Poulos on Taibbi and sex

Rod,

I've wondered the same thing lately. Perhaps the best thing that could happen for the Republican party would be for someone like Giuliani to get nominated--and then beaten in the general election. I don't know.

The author of the article you cited has some decent points. However, I'm not really crossing my fingers when it comes to a shift on the part of the left from a libertarian view of things on cultural and social issues.

Don Altabello wrote:

“I'm not really crossing my fingers when it comes to a shift on the part of the left from a libertarian view of things on cultural and social issues.”

In a comment over at Poulos’s site, I actually went farther than that. I think Taibbi’s crowd is actually wedded to the Left in many more ways than that. Poulos seems way too optimistic.

As far as 2008, Rod, I think we should be rooting for something like 1964, which was a Democratic landslide but laid the groundwork for a shift in conservatism. A few things will be different, since the GOP seems determined to nominate no one more appealing to crunchy cons than Fred Thompson. Instead, I’ll hope for an Independent Paul or Tancredo candidacy to mobilize populists, even though it will lead to a huge victory by the Democrats.

It might be instructive to go back and look at The American Conservative’s 2004 election forum and see who looks the smartest with the benefit of hindsight. If you think Buchanan’s justification for a Bush vote still looks smart, then you’re probably hoping that the GOP will “pull out a surprising victory” in ‘08. I personally think McConnell’s justification for a strategic Kerry vote was much smarter, though far from perfect. Taki’s argument for a Peroutka vote was reasonable, and will be more reasonable in 2008 if the traditionalist alternative is Paul or Tancredo, who have gotten much more visibility because they’ve run in the Republican primary.

“A choice, not an echo!” That’s what I say.

Barring a "Nader of the Right" spoiler, I really see the chances of a Democrat taking the White House next year as slim to nil. Here's why:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-dems17jun17,1,815247.story?coll=la-politics-campaign&ctrack=1&cset=true

Hillary is Hillary; defeating Obama will be as simple as calling him "Barak Hussein Obama" every time he's mentioned by his opponent; Edwards...yeah, right...No, we'll be inaugurating President Giuliani, McCain, or Thompson come January '09.

Count me as one of the disillusioned leftists. I don't know if I still count as young at 30.

I continue to despise the corporate control of the Republican party, but I find libertarianism more abhorrent yet - selfishness rationalized. Yet I have been through academia, and I totally agree with Taibbi on where the left is now - masturabatory identity politics that find racism and patriarchy every under rock - and the only things worth talking about. That world is about dividing people and getting tenure. LIke the above poster, I'm with Obama because I am hoping that they hype is for real - that he is a uniter and a real idealist. Maybe I'll be disappointed. I hope not.

I started to be really impressed with McCain when he stood up to Bush on torture. Then he took a watered down compromise, which made me like him less. Giuliani scares me.

Good grief, Richard, settle down.

My apologies for spelling Mr. Taibbi's name wrong in the preceding comment.

I heartily recommend all of The Road to Wigan Pier to anyone reading this column.

Lee Penn
http://www.falsedawn.us

I have been through academia, and I totally agree with Taibbi on where the left is now - masturabatory identity politics that find racism and patriarchy every under rock - and the only things worth talking about.

I think I self-identify as one of the disillusioned young leftists. On the one hand, I would certainly welcome a party that was less... lame than the Democrats. As a political party, they do kind of suck. But on the other hand, I'm on the left for good reasons: someone has got to stick up for free speech; unregulated corporations are evil (no, really); I don't see a problem with gay marriage; I think universal access to health care is a legitimate concern for the government; whether or not global warming is a real danger, we really do need to pay serious attention to the environment; and so on. Those aren't likely to change.

Rod, do you not realize what the country really needs? It need six Greg Fs and six Richard Bottomses in a room filled with mics and cameras, along with two names times six that I know you can provide, and three uninterrupted (except for beers and wine) hours of straight talk about what the country is really doing and what the people in charge are really saying.

Don't get all pissy over Richard's profane approach. Take if for the wake up call it is, and join him in getting angry about the real issues.

1) We are unable to have a valid, bona fide political debate in this country. We succeeded in keeping individual free speech by surrendering our political free speech.

2) We do not have a democracy, and our republic is very close to being just a thin veneer over the power of money. You want honesty in government? Make congressional seats hereditary, like the House of Lords. Most of them already are, and the mode of inheritance is having enough money and the approval of the powers that be. Please note that I have not mentioned the majority vote yet.

3) We have a capitalist feudalism in the US, right now. Our monarchs are of the same spectrum from tyrannical to benign that we see in history. We don't have shifts between political parties or ideologies, we have shifts from droit de seigneur warlords to Old King Coles. Guess where we are right now.

I don't want a new monarch in the White House. I want my fellow citizens to make a choice: take back the franchise, or shut the f up and let the monarchs operate openly. At least we'll have honesty in government.

Rod, do you not realize what the country really needs? It need six Greg Fs and six Richard Bottomses in a room filled with mics and cameras...,/i>

To paraphrase George Burns, too bad all the people who know how to run the country are busy writing comments on blogs.

John Savage wrote:
"Then why does the academic Left have such enormous influence over what the Democratic Party actually does (for example, with pushing the highly unpopular amnesty bill for illegal immigrants), while the KKK has zero (less than zero?) influence over the Republican Party?"

I don't think academics have as much influence on the Democratic Party as you think they do. And perhaps the KKK was a poor example; I picked them more for odiousness than for influence; I'm delighted to hear that they have zero influence. Perhaps I should have said big oil companies, or maybe Rush Limbaugh, or NRA lobbyists, or televangelists? My point is that the Democratic Party, like the GOP, is a big tent these days, and it's a mistake to tar us all with the same brush.

John Savage wrote:
"Greg, can you show us poor out-of-the-loop conservatives who you think does actually represent the Left?"

That's a really hard question. I'm not sure I can point to any one person and say "Them. They represent the Left." Remember, big tent. In one sense, you could say that whoever ends up winning the primary can be considered to represent the left, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that sense. I can point you to some people that I tend to agree with most of the time, like hilzoy at Obsidian Wings, but that's just me.

Let me ask the matching question: for us poor out-of-the loop liberals, who represents the right? I'm really curious; I've found it quite difficult to find conservative political thought on the internet that doesn't consist mostly of diatribes against, well, me. That's one of the reasons I'm here.

>Greg, can you show us poor out-of-the-loop conservatives who you think >does actually represent the Left?

Still unclear on the concept?

In the decentralized direct to consumer Googlized, Youtubed world there is no one person, organization, or politician who represents us all.

In general we think that illness shouldn't bankrupt you, products shouldn't kill you, environmental concerns are not nutty, and that foreign policy & warfare should be conducted competently.

In general we don't give damn if gays marry, contraception should be widely available, abortion should be safe & legal, and there should be some controls on corporate profit making such that dangerous products, tainted foods, and dangerous drugs are kept off our shelves.

In general we believe God belongs in church, public schools are necessary, taxes should not impact the poor too much at all, the middle class not very much, and the top %5 of the country should pay their fair share because roads don't pave themselves.

In general we believe the military should be used effectively, troops paid adequately, boondogles avoided, and wars.. well if you start one you damn well better win it.

I have never heard of Matt Taibbi until Rod's post and usually have no clue who whatever current crazy academic Fox is railing about is.

In general, our whack jobs don't don't run billion dollar media empires (Pat Robertson) or control "think tanks" with billion dollar endowments and a grudge. They are usually noise makers (Jessie Jackson) who, like a stopped clock can occasionally be right about whatever bee is in their bonnet.

In general we believe in law enforcement, but think beating confessions out of people is wrong and that prosecutors can do great harm if they are blind to justice (Nifong). We think Cocaine is Cocaine and that brie eating aficionados of the powered variety shouldn't get lighter sentences that an 18 year old crack addict.

In general we believe torture is wrong unless we are watching "24" or Dirty Harry.

There may be a "Chosen One" who embodies all those things at once and who has several hundred million dollars to throw around they may officially be crowned the leader of all of us on the left.

Greg, I wasn’t trying to argue that one small group of people would represent the entire Left. Also, maybe we have a different idea of what the “academic Left” is. For me, it would include the entire culture of the elite universities, which students are expected to conform to (and not only by their professors). Students at these universities are expected by their peers to denigrate religion, praise “debauchery”, and put up with endless bashing of Western Civilization and “dead white men”. Many of us have been through it ourselves. The academic Left would also include the entire public school establishment, which is prepared to rewrite textbooks for the sake of emphasizing irrelevant accomplishments of minority groups, while at the same time trying to diminish traditional heroes. I think Ben’s right that Taibbi has some ideas that could help to make the Left more relevant, but Taibbi still hasn’t gone very far. He’s attacked the ineffectiveness of the Democratic Party, but hasn’t shown how it could make itself more relevant to voters who hate the academic Left and the main liberal politicians. Part of his point, though, is that the Democratic Party is not doing a good job being a big tent; it’s too focused on what a small, out-of-touch, liberal elite wants. I might ask: Are you happy with the MSM-anointed “Big Three” Democratic candidates now? Did you feel good about voting for Kerry, or just hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils?

I admit that the Right has big problems, and that there are special interest groups that are influential. Nobody does speak for the entire Right, especially since many “conservative” publications have been taken over by the neocons. And no one would mistake this blog for the mainstream Right. So I’d hardly feel qualified to answer that. I think the neocons aren’t conservative in the least, but many people who consider themselves conservatives would disagree with me.

Anduril, you quoted from my post, but you obviously didn't read it. There is nothing in your quip that has anything to do with my point.

Mr. Savage, please list these "liberal elite" colleges and universities, and provide (anecdotal will suffice) evidence that they force their students to have a certain ideology either at entrance or by the time they graduate. Before you list them, you might want to check on how many overtly religious student groups are active on those campuses, you know, the ones like Campus Crusade for Christ, Hillel, or one of the several Islamic student groups.

In the meantime, your comments about academic liberals controlling their bowels, let alone the minds of their students, will remain in the realm of hyperbole.

Richard Bottoms,

Thank you for your series of succint, down-to-earth comments.

Franklin Evans, it’s one thing to go searching out those on campus who have similar views, who surely exist at the elite colleges. But it would still be nice to be accepted in the classroom, your dorm, or any other group where you don’t choose your peers on those campuses, without having to apologize for your conservatism. Many colleges these days even have “speech codes”. If you haven’t heard about such outrages, visit www.thefire.org, which keeps tabs on the behavior of universities that don’t like to allow freedom of speech. Also see how students at many campuses have organized demonstrations to stop conservative guest speakers from even getting to speak. After reading about the cases FIRE has been involved in for a few months, you won’t be so sure that my remarks about liberal academia are “hyperbole”.

One more thing, Mr. Savage:

But it would still be nice to be accepted in the classroom, your dorm, or any other group where you don’t choose your peers on those campuses, without having to apologize for your conservatism.

Replace "conservatism" with country of origin, female gender, color of skin and non-Christian religious background, and you've covered just about the entire history of higher education in the US. It was all wrong, just as what you describe is wrong, but it didn't stop the conservatives of each of those times from suppressing, oppressing or outright hurting those described. I suggest, in those institutions where this sort of thing is clearly happening, that the conservatives affected take a lesson from the other groups: persevere, and try to bring reason to their defense.

I'd just like to echo Metro Center's remark.