February 28, 2013
"Conservatives are trying so hard to highlight controversies, no matter how trivial, we have forgotten the basics of reporting: W5 + H, as I learned in grade school, also known as who, what, where, when, why, and how…There are scandals to uncover and there are outrageous stories to be outraged over, but I would submit conservatives are spending a lot more time trying to find things to be outraged over than reporting the news and basic facts online from a conservative perspective."

RedState’s Erick Erickson, making a frank but much-needed plea to his colleagues on the right. While Erickson still sees a liberal bias in the media, he doesn’t think conservative journalists are attempting to overcome it the right way: “There is an institutional media bias against the right, but we must also honestly acknowledge that conservatives have also screamed ‘Wolf’ these past few years more often than there was one. Conservatives must start telling stories, not just producing white papers and peddling daily outrage.” A lot of conservative outfits will probably be upset at Erickson’s manifesto, but those are probably the ones that need to hear it the most (we’re looking at you, Daily Caller). The whole post is worth giving a read. source (via shortformblog)

LTMC: It’s nice to see a prominent Conservative writer finally admit that the Conservative media’s generally shitty journalism is not the result of a liberal conspiracy, or the inevitable consequence of liberal media bias.  We’re definitely a long way away from Will Buckley’s National Review— which despite its parochialism could at least boast that not every article was dedicated to writing about how liberals and/or democrats are responsible for every terrible thing that’s ever happened in the world.

January 10, 2013
Conservativism And Marijuana

David L. Nathan, Clinical Professor at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, discusses a recent op-ed from David Frum, in which Frum states that he supports decriminalization of marijuana, but wants to keep it as a fine-worthy violation to “send a message” to kids that society still disapproves of the drug:

Frum would reduce the punishment for marijuana use for adults but nominally maintain its illegality in order to send a message to young people that pot is a “bad choice,” as if breaking the rules wasn’t as much an incentive as a deterrent for adolescents.

Nathan continues:

Kids are smart enough to recognize and dismiss a “because I said so” argument when they see one. By trying to hide marijuana from innately curious young people, we have elevated its status to that of a forbidden fruit. I believe a better approach is to bring pot into the open, make it legal for people over the age of 21, and educate children from a young age about the actual dangers of its recreational use.

Frum’s proposal is a good example of the ethical backflips that people perform in light of the collective insanity that the drug war produces.  In this case, Frum fears that without a legal ban of some kind, parents won’t be able to convince their kids not to smoke marijuana.  Yet it strikes me as terribly unconservative to assume that the government is better at instilling morals in people than parents are.  What kind of conservative thinks that we can’t trust families to teach their kids about the dangers of drug use without government intervention?  Put differently, what kind of Conservative trusts government more than family values?

Frum might respond by making the obvious point that Conservatives don’t oppose laws per se, just unnecessary ones.  But that of course, is the point: after forty years of drug prohibition, marijuana is the most ubiquitous black market drug in the United States.  In most American cities, it is easier for a teenager to acquire marijuana than alcohol or cigarettes.  This is a textbook example of a law that is not only unnecessary, but actively undermining the very purpose it exists for.

When viewed in this light, Frum’s proposal contains a law that Conservatives should be railing against, rather than for.  Yet even a smart guy like David Frum still apparently cannot bring himself out from under the collective hysteria of “Reefer Madness.”  He’s so afraid of marijuana that he can’t imagine a world in which parents can successfully teach their kids not to smoke marijuana without the help of government.  The fact that we’re hearing this from a self-described Conservative shows just how subversive the effects of drug prohibition are on public discourse in America.  It shows how relatively intelligent public thinkers have to tie themselves in ideological knots to make room for prohibition in their worldview—even when those knots create internal contradictions that are difficult to reconcile.

July 7, 2012
"I’ve become less conservative since the Republican Party started becoming goofy,"

Judge Posner.

July 2, 2012
"I started getting into philosophy — Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Kant and lots of other German philosophers. And then into present philosophers — Saul Kripke, David Chalmers. It was really reading philosophy that didn’t have anything to do with politics that gave me a breather and made me realize that a lot of what I said was ideological blather that really wasn’t meaningful."

Jonathan Krohn, discussing his move away from political Conservatism.

h/t shortformblog

May 24, 2012
Another Conservative Apostate

Michael Fumento, who worked for the Reagan administrations and has written for Wall Street Journal, National Review, Weekly Standard, and Forbes, no longer wishes to associate himself with the modern Conservative Movement.  He views the contemporary American Right as caught up in “Mass Hysteria,” which he says is completely antithetical to traditional Conservatism:

Civility and respect for order – nay,demand for order – have always been tenets of conservatism. The most prominent work of history’s most prominent conservative, Edmund Burke, was a reaction to the anger and hatred that swept France during the revolution. It would eventually rip the country apart and plunge all of Europe into decades of war. Such is the rotted fruit of mass-produced hate and rage. Burke, not incidentally, was a true Tea Party supporter, risking everything as a member of Parliament to support the rebellion in the United States.

All of today’s right-wing darlings got there by mastering what Burke feared most: screaming “J’accuse! J’accuse!” Turning people against each other. Taking seeds of fear, anger and hatred and planting them to grow a new crop.

Fumento’s article names quite a few of today’s most prominent Conservative pundits and politicians as part of the problem:

Last month U.S. Rep. Allen West, a Florida Republican recently considered by some as vice-president material, insisted that there are “78 to 81” Democrats in Congress who are members of the Communist Party, again with little condemnation from the new right.

Mitt Romney took a question at a town hall meeting this month from a woman who insisted President Obama be “tried for treason,” without challenging, demurring from or evencommentingon her assertion.

And then there’s the late Andrew Breitbart (assassinated on the orders of Obama, natch). A video from February shows him shrieking at peaceful protesters: “You’re freaks and animals! Stop raping people! Stop raping people! You freaks! You filthy freaks! You filthy, filthy, filthy raping, murdering freaks!” He went on for a minute-and-a-half like that. Speak not ill of the dead? Sen. Ted Kennedy’s body was barely cold when Breitbart labeled him “a big ass motherf@#$er,” a “duplicitous bastard” a “prick” and “a special pile of human excrement.”

Fumento’s article is extraordinarily difficult to excerpt.  Needless to say, he leaves few of America’s most well-known right-wing shock-jocks untouched.  On Breitbart:

There was nothing “conservative” about Breitbart. Ever-consummate gentlemen like Buckley and Ronald Reagan would have been mortified by such behavior as Breitbart’s – or West’s or Heartland’s. “There you go again,” the Gipper would have said in his soft but powerful voice.

Ann Coulter & Michelle Malkin:

single author, Ann Coulter, has published best-selling books accusing liberals, in the titles, of being demonic, godless and treasonous. Michelle Malkin, ranked by the Internet search company PeekYou as having the most traffic of any political blogger, routinely dismisses them as “moonbats, morons and idiots.” Limbaugh infamously dispatched a young woman who expressed her opinion that the government should provide free birth control as a “slut” and a “prostitute.”

More Michelle Malkin:

Malkin, who revels in playing the victimsays that she’s been called all sorts of horrible things, many based on her Filipina heritage. But most of what she cites come from email or anonymous comments on blog sites. It wasn’t usually from paid professionals with large audiences, like her, aimed at paid professionals like her. It’s thus hard to compare with the host of the most popular talk show host in history taking shots at an unknown 22-year-old woman [Sandra Fluke]. (She’s hardly that now; Limbaugh himself promoted her to a national spokeswoman.)

And a bit of irony:

In the grief-fest at Breitbart’s death, forgiven (and indeed practically forgotten) was his crucial role in building the single most popular liberal website, the Huffington Post. Some of Breitbart’s friends admitted he was absent of ideology. “I don’t recall Andrew Breitbart ever mentioning electoral politics,” wrote Tucker Carlson. “It bored him.” Breitbart’s inspiration, then? George Washington through Benjamin Franklin – printed in primarily green ink on cotton stock.

It’s worth reading in full.  Fumento joins the likes of Bruce Bartlett, David Frum, and of course, Andrew Sullivan (who spotted the story before I did), all of whom were excised from Right-wing zeitgeist for committing the cardinal sin of taking policy stances and/or social stances that were out of step with the party line.  

This phenomenon, of course, is symptomatic of the American Conservative Movement’s increasing Epistemic Closure, wherein GOP moderates are being excised from the party, just as Conservative thinkers are being thrown to the wolves for daring to criticize a Republican president, or worse, point out that liberals may have been right about something.  

None of this is new, of course.  But it will be interesting to see if more public Conservative intellectuals abandon their Conservative credentials in the name of sane discourse and re-establishing an intellectually vibrant Conservativism.  Only time will tell.

May 22, 2012
"A lot of effort has been invested since 2009 to create a narrative of white endangerment and beleaguerment. The Drudge Report showcases selected local police blotters to create an impression of an intensifying criminal rampage by blacks against whites. Rush Limbaugh very explicitly describes the Obama presidency as a project of racial revenge. Fox News suggests the same idea more obliquely. The theme is taken up—with appropriate euphemism—by elected politicians and some conservative writers as well."

David Frum

March 25, 2012
"The root of liberal is the word “liberate.” Some people are simply liberators; it’s in their blood. The root of conservative is “conserve.” Some people are conservers; it’s just who they are. Any healthy society will make room for both kinds of people. We need liberators who say “yes” before the rest of us are ready to, thereby helping us tear down the fences which bar the way to a just society. We need conservers who say “wait a minute” and force us to think about our history and our actions before we make a mess out of things by chasing progress for the sake of progress."

Tim Suttle, The Truth About the Democratic Party

These are admittedly vague platitudes that everybody will interpret through the lens of their own political positions, and then weigh the countervailing statements contained therein accordingly.  But it helps sometimes to remember that the impulse towards progress, and the impulse towards preservation of existing, reliable orders, are both real things and worth considering in equal measure.  Progress achieved too hastily can lead to unintended consequences.  Yet old orders must sometimes give way as society develops and old, reliable hierarchies cease to be touchstones of stability, but rather becomes beacons of oppression.  To quote Oliver Wendell Holmes:

It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past.

Both impulses serve us well.  Knowing which fences we ought to keep or tear down, of course, is the essence of political discourse; a dialectic that will exist as long as humans breathe.

March 22, 2012
"James, I am not a fool. The barn is the same place where you taped intimate moments with Emma, without her knowledge. You are looking for a reason to blame me for what happened that night, so that you can become the victim. Perhaps, you believe by denigrating my personal character and using the same sexually suggestive tactics that are currently being used against Herman Cain, that my reputation will be ruined and so that yours can be spared. But James, the only place your version of the facts has any merit is in your paranoid head."

It involves James O’Keefe and he’s every bit as fucked up as you thought

The story is awful, horrible, disgusting but “…you believe by denigrating my personal character and using the same sexually suggestive tactics that are currently being used against Herman Cainthat my reputation will be ruined and so that yours can be spared.”

Did I miss this part of Cain’s campaign?

(via thenoobyorker)

LTMC: She must’ve meant Anita Hill, given that Herman Cain was accused of sexual harrassment.  Here, she is the accuser, not the accusee.  But hey, who’s counting in the end?

In the article, Nadia relates the fact that James called her a “welfare queen” after relations between them broke down.  The “welfare queen” jibe is particularly disgusting.  And people wonder why so few African Americans identify with modern political conservatism.  Jake O’Keefe’s treatment of Nadia Naffe (i.e. exploiting her blackness to demean and disparage her after their fall-out) is your answer.  When highly visible activists are behaving like this, it’s hard to make a case to the Black community that conservatism has anything to offer them other than superficial  relations, a reserved place in their socio-political schemata for political exploitation, and shameless derision when internecine disagreements arise.

Whether this is endemic within modern Movement Conservatism is, of course, irrelevant.  The fact remains that many of modern Movement Conservatism’s most visible political actors all behave this way.  Andrew Breitbart’s character assassination of Shirley Sherrod comes to mind.  Conservative Talk radio is a veritable wasteland of harmful stereotypes and race-baiting, where Obama is ever the “angry black man,” and appeals to the very same welfare queen stereotype employed by O’Keefe against Nadia Naffe is extremely common.  Meanwhile, Presidential candidates in the GOP tell us that black households are disproportionately poor because black children need to develop a better work ethic, rather than due to any residual structural racism that may persist as a result of past historical trends, such as real estate redlining, unspoken job discrimination, and the epidemic of mass incarceration that keeps black men perennially incarcerated, or condemns them to low-paying jobs after being released from prison, due to their criminal record.  All of this makes it difficult to pull one’s self up by one’s “bootstraps” in any meaningful sense.  A bridge which modern Movement Conservatism has yet to cross in terms of finding a way to make inroads with the black community.

Of course, in O’Keefe’s case, it looks like he would have preferred to pull off Nadia’s bootstraps rather than let her pull them up herself.  And when she wouldn’t let him, it appears that he got mad.  Perhaps he thought he would find the Voter Fraud smoking gun in her panties.  At least that would explain his disappointment.

I imagine you’re going to see a lot of liberal voices supporting Nadia Naffe as this story continues.  Let this be yet another counterfactual example to those who claim that liberals do not come to the defense of conservative women when they are attacked.  I’m sure Nadia and I would disagree on a lot of issues, but this certainly is not one of them.

March 8, 2012
Rush, Maher, et al.

Jason Alexander has a good take on the issue.  Excerpt:

 I am not, despite all the accusations, a died in the wool liberal/progressive. I have voted for many Republicans in my day when I thought they were superior candidates. And I hold many positions that would generally be considered more conservative than not - gun rights, death penalty, immigration policy, penal system, some foreign affairs, are just a small example…

Rush defamed a decent young woman who was merely testifying about a contradiction of policy within her university regarding health care coverage for contraception. She was testifying that, in this Jesuit run institution, coverage for contraception was extended to faculty but not to students who are required to have health care coverage. That is a very real contradiction and it was the crux of her testimony. Why Limbaugh did not take up that issue but instead characterized her as demanding others pay for her contraception to have more sex is actually an out and out misrepresentation of her testimony. And since the vast majority of his listeners do not watch or listen to congressional testimony, that impression is taken as fact - which it is not. Then to characterize that false representation with defamation by calling her a slut and a prostitute and saying he chose the wrong words, for humor, is just irresponsible and lame. It is not the act of a man of conviction who has the power of truth at his call.

h/t

March 7, 2012
Military at odds with GOP on Iran policy

mohandasgandhi:

truth-has-a-liberal-bias:

The rift between the uniformed leadership and the Republican senators is unusual. Military commanders often team with Republican lawmakers to seek more resources and a more hawkish approach in Iraq and Afghanistan, sometimes over the objections of the Obama administration. On Iran, however, the generals seem wary of the GOP’s hawkishness and more in agreement with the White House’s measured approach. […]

You know your party is full of maniacs and has lost it when the neocon military commanders who were talking big months ago are now trying to dial the war-mongering back.

LTMC: Made a post about this recently pivoting off of the disparity in political donations by military members to GOP candidates: Ron Paul and Obama together completely demolish all the other candidates.

People in the military aren’t stupid.  And they’re tired of fighting.  They’ll go if they have to.  But that doesn’t mean they want to.

(Source: sarahlee310)

Liked posts on Tumblr: More liked posts »