The Buie Knife

Re Sex and Politics, We Tend to Forgive the Pols We Like, Ridicule the Ones We Don't

I'm not that into judgmental observations about the sex lives of public figures, because who's to really know what is really going on in his/her heart and soul, or the dynamics of relationships? Most of us tend to give the politicians we like a pass, and assume the worst of politicians we disagree with. The same people who were hyper-critical of the personal lives of Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton generally withheld judgment about Newt Gingrich and John McCain's stepping out on, and then dumping their wives. They assumed the worst motives in Ted Kennedy's car accident, in which a passenger was killed, but presumed the best motives in Laura Bush's car accident, in which her boyfriend was killed. No doubt the same people who offer harsh ridicule of Republican Senators Larry Craig, John Ensign, and David Vitter maintain their respect for Rep. Barney Frank. And so it goes.  

From the John Edwards Scandal, Lessons on the Temptations and Pitfalls of Political Life

Thinking of my piece in Slate/Double X on Ted Kennedy growing into a "feminist icon" and the discussion about it that has ensued among friends on Facebook, one thing I bet both my Democratic and Republican friends can agree on is that in retrospect, Kennedy was not the cad or the betrayer of feminist values in his marriage to Vicki that John Edwards, who once aspired to be a feminist champion, now appears to be in his marriage to Elizabeth.

John and Elizabeth Edwards made a rare joint appearance in public at Ted Kennedy's funeral, and expressed their admiration for him. But there's a pretty devastating portrait of their relationship with aide Andrew Young in Politico. Young is writing a "tell-all" book about John Edwards. 

Edwards through a spokesman denounces early leaks from the book as "lies." And maybe the book will consist mostly of sensational charges designed to garner jaw-dropping attention. Otherwise, who would care enough to buy a book about a former senator and former presidential and vice presidential candidate whose political career is basically finished?

Race As A Factor in Anti-Obama, Tea Party Movement

I update my piece, "Intolerant Reactionaries Hamper Rebirth of Conservatism" with links to photos of hysterical and racist placards at the tea party march on Washington, with links to an analysis comparing right-wing treatment of Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and to comments on this blog declaring "war on extreme liberalism," presumably evinced by people like me and Obama.

Related:

• I'm Hardly a Hyper-Partisan Liberal: More Than A Dozen Posts on My Blog Praising George W. Bush. I Try to Be Fair

Intolerant Reactionaries Hamper Rebirth of Conservatism

I have always enjoyed the challenge of interacting with opposing ideas. It is a way to refine and sharpen one's own thinking. So I have been spending some time on "conservative" Greensboro lawyer Sam Spagnola's blog. But it has become clear to me that the fun and challenge of interacting with opposing  ideas is not shared by others at Sam's blog, with the exception of one thoughtful doctor. Mostly what occurs are ad hominem attacks on dissenters without any substance. It has become clear to me that Sam's blog is a virtual ghetto of intolerant reactionaries and free market fundamentalists on the fringe. They want to purge the conservative movement of Bush and McCain supporters that aren't, as Sam said, "real conservatives." They believe, as CPA101 stated, that John McCain is "crazy" because he believes in global warming. Some of them fantasize, as "Bubbanear" posits, that the 2008 financial crisis was not real but contrived, and Bush's Secretary of the Treasurer Henry Paulson was in on the conspiracy. They do not support Medicare because it is a "socialist" program, and believe, as Jaycee stated, that Martin Luther King was a man of violence.

If you dig deep enough, below the constant attacks against Obama and the "liberal media," Sam will say he supported libertarian Ron Paul in the 2008 GOP primaries and thinks of himself in "the Pat Buchanan mold." Paul is noted for (still, in 2008) opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed segregation in public accommodations. (See "Ron Paul and his KKK, White Supremacist, and Neo-Nazi Supporters"). Buchanan is overtly racist. See his "Brief for Whitey." In the Buchanan tradition, Sam  insists that the deaths of Jesse Helms and Ted Kennedy should have received equivalent media coverage, despite the fact that Kennedy made a far greater contribution and received far more accolades than Helms. According to Sam, "liberal media bias" was the only reason Kennedy's death got more coverage. He also insisted that Jesse Helms did not oppose integration, even though I quoted from Helms' 2005 autobiography in which he stated emphatically that he did oppose integration. Facts are obviously not an impediment to opinions on Sam's blog. 

He seems utterly invested in Obama's failure, whatever the cost to the country, and whines constantly about the so-called "liberal media". His current content, I wrote, could be programmed, predicted and written by a computer -- posts on "liberal media bias" are routinely found at  AIM.org. If you believe there's a "conservative/corporate bias" to media, you can find new evidence of that on a daily basis at Fair.org. To me the diametrically opposed perceptions at AIM and FAIR pretty well demonstrate that the media is "mainstream," meaning "middle of the road. "

Sam reports Obama tracking polls only when they show downward trends not up trends, and only bad economic news and predictions, hoping, I suppose, for the nation's economic ruin in order to vindicate his anachronistic free market fundamentalism, which no Republican president since Herbert Hoover has embraced.

I told him he could just as easily set up Google keyword searches on "liberal hypocrisy," "Democrats hypocrisy," "Democratic corruption" "Blame Bush" "liberal agenda" "liberal media bias" "Obama economic ruin" and let those post to his blog automatically. He wouldn't have to do any work and the content would be the same. It's also as if he subscribes to a monitor of MSNBC and predictably reacts in outrage to what's broadcast there as examples of "liberal media bias." (He discounts that MSNBC in its ideological coverage is just borrowing from the Fox News playbook as how to develop a profitable cable news network.) 

In "You Knew It Was Coming," he rushes to judgment, declaring that an Obama supporter, unprovoked, "resorts to physical violence and bites off the finger of an anti-Obama protestor. Ignored by MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, and the liberal bloggers who are invested in convincing you that the angry and violent protesters are on the Right." Instead of hysterically leaping to these propagandistic conclusions, he should have waited until he learned more. As I posted on Sam's blog,

"this guy Bill by his own admission first 'threw two punches that landed' on the MoveOn activist. That's assault. The second punch landed in the MoveOn activist's mouth, and his finger was bitten off. Bill is honest enough to say he doesn't know if that was the activist's intention, and has the sense enough to say he's not going to file charges, since he started the fight. Yet Cavuto calls him a "hero." Disgusting. Sam, this whole thing has backfired completely on you and Bob (Bubba), despite your rush to judgment. Bill acknowledges he threw the first punch. Yet you refuse to correct your false statement that the major networks "ignored" the story. That is just not honest. And you're portraying a man who threw the first punch as some kind of victim, though he himself admits that he's no victim.  I do agree with your headline, however. "You knew it was coming." Given the over-heated, over-the-top rhetoric of people like your friend Bubba Bob ("there's going to be blood in the street") and your defense of him, that 'he's only speaking metaphorically'-- that guy Bill probably reads scurrilous blogs like Bubba's and believes the disinformation contained there -- it was probably inevitable that some kind of violence was going to take place. If this is not evidence that you and Bubba need to tone down your rhetoric and stop the hyper-partisan hate and rush to judgment, I don't know what is. I think you both need to take a deep breath, apologize to your readers, and start taking more responsibility for the words you use in public."

Sam responds that he "has nothing to correct," and no apologies to make. If Sam and the commenters on his blog are representative of current conservative opinion, God help the Republican Party. These bloggers are virtually bankrupt of new ideas. Instead, they cater to and feed upon fears, resentments, grievances, and foster chip-on-the-shoulder attitudes.

Intolerant reactionaries are not absent from the Democratic Party, but I don't get the sense that they dominate now that the Democrats are the governing party the way they currently do certain quarters of the GOP. Back in 2005, Barack Obama took on the liberal blogosphere, telling the fiercest of Democratic activists what they didn't want to hear about civility and moderation. My guess is that a future Republican standard-bearer will have to take on the conservative blogosphere in a similar fashion. 

I happen to believe that America is well-served by two vibrant, intellectually strong political parties. I'm intrigued by books like "The Conservative Soul: Fundamentalism, Freedom and the Future of the Right" by "conservative" Andrew Sullivan and "The Death of Conservatism" by "independent" Sam Tanenhaus, a biographer of William F. Buckley and Whittiker Chambers.

Tanenhaus's book deplores the demise of practical, realistic, intellectual conservatism in favor of a rigid, "revanchist" ideological purity. The "movement conservatism" of today, he writes, is "profoundly and defiantly unconservative — in its arguments and ideas, its tactics and strategies, above all its vision." In a Newsweek interview, Tanenhaus calls for a "mature and responsible conservatism that honors America's institutions, both governmental and societal," but suspects it might take 20 years to emerge.

Reviewing the book for The Washington Times, former White House speechwriter John Coyne describes it as an "appeal for civility and bipartisanship between two strong and principled political parties."

Sadly, there doesn't seem to be much interest in challenging books like these among conservative or Republican bloggers today.

Update: Photos of the uncivil, disrespectful and irrational placards at a 9/11/2009 "tea bagger" rally, and leaders like Michelle Malkin exaggerate a crowd estimate of 60,000 in Washington to claim it's actually two million. Photos of the "10 Best Signs from the March on Washington," including the most racist ones.

Update: TaNishi Coates of The Atlantic compares and contrasts the right-wing's expressions of hatred toward Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. The Clinton-haters were just as uncivil as the Obama-haters, but with Obama there is the additional race factor. There are watermelon jokes, Congressmen referring to him as boy, and clucking heads claiming preposterously that the president "has exposed himself as someone with a deep-seated hated of white people."

Update: In the comments section below this post, Sam Spagnola declares himself "at war with extreme liberalism," presumably the kind espoused by me, Ed Cone, and Barack Obama. His cohort Bubba (Bob Grenier of Greensboro) posts an ad-hominen defamation of my character, though he has never met me. This is Bob's routine way to "discuss" issues.  Over at Sam's blog, after several weeks of trying unsuccessfully to dialogue with him, I, the only dissenter daring to post at this time, declare that "I am outta here....Life is too short to beat one's head against a wall trying to reason with or find common ground with people who have no desire to reason or find common ground, indeed, who are invested in not finding common ground with their fellow Americans because that's a sign of weakness. Stalin and the Bolsheviks had a similar strategy. They were at war with their fellow citizens, too. Good luck with your third party, Sam."

Unless these guys threaten or engage in violence, the best we can do is ignore them, and not give them the time of day.

Related:

• In Praising Kennedy, Republican Leaders Show Generosity, Civility and Teach A Lesson About Being Large-hearted, Instead of Small, Petty and Mean Toward Adversaries
• American Conservatism and Liberalism Both Have Internal Contradictions
• Puncturing Retro Myths About Vietnam War, Liberal Media Power, Reagan, Cold War's End
• The Vilification of Walter Cronkite and Hawks' Vietnam Revisionism
• Conservatism Is At Lowest Ebb Since 1964, But Some Find Hope in Obama's Vulnerabilities
• Sarah Palin Still Represents Hundreds of Thousands of People

American Conservatism and Liberalism Both Have Internal Contradictions

From my uncle, an historian, I borrowed "American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia," published in 2006. It attempts to trace the intellectual history of American conservatism, and suggests possible future paths for the movement as it seeks to renew itself and find its way after the 2008 debacle. 

Larry Arnhart in five articles contends that Darwinian science supports conservative social thought, but as he concedes, the far more dominant view among conservatives is to scorn science (hence, the deep skepticism among conservatives toward global warming). 

Peter Augustine Lawler writes that American liberalism has been a mixture of conservatism and liberalism, and George Will makes clear that his brand of American conservatism seeks to promote beneficial social change, a generally liberal idea.

The book includes the libertarian atheist Ayn Rand, and the devout Christian anti-communist Whitaker Chambers, who hated each other and held diametrically opposed views. Chambers objected to Rand's "philosophical materialism," which he said devalued the non-materialistic sacredness of life and would lead to the needless deaths if not extermination of human beings. In "The Crisis of the West," Chambers argued that materialism and rampant consumerism were overtaking Christian influences and leading to secular soullessness.

If both Rand and Chambers are conservatives, the book suggests that nearly everyone is -- Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, author Garry Wills, Eugene McCarthy, the former Democratic senator from Minnesota and peace candidate in 1968. Even elements of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal were considered conservative. If all of these are "conservative," I guess I am, too.

What is the one constant among conservatives? Fear of change? Commitment to the old verities? This is an internal contradiction, because conservatives generally support a free market economic system that by its nature brings about constant technological change and economic upheaval. In some ways, the tightly controlled economic system of communism produced a far more socially conservative society in Soviet Russia, while the free market beliefs of William Buckley, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan actually erode the "traditional values" they claimed to support.

No doubt the "Encyclopedia of the American Left" (1998) also reveals that ideology's internal contradictions. Some liberals have more of a fear of change and more of a commitment to the old verities than do some conservatives. As Dr. Lee Carlson observes, "conservative thought and liberal thought are intertwined, and to omit any influence of liberalism on conservatism (and vice versa) is to destroy both systems. One cannot view them as two separate dogmas."

Sarah Palin Still Represents Hundreds of Thousands of People

Sarah Palin remains overwhelmingly popular among Republicans. Some 72 percent of GOP members and GOP-leaning independents view her favorably, more than any other potential presidential candidate. Twitter is helping get her message out, with nearly 100,000 followers as of this writing. And she still has nearly 664,400 Facebook fans, though presumably many of those signed up during the 2008 fall campaign and cannot be taken for granted as future supporters. Even so, she gained 70,000 supporters on Facebook in 10 days, from July 6 to July 16th. An unofficial blog, Conservatives4Palin.com, seeks to harness the energy of supporters.

She has far more supporters online than any other potential Republican presidential candidate such as former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, current Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, or Florida Governor Charlie Crist. Her supporters will probably help her raise millions of dollars online.

She sees herself much like a "mama bear," according to her Twitter feed. But she's also putting her virtual foot in her mouth on Twitter. In a late-night tweet, Palin took Walter Cronkite's quote about the necessity of journalists to be "liberal" completely out of context. The Cronkite quote is actually an inspirational one about keeping free of political dogma, remaining "nondoctrinaire, nondogmatic, non-committed to a cause - but examining each case on its merits."

Scanning the comments on Palin's Facebook fan page, I see many libertarian and religious right comments, people who believe that "common sense" is far more important than "elite education," people upset with health care reform, cap-and-trade, income taxes, illegal immigration, the "liberal media" and the Republican establishment (called RINOs -- Republicans in Name Only).  In short, Palin could easily find herself leading an anti-establishment, populist movement within the GOP not unlike previous "movements" led by Pat Buchanan in 1992, Barry Goldwater in 1964, or more successfully, Ronald Reagan in 1976 and 1980.

Though she's no longer governor of Alaska, Palin is not retiring from politics. There's every indication she's still planning to advocate for causes. She authored an op-ed in The Washington Post on the cap-and-trade energy plan, which she calls "cap and tax." Adversaries respond that she doesn't really understand the issue.

Those who presume that Palin is just "not smart," however, are probably underestimating her. She held her own in the debate with Joe Biden, and she's perfectly capable of winning a debate, especially if expectations for her are low.

Not a fan of Palin, Andrew Sullivan says: "Bring her on. She is the id of the current Republican party: pure identity politics, no serious ideas for reform, and utterly unserious as a party of government. She would be the ideal representative of the current GOP on television."

Polls suggest she is viewed unfavorably by a plurality of Americans, 45%, while 41% view her favorably. This could change, however, if she picks the right issues to emphasize.

Meanwhile, Thomas Franks in the WSJ observes that Palin has become a martyr to some segments of conservatism.

Conservatism Is At Lowest Ebb Since 1964, But Some Find Hope in Obama's Vulnerabilities

After successfully shifting the center of American politics and social thought to the right over four decades, conservatism is at its weakest point since Barry Goldwater's landslide defeat in 1964, Richard Posner writes. The author of A Failure of Capitalism: The Crisis of '08 and the Descent into Depression cites four reasons for the recent sharp decline of the conservative movement:

• the failure of military force to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives;
  
• the inanity of trying to substitute will for intellect, as in the denial of global warming, the use of religious criteria in the selection of public officials, the neglect of management and expertise in government;
  
• a continued preoccupation with abortion; and
  
• fiscal incontinence in the form of massive budget deficits, the Medicare drug plan, excessive foreign borrowing, and asset-price inflation.

'I'm Sorry, Rush', Plus Limbaugh's Parallels to Father Coughlin

Ron Moore wrote in the comments section of this blog that Rush Limbaugh "is sounding a little silly, but then he has for years--ever since he became fixated on Clinton and tried to sell him as the anti-Christ." Oops -- like numerous Republicans, Ron had better check out the website, "I'm Sorry Rush" and fill out the form. Limbaugh is the de facet leader of the GOP right now. "Whenever a Republican criticizes him, they have to run back and apologize to him."

Update: Obama's latest insult is to gloat that Senator Edward Kennedy will be dead by the time a health care bill passes. His repeatedly uncivil remarks have sparked an online petition drive urging Republican leaders to disassociate themselves from Rush.

An historian friend describes Limbaugh as "the Father Coughlin" of this era, to Obama's Roosevelt. Coughlin's radio show in the late 1920s and 1930s attracted as many as 45 million listeners. He started out as a populist, railing against elites, but became increasingly nasty, scapegoating minorities, particularly Jews. His "Somebody Must Be Blamed" essay is worth a read for its parallels to today.

Previous:

• 'I Want Obama to Fail.'

Caroline Kennedy for Senator?

In response to Ed Cone's post, "Princesse du sang," which makes the case against Caroline Kennedy inheriting the NY Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton. I write: Caroline herself has eschewed if not disdained the celebrity culture, written substantive books on the U.S. Constitution and the right to privacy, and taken a role in education reform in NYC. She has the intellect, studious nature, and the work ethic to do the job. My sense is that she's stepping forward out of a sense of family obligation

Powerful New Progressive Coalition Emerges

Obama skeptic Glenn Loury identifies a powerful new force in American politics.

Makes me proud to be involved in www.hkonj.com, a coalition of 80+ progressive groups in North Carolina.