Look: I am eager to learn stuff I don't know--which requires actively courting and posting smart disagreement.

But as you will understand, I don't like to post things that mischaracterize and are aimed to mislead.

-- Brad Delong

Copyright Notice

Everything that appears on this blog is the copyrighted property of somebody. Often, but not always, that somebody is me. For things that are not mine, I either have obtained permission, or claim fair use. Feel free to quote me, but attribute, please. My photos and poetry are dear to my heart, and may not be used without permission. Ditto, my other intellectual property, such as charts and graphs. I'm probably willing to share. Let's talk. Violators will be damned for all eternity to the circle of hell populated by Rosanne Barr, Lady Gaga, and trombonists who are unable play in tune. You cannot possibly imagine the agony. If you have a question, email me: jazzbumpa@gmail.com. I'll answer when I feel like it. Cheers!

Sunday, October 4, 2009

Deep . . . Just, Deep



As it says at the end of his Washington post article today, "Steven F. Hayward is the F.K. Weyerhaeuser fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of 'The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counterrevolution, 1980-1989.'"  You can tell he's an intellectual type when he says things like this:
The single largest defect of modern conservatism, in my mind, is its insufficient ability to challenge liberalism at the intellectual level, in particular over the meaning and nature of progress. In response to the left's belief in political solutions for everything, the right must do better than merely invoking "markets" and "liberty."

And this:
The brain waves of the American right continue to be erratic, when they are not flat-lining.

Pretty good, so far.  But let's face it, Hayward is just one more faux-conservative Republican tool. His man-crush on the late Ronald Reagan is huge; so much so, his "The Age of Reagan," is a two volume set, with each volume weighing in at about 750 pages. 

It's not worth the effort to pin-point exactly where he loses it in this article, and I don't have the patience to give him the FJM treament.  So you'll have to settle for some snarky criticism.

Yet it was not enough just to expose liberalism's weakness; it was also necessary to offer robust alternatives for both foreign and domestic policy, ideas that came to fruition in the Reagan years.


Ah, yes - that Reagan fruitionA wonderful thing - if you ignore the facts.

About the only recent successful title that harkens back to the older intellectual style is Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism," which argues that modern liberalism has much more in common with European fascism than conservatism has ever had. But because it deployed the incendiary f-word, the book was perceived as a mood-of-the-moment populist work, even though I predict that it will have a long shelf life as a serious work.

This is . . . well - deep.  Goldberg's "serious work' has been discredited by thoughtful critics, including several on the right.

But wait, there's more.  He says of Michelle Malkin's "Culture of Corruption," Glenn Beck's "Arguing with Idiots" and "all of Ann Coulter's well-calculated provocations" that,

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with these books. 

Thus reiterating what we all know - that cherry-picking, special pleading, sophistry, all manner of lies and bat-shit insanity are not  "intrinsically wrong" as long as they are put forth by "conservatives."

To wrap it up, after saying this, about the recovering alcohol and substance abuser Glen Beck:
His on-air weepiness is unmanly, his flirtation with conspiracy theories a debilitating dead-end, and his judgments sometimes loopy (McCain worse than Obama?) or just plain counterproductive (such as his convoluted charge that Obama is a racist).

 He says this, about the new-found hero of the right, Glen Beck.

But he's on to something with his interest in serious analysis of liberalism's patrimony. The left is enraged with Beck's scandal-mongering over Van Jones and ACORN, but they have no idea that he poses a much bigger threat than that. If more conservative talkers took up the theme of challenging liberalism's bedrock assumptions the way Beck does from time to time, liberals would have to defend their problematic premises more often.

My dozen or so loyal readers probably already know what I think about the intellectual foundations of conservatism.  Yes, let's have The Right challenge liberalism's bedrock assumptions.  Please.

Comments, anyone?

6 comments:

J said...

I don't care for any of the Foxnews hacks (tho' I will admit when in an apolitical mood to chuckling once or twice to Fraulein Coulter a few years ago---srry! She's an old El Lay porn babe and a decent writer, but has covered her tracks well).

Beck's in another league altogether---like Brigham Young- Angel of Moroni league. Bring on Zee GOlden Plates, brrutthrr! He sounds nearly Goebbels like, really.

Jazzbumpa said...

J -

Are you serious about the porn babe stuff? That is really rich. Tell me more.

J said...

Fraulein Coulter was Guccione Jr's babe for a few years, lived out in El Lay, partied (including coke, supposedly). There are reportedly some nudie pics--blonde, skinny, look a lot like her. Google around. Some say they are fakes, but looks like Annie.

J said...

Anyway, I think we should consider Glenn Beck a far more dangerous creature than the usual Foxnews bozo or a Coulter. Beck's a Mormon for one--prima facie, that means he should be considered whack until proven otherwise (Zee Golden Plates!).

I think that many suburban liberals (and liberal females) tacitly approve of Beck, as they approved of that POS pretty boy Mitt Romney. They have the clearn cut, family guy aspect. Mormons are cute and cuddly for many naive liberals, and they're against booze, 'bakky, dope, etc. Wholesome, at least ostensibly.

The reality of the COLDS is far different than the Beck or Romney clean-cut, varsity BS: the LDS has a tradition of theocracy, polygamy, racism, violence, murder (in regards to natives, especially). That still holds, in the outback of Utah, Arizona, Nevada. The LDS now has a great deal of support from mainstream churches, and plenty of shekels as well.

The COLDS, the Nephites, be 100% whack--they even have non-mormons of all types on massive lists (and databases) marked as fallen (Lamanites). I sheet you not.

Jazzbumpa said...

I have a hard time believing anyone who has even the slightest liberal slant could approve of Beck. He's rabid, virulent, and 180 degrees opposite to anything liberals - who Beck openly refers to as idiots - would believe in.

Not to mention being drug and alcohol addled, like our most recent former Prez, and simply batshit crazy.

You lose me with some of your abbreviations: POS, COLDS. LDS I get.

Cheers!
JzB the skeptically liberal trombonist

J said...

Quite a few democrats around SoCal rallied for Romney. Beck's a different situation, but I think many suburban WASPs, even Demos, admire Mormons because of the wholesome-ness, or bogus wholesomeness--and their hard stance against immigration. Let's not forget the LDS were instrumental in passing Prop. 8 in CA (though nearly all mainline churches supported it). I can't believe minorities allow Beck to spout off his crypto-racist BS as well--he's worse than Limbaugh.

COLDS = Church of LDS, e.g. Latter day scumbags.

POS = piece of scheisse


keepin' it real.