Back from the Dead?

Two items via Andrew Sullivan: In one, Ross Douthat mulls over the question of what might constitute the most promising shape for a future GOP coalition: an aliance of "Joe the Plumber and Joe the Office Park Employee," or one that would appeal to "upper-middle reformism" as formulated by David Frum? Douthat is somewhat skeptical as to whether a message aimed at "the Obama-voting, ex-Rockefeller Republicans making $150,000 a year" would harmonize well with one pitched at the Wall-Mart Republicans he and Reihan Salam have argued should be at the center of a conservative revival, arguing that

building a coalition of social conservatives and social moderates from the middle of the income and education distribution makes much more political sense than trying to hold together a coalition of social conservatives from the middle of the distribution and social liberals from the upper end.

At any rate, Douthat's entire analysis is premised on the revival of the GOP as, in his words, "a party that restores its reputation for competence and policy seriousness." Trouble is, as Mark Lilla explains in the Wall Street Journal, the Sarah Palin episode - and, one might add, the retrenchment of conservative movement elites in its aftermath - is dispositive evidence that the right has not only abandoned that reputation, it has comprehensively repudiated intellectual seriousness in favor of a debased appeal to talk-radio populism and "anti-elite" know-nothingism.

This is not news, I realize. But it does at any rate cause pretty serious complications to the efforts by genuine intellectuals like Douthat to plot a way forward for their party and their movement. He's forced to compete with compatriots who think it's a great idea roll the Republican clock back to 1994.

The thing of it is, in a two party system, the opposition doesn't necessarily need to be especially coherent or appealing. While it might spend a somewhat longer time in the wilderness, even an intellectually and ideologically stunted GOP is likely to find its way back into power eventually - the wheel turns, and all that. Count me with those who hope that reformers like Douthat are able to help their party evolve into a reasonably responsible institution before that day comes, but it's not entirely outside the realm of possibility that the neanderthals could simply wind up frozen in ideological ice, only to one day stumble back onto the scene as a result of some inevitable glacial shift.

(And no, I'm not necessarily saying I'm back. But I'm not not back, either.)

Labels: Andrew Sullivan, conservatives, Mark Lilla, Ross Douthat, Sarah Palin

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 5:00 PM 103 comments

  Look Who's a Fifth Column Now!

Andrew Sullivan, of course, was a cheerleader for the Iraq war and an enthusiastic participant in the demagoguery that suffocated American political debate during the run-up to the invasion. But his role as perhaps the most prominent intellectual of a certain peculiar school of American conservatism (one might call it the "Interesting!" school, in the Michael Kinsley sense) makes him somebody worth reading nonetheless. If I find occasion to praise him, don't think I've forgotten or forgiven his sins.

This is one of those occasions. Sullivan, who has now turned his defender-of-national-security schtick against the real domestic threat to American interests -- the Republican party -- writes the very script Democrats should be using when they talk about the war. Responding to one of Hugh Hewitt's inane party-line iterations of the mantra that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror (and that, therefore, those who oppose the war advocate submission to Islamic terror), Sully smacks the whole conservative framework to pieces:

Is it not possible to make, you know, empirical distinctions between various threats? To see that Islamism does indeed fuel Sunni and Shia violence, but that these forces are also fundamentally at war with one another? To see a distinction between Ahmadinejad's Shiite apocalyptics and Bin Laden's Wahhabist caliphate - a distinction any halfway competent war strategy would exploit, not deny?

When you see how evidence-resistant a propagandist like Hewitt can be, you begin to realize how important it is to keep these people away from power. They are much less interested in defeating al Qaeda than they are in using al Qaeda to defeat Democrats. This is what Hewitt really cares about: the GOP. Look what damage his ilk have done to the West's security since 9/11 because of their pathological partisanship. Look at how their refusal or inability to see any nuance, complexity or variety in the many threats we face makes our defeat more likely. We just cannot afford to tolerate these Republican propagandists any longer. There is a war on. And they simply aren't serious about fighting it.

Emphasis mine. I pledge my vote to the first Democratic presidential candidate to repeat the bolded parts of Sullivan's post verbatim. And to repeat it often.

Labels: Andrew Sullivan, Iraq, national defense, Republicans, War on Terror

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 12:32 PM 2 comments

  A Reminder

Courtesy of Andrew Sullivan:

Just so the Democrats understand, [the "botox" nonsense] is nothing compared to the avalanche of anti-Hillary trivia and bile that will be unleashed if she gets the nomination. It may not be fair, but it's a reality. If the Democrats want to save the Republican right, if they want to reboot the entire VRWC, they know what to do. Support Clinton.

He's right. It won't be the resurrection of the conservative movement, but it'll be a pretty convincing zombie version. When the ideas don't add up, a common enemy is the next best thing. And HRC, more than anybody on earth (more than Osama bin Laden -- now what does that tell you?) -- is the common enemy for American conservatives.

Labels: Andrew Sullivan, conservatives

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 2:45 PM 0 comments

  Sometimes They Parody Themselves

Via Andrew Sullivan... it's time for "macho Christianity":

There is a new trend in religion: macho Christianity — a movement started by men who say traditional church services are just too feminine and sissy.

Who are these manly men who will save Christianity from the ladies? These men are GodMen:

Men need movements like GodMen because Christians have been taught about a Jesus who's too nice to be real, said life coach and Christian radio show host Paul Coughlin. The leaders of GodMen contend that church, as most men know it, has gotten too sissy.

"A meek and mild Jesus… eventually is a bore," he said.

All right, first thing: your job title is "life coach." That's macho?

According to the article, the GodMen are, in part, a response to interior decorating issues:

"What we're saying is that… we've been taught the loving guy, the beautiful guy… When we walk into a church, we see ferns. We're not used to that. We want something that shows the masculine side as well," [founder Brad] Stine said.

Presumably macho Christians prefer macho plants. Something in a ficus, maybe. A butch ficus.

We're told that the GodMen are inspired by the story of Jesus storming the temple to kick moneychanging ass. Christian rightists seem to refer to this story a lot. It's the one thing in the New Testament that helps validate their dangerously high anger levels.

I'm not religious myself, but it always seemed to me that one of the greatest things about Jesus, as with Gandhi and Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr., was his guts. Really, the most incredible kind of courage is the kind that would steel a person to face injustice armed only with truth and the fragility of the human body. Maybe the "life coach" thinks it's a "bore," but give me a nonviolent revolutionary over a fernophobic armchair warrior any day.

Though, in all fairness, nonviolence never sold boxer shorts.

Labels: Andrew Sullivan, fundamentalists, GodMen

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 11:56 AM 0 comments

  Life Among the Unhinged

At some point I'll try to bring you a roundup of some of the coverage of CPAC from the right. Meanwhile, here's a good post from Digby on the Coulter-versy and what it says about the media and conservatives. He quotes Andrew Sullivan:

When you see [Coulter] in such a context, you realize that she truly represents the heart and soul of contemporary conservative activism, especially among the young. The standing ovation for Romney was nothing like the eruption of enthusiasm that greeted her. . . .

Her endorsement of Romney today - "probably the best candidate" - is a big deal, it seems to me. McCain is a non-starter. He is as loathed as Clinton in these parts. Giuliani is, in her words, "very, very liberal." One of his sins? He opposed the impeachment of Bill Clinton. That's the new standard. She is the new Republicanism. The sooner people recognize this, the better.

Sure, says Digby - but Sully's a little late to the party:

This hideous face of the Republican Party has been obvious to those of us who have been paying attention for a long, long time. It is the single most important reason why our politics have devolved into a filthy grudge match.

For a long time liberals were paralyzed or indifferent as the GOP demonized liberalism as the root of every problem and pathology in American society. We were derided as unamerican, treasonous and evil. After the congressional harrassment of the 90's, the partisan impeachment, the puerile coverage of campaign 2000 and the resulting installation of a Republican president under very dubious circumstances, Democrats of all stripes heard both the Republicans and the media smirking at our outrage and telling us to "get over it."

[...]

When Limbaugh said, "I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus - living fossils - so we will never forget what these people stood for," we didn't doubt him anymore.

When Ann Coulter said "we need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors," to rapturous applause at the 2002 CPAC, we knew she wasn't just kidding.

And, yes, when Andrew Sullivan said that we liberals in blue enclaves formed a fifth column, you'll have to forgive us for assuming he was among the people who wished to see us jailed or dead.

It continues today. Dinesh D'Souza just published a book saying that liberals are the cause of terrorism. Ramesh Ponneru calls us "The Party of Death." And when Michele Malkin then creates a career out of calling the left is "Unhinged" and the Washington Post treats her likes she's discovered the Holy Grail.

This is why it is so shocking to us when we see people like Howard Kurtz and various others call for the smelling salts when some members of the left have reacted in kind by saying hateful, violent things about Dick Cheney's assassination attempt. These anonymous commenters are not best selling authors making a personal televised appearance at a gathering that includes most of the Republican presidential candidates, members of congress and even the Vice President himself.

Digby's giving voice to a deep-rooted and ever-growing liberal frustration. It's infuriating to be constantly confronted with such comprehensive and vicious up-is-downism. I try not to dwell on it for blood pressure-related reasons, but it needs to be said.

Labels: Andrew Sullivan, Ann Coulter, conservatives, Digby

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 11:15 AM 0 comments