The American Spectator : Unsurprising Bigotry

Unsurprising Bigotry

By Quin Hillyer on 12.31.08 @ 6:08AM

Far too many members of the establishment media seem to wish for a world where it is always winter but never Christmas.

Fans of C.S. Lewis' "Narnia" series will immediately recognize that phrase -- "always winter but never Christmas" -- as the situation that prevailed in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (henceforth LWW) before the return to the land of Narnia of Aslan, the great lion-Christ. But consider the phrase more broadly and metaphorically. The establishment media continues to give copious evidence of ignorance of, and often outright hostility to, Western religion and to the moral values shaped by it. Their ignorance and hostility is unprofessional, and it is despicable. A reader could be excused for often getting the impression that, like the White Witch, the establishment media would love to turn all believers to stone and keep us from ever celebrating Christmas -- or Easter, or (for that matter) any Jewish observance, either, unless treated as merely a cultural observance rather than a true religious celebration.

This column topic suggested itself when the December 14 Washington Post contained not one but two cultural articles at least somewhat offensive to traditionalist sensibilities. The first was a glowing book review called "Saving C.S. Lewis." Written by foreign desk editor Elizabeth Ward, also described in the byline as "a longtime reviewer of children's books," the review assessed a new literary endeavor by a woman named Laura Miller called The Magician's Book: A Skeptic's Adventures in Narnia.

According to Ward, Miller was an especially devoted Narnia fan as a child, but felt a "sense of betrayal" when she realized in her early teens that the Narnia series contained not only wonderful fairy tales but also "really just the doctrines of the Church in disguise." Raised a Catholic but turned off by what she considered the church's "guilt-mongering," Miller was so upset by what she now considered to be "appallingly transfigured" stories that she then wanted nothing to do with the books. That decision changed again, though, when a reading assignment as an adult helped her discover that Lewis's series remained radiant apart from its subtext as Christian apologetics.

Oh, the joy! The sheer joy to find out that Narnia wasn't utterly ruined by its Christianity! Miller responded by writing this learned, 311-page discourse on all things Narnia and their roots in other literature and other realms of culture -- or at least all things not polluted by their Christian context.

Not having read Miller's book itself, one might be accused of snarkiness for noting, first, that Miller must not have been terribly sharp as a Catholic child if it took her until her teens to realize that Narnia involved Christian allegory. (I once read LWW to a six-year-old who, two minutes after hearing the resurrection scene, smiled and pointed to the sky and said Aslan was "like Jesus.") Or for noting, second, that it seems almost a psychological deficiency among so many literati when they find faith not just unconvincing or unimportant personally, but actually an affront even when in the form of a relatively gentle faith allegory. It is a peculiar mindset that takes umbrage at something that brings joy to others but demands no tribute from the unbeliever. After all, we do not see Miller or the establishment media take offense at The Iliad and The Odyssey because Greek gods play huge roles in those stories -- do we?

NEVERTHELESS, THE PROBLEM HERE is not Miller, who is of course entitled to her views. The problem is with the reviewer, Ward. Ward, as a reviewer in a "mainstream" journal, embraces wholeheartedly the decidedly anti-Christian bias she describes in Miller's book. It is Ward, not Miller, who blasts LWW co-producer Disney because its "unsubtle blockbuster movie in 2005 left the whole series more or less hijacked by Christian fundamentalists." One can almost see the scorn for "Christian fundamentalists" dripping, like rancid buttermilk, from Ward's pen. And her over-sensitivity to the Christian element of the movie itself is remarkable; literally at random, I googled Los Angeles Times reviewer Carina Chocano's contemporary reaction to the movie, which far more accurately noted as follows: "The Christian allegory embedded at its chewy center serves less as evangelical cudgel than a primer on morality and the myths we create to explain it…. If it weren't for Lewis' stated intention to write a fantastical story to make the dogma go down, it might even come across as a liberal humanist parable about myth and its function in society, especially during times of trouble."

That sure doesn't sound like a movie "hijacked by fundamentalists."

But Ward doesn't stop there. The whole tone of her review in the Post is that of agreeing that the Christian elements of Narnia are decidedly disagreeable. The last paragraph approvingly asserts that "Miller largely succeeds in rescuing the Narnia series from the narrow Christian box into which it has been crammed." Note the language: rescued. And narrow Christian box.

Yes, that's it: Lewis's storytelling was so good that it rescues his tales from their obnoxious Christian undertones. Right. That's like saying that Jefferson's prose was so inspirational that it rescued the Declaration of Independence from its obnoxious themes celebrating liberty and life. And wasn't it a shame, too, that Martin Luther King had to pollute his quest for racial equality with his narrow Christian superstructure?

If the Washington Post's editors can't understand how insulting Ward's review is to anybody of traditional faith, their ignorance is astonishing.

BUT THE POST'S OFFENSIVENESS didn't stop there. That same day, the Sunday Washington Post Magazine contained a curious essay by an "M. Lynn Miller," supposedly her "first published piece," charmingly called "My Mom, the Adulteress." It's all about her mother's 35-year, on-again, off-again romance (through the course of two of her mother's own marriages) with a married man. The tenor of the essay is captured in a few sentences of the last paragraph: "I am happy for her. There are a few great loves out there, and my mom found one. He says that he'll leave his wife this time.…"

Okay, maybe from a certain angle this strange little essay can be seen to be, uh, touching, almost sweet: a daughter writing about her concern for her mother's happiness. But what the heck is it doing in a daily newspaper? What's the news value, or the point? Seen objectively, the piece offends the basic standards of decency still adhered to by most Americans. Somehow, it's just not right for a daughter to write touchingly, indeed somewhat approvingly, in a general forum, about her mother's adultery. There's both an immorality factor and, well, an ick factor. Perhaps the essay might be worthwhile in a literary magazine, but not a broad-circulation daily deliberately written to be accessible to teenagers as well. Indeed, the Sunday magazine is one of the sections most accessible, most attractive, to younger readers. This particular Sunday magazine was especially a lure to teens; its cover illustration, with two figures drawn like comic-book heroes, advertised the lead story about "the brutal odds of making it in the comic book business!"

With such a cover, even an 8-year-old would be likely to pick up the magazine, start thumbing through it… and find himself reading a story whose first paragraph reads: "My mother is a really, really good person…. And she's having sex with a married man."

Page: 1 2 >

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Mainstream Media, Religion

Appleby| 12.31.08 @ 6:47AM

Of course it is not surprising that the hippie *elite* are still, after 40 years, dancing nekkid in the mud and shouting POO POO HEAD! in the hopes that it will upset their blue collar suburban parents who worked so hard to put them through university so they could climb the ladder ... not realizing that their offspring would then kick the ladder out from under them and spend eternity on the roof of the building, making obscene gestures at those they left behind. That was their goal in life, and now they are enjoying it because they think it still makes their mothers cry.

The only thing they cannot begin to understand is that the few in the group that is still watching them is pointing and laughing.

Motown Mike| 12.31.08 @ 7:19AM

Great comment, Appleby! If I could find thoughts and writing like yours among the journalistas maybe I would go back to reading their stuff.

VinceP1974| 12.31.08 @ 8:05AM

Appleby: Yes! That is a great image.

I can't wait for that generation , the Worst Generation, to die. (except for the few nice folks)

Ryan| 12.31.08 @ 8:14AM

Another thing that astonishes me is the assumption that there must be a story somewhere in LWW that is devoid of Christianity. There ISN'T a LWW without the allegory (though Lewis never intentionally set out to write one - his first vision of the story was a faun with an umbrella).

It further goes to show that the leftist mind not only seems to hate religion at times, but doesn't even understand it at all. Hop over to DU and you'll find that every Christian must be some sort of fundamentalist-evangelical-dominionist out to kill non-Christians and take over the world, with no real separation among theologies.

I think that one other part is that the left continually misses the point about Christianity, and maybe we're not doing a good enough job about spreading the message about sin, guilt, and what Christ accomplished on the cross.

Heck, the whole concept about "sin" is so foreign to many, and just breaking through THAT wall is tough enough as it is.

Bill| 12.31.08 @ 8:34AM

I read the article with the thought in mind that "Man in his own wisdom becomes a fool."
There are some absolutes in life and no matter how much the non believers try to ignore them they will hold for all eternity. Man may make his plans and shake his puny fist but God will always rule. They miss the love and forgiveness, the chance to have life and have it abundantly, to have purpose, direction and meaning to their life. Instead they make the journey through life as spiritual ants with their heads no higher than the dust on their shoes.

Bob| 12.31.08 @ 9:10AM

Quin, the extremists on both the ultra-religious and ultra-secular sides depend on belief over reason. Most of us in the middle always try to balance belief and reason. That's where we disagree. You believe that belief informs reason and I believe that belief and reason coexists and informs one another. When belief informs reason, you are not open to being human and infallible. You take scripture as being right even though it was written by men.

We will never agree on this issue because reason can never be used to inform you. Pragmatism cannot be used as a solutions methodology because it may well conflict with belief.

Let's take the abortion issue. You believe that abstinence is the proper teaching and that sex education is wrong because it leads to children having more sex. But, let's assume that the studies are right and that abstinence actually leads to more abortions and sex education leads to less abortions. As a matter of public policy, I am willing to take the pragmatic solution to reduce abortions. You are not. Who is right? The person who is consistent with his beliefs or the person that actually reduces abortions?

Just as you think that many of us don't understand the religious person, we don't think you understand reason. Perhaps that is why the Republican party continues to pursue its anti-intellectual orientation and why it is shrinking.

We are probably the most religious western society on this planet. But evangelicals only represent 18-20% of the population, atheists/agnostics about 15%, and the rest of us are in the huge middle. Politics is about getting elected. When you are unwilling to use reason and compromise, and you are in the minority, you will lose. While that may be fine for social conservatives, it makes more libertarian leaning fiscal conservatives cringe since the chance for true fiscal reform is diminished by the politicization of religious views.

Todd| 12.31.08 @ 9:41AM

To the surprise of no one, Bob is again posting his standard boiler plate view that it is the religious social conservatives who are to blame for everything. You see it is because we believe in God and standards of morality that we just cannot be reasonable and pragmatic like Bob, who is a great intellectual because he tells us he is. And of course anyone that disagrees with him is anti-intellectual.

Like I said yesterday Bob, you want Ivy League elites like those we find in the media as stated by the author, to run this country as central planners because they know what is best for us. We all know anyone who graduates from Ivy League colleges are smarter than everyone else and have no ideological bias like those reporters and columnist from the Washington Post. Of course that is laughable, we know many of those people are the least reasonable people around and willfully ignorant outside of their elitist circles.

tony| 12.31.08 @ 10:29AM

Bob:

When you describe yourself in the middle, you must exclude religion. Being in the middle is a policital term. This country has always been deeply religious. Incredibly, only since you arrived on the scene did this become a problem.

We all know and understand the mind of the pragmatic man in the middle. He's above the fray, able to see the truth and always on the right side of every issue. Also, only you know and understand reason.

Funny thing, though. Whenever the republican party nominates one of these men of the middle, they lose. Exactly when was the last time a republican ran as a centrist and won the presidency. Note that I asked "ran as a centrist." If you are the man of reason and understanding asyou proclaim yourself to be, then you should be able to provide us with at least one example to demonstrate that what you say is correct. Bet you can't.

Bob| 12.31.08 @ 11:03AM

Todd -- again, I do not believe in central planning, but like most social conservatives here, you have a difficult time listening. An yes, the Republican party has become the "anti-intellectual" party by its behavior. The smart candidates are not chosen and instead, candidates who did very poorly in school are elected. That is just fact. There are some famous quotes about "intellectuals" put out by Republican Presidents and operatives.

Tony, you seem to believe that this is a "deeply" religious country. Most polls indicate consistent attendance at church to be about 40%. However, validation studies show that people lie on these polls and they have put the figure closer to 20%. This is not representative of a "deeply religious country". Pragmatism is a search for the truth based on fact and experimental testing. Pragmatists don't believe that issues are right and wrong, only that some work and some don't. When I say that social conservatives hurt the party, I'm not making a value judgment, I'm making an analysis based upon election and polling results.

In terms of running as a centrist, Bush's "compassionate conservatism" was designed by Rove to run as a center right candidate, not an ideologue. If Bush had run a hard right campaign, he would have lost. I encourage you to revisit the Bush presidential debates to see for yourself. Furthermore, an analysis of the RCP trend annotated for major events show that it was Palin who helped bring down McCain. You can believe what you want, but the facts and analysis showed that McCain lost because he was seen as too much like Bush and that most people saw Palin as unqualified.

Todd| 12.31.08 @ 11:45AM

Bob,
You have already stated your admiration for the incoming Treasurer Timothy Geinther and his team and there is nothing remotely libertarian or fiscally conservative about his recent actions or the actions he intends when he takes over. What can you call the recent efforts of The Fed with their bailouts and monetary policy other than central planning? If you were really the libertarian fiscal conservative you claim to be, you would be outraged and not supportive of Timothy Geinther. I am trying to figure out exactly what you have in common with Ron Paul because you would support him if you were a true libertarian fiscal conservative. Maybe if you actually gave some reasonable evidence that you are actually a libertarian fiscal conservative, I wouldn't have such a difficult time "listening".

Since you got your degree from Havard apparently in economics, you are surely well schooled in Keynesian economics. If you are the true fiscal conservative you claim to be, you would reject Keynesian economics and would be a avid supporter of Milton Friedman. Somehow I doubt that is the case since that would be heresy with Harvard intellectuals.

Quin Hullyer| 12.31.08 @ 12:04PM

Bob,
I hereby ask you to stop commenting on my columns. Every time I write a column, you make a comment not based on anything I have written but instead on what you accuse me of meaning or believing even though there is no actual language in my column that says what you accuse me of saying. In short, you lie.
For the record, I do believe that faith and reason co-exist and inform each other.
For the record, I have never written a word concerning abstinence education vs. sex education.
For the record, I am not an "evangelical" Christian (although I admire many who are).
For the record, I AM a "libertarian leaning fiscal conservative." But that doesn't have a thing to do with my faith, and to be a libertarian leaning fiscal conservative certainly does not mean that I believe --as you APPEAR to believe, although here I am honest enough (unlike you) to acknowledge I am making an assumption about your beliefs rather than directly citing your actual statements -- that fiscal conservatism or libertarian leanings rule out an appreciation of faith, respect for faith, and acceptance of faith as a legitimate part of public life. You seem to have a conniption fit any time anybody mentions faith, even if the essay in question doesn't even concern faith's intersection with public policy but instead, like this one, merely takes time to defend the faithful from bad journalists in realms having nothing to do with public policy. In short, read the headline of my essay; you seem to fit the description.

Bob| 12.31.08 @ 12:30PM

Quin, I will honor your request and not comment on your columns. For the record, you did make the argument that faith informs reason and not vice versa in another column. I may have misread your intention, but it is good to hear that it goes both ways. The argument on abstinence was just meant as an example of the faith/reason dialog and not meant specifically for you.

I have evidently mistakenly taken your many columns on faith as evidence that you are something you claim not to be. That is also a wrong conclusion, I guess.

By the way, you are now jumping to conclusions about my support of faith making the same sorts of objections I made about you. For the record, I believe having faith is a good thing. Even though I am a Jew, since my wife was Catholic, I took my children to CCD every week and made sure they studied religion. They are all still practicing Catholics. Where we disagree, is that I strongly object to faith in political parties. It has nothing to do with bigotry, it has to do with the separation of church and state. Read through the articles here at Amspec. Look at the number that deal with religious issues. Look at the divisiveness of those issues. Then tell me that it is good for the Republican party.

Todd, Geithner would not be my first pick, but Summers is a very good macro-economist in my opinion. I consider his position to be one of a mechanic rather than an engine designer. As a mechanic, he knows where the bodies are buried. From an economic strategy base, I think it will be Summers that runs the show.

Signing off, Quin. Have a good new year....

Joe| 12.31.08 @ 1:07PM

Thank you for getting Bob the Christian bigot from commenting on faith any longer. And for the record the founders did not put in separation of Religion or Church and state. We are not to be kept out of policies or our faith. So Bob you can suffer just like the rest of us suffer with people like yourself who incorrectly push the lie of separation of Church and state.

Thanks Quin

dgdc| 12.31.08 @ 1:24PM

Quin, maybe it is time to take a vacation. If you considered Bob's comments to be disagreeable while making no bones about Appleby's indicates that your problem is with polite criticism. Bob's comments have never indicated a "conniption fit," and as far as I have read have been consistently polite and cogent.
There are factions battleing for control of the republican party. Currently the evangelical segment has control. But things will change, they always do.

reads1| 12.31.08 @ 1:35PM

I believe Boob, er, I mean Bob is "The Great Pretender." Pretends to know everything, knows nothing!

Todd| 12.31.08 @ 1:38PM

Quin,
Thanks for calling out Bob once again, like the title of your article, his bigotry is unsurprising. He tried to cover his tracks with his last comment but all of us here know he is bigoted against Christians. I for one am sick of his constant insults against Christians and his claim of representing reason based libertarian fiscal conservatives. Not to mention his hatred of Sarah Palin and how anti-intellectual Republicans are. The guy is a broken record, the same crap every time.

Bob proves your point of your article of the condescension and ignorance of the Ivy League educated towards those with honest faith in God. Like you said, faith and reason can co-exist as we know God is the source of truth and reason. Great article once again and Happy New Year.

Mark Sommer| 12.31.08 @ 3:04PM

I don't understand why this article was written without the writer reading "The Magician's Book." Given that it was written by a non-believer, I found the book very fair. Miller has obviously done her "homework," which is a pleasant change from reading the trite nonsense I often find even in conservative magazines today. (By the way, I am a conservative Christian--one who believes in the fundamentals of the faith and small government.) If you want to know what Miller has to say, actually read her book, or at least see my article which you should be able to read if you click on my name above.

Jim Wilson| 12.31.08 @ 3:56PM

"The Magician's Book" seems like a waste of time to me. It's extremely obvious that Lewis was not simply cloaking a passion play in fluff. Lewis and Tolkien and many of the other 'Langobards' wanted to rescue myth from the Calvinist book-burners. From the Puritans on, stamping out anything remoting resembling paganism was a moral quest, including Christmas. One of Lewis' other books, "Pilgrim's Regress," makes this point very plainly and condemns Calvinism openly. As most who reckon themselves "Evangelicals" are in fact Calvinists whether they know it or not, it's somewhat ironic that now even their theological adversaries like Lewis and Tolkien are now somehow considered "Evangelicals" too. Evangelical is a word like Conservative; it is too elastic to be a clear label. Evangelical just means "missionary," and by that definition Anglicans and Catholics have been every bit as "Evangelical" as any Presbyterian or Puritan. However no "Evangelical" will admit that Catholics especially should be accounted among them.

Of course, the theological differences between sects are becoming ever less important when seen against the monstrous slavery that atheists and their pawns among the Muslims wish to impose on us all. Most Muslims don't appear to realize that every terrorist organization among them was founded, funded and trained by the KGB or some equally irreligious branch of the Communist movement. Their nihilism is only to be expected since they learned from the greatest nihilists of all time.

As this conflict becomes ever clearer, the boundaries between "Evangelical" and "mainstream" and even Heterodoxical types like we Mormons will become ever more blurry.

There's a simple reason why the bigots who understand none of this will continue in their ignorance while reckoning themselves brilliant; they don't want to know. Nothing can open a closed mind. "When they are learned they think they are wise, and set at naught the counsels of God." Since "intellectuals" recognize no difference between learning and wisdom, they cannot find wisdom even when it hits them between the eyes, and so one of them wastes her time trying to work out the pagan disguise of a series of books that tell a plain and obvious story, and one not disguised at all.

ccd| 12.31.08 @ 3:56PM

From reading the article and the above comments it becomes quite clear that some Christian's vitrolic hatred of atheists and the non-religious dwarfs Miller's dislike of organized religion.
In a country that has a small and relatively powerless minority of atheists, what causes so much fear and scorn?

DaveS| 12.31.08 @ 4:22PM

Book reviews are useless anyway, and articles on reviews take up too much print. It's like poor university research - using tertiary sources to sway or slam. Save it, for the point was made very early.

Alan Brooks| 12.31.08 @ 4:42PM

mega-billions are spent on tasteless celebrity culture; disgusting 'Adult' (adolescent) entertainment, nutritional supplements that are at best useless (30-40 years at least to REAL life extension) and a secular educational system that mixes students up like pigs in a barn and teaches them not to think.

But liberscumians and athesh-ts think Christianity is a threat? I wish id never been born... theres no virtue. live a long life for nothing!

go figure| 12.31.08 @ 4:47PM

i dont get it:
in the 21st century Atheish-ts and liberscumians worry about successful tax paying Christians who live clean lives??

Vince1974| 12.31.08 @ 7:11PM

Since I'm a Christian, i have a natural aversion to books, so i rely on book reviews to be informed about them.

j/k

T Webb| 12.31.08 @ 8:34PM

Here goes the ignorant bigots again, the Republican party who attracts nothing but trash.

The most stupid people in America is all they can now attract after George Bush. Who in their right mind can vote Republican at the next general election, with the prospect of Sarah Palin, Jeb Bush.

It's a shame that America lack basic tallent, and all they can come up with is the scrapings of the bottom of the barrel.

VinceP1974| 12.31.08 @ 9:48PM

Check out this video of Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyW9e5QdWxk

These Angry Democrats are so full of it when they say the One is so intelligent.. it's so absurd.

ruth| 1.1.09 @ 4:33AM

Thanks, Quin! Now if the other AmSpec writers would just follow your example.

Len| 1.1.09 @ 8:14AM

Hey Quinn, don't worry this is the same Washington Post that just raised its newstand price to.75, it along with many others of its ilk (Chicago Tribune, LA Times) are failing, and I don't think it;s just because all the alternatives available.

Bob| 1.1.09 @ 11:20AM

Quin, et. al., I am going to leave you with one other thought. There is a very substantial wing of the Republican party that thinks as I do. We tend not to believe in censorship as you do, and also believe in taking responsibility for how our words are received, not only how they are meant since reading minds is something few of us do well. Given the number of other regulars here who also support censorship, you should really think about whether you are, indeed, libertarian leaning.

If you are libertarian leaning, are you also going to speak out against the bigotry against Jews, Hispanics, gays, and atheists that is shown on this board?

The last point is more philosophical. If you believe you should take a hard line against liberals and they should be able to respond and take the heat, why shouldn't you show the same fortitude in taking criticism?

As I've said, I will not respond to any other of your articles here as a matter of courtesy even though I believe public discourse should be a part of politics. Dissent is at the root of democracy. The great strength of our country is that the people can express their views. I hope this is not another attempt at solidifying the anti-intellectual bent of the Republican party.

tony| 1.1.09 @ 12:52PM

There's so much that you wrote that is demonstrably wrong, I will simply deal with one issue: Your assertion that Sarah Palin cost John McCain the election.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only time McCain led after both nominees were chosen was the period right after his nomination of Gov. Palin. In fact, don't bother trying to correct me, because once you do your research, you will find this to be fact.

Now, if you recall, about 2 weeks after that, the financial crisis began. What was McCain's response? How did it go over? Did it improve his standing, or did it send his polls tumbling? Did he or did he not, at that point, fall behind Obama permanently? If so, what the hell did Gov. Palin's presence on the ticket have to do with it?

McCain lost because he was a terrible candidate. That's why democrats crossed over in the primaries to vote for him. What's interesting is that McCain is precisely the type of guy that moderate pragmatists like yourself have been insisting we have to nominate. He constantly fought with conservatives, sought out bipartisan consensus with democrats on all manner of issues and refused to go after Obama on his record. Classic pragmatic moderation and the perfect candidate for the above-the-fray crowd.

So now that the ideal "Bob-type" candidate has been beaten, what does Bob do but run away from the beaten moderate and blame it on the one person who actually enthused the base of the republican party. Really lame, Bob.

ruth| 1.1.09 @ 4:04PM

I knew Bob wouldn't keep his promise--another Bitter Bob lie. Please go away.

Quin Hillyer| 1.1.09 @ 4:15PM

Bob,
As hundreds upon hundreds of reader/correspondents can attest, I ordinarily welcome thoughtful and constructive criticism. The problem with your criticism is that you repeatedly and insistently comment on things I have never written and accuse me of beliefs I do not hold, and thus poison the well for all who want to actually discuss my columns, pro or con -- plus, by utterly and repeatedly misrepresenting my positions, you don't merely criticize me, which would be fine, but slander me, which is not at all fine. That's why I asked you to stop commenting -- because you have done so once too often.

Bob| 1.1.09 @ 4:21PM

Tony - your analysis is wrong. Here's what I want you to do. Go to the RCP polling trend data and mark these events: Palin is introduced, Gibson interview, Couric interview. You'll see a direct correlation with the interviews and McCain losing votes while there was a rise when Palin was introduced. Analytically, this is what occurred and it can be verified by polling data. A lot of Hillary voters were upset by the Obama win. Almost 30% of her supporters jumped over to support Palin when she was announced. This 30% translates into about 8% of total voters and thus almost fully explains the Palin bump. Palin did not get her bump because of her positions, she got her bump because of Hillary/women supporters. After the Gibson interview, there was an IMMEDIATE drop of about 4% and then another 4% immediately after the Couric interview. There were other ups and downs in the McCain data, but nothing that significant. Corresponding to this, the number of Hillary supporters who ended up NOT supporting Obama was about 4% meaning that most of them came home to Obama. In the final polling, almost 60% if the electorate found that Palin was unqualified to be president.

These things are not interpretation, they are just facts. Now the interpretation. Palin was a star with the Republican base, but she did not help McCain with votes in the final analysis. She did help with the get out the vote effort and enabled him to get more donations. It is difficult to determine how much of that turned into votes, however.

Instead of doing a proper analysis, the Republican operatives who want to boost Palin just look at the one data point when Palin was chosen and blame the rest on McCain and the economy. When you try to verify that analysis by putting McCain saying "the economy is sound" and then going back to Washington on the timeline, there is no corresponding significant drop in the polling data. I encourage you to verify the information you have heard for yourself. I've done data analysis my entire life, and rarely is the data this clear. Trend/event analysis is very useful in looking at the real facts rather than the talking heads.

Regarding the "Bob-type" candidate, it was not McCain, it was Romney. He is smart, successful, well educated, and the best candidate to deal with economic issues. I did not like the fact that he changed on so many issues just to get the Republican base to like him, but in my opinion, he was the best candidate for the party.

Again, I encourage you to check the facts, do the analysis yourself, and verify my information. If you find it faulty, please either ask for help or let me know.

Bob| 1.1.09 @ 4:45PM

Quin, believe me, there is no attempt to "slander" you. If you take my comments as "slander", then you are misreading me just as you claim I am misreading you.

I believe the Republican party is at a crossroads right now. You have the group of conservatives who want to take the party back to its roots, and those of us with more leftish/libertarian social views who want the party to just concentrate on the issues of limited government, fiscal restraint, and individual responsibility. We also believe that the party must expand to include more young and minorities as they are the growing populations. The religion/evangelical issues, in many of our minds, is really hurting the ability of the party to expand the base. It is a very divisive issue even among registered Republicans.

I could take a hands off approach which you might prefer, but I love this country and us, so-called RINO's get creamed on this board. If we don't get some fiscal restraint and limited governance back, then I believe it will hurt the futures of our children. So when I see you knowingly bring up divisive issues like religious "bigotry", rather than things that can bring a divided party together, it makes me cringe. And yes, even if the subject of the article was not precisely on this point, the fact that it is even here brings up the undertones of that problem.

Does this divisiveness make me angry? You betcha! Does the fact that no one here comments on the bigotry against Jews, Hispanics, and blacks, and only on the bigotry against Christians bother me? You betcha! I would encourage you and others here to speak up against bigotry wherever you see it. Read this blog for one of the worst examples:

http://spectator.org/archives/2008/12/31/changing-of-the-guard

The type of language we see there by the "friends" of AmSpec, are far worse than anything I have said here.

That said, I will still not respond to any of your future postings. But please take a step back and consider a wider view.

tony| 1.1.09 @ 5:29PM

You can do a microanalysis if you want, but the fact is that McCain gained in the polls following the Palin announcement. But even if there was minor slippage, your original point was that Palin cost McCain the election. This is simply not true. He was losing before the Palin announcement.

You also completely overlooked everything else I mentioned. There were so many factors that led to McCain's defeat, yet you ignore all of them. McCain was dead in the water before Palin's arrival. Again, microanalyze all you want, look at snapshots in time, but McCain took the lead when Palin arrived on the scene and blew it with the occurence of the financial crisis combined with his insane handling of the situation.

You seem to be an intelligent guy whose just here to annoy people with vapid comments, so I'm surprised that you state that "Palin was a star with the Republican base, but she did not help McCain with votes in the final analysis." This is precisely what she was brought in to do. McCain's strategy was to win over the great unwashed, the middle. Ever since he decided he wanted to run for national office 8 years ago, his modus operandi has been to appeal to the moderates he believed were the key to victorty. The idea that Gov. Palin was brought in to win these people over is preposterous. McCain lost his beloved moderates on his own.

As for your ideal candidate, I see nothing in Romney that fits your desire for moderation and pragmatism. Romney campaigned as a pure right winger, just the type of candidate that you claim is the ruination of the republican party. My view is that Romney would have been a far superior candidate precisely because he wasn't being wishy-washy and looking to get along with democrats.

tony| 1.1.09 @ 5:31PM

Let me correct something I said in my previous post. I meant to say that you seem like an intelligent guy whose NOT here to annoy with vapid comments.

Sorry for the misstatement.
Tony

ruth| 1.2.09 @ 3:48AM

Tony, sorry--I disagree, Bob definitely wants to offend the SoCons on AmSpecBlog. He blames his psychological problems on people he doesn't even know, and calls us bigots if we disagree with him. How can you have a discussion when you are demonized or called stupid if you disagree? The only bigots I encounter on this site are Liberals like Bob, and he's a sexist, too. His venomous personal attacks against Sarah Palin are too numerous to count and are without merit. We can agree to disagree but I believe it must be respectful. I think Quin is right to reject Bob's slander, maybe then he will behave with some decorum.

Anya| 1.2.09 @ 6:24AM

Dear Quinn,
Great article! Sadly, I think Christianity will continue to be misunderstood and wrongly portrayed by most of the journalists writing today. They are darkened in their understanding and do not possess a love of the TRUTH! They just despise God's standards of sexual morality. Virtues like self-control and faithfulness are not as interesting as a mothers adulterous behavior. Give me a break! What a crock!
BTW, I won't miss Bob's distracting and condescending comments on this blog! The guy makes me crazy :)

Bob| 1.2.09 @ 6:38AM

Tony, the problem with your point of view is that it doesn't fit the facts. That was my point. The fact is that no one knew Sarah Palin when she was announced. When they learned something about her, ALL of the gain she received at the beginning was lost. It isn't "microanalysis", it is analysis -- something many ideologues on both sides of the political spectrum seem to ignore. Most people today want a sound bite instead of taking the time to study the issues. Most people can't do a proper analysis if the data today and just take people's comments and use them. Please do the analysis I've suggested. It will take 5 minutes and you will then be convinced she was a negative to McCain, not a positive. I'm convinced that most conservatives here will not do any real analysis because they are afraid that reality will diminish their beliefs, and to ideologues, beliefs are more important than reason. This is my beef with Quin who easily calls those of us who are not social conservatives bigots but refuses, along with the other staff here, of calling out the real bigots on the right who demean blacks, Hispanics and Jews.

And yes, Ruth is right, I believe the social conservatives (not all of them) are ruining the chances of Republicans to become a majority party and instill limited government, a strong national defense, fiscal responsibility, and individual responsibility. I don't consider that bigotry, I consider that pragmatism.

John Spencer Yantiss| 1.2.09 @ 6:45AM

Bravo, Quin Hillyer! Apparently, and quite sadly, neither Miller nor Ward knows what an allegory is. Even worse, downright tragic, is that neither has the "refinement," as my great-grandmother would have called it, to grant those with whom they disagree the courtesy and respect to hold differing views. The ultimate value of a real education, to wit, experience--as opposed to accumulated facts alone--and the resulting maturity, is to be able to comprehend opposing views without demanding that those who hold them give them up in favour of one's own. Of course, the "post-modern" penchant for trying to force one's views on others, by disallowing them the Consitutional right to express their views, short of physically harming others, demonstrates the increasing lack of maturity within society. Both Miller and Ward manifest a most egregious puerilism, but one that is not by any means singular in today's intolerant liberalism.

Thank you Quin Hillyer, for so succinctly yet completely illustrating their fallacious reasoning and scrivening.

Julie| 1.2.09 @ 10:18AM

Poor old Bob. Reduced to demonstrating how little he knows of the basic precepts of the United States of America as he pulls out the hoary "separation of church and state" routine.
It continues to be a mystery to those of us who can read why the pathetic Bobs in this country cannot understand the "free exercise" of religion clause in the Constitution, and why they fail to grasp the most basic principle of our foundation: Our rights and freedom come from God and therefore they cannot be be taken away by any government or human agency or person.
The inability of Bob to understand this makes any of his comments on Quin's work irrelevant, and about as valuable as critiques by me on physics, professional wrestling or Persian poetry.
As a former teacher of CCD classes, which is what Catholics call Sunday school for kids, I'd like to think that Bob's kids are giving their father the honor and respect the 10 Commandments requires. I hope they'll also help him to understand the meaning and importance of the Declaration of Independence, which clearly provides that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Quin Hillyer rightly points out that leaving Christian philosophy and morality out of Lewis' work is absurd. How perfectly ironic it is to have Bob's shallow commentary as a vivid illustration of the profound truths in Hillyer's article.
Politics of the kind espoused by Bob are those that enslave people and destroy lives in the names of "pragmatics."

Bob| 1.2.09 @ 11:30AM

Julie, if I read Quin properly, he believes that belief and reason inform each other. The problem I see with most conservatives, especially social conservatives who post here, is that they see this only in one way -- belief informs reason. I object the latter because men are fallible. The Declaration of Independence makes a simple reference to a supreme being but does not include religious dogma. In fact, the founding documents argued against a government established religion. What you and others propound is that YOUR religious DOGMA be applied to the electorate. Therefore, arguments against abortion or gay rights are made on the basis of religious dogma. And yes, I do object to that. Furthermore, social conservatives tend to eschew analysis (pragmatism) in favor of belief even if it flies in the face of fact. Pragmatism is not atheism, it is simply recognizes that reason does, indeed, inform belief.

ray| 1.2.09 @ 11:44AM

It's interesting that "Bob" repeatedly says he will no longer respond, but still does.

Bill H| 1.2.09 @ 12:22PM

Bob says...

We all (liberals, conservatives, religious & irreligious alike) want our DOGMA applied to the electorate. Atheists do not want Christians praying in school (even in private) & they want everyone to learn Darwin's theory. Environmentalists want to force everyone to reduce their carbon footprint. Multiculturalists want to impose their cultural relativism on the world through education and speech codes. Civil rightists want to impose their civil rights views on everyone through civil rights legislation and education. I could go on for pages with this.

Bob, your problem is you are a bigot. You are of the opinion that views of religious people are somehow less legitimate than the views of others. You are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to hold them without the awareness that they are closed-minded and bigoted.

Bill H| 1.2.09 @ 12:24PM

The missing quote of Bob's from my post above is:

"What you and others propound is that YOUR religious DOGMA be applied to the electorate."

Paul Bunker| 1.2.09 @ 2:03PM

Bob is certainly glib with words but seems to lack simple good sense. He should have listened to his father.

ruth| 1.2.09 @ 3:02PM

Bob, you promised Quin that you would no longer comment on his columns, but you continue to do so. You have no honor.

Gail S| 1.2.09 @ 3:53PM

I think there is an elephant in the room. One of the key tenets of Christianity is free will. This is one of God's greatest blessings. Christians are Christian by choice and of their own determinism.

Christianity is the greatest and maybe only threat to communism and socialism because of that particular tenet. Academia and the MSM have been thoroughly imbued with socialist doctrine.

To exist, communism and/or socialism require unquestioning belief in that ideology. Anyone with free will and a penchant for actual observation and analysis can see how flawed and dangerous they are. You see, no one can take away free will, but people can voluntarily forfeit that freedom. Before either of these ideologies can take hold, Christianity must first be destroyed.

This has been going on for several generations among the pseudo elite, and it is very unlikely that any of the baby boom, gen-X or baby boomlet generations even know why they hate Christianity. They have been indoctrinated to hate it and have passed that hatred on mindlessly for the past 50 or 60 years...longer if you want to go back to the 20's and 30's when Marx was all the rage among the pseudo elite of that era.

None of what we are seeing is surprising. It does, however, mean that it is time we restore true intelligence, debate, free will, freedom of speech and thought to our schools, colleges and universities.

They do not need to teach Christianity, but they must obtain an environment that fosters free will. This is primarily a Christian tenet, so there is the catch 22.

Best regards,
Gail S

vincep1974| 1.3.09 @ 6:49AM

Gail: that is a powerful point. That's 0ne of the reaaons why Hitler had opposed Christianity and he had plans to eventually purge the church from Germanybut he knew he had to wait a generation or two so that the youth would be raised to want to get rid of it.

Bob| 1.4.09 @ 3:14PM

Bill H -- Consider that I object as much to atheistic dogma as I do to religious dogma. We should be wishing Merry Christmas to people, public schools should allow religious groups (and non-religious groups) to use their facilities for after school clubs, and we should have vouchers so that parents who want to sent their kids to parochial schools can use their tax dollars to do so. If that makes me a bigot, so be it. We should not discriminate against anyone on the basis of their beliefs, or non-beliefs. I want to see everyone have the liberty of choice.

However, when you restrict my choice based upon YOUR dogma, it goes too far. Gay marriage/civil unions are an example. You putting up a nativity display at city hall does not restrict me in any way and you should be able to do it. Muslims should be able to publically celebrate Ramadan and also have displays at city hall.

But the point here is not liberty, it is whether YOUR religious dogma makes the Republican party stronger or weaker. My belief, based on data, is that it limits the party and the candidates it chooses. I will never convince the ultra-religious social conservatives like you to change -- I know that. I will never be able to get Hamas to change their view of Christians for the same reason. However, I believe that the secular conservative principles of limited government, strong military, fiscal responsibility and individual rights are so important, that perhaps other "RINO's" will push the Republican party to expand.

And Ruth, my promise was not to reply to any of Quin's FUTURE blogs/columns. I will comply with what I said. However, I need to respond to your's, and other social conservatives, bigotry towards those of we Republicans who are socially moderate and want a better country based upon secular conservative principles.

ruth| 1.4.09 @ 5:31PM

Bob, cite me one example of my bigotry toward you. You are the hate-monger, you're just hiding behind your baseless accusations. Another aggrieved minority; get in line--your numbers are legion.

Nfl jerseys| 8.27.09 @ 11:23PM

It is a wonderful article: NFL jerseys,Photoshop CS2,ghd Hair Straightener,Adobe Photoshop CS4.

links london| 9.10.09 @ 10:24PM

Thanks for your information, i have read it, very good！

The American Spectator

Comments