[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: 'Sock It to the Left!': The Rise of the Spite Right Of those not there, most who know of the incident probably do so from Jerome Tuccille's It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand. At the 1969 Young Americans for Freedom convention in St. Louis, one faction – the libertarians – opposed the U.S. government's orchestration of both the war in Vietnam and suppression here at home (including the nexus thereof: conscription). Their slogan: "Sock it to the State!" They were met (fiercely) by another faction – the "traditionalists" (with the actual tradition never identified) – who opposed that opposition. Their cry? "Sock it to the Left!" This political drama flashed in the warder of my brain when something recently happened that put into perspective the bewilderment that has possessed observers of "conservatism" in the present age. The bewilderment itself comes from seeing too many individuals evade/dismiss/deny every error/deception/disaster in the "War on Terror" and repeat the same ill-conceived mantras (e.g., "Better to fight them [rump Ba'athists? rival Muslim sects?] there than here!"). People who used to parrot Rush Limbaugh's dictum that the military exists only "to kill people and break things" and condemned Clinton for American involvement in the Balkans, now pout that the "liberal media" aren't covering the super job the Army is doing in rebuilding Iraq. (A Reason commentator observed that the actual level of progress would have embarrassed a Soviet apparatchik reporting to his superiors. My own quip is that today's "conservatives" are so committed to the welfare state that they established another one in Iraq.) It's as if it's a badge of honor to see how long they can continue to support – no matter how incoherently – an unsupportable war. The something-recently that clued me in to what's been going on was a response to a list made by Christopher Garvey (who ran this year for NY Attorney General on the Libertarian line) of rights that Americans have lost under President Bush. The respondent, N. (whom LRCers might recall from my "Letter to a Conservative Friend"), complained that Mr. Garvey's facts "sound like DNC talking points." Bingo! Now I saw it all too clearly. Forget the Democrats' actual record on the war and related issues: If N. believed "liberals" were opposing Bush's attack on civil liberties, he was going to support it. And I thought about how any questioning of the Administration was always met with cries of "Support the Troops!" – as if all those who didn't fall in line were ‘60s radicals spitting on returning soldiers and calling them "baby killers." The struggle isn't against "Islamofascism" (minted by Christopher Hitchens to baby-talk fellow Leftists into backing the war) or terrorism or even al-Qaeda. The imperative, no less now than in '69, is to “Sock it to the Left!” The "conservatism" of today isn't that of Taft or Goldwater. It arguably isn't even that of a "Religious Right," since it seeks, not to serve any God, but only to stomp its Devil. Behold the Spite Right. The Spite Right was born, not in the reflection of Read or Chodorov or Garrett, but in the confrontationalism of Up from Liberalism. Its progeny include Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Goldberg, Gallagher, Malkin, Ingraham, Savage, O'Reilly – self-scribbled caricatures who dwell in their own political cartoon, where there are only intrinsically evil "liberals" (Mr. Limbaugh adduces Ed Koch and William Kunstler on the same page) vs. "conservatives" whose goodness derives solely from fighting them. Such "liberals" are the Spite Right's Left, and once that Left was deemed “anti-war,” pro-war was deemed anti-Left, i.e., the Good. Thereafter, the only matter of duty was to defend that war from this "liberal" assault. That meant fighting any and all "liberal lies" that challenged Administration Truth, which was Truth because it stood in opposition to those "lies." It meant fighting any moral challenge to the war, which actually could be only immoral because it challenges the war – the War on Liberals, the struggle that is the essence of morality. It meant fighting the usual "anti-war" suspects, from Hollywood "limousine liberals" to sign-waving street protesters. For the Spite Right, Iraq is another name for Vietnam. The Spite Right's vacant contrarianism is but one more species of identity politics, which rejects any transcendent norms, any morals that constrain men irrespective of group affiliation. Hence its members hold themselves to no such standards. We are told not to criticize "our Commander-in-Chief" – this from characters who slapped CHELSEA HAS TWO MOMMIES on their bumpers. We hear roars of indignation over what Senator Kerry said "about the troops" – roars that were previously directed toward the "liberal media" for distorting Senator Helms' Clinton-better-have-a-bodyguard joke. We see men who never donned the uniform dare to just smear John Murtha – evidently Spite Rightists themselves are allowed to criticize government officials "while troops are in combat" – and do so while almost literally hiding behind a woman's skirt. Alas, we have yet to hear or see those who sought to oust Clinton call for the resignation of a president who would not face the 911 Commission (part of his own "War on Terror") because he could not bring along the vice president – "the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived" – to hold his hand and perhaps whisper in his ear. This hypocrisy is hardly limited to issues relating to war. Ann Coulter, for example, cracks that if "liberal" jurists "interpreted the Second Amendment the way they interpret the First Amendment, we'd have a right to bear nuclear arms by now." And what exactly does that deserve – other than a rim shot? This: If conservatives "interpreted the Second Amendment the way they interpret the First Amendment," even the National Guard wouldn't have guns. One wonders if the godly Miss Coulter reads a Bible wherein Christ commands us to ignore the beam in our own eye but knock the mote out of our neighbor's – a musing that extends to that lamest of ducks, the equally crudely written and drawn "Dullard Fillmore," where "liberal" hypocrisy is the only hypocrisy that exists for condemnation. And what is going on in the mind – in the soul – of a man, Michael Medved, who decries "save-the-world liberalism" and defends the global-liberationist delusions of George II and his court? (Answer: "Conservatives are both happier and nicer than liberals.") I need only mention Mr. Limbaugh and the subject of drugs. Spite Right relativism is as metaphysical as it is moral. Because the only reality is of "liberal" harm, there is no consideration of what harm might come from the anti-"liberal" forces, who will consequently continue to aim their fire – no matter what those blasts actually hit. Any admission of error would be, not a matter of intellectual honesty, but only a concession of right to the Left – to the Devil. And that can never be. The ultimate evil for Sean Hannity is not to be found in a combat zone in Iraq or even in a cave in Afghanistan, but in the seat across the desk. I don't require warnings that there is indeed a real Left with real evil – no libertarian does. But the Spite Right is not alerting but numbing us to that evil. When the wolf is said to be everywhere, people soon come to believe there's no wolf at all – the most vulnerable state to find ourselves when it finally does appear. The sober response to the Spite Right terror of "liberals" was demonstrated by H. L. Mencken with regard to Communists who acted in support of black Americans: "The way to dispose of their chicaneries is not to fight them when they are right." The whole of morality – and truth – cannot consist of waiting for a Howard Dean (or a Nancy Pelosi) to make a pronouncement. I find myself speculating whether Buckleyism’s always-puzzling politics – suppression of civil liberties (except gun rights) but rejection (if only rhetorical) of “Big Government” on economic issues – makes perversely perfect sense as a point-by-point opposition to the politics of the Enemy. For the record, there are traces of a pre-Buckley Spite Right. In her April 3, 1948 letter to Isabel Paterson, author of The God of the Machine, Ayn Rand mentions a man who said that he was in favor of conscription "because the Communists are against it." She quotes her husband's comment: "I suppose even Communists are against smallpox. Is he for it?" Such is the mad logic of the Spite Right that if known "liberals" ever officially came out against disease, these latter-day "conservatives" would unsheathe their daggers in defense of any and all diseases. The only remaining question: Would the Spite Rightists continue to practice the anti-Leftism they preach if said Left ever came out against suicide? "Sock it to the Left!"
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
This is essentially what the "conservative" movement has been reduced too- a utterly vacant and empty ideology that serves and is controlled by the Beltway and serves its purpose. Thus, being "pro-war" is "conservative"? Why? Well- because the "left" is against it. What Left? Who? Shhhh- just a generic "left" and nameless "liberals"- uhhhh- that Fat Guy Michael Moore is against it so we must support it! Basically - today's "right" are controlled boobs- manipulated by empty cultural propaganda and controlled easily by oligarchic interests- their enemies illusions, their hates and fears non existent. They serve the state. If they can be convinced this mythical "Left" is against something- they are for it. That simple. They have no standards, no beliefs really- just hate and fear. There is little they won't swallow.
Perfect, and why Mencken is beyond the understanding of today's lumpen prole "conservatives". The same idiots who today talk darkly of the "Islamic threat" and insist that those who opposse the self serving wars of their puppeteers in DC are "Terrorist enablers" are the exact same sort of morons who would have been saying that Civil Rights movement was a Commie plot because communists supported it - (and they do now still- they love to write books about how some big wig Civil Right's leader atteneded a commie meeting or had a commie friend as if we are suppossed to be shocked that the people struggling for their rights would associate with those trying to help.)
As an aside- is their a more unfunny cartoon today than Mallard Fillmore? It basically consists, almost every day, of just the head of duck looking stupid- with a caption above that highlights some percieved hypocrisy of "liberals". I suppose the cartoonist finds his "observations" to be pithy and original but frankly- I got tired of this sort of puerile analysis when I was 19.
It's slightly more complex than that. In some cases the main factor isn't what the "D" think of an issue, but what the "R" leadership says the position should be. This is what finally caused me to give up on the modern "conservative" movement. I listen to the likes of Rush tell the good little "R" voters that Dubya was implimenting "D" policies, like government expansion and nation building, because he was "stealing the "D"s platform out from under them." This is the equivilant of 1930's German jews throwing themselves into their kitchen stove to "outwit" the Nazies. Want to piss off a "R" in a hurry? Just point out that more of the "D" agenda has been passed into law under Dubya than under Clinton. Failing that, start a political conversation with a bot and only use quotes by Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagon to support your postion on various issues. In less than 10 mintues the bot will be screaming about what a "liberal" you are. And to top it off, in their mind the 2006 thrashing was all the fault of the "one issuers" and "losertarians" and had nothing to do with the total abandonment of old school conservative beleifs.
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death" - Me.
Basically- the "conservative" movement has been purged of its most vibrant and independent thinkers and replaced with servile sycophants who issue forth what the "conservative" stance on an issue is- and then call any questioning of that stance- no matter what it is- how against traditional conservative goals it is- to be "liberal". Now- this has been extremely effective in the short run in creating a remarkable party discipline but the sheer dishonesty of it- is so over the top- that the brightest, the best, the most independent minds are repelled by it and only the dull, the craven, the self interested, and the stupid are drawn by it. As Scott McConnell said in a column two years ago in which he refused to endorse Bush and argued that all true conservatives not vote for him either- it is as if Bush Co. came into the White House with the express purpose of validating every outlandish stereotype and comic book caricature that the Left has ever had about the Right and to drive thinking people away from the party. Bush has done more to destroy the term conservative than any liberal could ever have hoped to achieve. And it will do no good to say "I wasn't that type of conservative- I oppossed Bush as did other conservatives." The truth is most conservatives didn't opposse Bush and those that did are not much more than those that visit this website.
Strictly, while the goals of the "Civil Rights" movement only partly came from Bolshevism, Bolshie support was indispensable to its triumph, and its result/legacy is of decidedly Bolshie character, with the exception of the Nation of Islam. Bolsheviks supported it for their own reasons, and most blacks wised up quicker than whitey to the nature of their allies.
You can never tire of counting conflict diamonds.
It was a DC-plot, and a seriously controlled plot at that, complete with billion dollar programs, blackmail, and plenty of murder. The goal was to insure that a 'black nationalism' in the direction of Malcolm X in his later years would never unite with a populist Right.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||