This moment in conservative intellectual history

Circular firing squad, the sooner the better. Let it burn and build something better on the ashes.

Perhaps conservatives can get some inspiration from across the pond.

This speech by David Cameron was awesome:

http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2008/10/David_Cameron_Conference_Speech_2008.aspx

Money quote:

For Labour there is only the state and the individual, nothing in between. No family to rely on, no friend to depend on, no community to call on. No neighbourhood to grow in, no faith to share in, no charities to work in. No-one but the Minister, nowhere but Whitehall, no such thing as society - just them, and their laws, and their rules, and their arrogance. You cannot run our country like this.

Rod,

If you're looking for something bad in a situation -- and I mean really looking hard -- you will undoubtedly find something to complain about.

Some of the grousing about Palin comes from a selective cherry picking of these interviews she's had with Couric. ("Gosh, she didn't tell Katie WHICH newspaper she reads --- gee, maybe it means she's illiterate and can't read a newspaper!")

OK, but what about all those regrettable Supreme Court decisions she failed to cite when Katie asked? The woman is not a law professor (Obama) and she's not a lawyer (Biden). And, no, she's not Jay Sekulow either. So what! That's right, so what!

This woman represents everything the left hates, and they've been relentlessly vicious in their attacks against her from day one.

And maybe, Rod Dreher, she's not as informed as you are on a lot of issues but, hey, you haven't been a Governor of a state, or a mayor, or a city council member, or the chairperson of a state energy commission. She has.

As Obama likes to say: "Enough already." Watch the debate tonight like everyone else. Suspend judgement on the woman until at least it's over. OK?

It seems sad that almost all liberals, and many conservatives, are lining up to take shots at Palin because she is "unfit" for the office of VP.

Yet a great majority of those who take this stand see as completly fit to lead the nation any of the three senators who promoted and voted FOR a "bailout" bill that will end up costing trillions of dollars. And it wasn't enough just to ride to the rescue of our economy, they had to add more than 400 pages of pork, tax breaks, and favors to this emergency package. Why is it important to address the definition of top-loading wash machines, or the tax status of wooden arrows for children's bow and arrow sets, or the way reimbursements for those who commute by bicycle are treated, in this emergency bill?

It seems to me that those who participated in brewing this up are the ones who are unfit for office. Haven't we had enough of business as usual in Washington?

Rod, for once I agree with you. Now if that doesn't cause you to re-examine your position, nothing will.

Excellent post. Larison's excerpted quote is spot-on, but I would point out that this has been clear about the GOP for over twenty years. It's just that now the beast has turned on iteslf, so conservatives are finally beginning to wake up and see what the rest of us have seen for years.

Palin supporters are afraid. They felt betrayed by Bush (who campaigned as a "conservative" but governed as a quasi-Marxist), and they are afraid of losing such political influence as they have. Remember, for 40 years, they have perceived their culture as being displaced by more secular, more collectivist and corporate cultures, and they have been fighting to preserve what little power they have.

This has some basis in reality, too. The GOP has been, ever since its inception, the party of the monied interests and large corporations. Only since the late 1970s have the evangelical commoners even been "allowed in the room" when the decisions were made. They were junior partners---cough up money, lick the envelopes and vote for our guys, you churchies !----and now they think Palin's selection has given them equality with the corporate types. They don't want to lose that; they see it would make them irrelevant.

They fear political, if not actual, extermination. When someone fears for their (political) life, they lash out in anger when threatened.

Sooner or later, I think, they're going to have to break from the GOP. A party that is primarily the vehicle for great-corporate interests is not a natural fit for a faction made up of small businessmen and religion-oriented voters; the interests of the two groups are simply too diverse. Only the AmNatSoc duopoly and its privileged position (because of the skewed ballot-access laws) keeps these two groups united. Change those laws, and you'd see the GOP splinter fairly quickly.

Who knows ? Maybe a McCain/Palin defeat would start that ball rolling.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Cranky, in a comment I took down:

There are no words to describe my contempt, anger, nor absolute disgust at your betrayal of EVERYTHING good and decent, and ultimately, mankind itself. Christian? hell, you're atheist liberal working to discredit every facet of christianity and conservatism and even ultimately, self government.

Mmmph. (Suppresses laughter). What a rich inner life Cranky has. This is just to let the rest of you know that he's been banned, and, one hopes, state authorities are on the way to his home with an injection.

Lord Karth: "Change those laws, and you'd see the GOP splinter fairly quickly."

And who's going to change those laws? A Democratic Party that controls both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue and with 60+ votes in the Senate?

This is the biggest "if" in politics. A nice theory, my friend, but one that betrays the kind of naivete you see among many self-appointed "conservative intellectuals" who see an Obama victory as nothing more than an "interesting thought experiment."

BTW, Obama would be the last person in the world to change ballot access laws. Look at how he got his start in politics (1996): he used ballot access laws to keep EVERYONE ONE OF HIS OPPONENTS off the Democratic primary ballot for State Senate. He ran unopposed. For more this on this, google "Alice Palmer" and "Barack Obama." Alice Palmer was once a mentor to Barack Obama and the lady he pushed aside to get himself into the Illinois State Senate. She was Obama's principal competitor in 1996 and the main target of his efforts to manipulate ballot access laws in order to run unopposed.

The "anonymous" post at 11:52 AM was from me. Have to get a bigger keyboard. Too many typos on my part.

Ron -

With all due respect, that's just wrong. Biden and Obama went through a primary process where they were grilled on a daily basis. Their gaffes came during the process of campaigning for elected office. Their gaffes were reported in real time - whenever they happened. Obama was vetted by a system and process which caused him to present himself, in person, in local and national interviews on television, and on radio, to the citizens of 49 of the 50 states. Obama has done endless, regular press conferences, many of them carried live. Obama has done all four networks Sunday shows, multiple times. Obama has gone into unfriendly territory (Fox News Sunday, The O'Reilly Factor). Obama has been asked many more varied and difficult questions than Palin, and he's never been UNABLE to answer one. He's been on the campaign trail for two years.

So can you, and others, PLEASE drop this fantasy that Obama hasn't been questioned properly. It reeks of desperation and misdirection.

More importantly, it has NOTHING to do with Sarah Palin's qualifications, or lack thereof. The words "Obama" and/or "Biden" shouldn't even enter into a conversation about Palin's qualifications, knowledge, or experience. Obama and Biden are completely irrelevant to Palin's in that regard.

I've been avoiding most of these Palin posts because nothing i've seen changed my mind. I used to say I'm not Republican, I'm anti-Democrat. Nothing I've seen in the past few years have changed that, except that now i have to admit I've become anti-Republican as well. Look, we have an entrenched power elite that can best be described as pobber barons (isn't that a big part of whats going on with the economy and the bailout we've been talking about?). Its clear that both political parties are responsible for the mess we're in. O'bama supporters, you say you want change? Really? Then why continue to support the same old same old from democrats? And conservatives, is Bush a conservative? is McCain a conservative? Yeah, didn't think so. But the big two have got you so afraid of the other guy getting into power that your not willing to take the logical step of looking somewhere else. We, as a country, are ruled by fear. The Republicrats are using fear to hold down third parties. THis year, for the first time, the Libertarians get my vote. I don't expect them to win, but I hope that enough people will join me to scare the $%*@ out of the incumbant parties. Maybe they would start to listen te the people they are supposed to represent on a regular basis instead of only when they are actually flooded with phone calls and e-mail because the issue is just that important. Come on, step out of fear and make the government afraid for once. Forget about Palin and Obama. Neither one will change anything.

Will:

Yeah, I remember in 2000 when the supporters of Nader argued that there was no substantive difference between Gore and Bush. I have a hard time believing that Gore would have shrugged and gone back to chopping brush after receiving his daily presidential briefing that stated, "Bin Laden determined to use aircraft as weapons inside the US." Not to mention lying us into a war of choice with Iraq, warrantless wiretapping of US citizens, rejecting the Geneva Conventions, approving the use of torture, denying habeas corpus, illegally politicizing the Justice Department, breathtaking cronyism, tarnishing our image worldwide, outing a covert CIA agent for political purposes, no-bid contracts for Cheney's company Halliburton, and advancing a very dangerous and radical theory of the "unitary executive" that refuses to be held accountable by the legislative branch in accordance with the Constitution, that "old piece of paper." And that's just off the top of my head. You really think there is no difference? It's true, Gore wore "earth tones" and correctly claimed that he was involved in some of the initial work on ARPANET, which became the Internet. These were unpardonable sins according to the "liberal media," which did everything they could to install Bush. No difference ... wow.

Look, I'm obviously not making myself very clear (could be because I'm at work and trying to type really fast so I can switch screens!). I'm actually one of those considering sitting this one out because I'm pretty disillusioned overall. My point is simply that many have taken the gaffes made by Palin as proof that she's not fit for office. I agree that she has been far too protected by the McCain campaign and I'd like to see her interviewed a lot more.

I've never said that Obama hasn't been questioned properly, or that Biden hasn't. Biden after all has a very loooong history that can be looked at. All I'm trying to say is that if Palin makes a couple of gaffes in the too few interviews she's had, she's disqualified and considered to be a ditz. Biden has a long history of gaffes and yet he's still considered to be a very competent and distinguished senator. There does seem to me to be a double-standard. It has nothing to do with who has been questioned enough or who has ventured into 'unfriendly territory'. Palin needs to be questioned more, interviewed more, sent out on her own a little, I agree. But to disqualify her for a couple of gaffes that really weren't that bad is a double-standard.

Ron, Why do you think the McCain campaign is keeping her away from reporters? I do find it very curious. I really believe that she knows what is going on in Alaska, but it is just not evident that she knows what is going on in the world around her. I have seen her speaking at the rallies & she repeats the same "zingers" over & over. She is very snarky to say the least. She clearly is a good speaker however anyone who can get past her unbelievable answers to simple questions asked of her (and she should know that these questions are going to be covered in an interview) is just not looking at her without rose colored glasses. Can you imagine Tim Russert interviewing her?

We have every right to know what she thinks and all we know is that she flip flops on issues, exaggerates things, & as most politicians she never answers the question. It is not funny, but her anwers sound like the famous Carolina beauty pageant answers. With so many other highly qualified women that McCain could have picked I am just stumped as to why he chose her.

Actually, I think she will do pretty well tonight since the format will be quite different. This is probably what she does best and really she will be promoting her running mate. It will no way change the way I feel about her. The ONLY thing that would change my mind about her at this point is if she goes on Meet The Press & other shows like it. I want her to be able to answer questions - I don't care if she can read prepared material. President Bush when he is not reading from a teleprompter usually sounds like, to be nice, not very educated. When I see him answering questions from reporters I just cringe. It is embarrassing to me as a US citizen.

anonomom: "The ONLY thing that would change my mind about her at this point is if she goes on Meet The Press & other shows like it."

OK, if you think Palin should go on shows like "Meet the Press" in which the interviewers (many of whom are former Dem. Party hacks turned "journalist" -- e.g., Geo. Stephanopoulos, Bill Moyers, Tim Russert) are, in typical fashion, registered Democrats and other assorted liberals ...

.... I'm OK with that, too.

But on ONE CONDITION: Have Biden (and B.O., for that matter) go on shows where they will get the same kind of probing questions about their faults and inadequacies. Let Charles Krauthammer or George Will or Laura Ingraham or Michelle Malkin have a nice one-hour sitdown or an extended day-long chatfest with Messrs. Biden and Obama. And, of course, give Ingraham, Malkin, et. al. the same option of selectively editing the taped material for the final broadcast.

Rod and others keep scratching this itch about Palin's supposed inadequacies. But those inadequacies are only being exposed because the MSM is so outrageously biased against her and completely "in the tank" for the Democratic ticket. If we had anywhere near the kind of balanced reporting that a modern democracy requires, then I'd say let Palin and anybody else sit down with "Meet the Press" or any other show.

But until that happens, stop your kvetching already!

I think that this article by Glenn Greenwald over at Salon.com fits nicely. Quote (but read the whole article):

"The Right in this country -- meaning the faction that followed George Bush for the last eight years -- long ago ceased being a movement of political ideas and is driven by two, and only two, extreme emotions: (1) intense, aggressive rage towards their revolving door of enemies, and (2) bottomless self-pity over how unfairly they're being treated. As their imminent defeat looks increasingly likely (potentially on a humiliating scale), these two impulses are in maximum overdrive, feeding off one another in endless self-perpetuation (the more they lose, the more victimized they feel, the more they rage against their enemies who oppress them, etc.)."

"If we had anywhere near the kind of balanced reporting that a modern democracy requires, then I'd say let Palin and anybody else sit down with "Meet the Press" or any other show."

Obama went on Bill O'Reilly's show (Sept. 4) and has appeared on FOX News Sunday (twice, if I recall).

But Reaganite...has Palin appeared on either of these venues? Has O'Reilly done an interview with Palin? How about Krauthammer, Malkin, or Ingraham? Has Limbaugh done an interview with Palin?

Face it, Reaganite...Palin isn't even ready to do FRIENDLY interviews properly, let alone challenging ones. That makes me feel real secure about thinking of her sitting across the table from other world leaders.

It's a damn shame that someone wanting to be the next Vice-President can't handle the nasty librul news lady. If we elect her, will we have to send a surrogate to state funerals since she can't handle talking and walking at the same time?

Reaganite, this smackdown's for you!

"The Right in this country -- meaning the faction that followed George Bush for the last eight years -- long ago ceased being a movement of political ideas and is driven by two, and only two, extreme emotions: (1) intense, aggressive rage towards their revolving door of enemies, and (2) bottomless self-pity over how unfairly they're being treated. As their imminent defeat looks increasingly likely (potentially on a humiliating scale), these two impulses are in maximum overdrive, feeding off one another in endless self-perpetuation (the more they lose, the more victimized they feel, the more they rage against their enemies who oppress them, etc.)."

Gosh, MarkM ...

... if the "Right" is supposedly driven by "intense, aggressive rage" why is it that YOU are throwing a "smackdown" in my direction. Hardly seems like a genteel or civil response on your part :-)

I'm afraid your reaction is a classic case of projection. Grow up!

"Wow. I can't believe this is coming up yet again. A couple of weeks ago, Barack Obama sat down with Bill O'Reilly for an extended interview. Bill O'Reilly, Fox News. Have you really not heard about this yet?"

Sounds to me like he is your typical Republican. He cares less about the truth and more about the spin. If it weren't for the GOP talking points every morning he would have nothing to say.

Greenwald hit the nail on the head. Playing the victim card over and over, whining repeatedly about not being treated fair, and ignoring the realities of the world have become the hallmark of movement conservatism. Both it and it's advocates need to shuffle along out the door of history and let us return to some reality in our political world.