency once again among the beltway crowd who passed on all that pre-war malarkey with credulous alacrity.
Yes, there are exceptions, such as Sy Hersh; but they are just that, salient for their abberrance. I see little evidence of aggressive pursuit of MCain's continuation of the the Bush administration's tactics.
As Son of Mississippi has already quoted Dylan, "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." The revelations about the Bush administration from ex administration officials and journalistic sources have largely been well preceded by a sea change in the prevailing political winds. All these alleged revelations (really? for who?) and attempts to wash their hands of the unseemly blood of innocents is not anything remotely like courage and comes far too late to make any actual difference to anyone but historians. It's merely image management and, in the case of McLellan, retirement fund padding.
Who could possibly give a tinker's damn if serial liar and enabler, McClellan doesn't get to sit around in his rockin' chair on the porch there in Crawford with "W" and trade mind-numbing banalities? What ludicrous sentimentalizing it is to rerun that piece of tape like it actually amounted to anything but empty palaver at the time. If Bush really did look forward to such stultifying reminisences (hard to imagine), I doubt McLellan ever actually contemplated such a scenario with anything but a shiver and a rolling of the eyes.
LAMBERT: ... which is another reason I'd like to see this "unmoderated" Town Hall barnstorming tour McCain floated. Just let the public -- not Bush's hand-picked, screened, vetted and pre-digested public -- but the real random public fire questions at the two.
Posted by: JIm Leinfelder on May 29, 2008 at 1:10 PM
He might not be wrong. We'll see. The handicapping abilities of folks like this have never been demonstrated though. And it takes a great deal anyway for me to start feeling apocryphal. This isnt going to do it.
And all I can think of when I think Mother Jones is Michael Moore. Go ahead, defend Moore now.... Tell me hes not a communist...
LAMBERT: A "communist"? What is this 1954?
Posted by: 108 on May 29, 2008 at 1:34 PM
After this week, it's still hard to consider blogs "a hopeful ray of light."
Not as long as a freakin' doughnut company can be brought to its terrorism-loving ways because of the pattern in a scarf worn by Rachel Ray in a commercial.
LAMBERT: But who is more reprehensible, the right-wing blogger (Michelle Malkin) or the donut company?
Posted by: Bob Collins on May 29, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Oh, so you're all for "Don't tase me, bro" redux?
I recommend you read todays WSJ Opinion to your sidekick Lib-felder, as he seems pre-occupied with the fashion pages again.
It lays out why the Obamasiah would never subject hisself to any real public questioning.
The man has nothing of any import to say, and can't keep the "facts" straight one day to the next.
LAMBERT: Do you miss your home planet?
Posted by: bertram jr on May 29, 2008 at 1:52 PM
As someone who's witnessed Sen. McCain out on the hustings in the very scenario you describe, let me tell you that the good citizens who tend to show up put questions to McCain that only serve to make even the most muddled candidate look sharp on the issues. You almost end up feeling sorry for the guy for having to answer such ill-conceived queries. It aint' exactly like that "Save Free Speech" painting from Norman Rockwell's Four Freedoms series in the Saturday Evening Post.
LAMBERT: But there is wheat among the chaff.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on May 29, 2008 at 2:01 PM
I have no doubt that McClellan is spot on in what he has discussed about the Iraq war. Too bad he didn't choose to speak up sooner, something tells me that the sight of dollars bills gave him his new religion in honesty.
If anyone questions the theory of the permanent campaign and the Bush administration, listen to Rove speak. The guy is still convinced that he has it all figured out. He should be selling used cars somewhere.
My more independent nature is largely driven by the social beliefs of traditional conservatism (which I completely disagree with). So Bush failed me two ways -- he is too socially conservative while not being fiscally conservative.
Sadly I doubt that Obama will be any better than Bush as far as a permanent campaign. He speaks in the abstract and rarely hits issues straight on. Sorry, but Hillary was the better choice.
LAMBERT: I'll forward this on to "frogman of grant".
Posted by: Dave on May 29, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Are you insulting ME rather than admitting that Obama is the most completely vacant candidate ever foisted on the American public?
EVER?
He might make an average mattress salesperson, but c'mon - anyone with 2 cents worth of smarts can see there's no there there.
He's but an empty vessel with a catchy name that liberals can pour their guilt and twisted longing for a unicorn enhanced equal outcome into. It's really all quite funny, if it wasn't so damn sad.
If he was white and /or named, say Barry Orwell, no one would ever have heard of him outside of the 'hood he was "organizing" in Chicago.
But that's been pointed out many times before.
JC Watts would kick his ass up and down the block.
LAMBERT: Here's my dilemma, if I point out the obvious, namely that after eight years of parroting the bumper sticker line that George W. Bush has made America "proud" and "safe" you have no credibility whatsoever on the question of "vacancy" ... well, um, does that imply that you ever did have credibility?
Posted by: bertram jr on May 29, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Bjr:
Do you think there is a logical reason that your boy W. held so few press conferences? Without someone whispering the answers to him he would have a hard time spelling his own name. How could Obama or Hillary do any worse? The potential for improvement is immeasurable.
Without Rove, W. would have never been elected. Without Rove, Cheney and Libby (I have trouble calling any adult Scooter), McClellan would have had nothing to write.
The good news is with 4-8 years of the Dems in power, you will have more than enough fodder to keep commenting on LTTS.
LAMBERT: And do we need to ask why he never personally involved himself in Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations? Now THAT is serious "vacancy".
Posted by: Mr. Monster on May 29, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Brian: When his book's price comes down, we might also be careful in accepting McClellan's view of history on the reason for invading Iraq. It is easy to agree with McClellan that Bush Administration use of a WMD threat was just propaganda to reinvigorate 9/11 fears and get the U.S. Senate back for the GOP in the 2002 midterms. But I wonder if McClellan isn't an early revisionist/apologist for the Bush legacy when he argues that Bush's real motive for invading Iraq was to create democracy in the region? Measure by results. The folks who put up the $100 million in 1999/2000 for Bush's primary campaign victories were hugely oil-related. Bush took office at about $21 a barrel and has stirred the pot and stirred the pot in Iraq until $130-plus was achieved. How many other investors have realized a return of six times on their money during the Bush years? As we cross the $4 a gallon price for gas, someone in the news business might inquire whether the reason for Iraq was to create and sustain the regional instability essential for speculators to drive up the price of oil thus providing many Bush contributors their hoped for return on investment.
LAMBERT: I saw his interview this AM with Meredith Viera and I believe you're on the right track. Never mind all that "mushroom cloud"/imminent danger stuff, whoever Bush's historian-apologists will be will attempt to revise history with that "democracy to the Middle East" claptrap. It has the benefit of being a very long term game. I mean, by the 22nd century it might even have come about. And as far as the oil windfall, I'm guessing you've dropped this on others and probably been told you're an unredeemable cynic, but if you follow the money -- always a basic investigative procedure -- your argument appears more rational than "bringing democracy to the Middle East".
Posted by: Bob Meek on May 29, 2008 at 3:28 PM
The real problem here is not understanding that "conservative" is better used as an adjective than a noun.
In 1953 Russell Kirk, the father of the modern conservative movement, had his book published as-- "The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Elliot.”
Originally, the title had not used the word "mind" but "rout." The publisher (Regnery) wouldn't stand for it, so Kirk reluctantly agreed to the title.
Conservativism contrary to what many believe is neither a religion nor an ideology; it does have underlying principles derived from two centuries of conservative writers and leaders.
It is more correct to use “conservative” as an adjective than a noun. Conservativism is a way of thinking not a body of chiseled in stone beliefs. Conservativism is a way of looking at civil social order. Who is and who is not a “conservative” depends on a self definition. If you believe you are a “conservative” you are one.
Also, contrary to what many liberals believe, conservatives recognize the necessity for change and like Burke see change as a necessity for preservation.
While it is not possible to draw up a laundry list of conservative positions, there are some general beliefs that most “conservatives” will ascribe to. The following ten are from an essay Kirk did that was re-published in "The Politics of Prudence" (1993)
”First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.” That order is part of the human endowment and these moral truths are permanent. Order is synonymous with harmony and a society so governed by a strong sense of right and wrong is a good and just society. Government machinery may be used to sustain justice, honor, right vs. wrong but these things are part of the human cultural and biological endowment. People who do not ascribe to this view are not only unhappy but usually suffer lawlessness as a consequence.
”Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention and continuity.”The common culture has customs that permit people to live in an orderly fashion with one another. These customs are ancient and have resulted from trial and error over centuries of use. Besides that these customs link us to not only the past but to the future. As Russell puts it, “…conservatives prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know..”
It is not that conservatives are against change. What they want is prudent change that is gradual and based on satisfactory outcomes and never completely unfixing old ways or traditions.
”Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.”We are “dwarfs on the shoulder of giants, able to see farther than our ancestors only because of their great stature.” Conservatives emphasize ”prescription”as a means to understand the whys and wherefores of our culture. Prescriptions are principles of living and belief established in times past.
Prescriptions of immemorial usage include private property rights as well as morals. Our morals are basically prescriptions that antedated Christianity. In my way of thinking, the best pro life argument can be found in the Hippocratic Oath written in 400 B.C. and taken by most US physicians until 25 January 1973. The species cannot endure if birth can be terminated by whim and convenience.
Russell summarizes thusly, “the individual is foolish but the species is wise as a Burke quote.” The human species has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far beyond any group ideology or private predilection. The species cannot endure if birth can be terminated by whim and convenience.
”Fourth Conservatives are guided by their principles of prudence.” Burke, Plato and many others considered prudence a principal virtue. Public measures should be judged on long run consequences even beyond the current generation. Liberals and radicals as well as David Brooks all want immediate changes and immediate results. To be popular is as Randolph says pleasing to the devil because “the devil always hurries.”
”Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.”Contrary to what many liberals believe conservatives celebrate variety and do everything possible to preserve it.
Orders, social classes, inequalities of ability and wealth and all sorts of other differences must be supported and championed.
The only two types of real equality must be: (1)Before the law; (2) And, before god. All other attempts of leveling will lead to social stagnation. Leveling and other attempts to achieve egalitarian goals invariably lead to “squalid tyrants” and another form of inequality.
”Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.” Call it original sin or human frailty human nature suffers from serious faults. Since man is imperfect no perfect social order can be devised. Claims to the contrary should arouse suspicion. “To seek for a utopia is to end in disaster…” We are definitely not made in perfection for perfect systems of governance.
We may seek and achieve prudent reform if we preserve tolerable order. If we neglect traditional safeguards then man being imperfect results in chaos and destruction.
”Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.”Destroy the holding of private property and the state rules all in every conceivable way. As a corollary, economic leveling is not economic progress and neither is getting and spending the chief aim of human existence.
Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community and oppose involuntary collectivism.”Americans are noted for a sense of community. Charitable and other voluntary community efforts are important to maintain and protect the vulnerable.
"When these efforts are usurped by the government they fail to achieve their goals. Further, these government efforts standardize human beings and destroy freedom and dignity. “For a nation is no stronger than the numerous little communities of which it is composed.”
"Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and human passions.” “Politically speaking power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the will of one’s fellows…if only few or one dominates we call that despotism..” Contrariwise, when everybody does what they want society falls into anarchy. The conservative does an imperfect and changing effort at avoiding both despotism and anarchy.
Radicals always see power as a good thing destined to force others into his way of thinking and behavior. While power cannot be abolished it can be controlled and that is precisely why conservatives so jealously guard their freedoms. Conservatives also know not to simply trust human benevolence or claims thereof. They also know humans are capable of good and evil and restraints against overweening will and appetite are necessary.
”Tenth, the understands permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.” The conservative is not opposed to social progress. “…Although he doubts whether there is any such force as mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world.” Where something progresses something else is usually in decline.
Russell then quotes Coleridge who opined that a healthy society is influenced by two things: permanence and progression. Permanence occurs by enduring interests and convictions and this results in stability and continuity. Progression occurs when we are urged on by prudent reform and improvement.
Without stability society ceases. Without progression, society stagnates. Conservatives highly treasure progress but in a prudent and deliberate fashion.
Russell’s Final Thoughts In This Essay: As described here conservativism transcends most of American voting blocks according to wealth, ethnicity, religion, education and the like. What conservatives want is progress with stability with a goal of cultural survival and achievement. Conservatives are not laboring for simple economic advantage or short term power. Listen to parts of Rush Limbaugh’s recent shows; conservatives are currently concerned with the deterioration of our culture, mores and morals more than any thing else.
LAMBERT: Bleuler my man ... an entirely thoughtful post until the last line where you conflate Rush Limbaugh with conservative thinkers. Come on! I will argue until I'm blue that the conservatism you describe here is entirely tenable, admirable even, but that the Limbaughs of the world have so thoroughly debased these noble conceits THEY should be perceived as conservatism's true adversaries, not liberals. Limbaugh and his ilk, and face it, they are the modern "conservative" intellectuals -- God help YOU -- are forever preaching an ideology of exclusion and intense divisiveness, and primarily for their own personal financial gain. Is that not "the permanent campaign"?
Posted by: Bleuler on May 29, 2008 at 7:51 PM
Call me a traitor and freedom hater (you know who you are)but, gotta' say, Bush has never come across as a big democracy enthusiast here in the newly-branded "homeland" (nice Third Reich ring to it, no?), contemptuous as he's been of the Bill of Rights, seperation of powers, congressional oversight, habeus corpus, his overreaching use of signing statements to flout the rule of law, etc.
So, like Mr. Meeks, I'm having trouble buying that his bedrock casus belli for invading a military eunuch such as Iraq informed by a demonstrably addled belief that western-style democracy would spontaneously spring to life simply for the sudden absence of CIA creation, Saddam Hussein...not to mention the further complicating factors of the dissolution of any semblance of rudimentary order, a no longer functioning infrastructure, the liberation of long-simmering sectarian resentments to find their violent expression, the unfettered influence of Shia Iran with the Shia majority in Iraq, oh, good gawd, do I need to go on with this long list that was readily apparent to anyone with access to a library card and a major national newspaper?
It's not as though one needed CIA briefings or a tutorial from Soviet Union scholar, Condi "Mushroom Cloud" Rice to know all this.
Oh, for the love of...I'm going to catch the re-run of "The Office" that's on right now for a dose of vastly superior leadership skills.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on May 29, 2008 at 9:38 PM
Conservatism did die under W. You've got your fiscal conservatism, your energy/resource conservation and your environmental conservatism and as I can recall, W never employed any of those in his incredulous run as the president. So you are right, conservatism is dying. Intellectual conservatism--that was more his style.
LAMBERT: Yeah, W personally conserved most of what intellectual energy he had. But as misnomers go, "conservative" is one that might need a run through re-think. I keep asking, "What exactly are you
'conserving'?" I mean other than the status of the already privileged?
Posted by: Biotech Nerd Girl on May 30, 2008 at 9:08 AM
Early warning to you, BL, your gal is going to vacate (hope she's aware of those 'extra baggage charges' - heehee).
From NY Post 5/30
SUSAN SARANDON, who appeared in three films last year and won kudos for her TV movie "Bernard and Doris," is still not a contented soul. She says if John McCain gets elected, she will move to Italy or Canada. She adds, "It's a critical time, but I have faith in the American people."
LAMBERT: Perhaps she'll need a cabana boy in Lake Como?
Posted by: bertram jr on May 30, 2008 at 9:11 AM
Maybe Bertram could also job swap with George Clooney's cabana boy out on Lake Como?
LAMBERT: I think bertram should fetch me cool beverage.
Posted by: Biotech Nerd Girl on May 30, 2008 at 9:46 AM
What are you implying?
That George Clooney is gay?
Or that the ex-waitress he currently dates may need more clean towels?
LAMBERT: I'm implying ... ever so gently ... that you may have missed your ideal calling.
Posted by: bertram jr on May 30, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Lambo, how much do you pay Bertram per week to piss of the rest of us and keep this blog so thoroughly entertaining? Damn, he's good.
LAMBERT: You can't put a price on bertram's kind of comedy.
Posted by: A Son of Mississippi on May 30, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Well put overall, bro. But when you quote Goldwater:
“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones.”
And then your analysis, with that trademark Lambert insouciance:
"In short: Do nothing, permanently."
Uh, actually, that's not what Goldwater was saying at all, man. He wasn't committed to passive stalemate--he was committed to an active elimination. Later in Packer's essay, Buchanan says, “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” This is why Bush's policy of "compassionate conservativism"--you know, pre-emptive war, corporate welfare, federally mandated curriculum, etc.--is, to guys like Buchanan, worse than a betrayal of Goldwater's ideas, which were, yes, inspired by an 18th century Anglo-Irish political theorist.
So...yeah. And I know Ron Paul is a punchline right now, with both mainstream liberals and conservatives, actually, but if you pay attention to his people, at Sam's Club and beyond, you'll find that old idea of freedom through elimination is still potent.
LAMBERT: I know Goldwater is regarded as a wise man, and a guy today whose ideology would but him somewhere around Lincoln Chaffee or Chuck Hagel with modern Republicans, but I remain deeply suspicious that he was as committed to reform as you say. Here's the acid test for any big government reform-minded conservative ... subject Pentagon spending to rigorous, constant oversight. The sky will be filled with pigs before that happens.
Posted by: stevemarsh on May 30, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Bleuler:
That description of the values of conservatism read like a lengthy labor-saving rational for not thinking.
Happily, liberal thinkers have saved groups such as slaves and disenfranchised women and child laborers and oppressed mine workers, etc. from the this amalgam of hidebound tradition and "enduring moral order" you claim as a phlosophy embraced by those whose economic and social hegemony and self interests it continued to serve to the detriment of others.
It would seem that it is the conservatives who've held sway in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran, to name a few examples, in the recent centuries. And it will not be conservatism that liberates the average person living under these oppressive regimes built on phony "tradition" and "enduring moral order."
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on May 30, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Lambert, I was not touting Limbaugh. Rather, I was noting that his callers are most interested in supporting what most call "traditional values."
Limbaugh is a 35 million dollars a year success because he is an excellent broadcaster, knows his audience ("some college)and reduces this to what his audience finds shocking and entertaining. He also thrives on criticism: from his point of view every knock is a boost.
Personally, I do not consider him a genuine political leader--just a commentator who is becoming filthy rich telling a select group what they want to hear.
LAMBERT: But Limbaugh, is part of -- a leader of -- the revisionist wave sweeping through conservative punditocracy that is attempting to re-position itself as "true conservatives" sadly disappointed by the failures of George W. Bush. I'm sorry but that doesn't play outside their "some college" echo chamber. Rush, Lewis, etc. were as manifestly cynical in their vociferous, corrosive support of Bush ... until about a year ago ... as Bush, I mean Cheney, have been in their governance. Like it or not, Rush is a far more influential "conservative" than Bill Buckley ever dreamed of being.
Posted by: Bleuler on May 30, 2008 at 3:33 PM
You can't put a price on bertram's humor. But there is a phrase for it--self parody. If he ever develops a sense of self awareness the fun's over. Though, I think we're more likely to see peak oil before that happens.
LAMBERT: As a foil for the reality-based I'd have to invent him if he didn't actually exist.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on May 30, 2008 at 6:54 PM
Any student of history knows Nixon created the Permanent Campaign.I remember reading in late 1972 in The Periscope section of NEWSWEEK that Maurice Stans and the boys at CREEP had so much money left they were considering a movement to amend the constitution to allow Nixon a third term.
But for a piece of tape on a Watergate door jam...
LAMBERT: Mistakes were made ... by others.
Posted by: Jed Leyland on May 30, 2008 at 9:24 PM
I like Rush, and regard him as the best of his kind. Some of his imitators are OK.
I have a masters degree. Nyah.
LAMBERT: "Best of his kind". Pol Pot. Idi Amin. Robert Mugabe. I'd say Pot was "best of" his.
Posted by: 108 on May 31, 2008 at 1:08 PM
The idea of McClellan is just writing a "tell-all" for the money is a bit amusing. First, the accusers like to emphasize the words "tell-all" as if it were an indictment against fact. Frankly. if someone is going to write a book I greatly appreciate that the writer does "tell all" of what they know, saw and participated in. That should go without saying.
McClellan, as a lone-wolf or disgruntled employee might be believed except for the fact that he is only one of a long line of exiting Republicans from this administration that has documented the incompetence, lies, and ideological purity litmus tests applied inside the White House during the Bush reign of terror.
Bush and Cheney certainly lashed out with impunity and persecuted other administration officials, judges, federal prosecutors and undercover agents of our government against the best interests of our country. They jeopardized, for political reasons, the lives of Americans all around the world with their criminal acts. And those were guys on their own team! These Bush purges are reminiscent of China's Gang of Four purge of Communist leaders in the 1960s.
So we are suppose to be surprised that there are "tell-all" books by Republican's who get shot in the face by their own administration.
LAMBERT: I see Gen, Richard Sanchez is out with a book today. The quote I saw of Bush post-Fallujah really did sound like a Sean Hannity knucklehead. The McClellan "furor" may pass quickly, but they're lining up to tell the stories of this crowd.
Posted by: Robb on June 2, 2008 at 9:34 AM
I stumbled upon this gem today, and thought I would share it with the class:
Why Do American Liberals Hate Their Country?
There's a point at which calling the American behavior of being a completely self-interested resource-hogging world-polluting bastard "freedom" becomes a bit of a stretch.
This is an ignorant, ill-informed opinion. The fact that it conveniently ignores huge tracts of world history in favor of a bigoted, narrow view is in itself a condemnation. It's a condemnation of the people who have overrun this nation's institutions of higher learning.
I'm speaking of those who share the world view of people like Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill. People like Michele Obama and her husband Barak. People raised in a lap of luxury and privilege who display open contempt for the author of their good fortune. This country is suffering. It's suffering from a surfeit of idealistic, ungrateful fools.
I have often probed the dark, twisted psyche of the liberal mind. It is not a deep search. I can understand the hatred of, say, European liberals. Their cultures and countries are much older than ours, yet they pale in comparison. The antipathy can easily be attributed to envy and resentment. The incredible negativity of American liberals is far more perplexing.
The Democrat party is running for President a man who has essentially stated "America sucks, it's broken, and you need me to save your souls". A large chunk of the population is embracing this negative, angry message, even though they themselves are benefiting from the prosperity and peace that this nation provides. It's contrarian logic, but then the words Liberal and Logic have never fit comfortably into one sentence.
Why do American liberals hate their country? I don't think they really do. I think they hate their countrymen. And this hatred is generally based in a sense of self-loathing. Guilt. Contempt for success. The certitude that life should be fair but is not, and it's someone's fault, dammit!
American Liberals don't really hate America. They hate Americans.
LAMBERT: And this is who? Ann Coulter off her meds?
Posted by: bertram jr on June 2, 2008 at 1:33 PM
It's Severeid, not Sevareid...and he's dead. On a more positive note, however, I'm sure that Mr. Packer's perceptive article is a real watershed. I can just see those good folks down in West Virginia...getting their copies of the New Yorker and not being able to put it down until, smacking their furrowed brows, they perceive the failure of conservatism and see, in the person of Barack Obama, the ascendancy of enlightened progressivism.
Let's give them until the end of the week...
LAMBERT: This is some kind of Hillary shot, isn't it?
Posted by: Frogman of Grant on June 2, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Why do you hate America, Brian Lambert?
LAMBERT: More accurately, "Why am I so discouraged and disgusted with what you and your 'intellectual heroes' have done with this country and its reputation?"
Posted by: bertram jr on June 2, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Here's something for you to chew on, Bri:
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/02/michelle-obama-and-louis-farrakhan-take-on-whitey/
LAMBERT: I'll check it out after I count my socks and wash the dog.
Posted by: bertram jr on June 2, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Something for the conservatives:
Railroad tracks.
The US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. That's an exceedingly odd number. Why was that gauge used? Because that's the way they built them in England , and English expatriates built the US railroads.
Why did the English build them like that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used.
Why did 'they' use that gauge then? Because the
people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing.
Why did the wagons have that particular odd wheel
spacing? Well, if they tried to use any other
spacing, the wagon wheels would break on some of the old, long distance roads in England , because that's the spacing of the wheel ruts.
So who built those old rutted roads? Imperial Rome built the first long distance roads in Europe (andEngland ) for their legions. The roads have been used ever since.
And the ruts in the roads? Roman war chariots formed the initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagon wheels. Since the chariots were made for Imperial Rome , they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing. Therefore the United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5
inches is derived from the original specifications for an Imperial Roman war chariot. Bureaucracies live forever.
So the next time you are handed a
Specification/Procedure/Process and wonder 'What
horse's ass came up with it?' you may be exactly
right. Imperial Roman army chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the rear ends of two war horses. (Two horses' asses.) Now, the twist to the story:
When you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRB's. The SRB's are made by Thiokol at their factory in Utah . The engineers who designed the SRB's would have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRB's had to be shipped by train from
the factory to the launch site. The railroad line from the factory happens to run through a tunnel in the mountains, and the SRB's had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now know, is about as wide as two horses' behinds.
So, a major Space Shuttle design feature of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse's ass. And you thought being a horse's ass wasn't important? Ancient horse's asses control almost everything... and CURRENT Horses
Asses are controlling everything else.
LAMBERT: Now that is something I had never thought about.
Posted by: JIm Leinfelder on June 2, 2008 at 4:26 PM
Where's the tape, BJ? If it existed, it'd already be on YouTube. Oh, right, the GOP's sitting on it until October? Somehow, I doubt it.
Much more likely is that this nothing more than ginned-up B.S. by your man with the "Dumb and Dumber" haircut. His goal's to stampede some super delegates.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on June 2, 2008 at 5:27 PM
I guess I cannot speak for all other liberals. Perhaps I cannot even speak for any other liberal than myself. However, as a liberal democratic society, America is the best hope in the world for liberty, freedom, and justice under the principles on which it was founded and the terms of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I love America. We are by nature a liberal nation.
The problem is that neo-cons like yourself bertram, jr and certainly George Bush and Dick Cheney do NOT respect our Constitution and notion of a restrained federal government that does not invade the privacy and civil rights of its citizens and that recklessly invades and occupy other nations by throwing out its leaders.
Unfortunately, Bush and Cheney have obliterated traditional conservative values of restraining abusive centralized government and have taken actions against its own citizens without due process, judicial or legislative oversight, and without checks and balances that have been the cornerstone of our great society.
Any American who loves their country has to be outraged by the incredible un-American actions and policies of this corrupt and incompetent Bush administration. Call me a liberal. Call me anything you want to call me - I am fighting to save America from these bandits because I love this country. And I am certain John Kerry (who fought for this country), John Edwards, Al Gore, Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack and Michelle Obama also love this country and have step up to serve it and try to make it better for all its citizens.
Only idiots like yourself and the hated-mongering rhetoric of under-world mercenary types like Larry Johnson would accuse them of hating this country and the American people. Johnson gets paid big money out of taxpayers pockets from the U.S. Treasury to spread hatred and brew up streamy loads of civil strife and political division.
You have no idea what you are talking about when you attempt to falsely accuse or impugn the values and love of others for their country. It is abhorrent when neo-cons and hate merchants use ideological purity to bash and accuse others of being something other than what they are and this is the worse kind of false accusation. You seek to destroy this nation with your actions, more importantly, the results of your schemes are more than proof.
The neo-cons hide behind their flag lapel pins so that they may spew hatred just like Joe McCarthy and Roy M. Cohn did 50 years ago. They stood and pointed their finger at Americans and called them un-American when in fact they sought to undermine the basic principles and values of America.
But just like McCarthy and Cohn your hideous attempts to put words in the mouths of decent Americans and cast hatred and division among the people, you too will be written down for what you are and history will uncover your ill-mannered means to grab power for selfish gain.
Posted by: Robb on June 2, 2008 at 5:42 PM
Robb: You're giving BJr WAY too much credit. He's a parrot, a mynah bird, a two-year-old who over heard his dad say, F@*# when he hit his thumb with a hammer and uncomprehendingly repeats it and, when he sees the eyes of adults go wide with shock, he squeals with delight at the attention and repeats it again and again in the hopes of getting more of the same.
That's it. Roy Cohn had a law degree. Tail Gunner Joe made it to the Senate. BJr doesn't even have the stones to go by his own name.
LAMBERT: You left out the part about the pink shirt and popped collar.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on June 2, 2008 at 10:48 PM
Personal attacks by frothing America haters do not change the fact that Obama has zero foreign policy experience, or that Franken is a nut job porn writer, or that we are in a time of war.
Pretty simple really.
What's the obsession with the polo shirts? Does that somehow help sell your "cause", or just reveal the depth of the misery and personal hate that drives you?
Does it secure our borders?
Preserve our culture?
Does it further the dialogue, or present the case that Obama is any way qualified to be President, or Franken in anyway qualified to be a Senator?
Geezuz.
LAMBERT: If I slapped a "Support the Troops" ribbon magnet on the back of 5000 lb. SUV would I be "an America lover"?
Posted by: bertram jr on June 3, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Robb, you and Leinfelder make a lovely couple.
Perhaps you could get your "union" recognized out in California.
I'll be interested in your righteous defense once the tape comes out.
Posted by: bertram jr on June 3, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Being critical of America doesn't mean you HATE it.
Most certainly, being critical of George W. Bush and his policies that have demeaned this great nation and its principles means you love America.
LAMBERT: It really is simple. Hate the bumper sticker logic = Hate America.
Posted by: Robb on June 3, 2008 at 10:29 AM
"I learned over the weekend why the Republicans who have seen the tape of Michelle Obama ranting about “whitey” describe it as “STUNNING.” I have not seen it but I have heard from five separate sources who have spoken directly with people who have seen the tape. It features Michelle Obama and Louis Farrakhan. They are sitting on a panel at Jeremiah Wright’s Church when Michelle makes her intemperate remarks. Whoops!! When that image comes out it will enter the politcal ads hall of fame. It will be right up there with the little girl plucking daisy petals in the famous 1964 ad LBJ used against Barry Goldwater."
I can only speak for myself, but I think the odds of BJ finding the monster of Lake Pepin are better than this tape actually existing. C'mon BJ, even you are bright enough to know that five people who've talked with people who've seen it is pretty suspect.
Speaking of mythical video tapes, what about the supposed one of Norm at a 4th of July party out on Lake Minnetonka? That rumor was hot a few years back. Is Al sitting on that one until October too BJ?
LAMBERT: bretram believes the Lake Pepin sea monster hides in Franken's pants.
Posted by: Danny B on June 3, 2008 at 10:42 AM
"Preserve our culture." Oh, yes, BJ, let's. BTW, which culture would that be? Our only endemic musical style, jazz, for example? Is that somehow endangered? And would you care? I'm guessing not.
"Preserve our culture," right. That's just standard-issue racist code language being parroted by a cowardly bigot. Hence the blogonym.
Man up, BJ, proudly declare yourself. What're you afraid of? Perhaps being shunned as a dim racist and obsessed homophobe? This is perhaps you're only manifestation of a reasonable fear, my boy. Because, son, you are one sick puppy.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on June 3, 2008 at 12:03 PM
If Franken takes your advice, Brian, he may find himself suffering from the same problem that bedeviled former Mpls Police Chief, Tony Bouza when he ran for statewide office--"too hip for the room."
LAMBERT: Well, that's the line he has to walk. But comedy generally plays well. My point is that the adult public long ago made its peace with pop culture -- of which he was a part. I don't understand the firewall between policy talk and a few well-timed jokes. And pretending his frat boy gag man past won't be used against him is stupid.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on June 3, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Robb, will the recrimination tribunals be run by a Che like character in your fantasy?
What were McCarthy and Cohn wrong about, by the way...
LAMBERT: 108, I gotta tell you you're starting to lose me with some of this stuff. Roy Cohn? Good God man.
Posted by: 108 on June 3, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Ah, where do you begin to list the tyranny of wrongs of McCarthy and Cohn?
In simple words they were opposed to political freedom and in favor of a monolithic centralized government that punished and blacklisted its own citizens based on political views. That was enough to turn my stomach and should be for any man or woman in this country who loves liberty, freedom, justice, and the American way.
I know, Republicans of late are having trouble with freedom. liberty, and justice. They have been embracing torture, invasion of privacy, guilt by association and locking up citizen's without recourse. I can see why they are also embracing old Tail-gunner Joe and Roy Cohn.
LAMBERT: The "How was Joe McCarthy wrong?" line is maybe my favorite talk radio "question". You know you're in the echo chamber when no one swats that down.
Posted by: Robb on June 4, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Not a train wreck?! This campaign is reacting with utter surprise and shock that Franken's previous writings and monologues are being unearthered and used against him. It's like their plan for containment was "I sure hope the other camp doesn't read Al's article in...". Again, utter incompetance by both the campaign and Party leaders. All will result in Mayor Quimby skating to another six years, when he has done absolutely nothing to merit another term. This was so predictable. Now if the DFL were running Jeff Foxworthy or that fat, "Gitter done" guy, we would be talking about a comedian that was electable. Think of the ballot box quandry it would cause Bertram.
LAMBERT: Look, I'm with you on how they're dealing -- by NOT dealing -- with his, as I put it, "counter-cultural" past. But what he has done, what isn't a train wreck, is establish his bona fides as a student of the issues. In a way, that's his dilemma, the people who are listening for his grasp of health care reform, Sunni-Shia relations, etc. roll their eyes at his old T&A jokes ... and vice versa with the knuckleheads who came out for Ventura. This coming Monday, after the convention, should be interesting.
Posted by: W.E. Goff on June 5, 2008 at 1:07 PM
It is so tired for people to be saying that the only electable Dems are those who resemble, talk, and act like Crown Royale drinking, NASCAR enthusiasts with a gun strapped to the hip. This SOOOO marginalizes NASCAR bubbah-boys as one dimensional cardboard cut-outs that it smacks of... dare I say... it smacks of elitism.
Pandering to the lowest I.Q. quotient is a preoccupation of spineless, demographically anal, hack political strategists who cannot see the forrest through the trees.
If you cannot clear the underbrush and see that we are at war around the planet and spending $5 billion a week, killing hundreds of thousands with no end in sight; locking up foreign nationals in hidden detention centers and torturing people against the Geneva Convention; military contractors looting the U.S. Treasury; that the price oil is rising and we are facing a health care crisis; a global climate crisis, infrastructural deterioration (bridges collapsing and levies bursting) and a real estate and lending debacle -- if we can't see straight enough that these are the issues that need solving then we are in really big trouble as a nation.
I know I can hear those talk-radio smash-mouths in their thick-walled echo chambers saying "Is there anything wrong with torturing people we don't like? Or hidden detention centers for people we consider cock-roaches?" Don't be deluded by their Bush-lovin exculpatory passion or their beer company sponsors - these acts are monstrously un-American.
If all you can do while these problems burn at the underbelly of our democracy is talk about sex jokes, non-politically sensitive temperament of religious leaders or flag lapel pins than your suffering is warranted. Doesn't it strike you as sleazy diversions of attention while Rome burns?
America is a great country that has always shown that it can solve these an many other more severe problems as long as it doesn't fall prey to the fears and hysteria of political paranoiacs and right-wing ideological extremists.
LAMBERT: Your kind of indignation -- separating what matters (big time) with what doesn't matter much at all-- is something Franken and every other "change" candidate has to hammer.
Posted by: Robb on June 6, 2008 at 11:27 AM
I'm a little late to this thread, but it's been a busy week.
This is all an ironic subject for me, because the release of the McClellan book brought a flood of traffic to my web site Thursday as people linked to old pieces I had written about Donahue's exit from MSNBC (as well as some other pieces about some of the other news coverage).
I can tell you from personal experience that there was little appetite among the press to take a contrarian view to the administration line towards Iraq.
It's a complex subject, and I've been trying to craft something this week on it without much luck. But there was definitely pressure from execs at all the networks to not rock the boat. Sometimes it was for business reasons, and sometimes it was just cultural and/or personal. I recall one MSNBC producer telling me word had come down that Bob Wright was unhappy about a specific segment on one of the shows because one of his friends had said to him in passing "hey, I can't believe you had that guy on the air."
It's easy to forget that no one wanted to be on the wrong side of the war. How many people would be willing to file contrarian reports on the lead-up to the war and risk looking like a fool or even a traitor?
Risking your livelihood on principle is a tough choice. When I wrote the MSNBC pieces, they got a lot of attention, in everything from The Nation to Vanity Fair. And the pieces have been referenced in a number of books in the years since. But I made zip money on them, and at some point I opted to walk away and take a more traditional journalism job. In retrospect, I wonder if I made the right decision. But that was the days before Google AdSense and other ways of making money online with a niche site that at times posted some controversial stuff.
LAMBERT: With major newspapers diminishing TV critics to little more than publicity arms for broadcast and cable networks, Rick Ellis, at www.allyourTV.com, does a terrific job keeping up with what's going on behind and on the tube/screen.
And Rick, let's remind people again of the MSNBC dictum to Phil Donahue and his producers to "balance" any liberal/war critic they had on air with "two conservatives". While egregiously flagrant, that kind of thinking was palpable even down at the level of third tier newspapers prior to the '03 invasion and for a good three years afterward. Even today, I dare say, the "liberal media" is far -- FAR -- more comfortable scheduling comment from bland-to-conservative pundits rather than anything remotely resembling a passionate critic. Reason? The pissed-off liberals who e-mail headquarters don't routinely accuse them of traitorship and treason.
Posted by: Rick Ellis on June 9, 2008 at 12:29 PM