-
Farewell to the Spectator
December 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
Tentative Praise for Ryan's New Bipartisan Medicare Plan
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
-
The Day Ahead: Thursday, December 15
December 15, 2011 | 0 comments
-
Examiner for Romney, National Review Against Gingrich
December 14, 2011 | 39 comments
-
Paul Ryan to Introduce New Medicare Plan with Democrat Ron Wyden
December 14, 2011 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The criticism leveled against us, and by extension other conservative magazines, by Rod Dreher, who in this context speaks for a broader set of critics, is that by using harsh and inflammatory language to condemn Barack Obama and the liberals in power, we look intemperate in comparison and thereby actually advance their cause. Furthermore, engaging in this kind of rhetoric leaves us unable to identify the weaknesses in our own thoughts.
Are we, in fact, too outspoken in our anti-Obama rhetoric? Now from time to time, on the blog or in a web article, in the heat of the moment we might call some of Obama's policies socialist, corporatist, or even fascist. Although there is definitely an element of truth to all those accusations, we would probably be better off dialing it down a bit. However, any reader who follows us would know that we said all the same things of Bush, too.
In the case that Rod refers to, though -- the head for James Srodes's piece in the May issue that said "Obama's National Socialism" -- I don't agree that it was at all inflammatory or base-baiting. The article laid out the case why Obama's preferred policy mirrored that of Hjelmar Schacht's, which was I believe the first large-scale use of Keynesian-style stimulus. The head was in small script on the corner of the cover. It needed advertisement on the cover because it was a feature, and I think there are plenty of much more inflammatory ways we could have plugged it. For instance, we could have written "Obama's Favorite Economist: Hitler, page 22," or "Obama's Nazi Economics, 22" I really think that writing "National Socialism" is not a particularly provocative way to introduce such a naturally uncomfortable topic.
Dreher premises his larger point on a statement Bob Tyrrell made in last Saturday's New York Times article on conservative magazines. Dreher criticized Bob's statement that "Our major concern is that conservative philosophy permeate the country, and if the Republican Party doesn't want to go along with it, that's their business." In Dreher's view, this statement reflects an unyielding dedication to Reagan-era conservatism in the face of changing circumstances. He condemns this attitude because
The trick is to work hard to think through our own biases and emotions, and always to keep watch on our own minds, tongues and consciences, so that we speak the truth that is, not the truth that suits us emotionally, or that suits the people who buy what we're selling.
[...]
It is more important to serve God and to save your soul than to see your political party take power.
But Rod just quoted Bob saying, "if the Republican Party doesn't want to go along with it [a kind of principled conservatism], that's their business." Clearly we're not beholden to a political party.
It might hurt the Republican Party if we were so shrill and doctrinaire as to look like crazed wingnuts. But A) the fate of the Republican Party is not our concern, B) we're not shrill, and C) we're not doctrinaire -- the June issue's cover, with the giant subtitle "Time to Be Pro-Mexico" advertising a pro-immigration feature, I think pretty clearly shows we're not riling up the base (in fact we've received a lot of letters from readers outraged by that article).
Definitely there is a line to be walked to maintain our credibility. But calling out the government's clear excesses, even if no one in the mainstream is willing to, is not out of bounds. If Obama -- or any Republican, for that matter -- engages in Schacht-style stimulus, Mussolini-style corporatism, or European-style socialism, it's up to us to call it like we see it.
ADDED:
I guess I should make one more point regarding Dreher's specific question, "I would be interested to hear what Lawler thinks of the real substance of that post of mine, which was about the way we talk about the other side in American political discourse, and the temptations it poses."
I think credibility matters. I think it's a good thing when liberal magazines catch the "conservatives" in Congress in shenanigans or doing things that destroy liberty. But I can't separate the useful criticisms from the looniness on, for instance, the Huffington Post, so I don't read it. As long you base your rhetoric only on ironclad fact, as was the case with the Srodes piece, you will maintain your credibility and be useful not only for combating the left's missteps but also for both sides to read. Is there a danger that there will be outlets on the right that go completely overboard a la Daily Kos during the Bush years? Absolutely. But reasonable people on both sides know better than to get caught up in thinking about them too much, and I'm not sure how much value there is in launching a crusade against them when the press on the left is providing cover for their politicians to do some really dubious things while they're in power.
View all comments (13) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Joseph Lawler
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/06/17/shrill-too-shrill
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- I Take the Secret Service Scandal Personally
- Tenured and Powerless
- Capital Bound
SPONSORED LINKS
Special Feature
Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:
FLASHBACK TO: 1984
-
The Fairness Delusion
The speech our President should make.
-
Media Smears: One Man’s Experiences
A noted economist fires back.
-
Chuck Colson vs. The Fundamentalists
How political can you get?
-
The Reagan Doctrine
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
-
The Woman Problem
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bert| 6.17.09 @ 1:42PM
The fact that Dreher seems to think there are different "truths" for different situations tells you all you need to know. If you can't recognize that truth, by its very nature, is singular, the rest of your thinking is likely to be muddled beyond repair. I would advise you to tell the truth and not elevate people like Dreher into the conversation. Why pay attention to him at all?
B. Davis| 6.17.09 @ 2:31PM
Great post Joseph. There's no question that credibility can be lost when the rhetoric is overheated and ridiculous, but the Spectator never goes there in print, and only very rarely does so on the blog. As you point out re. this month's issue on Mexico, the Spectator is really a voice for many conservative viewpoints, and allows dissent and disagreement. I'd say we're damn lucky to have The American Spectator.
Red Phillips| 6.17.09 @ 2:38PM
Bert, if you think Dreher is a moral relativist then you don't have a clue. In fact, he is often criticized for being a moralist. Did you not read the part about it being more important to serve God and save your soul?
I am not always crazy about Dreher's tone nor his nods toward political pragmatism, but ultimately his criticisms of Reaganesq political formulations is that they don't always reflect a Christian conservatism properly understood.
Mrs. Jackson| 6.17.09 @ 4:34PM
Rod Dreher was wrong -really wrong -about the last presidential election. To wit:
"The best case that can be made for John McCain is that he would serve as something of a brake on runaway liberalism. But the country would be at significantly greater risk of war with the intemperate and bellicose McCain in the White House. That was clear months ago, but his conduct during the fall campaign—especially contrasted with Obama’s steadiness—has made me even more uneasy. His selection of Sarah Palin, while initially heartening to populist-minded social conservatives, has proved disastrous. Though plainly a politician of real talent, the parochial Palin is stunningly ill-suited for high office, and that’s a terrible mark against McCain’s judgment.
"As both a conservative and a Republican, I confess that we deserve to lose this year. We have governed badly and have earned the wrath of voters, who will learn in due course how inadequate the nostrums of liberal Democrats are to the crisis of our times. If I cannot in good faith cast a vote against the Bush years by voting for Obama, I can at least do so by withholding my vote from McCain.
While it is foolish to look forward to a decisive electoral defeat for one’s side, I can’t say that the coming rout will be a bad thing. The Right desperately needs to repent, rethink, and rebuild—and only the pain of a shattering loss will force conservatives to confront reality..."
With both N.Korea and Iran UNAFRAID of President Obama - he's their kind of useful idiot (there's that nasty inflammatory language again -my bad!) we are at a much greater threat of war. And chances are much better than they would have been under a President McCain that Israel may get blown off the map. Unless of course Bibi takes care of their nukes with his pilots. But if Obama doesn't turn a blind eye to Bibi's pilots crossing Iraq to get to Iran, Bibi's mission becomes a suicide one. Suicide for his pilots that is. And if this all does come to pass Mr. Dreher, will you then be critical of him for ordering a suicide mission to save his country?
One of the consolations of Obama winning is that VP Joe Biden who we've all known for 28 years wasn't fit for High Office has, since becoming VP, given away the location of the Secret Service's VP's hiding place so if we get attacked again, he might find himself scrambling through the streets of D.C. like David Frum did on 9/11.
Now that Obama has given us deficits in the trillions and a stimulus plan that didn't stimulate anything but unprecedented growth of government -far worse than anything George Bush did- is Mr. Dreher willing to admit his "strategy' regarding opting out of voting was wrong? He may have believed (fervently) the Republicans deserved to go through a "shattering loss". But did Mr. Dreher ever take the time to realize the country didn't?
Instead of criticizing those who are man enough to call a spade a spade, Mr. Dreher needs to realize his 'strategies' have been off for sometime.
Missy| 6.17.09 @ 5:30PM
Harsh and inflammatory? The American Spectator? I don't think you guys are strident enough.
Speak up and don't back down, we have to stay strong or we'll lose our country for sure.
"Any DEAD fish can float downstream--it takes a LIVE fish to swim against the current."
It takes COURAGE, too. God bless you, AmSpec.
Nope| 6.17.09 @ 6:38PM
Is this column a joke? I read this blog, and Commentary Magazine's, exactly BECAUSE the two of you were the craziest, most insane Conservative website that I can find. (Short of descending into Conservative sites that actually advocate armed rebellion, that is.) And I need this site! I like to keep tabs on what you crazies are saying. And since this article defends comparing the Obama adminstration to National Socialism, it's right in line with everything else you've written, day after repetitive day. Perfect!
And your hardworking staff! You've got exactly ONE normal(-ish) writer: that'd be James Antle. But he is totally cancelled out by the absolutely mad, frothing at the mouth, apocalyptic Matthew Vadum. And there's that Robert McCain: he's a buffoon, but an endearingly clueless one, so that's nice.
Don't apologize, Spectator! Embrace your destiny! People come to you to read the same darn thing over and over again: it's all Obama's fault, the Republican party isn't Conservative enough, torture is totally necessary, and the Iraq War is going just swell! It's what you guys do best. Keep it coming. You loyal army of semi-crazed readers don't want you to change a thing. They need you with them inside your ever-constricting Neo-Con bubble.
**And, for the record, I don't read liberal-shill outlets like the Huff Post, either. I remain mystified by people who want to hear the same thing over and over, just so that their own beliefs can be repetitively confirmed. I just don't get the appeal of that, I guess. But it works for you guys, and your readers love it, so stand proud, Spectator!
all the best,
Nope
Libby| 6.17.09 @ 8:49PM
The only crazed bloggers on this site are the libtroll morons like Nope a Dope. Moron.
Seymour Kleerly| 6.17.09 @ 9:16PM
Liberals and moderates have become almost desensitized to the foaming vitroll of the Right. Their constant, all consumming obsession with the Clintons was a lesson for the ages. Unfortuneately The Right and their rapidly dwindling believers must now feel the coming retribution. At least they must know that it's so justified.
RRWINGER| 6.17.09 @ 10:04PM
Seymournope.....thank you for chiming in. You see our own little davey mathews is on hiatus and we have clearly needed some rants from mind numbed obamatrons to keep us focused on the malignancies that must be defeated and removed from positions of power in this country!
John Lofton| 6.17.09 @ 10:52PM
Forget, please, "conservatism." It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson's Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:
"[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth."
Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
PS – And “Mr. Worldly Wiseman” Rush Limbaugh never made a bigger ass of himself than at CPAC where he told that blasphemous “joke” about himself and God.
Sassy| 6.18.09 @ 12:03AM
Don't Seymour Kleerly, guess you missed the latest Gallup poll that put CONSERVATIVES at 40% and LIBERALS at 20%. Better get some glasses, DON'T Seymour Kleerly-at-all, cause obviously you're blind--and stupid.
Patty| 6.18.09 @ 12:07AM
Sure, Lofton, reject the people who still hold their God near so all you've got left is a bunch of liberal atheists. That'll work.
God save us from so many idiots.
JP| 6.18.09 @ 9:05AM
Mr Lofton,
With all due resepcts, the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) was still fresh in the minds of our Founders. Orthodox Lutheranism vs the Counter Reformation mixed with politcal oppurtunism caused the worst European war in its history (right up to 1914, that is). I suppose we could go back to Monarchies, the natural artistocracy, and hereditary rights.
Our Founders may have been Christians, but they built a secular state based on the secular aims of the Enlightenment.