The American Spectator

ruth| 12.5.08 @ 4:37PM

Kathleen Parker: Foot soldier in the Thought Police Army.

Crusader| 12.5.08 @ 4:42PM

So its OK to make a secular argument against abortion but not a religious one? Man how can I get a job writing crap like that?

J David| 12.5.08 @ 4:44PM

I say, wouldn't that be Kathleen Quisling Parker?

J David| 12.5.08 @ 4:48PM

Kathleen Q. Parker is not just a columnist, she is a 5th Columnist for the Obamunist National Security Forces(that will function as ruth's "Thought Police Army).

james23| 12.5.08 @ 4:59PM

I am astonished anyone was able to get through this airhead's latest column. Embarrassingly bad.

ruth| 12.5.08 @ 5:00PM

JDavid, please, it's not 'my' TP Army. I abhor them.

Mary| 12.5.08 @ 8:17PM

Don't know if it's off topic or not, but when I was growing up, Catholics and Protestants were further apart from one another than they are today.

Being the child of WW II parents [my father 17, my mother 11 during the time WWII came in earnest to Italy] who had to live on the lam for a year because Germany demanded to garrison her soldiers in their homes, I reached an intellectual maturation point quite a bit before a lot of my friends did.

Mr. Hillyer, my parents returned to small piles of ashes where their bare necessities of table and chairs and woodblock once stood.

I wasn't all that old when I realized that it was Protestant soldiers who had helped free the Vatican from the clutches of Germany and her Nazis. And because of that, the distance between these expressions of the faith (at that time it was considered a mortal sin to participate in Protestant worship) didn't seem all that great to me. I hated that distance, because I had Protestant friends whose parents were devout, and I knew that politics was more the source of our separation than anything else. I wouldn't have put it that way at the time. But however I would have worded it at 18, the message would have been the same.

Culture is like a rhizome.

Moynihan -rest in peace- noted that the central truth of conservatism is that culture instead of politics determines the success of a society. And that the core of liberalism is that politics can act as savior and usher in salvation to a culture.

I think even a rudimentary understanding of history shows the central truth of conservatism to be dramatically more tenable.

In Moynihan’s Family and Nation: The Godkin Lectures this is what he wrote:

There is one unmistakable lesson in American history: A community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future — that community asks for and gets chaos... And it is richly deserved.

What does all of this have to do with Parker? Nothing. I was never one of her readers.

Her current slapping down of social conservatives happened, in my opinion, because she was treated to some pretty hateful email when she asked Governor Palin to step down. She had every right to express her thoughts on the subject. And any Christian worth his or her baptism would never write some of the things that were written to her. Her bile is understandable. But she goes too far. In one of her more recent pieces she speaks of herself as 'bathing in Holy Water.' Any Catholic worth his or her Baltimore knows that for the vile statement that it is.

I’ve been a fan of Theodore Dalrymple for a few years now. He wrote that to ‘reject religion is to reject Western Civilization.’ I didn’t really need him to tell me that, but I did need him to express it so wonderfully.

Conservatives have been advised recently, by someone commenting on one of RSM’s posts, to read Kirk in order to better understand Conservatism, and the danger of rampant individualism. But before I being to study Kirk in earnest, Edmund Burke has to come first.

Right now it’s his Reflections on the French Revolution. It’s almost like reading another language, and in too many ways it offends my modern sensibilities. The 'Davidian Branch' [I’m thinking that phrase might catch on] of conservatism has lamented that social conservatives cannot keep on insulting the sensibilities of the Nor’eastern , Western suburbanite and not pay the electoral price. Mr. Tyrrell (he's dishy!) asks us to keep our L.L Bean catalogues close at hand. Good advice, I think.

Before the ‘security moms’ were security moms, they were ‘soccer moms.’ Maybe next time around they’ll be ‘no bureaucrat between me and my healthcare moms.’ We’ll see. But I’d bet quite a bit that I don’t own that they’re not done evolving.

Anyway, perhaps I’ve overstayed my welcome in the com-box. Have you ever looked at comment or post and said to yourself TLWR (too long, won’t read)? I know I have.

But before I go, a bit from Edmund Burke and Reflections on the Revolution in France:

But now all is to be changed. All the pleasing illusions which made power gentle and obedience liberal, which harmonized the different shades of life, and which by a bland assimilation, incorporated into politics the sentiments which beautify and soften private society, are to be dissolved by this new conquering empire of light and reason. All the decent drapery of life is to be rudely torn off. All the superadded ideas furnished from the wardrobe of a moral imagination, which the heart owns, and the understanding ratifies as necessary to cover our naked, shivering nature, and to raise it to dignity in our own estimate, are to be exploded as a ridiculous, absurd, and antiquated fashion. [pg. 66]

Mary| 12.5.08 @ 8:27PM

I'm sorry, I made a mistake.

Dalrymple didn't say to reject religion is to reject Western Civlization, he said 'to regret religion is to regret Western Civilization.'

ruth| 12.5.08 @ 10:07PM

I don't know, Mary. Kathleen Parker started this dust-up by attacking Governor Palin in a personal and nasty way. I'm sorry she got hate-mail (and we don't know who sent it), but her timing and method of attack were unartful. Maybe conservatives already felt so under-seige after 8 years of 'Bushitler', worry for our country's future and the liberals' savage attacks against Palin (this woman had a small baby in her arms!), that we took it out on Parker. Maybe it was the sense of betrayal that 'one of our own' had turned on us. I'm not exactly sure what happened, but regardless, her latest diatribe is both arrogant and frightening. I think Kathleen should get over herself.

Pluto Animus| 12.6.08 @ 3:39AM

Magical, invisible friends are for idiots and small children.
Period.

Bob| 12.6.08 @ 9:31AM

The heart of the so-cons (and Quin's) argument is that religious belief informs reason. The problem with this position is that reason receives the short end of the stick -- not that they should be separated. Furthermore, it assumes that individual beliefs are absolutely right when humans are easily fallible. It also presumes that your particular religion is the right one -- i.e., we should be a "Christian" nation and Muslims better not run for high office.

This notion leads to policies and candidates being chosen by belief over reason and for Republicans being more and more anti-intellectual and anti-"Ivy League" education. This is another way of saying you don't want smart people in high office. It also leads to hatespeak and intolerance against those who don't share your views. Issues get argued on religious grounds rather than reason. This brings people apart, rather than together, as reason means you consider the other side and religion means you only listen to your version of the divine.

While history has proven that religion can be a positive or negative force to society, by and large it can be adjudicated to do more good than bad. I'm not arguing that religion should be eliminated from the public square, only that when you conduct business outside of church, you should value reason above religion as that is the only way we can achieve a united stand.

As for politics, the Republican party is divided between the so-cons and libertarians. Libertarians are fairly open to reason, but so-cons are not. Therefore, rather than so-cons being constructive to the party, they have a "veto" influence. Thus they will veto any pro-choice candidate and limit the breadth and depth of the Republican party. This also has the effect of choosing know nothing, anti-intellectual candidates like Palin versus smart, educated, and experienced candidates like Romney. It also forces candidates like Romney to overstate his religion vs. reason position or not be a candidate.

So in this sense, Kathleen Parker is absolutely right. It is an argument so-cons and religious fanatics will never accept -- or even consider. A society based on feeling/belief will always be flawed since none of us really know the true divine right.

Mary| 12.6.08 @ 1:21PM

Ruth -

I don’t think the argument you advance is very convincing, though I’m not unsympathetic to the spirit of it.

Here’s where I think you’re off the mark:

1) Parker’s piece calling for Palin to step down was not mean-spirited. She had originally been in the Governor’s corner when McCain first announced her candidacy for VP. IIRC, she called for Palin to step down following the Couric interview. And I’m not about to blame Parker for that.

I don’t remember Parker writing anything ad hominem in that piece, though I’m open to correction as I don’t have the piece in front of me.

2) Appealing to Palin holding sweet and plump Trig in her arms, is an appeal to emotionalism that is ill-suited for this discussion.

You’re right that we don’t know for sure who sent her those hateful emails, but it’s not too difficult to imagine or surmise who they were. One of the emails read something to the effect that Parker was a fine example of the good of abortion and elimination. It’s very doubtful that such a pointed response came from someone holding to the leftist view of abortion. It’s more likely that it came from a very angry person who likely professes to be a Christian. It carries that quality of inversion that caused Montaine over 4 centuries ago to remark that there was no hate like Christian hate.

One of the biggest reasons Christians come under fire is because it’s insufferable to be lectured to by people whose society is not antithetical in the least to society at large. If it were, it’s quite likely, like Old Money, it would be quite and oh so easy on all the senses. Moreover, it would act as an organic draw to the pagan parts of society who crave an unknown God [http://tinyurl.com/6klxzm], and who could see before them an example of order and beauty and happiness, such as is allotted to man in a world where suffering will always prevail. Nobody should expect pagans to take the lead in any of this.

Why does Parker have to be “one of our own?” I know the instinct is natural, I just wish we could move away from that kind of cultish inclination.

The vitriol directed at Governor Palin was a vision of one of the circles of Hell. In my view, she would have been better advised to take that on directly, rather than go after the things she did. From her take on Obama and palin’ around with terrorists, to her intimations that the crowds she drew, and the places she visited were the areas where greater patriotism and love of country dwelled, she missed opportunities to take on her enemies and call the Country to higher purpose. In my view, she was very well positioned to do such work.

I would have hammered the Ayers and Wright issues because they were legitimate. But you can’t, like McCain did, hurl the rock then hide your hand. Not only is that stupid, it’s venal.

And no, Ayers doesn’t equal Liddy. For goodness sake, Begala, who hates conservatives with the same kind of zeal as the demented Kos, practically French-kisses Liddy whenever he interviews him. He’d never do that to Ayers, even though they’re on the same side.

Ayers trods Old Glory under foot in his well-appointed courtyard. Liddy did time in a DC Federal Prison that hadn’t been modernized since Reconstruction. Liddy, as a lawyer, petitioned for improved conditions for his fellow convicts while doing time with them. Liddy convened classes for his fellow convicts in which he attempted to teach them history. Liddy is a lover and a free-thinker. Ayers is a hater and a doctrinaire, pseudo-intellectual. The difference between Liddy and Ayers is that while Liddy’s activities may be classified as immoral, Ayers and his wife’s activities were amoral.

What I’m really trying to get at with all of this is that social/religious conservatives should ignore Parker, et al. But what they shouldn’t ignore is how much more effective example is than talk. And that if the example isn’t there, the talk should take an increasingly introspective turn.

Parker’s right about one thing: Obama and his family set a good example. Especially for the A-
A community which has been torn asunder by illegitimacy and crime.

Shelby Steele surmises that Obama will do little, if anything, to address these staggering defects. Shelby said that when his people become exhausted by their suffering, they will rise against it. And that like the movement that MLK led, government won’t have anything to do with it.

Parker should really take a powder though. Her vacuous assertions as they relate to Pastor Rick Warren, and the forum he held for both McCain and Obama, should be dismissed out of hand.

Obama made one or two appearances at Saddleback long before the Forum took place. And Pastor Warren came under criticism from Christians for that. He’s no toady.

Perhaps Obama should have taken a powder too. Parker doesn’t seem aware of Obama’s appearances or her thinking on this would be more nuanced.

McCain appeared at Liberty, though peopled by “agents of intolerance.” Why did he go there after his resistance debut of 2000? Dual exhaust of the “straight talk express!” BTW, I think oogedy boogedy is a NASCAR term. Fancy, having to admit that a phrase you introduced in your writing, and has caught on, is not original?

Pastor Warren had every right to arrange this Forum and the candidates had every right to accept or reject the invitation.

It’s not the fault of conservatives that McCain came across as a man of quiet, humble faith. He’s got a great pro-life record, and I’m not sure if he’s as much an enemy of conservatives legislatively as he is temperamentally.

Again, it’s not the fault of conservatives that Obama emerged from the Forum a seemingly navel-gazing, feckless, unevolved pol. What was it his campaign alleged following his teleprompter free SNAFU? McCain was placed in some sort of info feeding cone? What intellectual pusillanimity!

Look, I know I’ve gone long here, and I’m sorry if I’ve droned on. But conservatives have nothing to fear.

This election, like the one before it, and the one before that, is but a snapshot of history. Our days, like the days of liberals, are nowhere near being over. Nascence is an essential component and comportment of Conservatism. And right now we’re in a nascent period. It may seem something closer to death, but it’s not, because you can never kill ideas.

Mr. Tyrrell’s advice is good advice. I would only add that our soto voce Cri du Coeur
should be Ad Fontes!

Ruth, if you haven’t already, you should pick-up Burke’s Reflections on the French Revolution. You’ll want to pull your hair out. You’ll get real mad at him, but you’ll also begin to understand the depth of his thought, and the honor and goodness of his purpose.

BD57| 12.6.08 @ 1:39PM

I must read the wrong blogs, websites, etc. because I just don't come across all these intolerant Christians lecturing others on how to live their lives.

As far as Kathleen Parker getting nasty e-mails is concerned ... well, I'm embarrassed for the people who send that sort of garbage ... just as I'm embarrassed for Parker, who is supposed to be a professional writer, for writing the sort of garbage that she's been writing of late.

One who wishes to appeal to "reason" doesn't do so by describing those she disagrees with as "oogeddy-boogedy" people - or that their motivations are somehow "out of bounds." That's the way of the left - attack the motivations of the opponent, declare their point of view illegitimate, refuse to engage their ideas.

It's pathetic.

ruth| 12.6.08 @ 2:06PM

Mary, we can respectfully disagree on Kathleen Parker, but I do think her attacks on Palin were petty and personal. Our party is in dire straits right now and it puts our country at risk not to have two strong competing points of view. This is the time for the right to pull itself together and rebuild--not tear itself apart. Parker is the darling of the left right now, heck, John McCain filled that role for decades (you can see where that got him). So, knock yourself out defending Ms. Parker, I prefer to be positive and future driven by rebuilding the Conservative movement so dear to my heart. Have a great weekend!

ruth| 12.6.08 @ 2:12PM

I knew Bob would be here to slam conservatives. Good old Bob, never disappoints, always predictable.

Alex| 12.6.08 @ 2:32PM

The reason why Kathleen Parker and others are having this strong anti socons reaction is because of this group's total disdain for what conservatism is all about -FREEDOM NOT TRADITION.
Yet, it seems those who currently call themselves conservatives have no problem in abandoning the true nature of this philosophy.

Congratulations Ms. Parker, for bringing some common sense in the midst of so much irrationality and hate.

ruth| 12.6.08 @ 3:05PM

Alex, the only irrationality and hate on this blog is from you.

Bob| 12.6.08 @ 4:18PM

Ruth -- I don't slam real conservatives, only the intolerant RINO's who call themselves social conservatives...

ruth| 12.6.08 @ 6:31PM

Bob, as if a hate-filled liberal like you would know what a conservative is.

Mary| 12.6.08 @ 7:36PM

I do want to correct my last comment on one point. I used the word venal in describing the way McCain approached the Ayers issue. But it was wrong. I never meant to imply McCain could have been bought, just that the way he handled the issue was not forthright and because of that, not honorable either.

Alex | 12.6.08 @ 8:17PM

go ahead Ruth, we need you! someone should pay you to continue convincing zealots to nominate Palin. Then all the bunch of populists that have hijacked conservatism would be once and for all kicked out of the GOP after the humiliating defeat that would follow

ruth| 12.6.08 @ 8:22PM

Alex, thanks for your kind words! We need you, too--like a hole in the head.

Bob| 12.7.08 @ 8:46AM

Ruth, you are funny. Do you remember the phrase about the pot calling the kettle black? Calling for intelligence and reason is neither liberal or conservative -- it is a vision of a better America. You are so wrapped up in Rush Limbaugh group think that is so hateful of a majority of our population -- after all, a majority did vote for Obama. It is time for the Republican party to embrace a positive, intelligent, view of our country with fiscal discipline and foreign policy restraint. It is time to show that we value intelligence and accomplishment in our candidates and not choose the dregs of academia. It is time for the party to include those who think differently and not be intolerant to them. It is time for the party to be the party of all America and not the party of old, white people.

Turk| 12.7.08 @ 1:42PM

There's a trick the left plays when they enter the arena of ideas especially if it's in places where we comfortably enjoy the latest in Conservative thought: They begin with--" I've been a conservative Republican for 40 yrs and Ronald Reagan stinks" And thats for openers. You can almost smell them and their disengenuisness! I was "smelling" Kathleen Parker for a long time before her attack on Sarah Palin. She got a lot of attention(liberals milk) when she attacked Sarah as being one from our side. She never was and never will be, so why don't we ignore her like we do--for instance, the creator of the internet? What she has to say is irrelevant!

TonyAndrade| 12.7.08 @ 2:29PM

We Republicans have to eliminate from our public policy debates, DIRNO's (democrats in republican name only) like Kathleen Parker, Cris
Buckly, Chafee, Leach and others who's only agenda is to destroy the priciples of limited government, idividual responsibily, and the fre enterprise system represented by the Republican Part.
How to do it, I

Bob| 12.7.08 @ 2:51PM

TonyAndrade -- I'm afraid you really don't understand the issues here. The people you have named, plus people like Colin Powell, George Will, Frum, Weld, etc., firmly believe in the principles of limited government, individual responsibility, and free enterprise. They don't agree, however, with the so-con argument of INCREASED governmental influence in the areas of personal choice like abortion, stem cell research, religion in government, etc. The problem is that you really don't understand individual freedoms which tend to support a more libertarian agenda. Again, you show how anti-intellectualism is hurting the Republican party.

ruth| 12.7.08 @ 5:53PM

Bob, that's ironic, I bet you are an old white person. Even worse, you are an old white man--talk about self-loathing.

Bob| 12.7.08 @ 6:15PM

Ruth, of course I'm an old white guy! Why else would I be a part of the Republican party????

ruth| 12.7.08 @ 6:52PM

You stole my question; why are you in the Republican party? You are a Liberal.

Stuart| 12.8.08 @ 2:17PM

Let's leave aside Parker's campaign against Sarah Palin. Parker has a point here if she means that arguments against abortion, for instance, should not reference scripture. In other words, social conservatives can't appeal to the authority of texts their opponents don't accept as authoritative. Religious belief is, however, a valid part of a social conservative's argument if it means talking about the fact that human beings have core beliefs and values, a priori moral assumptions, that are not the product of reasoning or pragmatic concerns. They are beliefs about what is right and true about reality- for religious folks, God places them there. But agnostics and atheists also have such a priori, core beliefs even though they don't believe a divine being implants them. So religious conservatives can marshall a "religious" argument against social liberals if they reveal the a priori assumptions of pro-abortion and insist that the debate critically considers both sides' core beliefs.

Pluto Animus| 12.8.08 @ 8:57PM

Of course Conservatives should continue to justify their policies with belief in fairy tales -- they lost big in the last election, and they will continue to lose if they continue to cling to this once-effective strategy.
So, keep losing, Conservatives! You've gotten very good at it lately, and your belief in your magical, invisible friend has played a critical role in your many recent electoral defeats.