The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Re: The Cut of His Jib

Text Size

Stacy, you are wrong as wrong can be. That is NOT the gist of the skeptical-of-Palin argument. Yes, it might be the gist of the David Brooks argument, but there is plenty of middle ground between Palin lovers and, on the other hand, those who despise Palin just because they are cultural snobs. Indeed, there is JUST AS MUCH cultural snobbery -- of a reverse kind -- among those who assume the ONLY reason to oppose Palin is snobbery as there is among the elitists like Brooks. And the reverse snobbery is just as ugly, sir, as the Brooks variety. Indeed, it is despicable. The conservative movement will never recover if it can't allow honest disagreements about qualifications, political tactics, and the like. To assume that everybody who disagrees with you is not just mistaken in judgment but actually ill-motivated is the attitude of a permanent political minority. And to go looking for cultural victimhood (oh, those terrible elites are so mean to us!) is just as wrong as any other sort of faux-victimhood grievance. My friend, it's time to stop the culture wars, on both sides, within the conservative movement. Those wars are self-destructive. Yes, if somebody throws a deliberate haymaker, like Brooks did, then fight back -- AT BROOKS. But don't overgeneralize by acting as if Brooks and his ilk are the only sorts of people who can possibly disagree with you.

Here's what is dangerous: Groupthink. And no-shades-of-gray-think. In early 2006 (and before), when I wrote critically of PResident Bush, I was subjected to incredibly angry mail from those on the right. By 2007, when I wrote in defense of other aspects of the Bush record, the same people who were angry at me for criticizing him were now castigating me for defending him. It's as if people can't make a distinction between their current feelings about a person and the actual issue being discussed. There's a "team" mentality, as in being a fan of a team, that seems to kick in. The attitude seems to be that unless you support the team unquestioningly, you should be an outcast. But this isn't sports. This is our country. And nobody is all good or all bad. And not everybody who disagrees does so for bad motives, just as not all who agree are ones who do so for good motives.

We have a movement to rebuild. Unless deliberate insult has been offered, it should not be assumed. Because with the people who may win election next Tuesday being the sorts who literally want to change the rules of the game to ensure that conservatives no longer have a level playing field any more, it may be true soon more than it has been true since 1776 that we will all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.

View all comments (6) | Leave a comment

J David| 10.31.08 @ 10:23AM

The "squishes" like Brooks, Frum, Kristol, Noonan, and I wouldn't normally throw Will in there but he is doing it to himself, are in for a pummeling when the election is over, as are a bunch of other "smarter- than-everyone-in-the- room" tea-and-croisant crowd, nose-in-the-air *conservative* commentators.

J David| 10.31.08 @ 10:29AM

Because Palin is the first REAL reformer anyone has seen, squishiness and spiteful behavior toward her, even if it is only perceived as such, is going to be a fault line between those who "comment" for a living and people attempting to rebuild the GOP. People want to identify with Palin, and an insult to her, perceived or real, is going to be an insult personally taken by millions.

Michael Roush| 10.31.08 @ 11:01AM

Brooks, Frum, Fukayama, Will and Noonan are conservatives who have been mugged by reality. Kristol, typically, is behaving like a whirling dervish.

J David| 10.31.08 @ 11:54AM

Brooks and Krugman actually have columns that agree with each other on expansion of gov't spending today in the NYTimes. Brooks is working on qualifying himself for outright liberal status in preparation for the new socialist regime under Obama.

BD57| 10.31.08 @ 1:18PM

Quin:

I agree with your "snobbery / anti-snobbery snobbery" point - it is out there and it poisons what should be a very serious discussion about the future course of conservatism.

With that said, many of the people being called "snobs" have brought it on themselves by advancing transparently ridiculous arguments against Palin.

How do people who say they'll vote Obama / Biden over McCain / Palin because she lacks experience justify that foolishness? In the world of experience, Obama's the lightweight of the four - indeed, Palin's the only one who has ever implemented anything she ran on.

Obama was a STATE Senator - below Palin's experience as a Governor. He was barely a U.S. Senator when he started running for President. His most (only?) discernible talent is to present himself well in public.

Palin's time in Alaska gives plenty of reason to believe her instincts are good, that she's grounded in the beliefs conservatives cherish.

If she's willing to learn, humble enough to know what she doesn't know and needs to learn and will take the time to do it, then not having been "on the national scene for four years" (if being a Senator who spends 1/2 his time running for president counts as being 'on the national scene') is no impediment to serving as Vice President with distinction.

In short, if those who dislike Palin & are going to vote Obama because she was selected had some arguments that didn't sink like a rock when examined in the "real world" - you don't get your 'perfect choice', it's either Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin - then it'd be easier to discount the "snobbery" attack on Brooks, et al.

james23| 10.31.08 @ 1:24PM

KParker boiled anti-Palinism down to its essence today at Nat'l Review: "I hate Sarah Palin." That's it, that's all they've got. See also "cancer" Brooks and "vulgar" Noonan.

I wish all three of them, and "Christo," best of luck with their new gigs at HuffPo.

Quin, save yourself, the rest of the anti-Palin crowd have given Palin-hatred a bad name.