From Nixon to Gingrich and Cain: a list, the media, and Sunshine conservatives.
Why would House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi say of her plan to savage Newt Gingrich that she’s holding back until “the time’s right”?
If what has now happened to Herman Cain were some sort of aberrant, stand-alone episode that really was based on facts, rather than, as Ann Coulter has astutely noted, allegations coming from those representing “the whole combo-platter of questionable accuser attributes” — the political weapons of mass destruction that took out Cain’s presidential campaign might be more understandable.
But, alas, this is not so. As Coulter with her usual succinctness has summed it up, Cain’s female accusers are a collection of the financially troubled, the twice-divorced, the unemployed, the professional sexual harassment accusers and one with an allegation of stalking and a libel judgment to boot. Thrown together with the usual left-wing dependence on racism plus an all-but foaming liberal hatred for blacks who happen to be conservatives, — and now added to the latest news of Pelosi’s plans for Gingrich — and the question arises:
Why all this venom towards Herman Cain? Why the malice in Pelosi’s statement about Gingrich?
The answer to the attacks on Cain and Gingrich is: this has nothing to do with Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich.
In fact, Herman Cain and Gingrich are simply the latest in a very long line of conservatives who have appeared on the scene since the post-World War II era rise of the conservative movement — only to have their lives and/or careers trashed in the liberal media and by the American left with an extraordinarily virulent hostility. Gingrich, in fact, has been there and done way back in the 1990s.
But why? And when precisely did all this venom begin poisoning the modern American body politic?
Leave it to the inimitable late William F. Buckley Jr. to put his finger on the cause years ago — in 1951 — and in doing so himself becoming an earlier version of Mr. Cain and Mr. Gingrich.
In his classic God and Man at Yale, in which the precocious 25-year old recent Yale graduate began unceremoniously shredding the veil of what was evolving into the modern liberal establishment millions of Americans have come to know and not love, Buckley took a manuscript note from his friend the Yale professor Willmoore Kendall and, recognizing its truth, inserted it in his book. It is worth repeating here:
I believe that the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world. I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level.
When Buckley’s book was published in 1951, it was barely a year after Alger Hiss, a rising star of the Eastern Establishment with the pedigree of a Harvard Law degree, had been convicted of being a Communist spy in the Roosevelt administration.
And who were the two prime movers in that episode of American history? The two people without whom Hiss would never have been exposed much less sent to prison?
That’s right: A young Congressman Richard Nixon and Whittaker Chambers, the Time magazine editor who confessed to belonging in a Communist cell with Hiss. Chambers had the same dawning recognition as Buckley and phrased it this way in his famous tale of the Hiss case — Witness — saying that the most revolutionary question in history could be boiled down to a simple three words :
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?