The Huffington Times

For anyone who still believes that the New York Times has an interest in providing credible, objective political analysis based in truth, I offer this evidence:

http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/a-sarah-palin-thanksgiving/

I challenge anyone to argue that this is anything but abject stupidity. 

The Editors of the Times may or may not be aware of this, but this is, in fact, how turkeys are slaughtered (not “executed,” oh professional wordsmiths).  Yes, those tryptophan-loaded things that the Times editors (or more likely their assistants) purchase at the grocery store to fuel their gargantuan egos, atrophied moral compasses and whithered intellects were, in fact, once living birds.

The Huffington Post ran a similar story, but that is the same publication that called for the death of the civil rights movement a few weeks ago.  Unfortunately, it seems that the Times is no more credible.

Great Article

There are two general ways in which one invents their political identity.  The first way is reflexive, it is either created in reflection or reaction to others.  Some people adopt the ideals of their parents or community whole cloth, others reject them likewise in toto, but in both cases the adoption is unthinking and uncritical.  The second way, the productive way, are those who think deeply about political issues and draw their own conclusions, challenging the ideas of their allies and themselves.  Camille Paglia is certainly one of the latter, and while I don’t agree with most of her conclusions, I always appreciate her perspective.  Paglia’s articles are always intellectually rigorous, challenging, and powerful.  Here is her take on Sarah Palin’s left-wing lynch mob.

“Reporters have been too busy playing mini-badminton with every random spitball about Sarah Palin, who has been subjected to an atrocious and at times delusional level of defamation merely because she has the temerity to hold pro-life views.”

“How dare Palin not embrace abortion as the ultimate civilized ideal of modern culture? How tacky that she speaks in a vivacious regional accent indistinguishable from that of Western Canada! How risible that she graduated from the University of Idaho and not one of those plush, pampered commodes of received opinion whose graduates, in their rush to believe the worst about her, have demonstrated that, when it comes to sifting evidence, they don’t know their asses from their elbows.”

“Liberal Democrats are going to wake up from their sadomasochistic, anti-Palin orgy with a very big hangover. The evil genie released during this sorry episode will not so easily go back into its bottle. A shocking level of irrational emotionalism and at times infantile rage was exposed at the heart of current Democratic ideology — contradicting Democratic core principles of compassion, tolerance and independent thought. One would have to look back to the Eisenhower 1950s for parallels to this grotesque lock-step parade of bourgeois provincialism, shallow groupthink and blind prejudice.”

“I like Sarah Palin, and I’ve heartily enjoyed her arrival on the national stage. As a career classroom teacher, I can see how smart she is — and quite frankly, I think the people who don’t see it are the stupid ones, wrapped in the fuzzy mummy-gauze of their own worn-out partisan dogma. So she doesn’t speak the King’s English — big whoop! There is a powerful clarity of consciousness in her eyes. She uses language with the jumps, breaks and rippling momentum of a be-bop saxophonist. I stand on what I said (as a staunch pro-choice advocate) in my last two columns — that Palin as a pro-life wife, mother and ambitious professional represents the next big shift in feminism. Pro-life women will save feminism by expanding it, particularly into the more traditional Third World.”

“As for the Democrats who sneered and howled that Palin was unprepared to be a vice-presidential nominee — what navel-gazing hypocrisy! What protests were raised in the party or mainstream media when John Edwards, with vastly less political experience than Palin, got John Kerry’s nod for veep four years ago? And Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, for whom I lobbied to be Obama’s pick and who was on everyone’s short list for months, has a record indistinguishable from Palin’s. Whatever knowledge deficit Palin has about the federal bureaucracy or international affairs (outside the normal purview of governors) will hopefully be remedied during the next eight years of the Obama presidencies.”

You can (and really should) read the full article here at: http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/11/12/palin/index1.html

Regardless of whether one agrees with Camille Paglia or not, she is a thinking liberal, and one of the few bright spots on an extremely lifeless intellectual media landscape.

Appreciating John McCain

While a number of folks are casting about, assigning blame for the election of Barack Obama, I think that we should step back for a moment and give our thanks to John McCain.  No candidate for the Presidency campaigned harder, few have done so well in such a difficult political environment, and very few can point to a similar record of public service. 

 

John McCain began this Presidential campaign with no money, mired in single-digit poll numbers.  He rallied to win the Republican nomination against a former Time Man of the Year (Rudy Giuliani), a moderate Governor with a limitless war chest (Mitt Romney), and a charismatic and likable former Southern governor (Mike Huckabee).  The Republican Party faced the general election carrying the weight of an unpopular administration, a corrupt and disgraced Congressional delegation, an unpopular war that a Republican administration had mishandled, a poorly-administered response to a natural disaster that had destroyed a major American city, the passage of a gigantic and overwhelmingly unpopular corporate rescue package in a time of economic crisis, and an economic environment that serious economists are comparing to the Great Depression.  Somehow, McCain managed to retain 46% of American voters, and lost the election by only 6% of the vote. 

 

To put this in perspective, in spite of all of these woes, fairly or unfairly credited to the Republican account, John McCain somehow managed to hold losses from the Republican coalition to a mere 3% of the proportion of votes won by President Bush in 2000. 

 

For rock bottom, this is a decent place for us to build from.  And we owe it to John McCain. 

 

In addition, the legacy of McCain’s campaign may be a positive one for the Republican Party.  While the conventional wisdom holds that the significance of the Palin pick was to energize social conservatives (which did in fact happen, I might add), I would argue that the broader impact will be to lay the groundwork for a new coalition of Republican voters.  Palin swept onto the scene not because of a long record of public-policy initiatives of social conservative causes (in fact, her record is overwhelmingly tolerant and secular on social issues), but because she represents a set of governing principles that balances the interests of business and voters in government.  As Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam argue in Grand New Party, the future of the Party is with the working class and the upwardly mobile.  Palin marked the first step in the direction of a Party focused on “Wall-Mart Republicans.”  Whether the eventual breakthrough is won by Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty, or Eric Cantor, we can credit John McCain with starting the party in this new direction. 

 

           And that will represent the last, and greatest, service of this American hero to our people.    

Palin is Correct About Potential Role for V.P.

The leftist blogs are atwitter about Governor Palin’s supposed gaffe about the role of the Vice-President in the Senate.  For those who were paying attention to “distractions” like the economy, the War in Iraq, al-Qaeda and the rising tide of global authoritarianism (who says Obama isn’t changing the world), they have revealed their own ignorance and limited horizens.

For the record, Governor Palin said: “[[The Vice-President is] in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom.”

The Vice-President is the presiding officer of the Senate when they are present in the body.  There is not a damn thing that the majority leader can do about that if the V.P. shows up every day.  The key phrase of Palin’s statement is “if they want to they can really get in there with the senators.” This is 100% true, as anyone who has studied the career of the first V.P., John Adams, can tell you.  In fact, Adams was so effective at influencing legislation that the Republicans passed a rule to stifle his ability to speak during debate.  However, there is no such rule to prevent the Vice-President from exerting as much influence on legislation as possible.   What Palin is illustrating here is not ignorance of the office, but a clear and visionary understanding not only of the office, but of the untapped possibilities of the office. 

Palin’s critics might want to pick up a history book, because it seems like they might benefit by actually learning something.

Peggy Noonan Keeps Missing the Point

 

 

Peggy Noonan’s latest anti-Sarah Palin attack article provides a wonderful illustration of divide between the Republican intelligentsia and the mass of Republican Party voters that are excited by her candidacy.  The crux of her argument is that after seven long weeks of her candidacy, it is unclear what she stands for.  “It’s unclear whether she is Bushian or Reaganite,” Noonan complains, and that her candidacy represents “expression of a new vulgarization in American politics.”  As Noonan provides no evidence for her assertion that Palin is lacking in intelligence in her essay, except, tellingly, to quote the authority of seemingly wiser and more acculturate liberals, I’ll address the ideological points of her argument.

 

The reason why Noonan and the Republican intelligentsia is so puzzled, and frightened, by Sarah Palin is that her vision is not rooted in the currently ascendant political ideology.  When analyzing Palin, Noonan uses Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush (I presume) as the appropriate models of Republican ideals.  There are two problems with this analysis.  First, neither Reagan nor Bush’s policies reflect the adoption of a single ideological view, but a blending of a number of ideologies present within the party.  For the sake of argument, however, I will assume that by Reaganite to Noonan means pro-business, small government, strong national defense, and Bushian to Noonan means lower taxes, government activism in domestic affairs, pro-business, liberationist.  If this is correct, Noonan is right, Palin does not represent either of these groupings of ideologies.  However, this does not mean, as Noonan claims, that Palin has no distinct political vision.  

 

Palin’s vision represents a new political style rooted in the party’s insurgent origins.  Her vision is neither Reaganite nor Bushian, but a hearkening back to frontier Republicanism of men like Lincoln, Thaddeus Stevens, and Teddy Roosevelt.  Listening to Palin’s speeches and examining her policies several distinct themes emerge. 

 

-         Pro-capitalism, not pro-big business.  Business influence on government should be checked.  People’s interests trumps business interests.

-         Business taxes should be kept low, tax and regulation policies should promote small business and social mobility.

-         Limited role of government. When in doubt, government officials should adhere to law and public good rather than personal principles. 

-         Military strength essential to national survival.  US responses to conflicts should be predicable and transparent.  Soldiers deserve unconditional support.

-         US should aggressively exploit own resources and promote economic development. 

-         Strength of America based in social mobility.  Roadblocks to social mobility should be aggressively removed. 

-         Elites, whether business, cultural, or political are inherently exploitative and insular.  Buddy networks breed corruption, and must be confronted and broken up.

-         Aggressively questioning conventional wisdom and status quo. 

-         Faith in mass politics to combat elites.

-         Dynamic view of politics and society.  Apply theories of creative destruction in the marketplace to politics and society.

 

Sounds like a pretty clear ideological vision to me.  In fact, it sounds like a synthesis of ideas that have been bouncing around in the Republican grassroots since 1994.  While Mrs. Noonan is entitled to her opinion, particularly as this populist strain of reformist conservatism is inherently hostile to both the business and technocratic establishments of the Reaganite and Bushian wings that she identifies, it is inaccurate to say Palin’s vision is incoherent or not identifiable.  In fact, it is very clear and straightforward if one looks to the grassroots of the conservative movement.

 

The reason that conservative intellectuals are having such a difficult time with Palin is that the ideological tradition that Palin represents did not originate in the pages of conservative magazines and the columns of major newspapers.  Instead, its origins are largely ethnocultural.  Generation X conservatives (of which Governor Palin and myself are members) have never been comfortable with the cozy relationship between the Republican Party and big businesses.  They grew up listening to Rush Limbaugh, not reading William F. Buckley.  Their understanding of the principles of Republicanism were shaped by Reagan’s populism, not Goldwater’s intellectualism.  For them, conservatism is decidedly an un-conservative ideal.  Its foundation is popular action to reform the system, not to uphold the status quo.  It promoted the generation of new elites, not the preservation of old ones.  Social mobility and modernity are its core principles, not the preservation of order.  Over all, Generation X Conservatives believe in challenging the status quo, not in acquiescing in it. 

 

Noonan’s invocation of Edmund Burke is telling, because nothing illustrates the distance between the Republican party elite and the grassroots more than Burke.  Burke, considered the father of conservatism, had many admirable ideals, combined with a unyielding suspicion of the judgment of the common person. “We are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason,” Burke explained, “because we suspect that this stock in each man is small.”  In the tradition of Burke, Noonan rails against Sarah Palin as the latest iteration of common people’s presumption that they are best governed by the skilled and clever amongst them.  

 

It is Noonan’s reference to Palin as representing the “symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics.” It is this point that drives the disconnection home.  First, the contempt that Noonan exhibits toward Palin’s supporters, who, like myself, have been supporting the Republican elite and intelligentsia for years, is stunning.  It is clear, now, that our participation is appreciated, but our opinions are not welcomed by the intelligentsia.  Mrs. Noonan is entitled to her opinion.  As conservatives, we pride ourselves on being different from the left in welcoming debate and having a content of ideas.  But the intelligentsia has broken the rules of civility here.  They are not debating us with reason, and not engaging us as equals.  They are chastising us as lessers.  We may be rats to them, but even a rat will fight back if backed into a corner.  They are welcome to stay, or they are welcome to leave.  But if they demean us, we will fight them.  

 

Secondly, this is not the first instance of entrenched elites attacking politicians they felt were vulgarizing politics.  Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln. Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Ronald Reagan all faced the exact same charge.  In the end, it was their critics who stood on the wrong side of history. 

 

The story of mankind in the 21^st century will not be the tale of increasingly narrow elites putting the ignorant masses back in their place.  It will be the story of the opening of new opportunities, the rise of new leaders from untraditional backgrounds, and the creation of new ideals and original visions, and the replacement of the old with the new.  It will be the tale of new elites tearing down the old, and of leaders who have been distinguished themselves among the masses, not anointed by the classes.  William F. Buckley once stated that a conservative was a person “standing athwart history, yelling Stop.”  Sarah Palin represents a new ideal, the confident conservative who grasps on to history with both hands, yelling “faster.” 

 

 

 

 

 

The Importance of Being Palin

Thanks to SmartGirlPolitics for posting this:

Intellectuals and Intelligence

The rise of Sarah Palin as a political force in American politics (a rise that this blog heartily endorses) has illustrated an interesting class cleavage in American society.  Intellectuals in general, and Republican intellectuals in particular, have illustrated a disturbing tendency to discount the Alaska governor as an intellectual lightweight that represents some type of existential threat to American political society.  While the devolution of the party of Jackson from the champions of popular democracy and the idea that government not only of but by average citizens chosen as exceptional by their peers is no surprise in the context of the rise of the elitist and vanguardist New Left.  More surprising is the penetration of this fundamentalist elitism into the intellectual class of the Republican party, a party that hither to had been ideologically committed to the idea that all citizens of ambition and ability could aspire to any heights in society.  While Palin’s popularity among the popular mass of the Republican party indicates that this idea still retains some power, it is striking how extensive the decline in popular democracy is among the political class as a whole. 

 

Indeed, if we were to follow the logic of a Chris Buckley, a David Brooks, or any number of semi-intellectuals of the left who have criticized governor Palin, who among our Presidents, or who among our people is indeed fit to govern?  Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, Truman, LBJ, Reagan, who among these were not denounced in the same manner as Governor Palin? None.  These men were not intellectuals, but they were leaders.  They were not intellectuals, but they were intelligent.  They were not intellectuals, but they earned the trust of their fellow citizens.  They were not highly educated, but they had wisdom, the type of wisdom that comes only through striving against intellectuals who told them that there were not worthy of respect. 

 

You see, intellectuals are not necessarily intelligent.  Some of them are, but the dirty secret of the academic world (from someone on the inside) is that most intellectuals are really not unusually smart.  Sure, they tend to display dazzling knowledge of a certain discipline.  And, if they have been outside of the workaday world for long enough, they can also develop a superior breadth of knowledge to most people (you can do lots of leisure reading when working 20 hours or less per week).  That being said, being an intellectual and being intelligent are two different things. 

 

Let’s taka an example.  One man is a mechanic.  Has been his whole life.  High school education.  He knows very little about history.  However, he can rebuild an engine of any pre-fuel injection vehicle without a manual, and can usually make improvements that increase fuel efficiency and horsepower on the fly.  He can rewire his house to operate partially on solar power.  He can calculate load bearing requirements for small buildings using paper and pencil. 

 

Let’s take another man.  High school diploma, B.A, M.S., M.A., PhD candidate.  Works for the government.  College professor.  Has been a supervisor, has run a small business.  Graduated with honors at every point in his academic career.  Fewer than 100 people know his area of specialty as well as he does. 

 

Which man is more intelligent?  The first guy is.  He’s my stepfather.  I’m the other guy.  My stepfather can do things with his brain that I can only dream about.  I can think about things and figure them out.  My stepfather just knows things.  His brain operates so quickly that he can barely describe his thoughts.  Experience is not the difference.  When I was a kid, he would show me how to do everything that he would work on.  I still don’t understand half of it.  Is that because I’m not smart?  My academic background would indicate that this is probably not the truth.  I’m more intellectual.  But my stepfather is more intelligent. 

 

There are two problems with the anti-intellectual criticism leveled at Sarah Palin.  The first is that it is based on the fallacy that there is a wide intellectual discrepancy between the elite and the mass.  This is a lie.  I’ve met scholars, journalists, elected officials, and Presidential candidates.  They are not geniuses.  They are not demigods.  They are average people, just like you and me. 

 

The second fallacy is that common people are stupid.  This is also untrue.  In my life, I have met two people who are significantly smarter than me. One is a PhD, and one is a mechanic.  I have also met two people who are significantly dumber than me.  One is a professor, and one is a farmer. 

 

There is a good reason that people on the left, and elite Republicans, want you to believe the lie that intellectualism is the same as intelligence.  It gives them a reason for being, a reason to be important, a reason to be special, and better, than the herd.  In the 19^th and 20^th centuries, elites relied on heredity, race, breeding, and class to serve this purpose.  Intellectualism provides the last acceptable means for elites to maintain their cultural dominance in the 21^st century.  Sarah Palin, representing as she does the idea that any person can achieve whatever they dream in our society, unapologetically challenges this dominance.  The idea that any intelligent, skilled person can learn to be President represents the final line of defense in the struggle for hereditary elitism.  Is it any wonder, then that the response has been so shrill?  The triumph of the Sarah Palins of the world represents the end of their utility, and promises the fulfillment of the promise of the American revolution, that all men are equal, and all of mankind is as fit to govern as to be governed. 

In Barack Obama’s case, the gap between intellectualism and intelligence seems jarring.  While writers like David Brooks and Chris Buckley are dazzled by Obama’s knowledge of the theology (not philosophy) of Reinhold Niebuhr, Niebuhr’s though is neither as complex nor as interesting as it has been portreyed.  Basically, Niebuhr tried to reconcile United Front Marxism and Protestantism.  While the results were interesting, including just war theory and possibly the serenity prayer, the theological framework is as defined by ambiguity and contradiction as much as the “subtlety” that Brooks and Buckley are enamored of. 

Of course Barack Obama likes Niebuhr: this is his worldview.  Of course Obama can speak eloquently about Niebuhr,  he is talking about his favorite subject: himself.  The problem, of course, is that holding fast to an abstract worldview does not a good president make.  Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter, and George W. Bush are examples of Presidents who, like Obama, had clearly defined abstract principles that they clung fast to. 

Rather, the true measure of intelligence is not the ability to understand and adopt abstractions, but the ability to process facts and adjust worldview accordingly.  Is there any doubt that Sarah Palin has done this in her political career?  For Barack Obama, however, facts are stubborn things, and not soemthing to get in the way of a good theory.  Thus the Berlin blockade was ended by “unity,” America failed to do something about the Holocaust, and America’s problems in the world are caused by wrong principles, not structural conflicts of interest.  Obama and Palin illustrate the classic dchotomy of wit and wisdom.  While Barack Obama is blessed with the gift of wit, it is wisdom that provides strong leadership.

Mrs. Palin Goes to Washington

Last night, I received Frank Capra’s classic film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington from Netflix.  I was feeling pretty disgusted with the media’s asinine obsession with the Bristol Palin “scandal, and the outrageous and relentless efforts of the Obama campaign to tear down Sarah Palin.  I never thought I could become more cynical about politics.  I never thought that anyone could plumb lower than the Clarence Thomas hit job.  Boy, did the Democratic Party ever prove me wrong. 

 

The parallels between Smith and Palin are striking.  The Democratic assault on Palin was just as vicious, dishonest, and fabricated.  The response of the press in Smith’s home state (unanimously attacking the unfairly beleaguered Senator) was mirrored in reality.  Palin’s opponents are every bit as disgusting, mentally and ethically bankrupt, and corrupt as the fictional Taylor machine.  If you ever wondered why good people won’t run for office, this is it.  It is disgusting, and discouraging.  Palin’s story represents the best in America.  And exactly what Obama’s supporters want to tear down. 

 

This is what the Democratic Party is about in 2008.  They are the Taylor machine, living of, by, and for graft.  They are going to make you suffer.  They will abuse your family, friends, honor, and character.  But they have underestimated you, just like all of the others.  And, they have underestimated the people. 

 

I have faith in the people, and in Governor Palin.  I wanted her for VP because I believe that she will fight these clowns, push them back, and never back down.  So far, she has not disappointed. 

 

Here is my message to Governor Palin:  Be yourself, be Mr. Smith.  Don’t back down, fight the smears, fight the power, fight the money.  Hit them hard and often.  We believe in you.  We support you.  We will never forget you, and will never abandon you.  You are the hope for millions of Americans, the living symbol of the ideal of all of us that we, too, can make a difference.  Greatness is never easy, and you have the potential to be truly great. 

 

Thank you, Governor Palin, for volunteering to put up with this garbage.  All of America will be tuning in to your speech tonight.  Remind us why you got into politics, and why the little people are worth fighting for.  God bless you, your family, and our troubled republic.

What Vice-President Does Palin Resemble?

A few weeks ago, I published an article comparing Barack Obama’s selection of Joe Biden to the choices of the transformative candidates Obama claims to want to emulate.  Now that Sarah Palin has given her acceptance speech, I’d like to offer the same analysis of John McCain’s pick. 

 

McCain has used a straightforward historical analogy in his selection: William McKinley.

 

When McKinley was running in 1900, the Republican Party was undergoing a demographic shift from the generation of the Civil War to a new generation of exciting leaders.  Faced with a tough reelection campaign against a transformative politician (William Jennings Bryan), McKinley could have chosen an old-line, safe pick, or he could choose an inexperienced newcomer.  McKinley wisely and courageously chose the latter.

 

His pick was a political newcomer.  He had been elected governor of his state in 1898, having served as governor for only two years when he was selected as McKinley’s running mate in 1900.  While his running mate was inexperienced, McKinley’s pick had proven himself willing to take on his party’s hierarchy.  He had proven himself a reformer.  He was a hunter, an outdoorsman, who, while born into wealth, had pushed himself into the wilds and into danger in order to better connect with his fellow Americans.  His charisma, his courage, and his dedication to his own principles made him wildly popular.  His wide grin, bespectacled face, and upbeat manner caused others to dismiss him as a lightweight.  But McKinley himself in the young governor, and believed that he would learn enough on the job to prepare him for greatness. 

 

McKinley’s choice was brave, but history proved that it was wise as well.  McKinley was assassinated in 1901, and his inexperienced, charismatic, and principled Vice-President assumed the nation’s highest office.  His apprenticeship had served him well, and he went on to an amazingly successful reform administration.

 

His name was Theodore Roosevelt.  You can find his face on Mount Rushmore.