Wishing the Manicheanism Away

You may have seen the excellent pair of articles at the New Republic revisiting the work of two heroes of post-war conservatism. Sam Tanenhaus writes about Whitaker Chambers, while Alan Wolfe takes on Russell Kirk.

Over at Red State, Kevin Holtsberry has a lengthy rebuttal to Tanenhaus's piece. I'm not familiar enough with the history to comment with much authority on the merits of Holtsberry's arguments with regard to Chambers (I'm reading Witness and may write about it in a few weeks), but I can't resist commenting on Holtsberry's rhetorical strategy. Holtsberry finds Tanenhaus "infuriating" because, on the one hand, he seems to "poke" at certain "odd leftists," yet on the other hand he insists on criticizing conservatives -- or worse, using one conservative to criticize others:

In the liberal world there are only two kinds of good conservatives: those that attack other conservatives (see the New York Times editorial page) and those that are far enough removed from today’s troubles as to seem harmless and/or useful in carrying out the first point.

Holtsberry is not wrong, but he demonstrates an odd lack of reflection in failing to note that conservatives act the very same way with regard to liberals. It's simply one of the most common habits of political writing, even among those who strive to achieve balance; it's a product of believing in the validity of one's own set of views.

Beyond this Holtsberry launches into a tiresome defense of the indefensible, though, to him, it is the complaints themselves that are tiresome: war, torture, extra-constitutional detention, exploitation of terror for political ends, etc etc. He refuses to acknowledge that the Bush administration has been polarizing and fear-mongering since 9/11, and he considers it frightfully declasse ("the stuff of the Democratic Underground") to even allege such things. It's as though he was in a coma for the entire 2002 and 2004 elections.

Alan Wolfe once responded to Peter Berkowitz, who had said much the same kind of thing:

In the world according to Peter Berkowitz, there are no right-wing bloggers calling the president's critics traitors, no Swift-boating of Democratic candidates, no violations of civil liberty associated with our Republican president, no authorized leaks of the names of CIA agents, no dramatic increase in the use of presidential signing statements, no use of torture, no suspension of habeas corpus, no breaks with our historic allies over such methods, no biased editorial pages and networks, no Rush Limbaughs, no vigilantes patrolling our borders, no invented quotations from Abraham Lincoln, no manipulations of intelligence, no appeals to racial and religious bigotry.

I don't know whether the life of Whitaker Chambers is or is not an appropriate metaphor for, or critique of, the current conservative Manicheanism. But it's no use pretending that that Manicheanism is all a figment of fevered liberal imaginations.

Labels: Kevin Holtsberry, Redstate, Sam Tanenhaus, Whitaker Chambers

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 10:28 AM 0 comments

  It Ain't Getting Any Prettier

So I go out on a limb and describe Mitt Romney as the Republican "frontrunner in waiting." Then Erick Erickson at Red State turns around and publicly renounces his support for "Multiple Choice Mitt." Says Erick, "I'm tired of the explanations and I'm tired of the dodges."

You know the drill: the flip-flopping on abortion, gay-hating, Paul Tsongas, etc. Erick's had enough:

I'm tired of running into these stories. I'm tired of the hedges. I'm tired of the dodges. And I'm tired of the caveated nuance. So let me put this straight and bluntly. I'm more than happy to support my man Mitt if he is the Republican nominee. But, like Hillary Clinton, he is a political opportunist who I increasingly see as someone without principle, only a weather vane.

Multiple Choice Mitt had me at hello. He lost me on the flip.

Da-yum.

In another blow to my theory, Hunter Baker asks, "Are We Basically Down to Two Candidates for the GOP?" Baker argues that GOP primary voters, when there is no Republican incumbent, essentially always pick the best-known candidate (with the notable exception of 1964). And if this is the case, then the prospects for most of the field have been dim from the get-go:

If this basic dynamic of "the biggest Republican" running continues to hold, then it would surprising in the extreme to see anybody other than McCain or Giuliani get the nod. Nobody else in the field is even in the same universe from a name recognition standpoint (save Newt, whom I love, but isn't even a serious candidate).

Clearly, people think there is an opening because neither McCain nor Giuliani has rock solid conservative credentials, but the voters aren't as sensitive as we net-denizens might believe and McCain is beginning to claim the pro-life slot as against Rudy. So, I'm not sure the opening is really there.

Of course, the sample size is pretty small, which makes it hard to control for contingent factors. But here's my bigger question: since 1980, when have the Republicans nominated a non-incumbent candidate who was actively loathed by the conservative movement? (I'm counting G.W. Bush as an incumbent, by the way.) The only possibility would be Dole - was he discussed with the same vitriol conservatives reserve for McCain? I honestly don't know.

The point being: McCain is actively hated by conservatives. Giuliani should be, but his powers of mythmaking have thus far kept him in the running. Romney apparently is, too - but he's been trying signficantly harder than either of the other two to win conservative support.

Maybe all Mitt's hard work won't pay off, and the conservatives will be faced with a choice between a man they hate and Rudy "House of Cards" Giuliani. If that's the case, maybe conservatives will be all the more desperate to suspend their disbelief, to buy into Giuliani's fairy tales and ignore the various scurrying men behind the curtain.

I certainly don't envy them the exercise.

Update: read the comments to Baker's post. Some pretty strong pro-Giuliani sentiment.

Labels: 2008, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Presidential election, Redstate, Rudy Giuliani

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 2:45 PM 0 comments

  Red State on the Summit

I promise that after tomorrow, it won't just be all Summit all the time. But meanwhile, check out msstaley's comment at Daily Kos, pointing out some reactions to the Conservative Summit from RedState. Interestingly, the ones she cites are opinions with which I quite agree.

Labels: Conservative Summit, Daily Kos, Redstate

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 6:07 PM 0 comments

  The Hillary Syndrome

Am I the only person in America whose opinion of Hillary Clinton is just "meh"? For both left and right, she's the ultimate love-her-or-hate-her polarizing figure, and for the life of me I've never understood why. I mean, she's a competent centrist Senator, somewhat calculating like most successful politicians. I don't support her for president because I don't agree with the direction in which her faction wants to take the Democratic Party, but that hardly makes her the Antichrist. Yet so many progressives seem to see her that way - I've even heard good liberals say they'd vote for McCain over Hillary. That's just fucked up on so many levels.

And speaking of antichrist, the right's hatred of Hillary has long operated at a truly cosmic level. I just don't get it. She made a few missteps as first lady. She represents a kind of successful woman that conservatives like to disdain (even as many conservative women have had very similar career trajectories). Okay, I get that. But how did she become the ultimate transcendent evil?

Anyway, the early reviews - most blogs still yet to comment - on candidate Hillary:

Newsmax: Hillary will save the GOP

The Corner: "Americans, lock your doors."

Free Republic (comment): "I would even vote for McCain against the Princess (or Witch) of Darkness" [See? Now the super-pure leftists and the wingnuts are converging].

Redstate (comment): "Disingenuous from the get-go."

Daily Kos: Senator, we need to talk.

Steve Gilliard: "Yawn."

We'll see the magazines' view next week, though I guess it's all pretty predictable.

If weird.

Labels: 2008, Daily Kos, Democrats, Free Republic, Hillary Clinton, Newsmax, Presidential election, Redstate, Steve Gilliard, The Corner

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 11:39 AM 0 comments