The American Spectator : America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution

An astonishing bit of anti-elitism and faux-populism. The American Spectator reinvents Tea-Partiers, Fundamentalists, and ultra-right wingers as a naive and guileless "Country Class." Victimized by the left and the Democratic party, and unrepresented and therefore magically freed from sharing in the culpability of the Bush Republicans, the Country Class are entirely good, distinguished by their "non-orientation to government and its members' yearning to rule themselves rather than be ruled by others" which is nonsensical to the point of meaninglessness.

Despite the author's protests, what this so-called "country class" wants is not self-rule but freedom from self-awareness and uncertainty. What they really object to are not the orthodoxies of the left, but the collapse of their own traditional relationships to God, country, race, labor, and family.

This is not about the evils of the non-existent "ruling" class, but the crisis of a Boomer-led majority who long ago sacrificed civility for anti-social contrarianism and consumer individualism, while simultaneously retreating into the soft therapy of God, guns, and military "honor." All the while the economy collapses, the earth warms, and the gulf fills with oil. But rather than accept responsibility for the mess they've created, their dysfunctional value system, they seek solace in blaming others, and particularly the great villainous Other - college educated, progressive, feminist, spiritual but agnostic, and now laughably caricatured as the "Ruling" class. As if.

In short, the history of the US is the history of this very class running amok, and those of us who actually care about and understand the implicit values of American Democracy being forced to clean up after them.

Impulses - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

Liberal vs. conservative impulses?:

To me, the liberal impulse is basically: We Can Do Better. And the conservative impulse? Don't Make It Worse.

I don't think that's the case at all. Liberals are inclusive: We all can do better. Conservative are exclusive: They are making it worse for us.

Jonah Goldberg: Caring about Muslims is a hate crime against Real Americans - War Room - Salon.com

My favorite bit:

Lots of arguments probably seem odd when you don't understand rhetoric or logic.

A Disposition or a Program - Ideas Special Report - The Atlantic

The main article is pretty good, but commenter GeoffyG's analysis of the Conservative mindset is even better:

This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles,[6] it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule. A commitment to principles presupposes an understanding of the general forces by which the efforts of society are co-ordinated, but it is such a theory of society and especially of the economic mechanism that conservatism conspicuously lacks. So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. Macaulay, Tocqueville, Lord Acton, and Lecky certainly considered themselves liberals, and with justice; and even Edmund Burke remained an Old Whig to the end and would have shuddered at the thought of being regarded as a Tory.

Control Galt Delete

I actually overheard someone at work today saying that they'd spent the weekend reading Atlas Shrugged. So, this was timely:

In essence, Rand advocated an inverted Marxism. In the Marxist analysis, workers produce all value, and capitalists merely leech off their labor. Rand posited the opposite. In Atlas Shrugged, her hero, John Galt, leads a capitalist strike, in which the brilliant business leaders who drive all progress decide that they will no longer tolerate the parasitic workers exploiting their talent, and so they withdraw from society to create their own capitalistic paradise free of the ungrateful, incompetent masses. Galt articulates Rand’s philosophy:

The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains. Such is the nature of the "competition" between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of "exploitation" for which you have damned the strong.

The delusion is the notion that anything of value could be created by the single man of genius alone in his fortress of solitude, or that genius goes unrecognized because of the philistine masses. The simpler truth is that value is created through interaction, the building of relationships, and the collaboration of diverse talents.

Projection and the Shadow

Andrew Sullivan's blog had interesting things to say today about Jungian psychology and Obama-phobia. I'm not that big on Jung, but I do agree that the right-wing (whatever that means these days) seem to accuse Obama of doing the sorts of things they would like to have a strong leader on their side do for them. They accuse him of being a ruthless totalitarian dear-leader because that's their secret ideal.

Crooked Timber vs. The Little Dictator

Crooked Timber has a great post today on Jonah Goldberg's ridiculous new book Liberal Fascism. Of the many, many good points in the essay, this is one of the best:

Now we get to what is maybe an actually half-interesting point. There are two reasons why ad hitlerem arguments tend to be rude and crude. (Everyone knows Godwin’s Law is law. Here’s why, more or less.) First, the Holocaust. It’s pretty obvious how always dragging that in is not necessarily clarifying of every little dispute. Second, a little less obviously, ad hitlerem arguments are invariably arguments by moral analogy. Person A espouses value B. But the Nazis approved B. Not that person A is necessarily a Nazi but there must be something morally perilous about B, if espousing it is consistent with turning all Nazi. The trouble is: with few exceptions, the Nazis had all our values – at least nominally. They approved of life, liberty, justice, happiness, property, motherhood, society, culture, art, science, church, duty, devotion, loyalty, courage, fidelity, prudence, boldness, vision, veneration for tradition, respect for reason. They didn’t reject all that; they perverted it; preached but didn’t practice, or practiced horribly. Which goes to show there is pretty much no value immune from being paid mere lip-service; nominally maintained but substantively subverted. Which, come to think of it, isn’t surprising. How could a list of ‘success’ words guarantee success, after all?

What's highlighted here is the triviality of comparing anyone to the Nazis at anytime. It's basically meaningless.

But it works well as a smear, which is all Goldberg's interested in. His rewrite of the history of Liberalism in America is exactly the sort of believer's skepticism and critical thinking we were warned about. Goldberg doesn't really care about what fascism is or what it means to us today; he's just trying to attack his enemies and defend his own entrenched positions. It's not history or political science: it's political creationism.

Conservative Environmentalism

Never put it past conservatives to come upon a topic and then act like they discovered it. Roger Scruton has decided it fits his idiosyncratic definition of Conservatism to support environmentalism (and Andrew Sullivan agrees). Well, good for them.

Unfortunately, they seem far less interested in, y'know, actually saving the planet, then a) Attacking an out-dated straw-man version of leftist "statism" and b) using any given topic as an opportunity to re-invent conservatism in their own image (that is, as a philosophy wholly alien to the Republican party, and, I can only assume, the Tories as well).

Scruton writes:

What then is the conservative solution, if there is one? A revival of trusteeship is the only hope for the future, and this attitude is natural to human beings. They enter the world through no choice of their own, to be greeted, as a rule, by the love of parents and the security of home. The trustee is the one who recognizes that his home, and all that it means, are inherited things, things to be safeguarded and passed on. This attitude exercises itself at the local level in the voluntary associations and small institutions of civil society. It is the core component in that associational genius that Tocqueville discerned in the American people. It is the legacy of a political order that regards people, not rulers, as the source of authority and the fount of responsible decision-making.

Brilliant. His solution is a Trust. A concept from English common law that grew out of feudalism. He really is a capital-C Conservative. And this Trust will treat the earth as something to be "inherited", "safeguarded and passed on." Like a Lordship or a Country House. Sounds great.

And how will we organize ourselves? Certainly not through the government or some official agency. No, no. That's the State (boo!). We'll have "voluntary associations and small institutions of civil society". Like a Book Club, or a Home Owners Association. Great, because those are fun (and always super nice).

But remember, this is not elitism. This is not an aristocracy of land owners. Perish the thought. "It is the legacy of a political order that regards people, not rulers as the source of authority..." Oh yeah, you mean like a government of the people, by the people, for the people? Wait, what?

See, here's the thing these conservatives (even the placid British ones) can't seem to understand: if you attack the government, you attack the people. The United States collapsed the difference in its founding and in its Constitution some 200 years ago. So all this talk about "The State" and "Big Government" interference is just plain nonsense (and as a side note, if you want to attack the poor planning of government schemes, quit talking about Maoism or Stalinism and start looking at the planning that' s gone into the Iraq war courtesy of the Bush administration).

So aside from advocating an environmental policy based on private property stewardship (Capitalism, Consumerism, and Christianity), the other problem with this big C conservatism is the absolute certainty they have in "human nature" and "human motivation". Unlike any other science or philosophy, they have very little doubt that they have locked down what it is that people want and need. More than freedom, more than happiness, more than shelter, food, or beautiful things to look at, people need a sense of entitlement. They'll own up to the problems of the world, once they are reassured that they sit firmly in its center:

The job of protecting the environment is one that citizens must undertake, and we will—just as soon as we see it to be ours. The problem is not the lack of state initiatives but the surfeit of them and the general attitude, enhanced by every treaty and every leftist publicity stunt, that state control, not individual freedom, will make us take our responsibilities seriously.

See the problem with the Left is that they think environmentalism is about the Earth; The plants, the animals, the seas, and the air. But conservatives no better. They know it's really about the millions and millions of little kings in their multitude of little suburban castles hoping for a nicer yard than the guy next door.

Political Disconnect

Glenn Greenwald on the disconnect between what views are considered middle of the road and what views the country actually holds. The once unstoppable Republican behemoth is now an out of touch fringe metality:

On every key political issue of the past several months, the defining view of the "conservative" movement and the conventional wisdom of the establishment press is one that is shared by a small minority of Americans -- in each case within the range of 19-36%, but typically hovering around 25-30%, representing the same small band of hard-core Bush followers and True Believers who provide the President with his 25-30% floor for approval ratings. Conversely, these defining right-wing views are overwhelmingly rejected by Americans in virtually every area.

And yet these are the views that receive far more representation than any other in our mainstream press and are treated as though they are the serious, centrist views. The disconnect between the political discussion conducted by our media and popular American public opinion is hard to overstate.

Unfortunately, most of those true believers are my neighbors here in red state El Paso county Colorado. Nice people, but jeez, what does it take? More than watching the news, certainly, which has shamelessly and perhaps unnecessarily pursued this demographic in hopes of higher ratings.

Right Wing Blogger of the Day

A blog, appropriately called "Hot Air," goes digging for outrage in that bastion of lefty punditry, Newsweek.

Here's the flavor of the post, called "Science: Dems lose elections because they're too darned rational":

If only they were more emotional, like we fear-mongering man-monkeys, they might control all three branches now. I think all of us who’ve sailed the placid seas of Nutrootsistan can sympathize with that sentiment.

This is probably the third or fourth permutation of “conservatives bad, liberals good” science we’ve blogged since HA started, but this one’s special since it shares with George Lakoff’s stupid “branding” thesis the precious quality of being, in its own way, as insulting to Democrats as to Republicans. Does the left really need to have it explained to them by a scientist that emotional appeals tend to be politically effective? Don’t they have a few examples in their own scrapbook that prove the point? It’s like not being able to figure out sex without a doctor’s help.

So let's see how Hot Air did following my little list of talking points for conservative bloggers:

Never debate the facts, go straight for the ad hominem attacks

There's no attempt to dispute the article on the facts (which are pretty weak considering this is 2007, and the Dems did take back the house and senate last year). Just a lot of "they must think we're stupid, which means that they're stupid if you have to explain it to them, and the whole idea is stupid because it reminds me of this other idea which I think is stupid...", etc.

Invent a funny nickname for your opponent to support step one.

"Nutrootistan"

Characterize your opponent's position using religious language to underscore their inherent dogmatism and irrationality [this is so ironic my brain is bleeding].

See above. Also, the idea that a Democrat would run a political add invoking racial profiling is characterized as, "a cardinal sin on the left."

Accuse your opponent of employing your own worst tactics (scare tactics, demagoguery, name-calling).

"Don’t they have a few examples in their own scrapbook that prove the point?" and later, "Yep, nothing but sunshine, reason, and the Athenian agora for those Democrats." The links are meant to show that yes, in fact, the Democrats are the real "fear-mongering man-monkeys."

Assert that Computer Science and Electrical Engineering are the keys to all scientific understanding (including Environmental science, Biology, etc.)

Science bashing is implied in the title as well as the implied bashing of Drew Westen and his study. Since Psychology and Neuroscience are not subsets of computer science or electrical engineering, there's no reason to take them seriously if you're a good conservative.

Complain that we tie our own hands by not lowering our standards to the level of our enemies (x doesn't care about human rights, why should we? y doesn't comply with environmental standards, why should we?)

Sure, but hey: “Effective? Let’s just say that if John Kerry had used Westen’s words to attack the Swift Boaters who impugned his war record during the 2004 presidential campaign, Bush might be clearing a lot of brush in Crawford these days.” Ends and means, baby. Imagine what the abortion ads will look like.

I take that to mean, the ends always justify the means. So if Kerry had upped the ante, Bush would have as well. Thus highlighting the importance of always sinking to the level of the lowest common denominator.

Always blame others for everything that goes wrong (personal responsibility only applies to people you don't like)

Read the whole thing and ponder your exit question: In what meaningful sense is that piece different from a press release?

Update: See-Dub comments, “Meanwhile…as the picture of the pathetic polar bears on an ice floe drifts across our screen for the eight thousandth time as a newscaster reads a thinly disguised press release about global warming…”

Translation: the world would be a better place (for me) if it weren't for the left-wing media reading press releases as if they were the news!

My translation: when you are strange, people are strangers, and when you're a propagandist, everything looks like propaganda.

How To Be a Conservative

This blog post from a conservative blogger (and the right-wingers who post comments) provides in microcosm a useful case study for the right-wing mindset:

1. Never debate the facts, go straight for the ad hominem attacks.
2. Invent a funny nickname for your opponent to support step one.
3. Characterize your opponent's position using religious language to underscore their inherent dogmatism and irrationality [this is so ironic my brain is bleeding].
4. Accuse your opponent of employing your own worst tactics (scare tactics, demagoguery, name-calling).
   
5. Assert that Computer Science and Electrical Engineering are the keys to all scientific understanding (including Environmental science, Biology, etc.)
6. Complain that we tie our own hands by not lowering our standards to the level of our enemies (x doesn't care about human rights, why should we? y doesn't comply with environmental standards, why should we?).
7. Always blame others for everything that goes wrong (personal responsibility only applies to people you don't like).
   

Academic Conservatives versus Tribal Republicans

Jonah Goldberg is hilariously wrong about the debates. He argues that the divisions in the Republican party demonstrate intellectual health and the robustness of conservative philosophy. What a maroon.

Except for a handful of back-to-basics conservative writers (Sullivan, Will), the Republican party has no philosophy. They have capitalist, Christianist, xenophobic biases but that's not the same as intellectual rigor.

I think Jonah has joined the ranks of conservatives who can't quite grasp the fact that the tribal Republican party no longer fits the academic model.