|
|
May 18, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Words From the Right: On Buckley and From Paul and BreitbartPosted on May 27, 2011
By Allen Barra (Page 3) “The Civil War,” he writes, “was fought to keep all states under the thumb of a powerful central government.” No, it wasn’t. It was fought because states that owned slaves were afraid that states that didn’t have slaves were going to outnumber them in Congress, so they banded together to go to war—and they weren’t shy about saying beforehand that they were doing so in defense of slavery. “We are policed everywhere we go: work, shopping, home, and church.” We most certainly are not, and people who are held up going to work or in shopping mall parking lots might argue that we could use a few more police. “Nothing is private any more ... not even our houses of worship.” Indeed they aren’t private—many of them have become untaxed corporations. And, finally, on bipartisanship: “When it comes to any significant differences ... both parties are very much alike.” And, “Bipartisanship will not help ... mainly because there are so few things on which the two parties agree. ...” Wait, what? I thought the parties are very much alike. Which is it?
Right Time, Right Place: Coming of Age with William F. Buckley Jr. and the Conservative Movement
By Richard Brookhiser
Basic Books, 272 pages
Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom
By Ron Paul
Grand Central Publishing, 352 pages
Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World!
By Andrew Breitbart
Grand Central Publishing, 272 pages
Surely the two parties can’t be that much alike, if only because only one of them is very, very angry. But exactly what it is so angry about? “As a New Media addict,” says Andrew Breitbart in “Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World!,” “I am both junkie and supplier.” The junk, it would appear, is pure anger laced with paranoia. When Paul Krugman coined the term “the angry rich,” it’s difficult to believe he didn’t have Breitbart in mind. With Breitbart, the last vestiges of the classic conservatism of Buckley and National Review are gone; he doesn’t engage his opponents in debate or even bother to define the boundaries of the discussion. The enemy is simply anyone who can be counted as the left. “The left,” he writes, “is the media.” He repeatedly equates the “mainstream media” with “left media,” so often, in fact, that one wonders why he bothers to use the term mainstream media at all, and the left media would appear to be anything to the left of him—which leaves a huge amount of media in the category of left. For Breitbart, a vast territory is involved: “when the Soviet Union disintegrated, the battle simply took a different form. Instead of missiles, the new weapon was language and education, and the international left had successfully constructed a global infrastructure to get its message out.” Readers old enough to remember the farthest out of right-wing conspiracy theories, the “Communist-Catholic-Jewish One World” notion, might experience the warmth of recognition, but for Breitbart, owner of a series of conservative websites, the targets are closer to home. He “knew the fix was in [for the current president’s electoral victory] when Oprah Winfrey featured Obama twice on her mega-influential daytime show.” Winfrey, in Breitbart’s scenario, almost seems like a character out of “The Manchurian Candidate.” After all, “any criticism of Obama, with his thin résumé and shadowy past, could be framed by a like-minded media class as racism, cowing dissent.” Of course. One sees it immediately. How could a supporter of half-term governor Sarah Palin such as Breitbart be accused of racism for talking about Obama’s “thin résumé”? What other forces are to be found in the conspiracy? Apparently Columbia and Harvard, since Barack Obama rose through “the corrupt ranks of modern academia.” (Presumably Yale was not part of this corruption when George H.W. and George W. were shepherded through.) Obama, Breitbart claims, achieved nothing on his own merits and owes everything to “a media and cultural system [constructed] to affirm liberal narratives [which] granted Obama a mega catapult to launch him in a way that no Republican or conservative could ever experience.” All it took for this system to kick in, apparently, was an eight-year stretch when the Republicans were in control and ran the economy right into the ground. In an article in The New Yorker last year, written before Breitbart achieved national fame in the Shirley Sherrod scandal, he was quoted as saying, “Obama’s election was the culmination of a plot set in place in the 1930s by émigré members of the Frankfurt School.” (One can almost hear the conversation when Adorno, Benjamin and Marcuse first met in Greenwich Village after coming to New York in 1935: “OK, first step of our plan successfully completed. Now we find the right Negro to run for president. ...”) If you buy a copy of “Righteous Indignation” to read an explanation of the Shirley Sherrod incident, you’ll be disappointed to find that Breitbart has little to say about it, commenting near the end of the book, “You probably know that Sherrod has threatened in the media to sue me.” Actually, she filed suit against him back in February for posting a video that had been selectively edited to make her appear racist in a speech she gave. If Breitbart had announced on Page 1 that he wasn’t going to deal with Sherrod, I might not have purchased the book. He does tell us, “I can say this: there’s a hell of a lot more to the Sherrod story than you’ve heard at this point. Stay tuned.” I can hardly wait; Breitbart, perhaps unwittingly, gave us a tantalizing preview on the April 29 episode of Bill Maher’s “Real Time” cable TV show when he said Glenn Beck “threw me under the bus” when Beck reported and commented on the Sherrod affair. Whatever happens in court, events have already overtaken Breitbart the prognosticator. 2011, he tells us, “is going to be less about holding Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed accountable than it’s going to be about holding George Stephanopoulos, Andrew Morse, ABC News, and the rest of the mainstream media [sic] accountable. ... It’s going to be about holding Arianna Huffington and Christiane Amanpour and Contessa Brewer and Katie Couric and Pinch Sulzberger accountable.” Forget the rest—Katie Couric? How did she get to be included on Breitbart’s list of the liberal media’s power elite? By asking Sarah Palin what she reads? In any event, we’re almost halfway through the year and the only ones being held to account are the Republican candidates whom Breitbart favors. (Though, as this article is published, Ron Paul, against all odds, is hanging tough.) Richard Brookhiser relates a story about a former National Review editorial assistant named Bob Mack who “was a Randian, though pleasant. After he left, he wrote a hatchet job on his former employer and place of work. The illustration said it all: it showed Bill [Buckley] in Mortimer’s, a clubby Upper East Side restaurant, a yachting cap askew on his head, his belly stouter than it was (though it was stouter than it had been), a glass of red wine tipped in his hand. Outside the window stood the next generation of would-be conservative leaders, noses pressed vainly against the glass. ... Bill, said Mack, was tired, old, lazy, burned out. The truly consequential right-wing thinker of our time was the late Ayn Rand.” It’s an ugly story, but I think Mack was ultimately correct. The real avatar of American conservatism was not Buckley or any of his acolytes or even the man Buckley helped become president, Ronald Reagan. Buckley and his writers will now fade further into the background of American political history until they are mere footnotes. As for Reagan, conservatism has moved so far to the right that if he appeared on the political scene today, those who call themselves conservatives would greet him with the same animus as Dostoyevsky’s Grand Inquisitor greeted Christ, pointing at him and yelling “Socialist!” just as they now do to Obama, whose policies, in many ways, resemble those of a moderate Republican of an earlier day. But this is probably all academic. As Garry Wills once shrewdly observed, “The aftermath of Reagan’s presidency has proved, over and over, that Reaganism without Reagan is unsustainable. Even with him, it was a tottering edifice.” Reagan, Wills wrote, “gave conservatism the elements it had signally lacked—humanity, optimism, hope. ... Reagan, without much wit or passion or intelligence, had a humanity that made up for anything he lacked.” With Paul and Breitbart, the purest products of Randism (though Rand herself loathed libertarians, calling them “worse than the new left”), we get neither wit nor intelligence, and passion only if one equates it with anger. Humorless and as utterly lacking in irony as an Ayn Rand novel (or the recent, cheerless film of “Atlas Shrugged”), Paul and Breitbart are the greatest gift the Democratic Party ever could have received. With every succeeding week, they drive a wider wedge between the right wing and the American mainstream—the real mainstream, not Breitbart’s—with greater effectiveness than the Democrats ever could. Between them, they are succeeding in marginalizing conservatism.
1
2
3
Advertisement TAGS:
|
Arctic Tundra ‘Will Turn to Forest’
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By Night-Gaunt, June 1, 2011 at 12:02 pm Link to this comment
Care to give some examples of where the review goes to “goofyland” anyone? Its easy to say, takes more time to actually prove it. So Ozark Michael because “a Leftist” wrote it it is automatically of poor quality? No doubt you wouldn’t like it if some accused all Rightests of poor quality writing. You know that saying about glass houses an throwing stones, don’t you?
Report thisBy Thrashertm, May 31, 2011 at 9:11 pm Link to this comment
Allen, Why don’t you just save some time and write “I
Report thishate Ron Paul and everything he stands for”? Your
review of Liberty Defined is hateful drivel, and I
expect better of Truthdig. Thankfully there are far
superior reviews on Amazon.
By MarthaA, May 30, 2011 at 4:44 pm Link to this comment
“Conservative Right-Wing EXTREMIST Republicans ARE the
same as Hitleresque Right-Wing EXTREMISTS, both are
Right-Wing EXTREMISTS and we know from the World War II
Era of Holocaust where Right-Wing EXTREMISM leads;
Fascism.” —MarthaA, May 29 at 7:20 pm
OzarkMichael, Adolph Hitler was a Right-Winger. Benito
Mussolini was a Right-Winger. Hideki Tojo was a Right-Winger.
The Right-Wing EXTREMISM of Adolph Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo is
where the Right-Wing EXTREMISM of Ronald Wilson Reagan,
George Herbert Walker Bush, “W”, and the Conservative
Right-Wing EXTREMIST Movement of the Republican Party is
leading in the United States, to EXTREME Right-Wing Fascist
governance equivalent to that of the World War II Nazi Era
Holocaust. Is this what you want the United States to be?
For America to stand by silently and let it happen unopposed is the
Report thissame as saying ‘Yes, I want Right-Wing EXTREMIST Fascist
governance’———If Americans do not stand against
Right-Wing EXTREMIST Fascist governance,
Right-Wing EXTREMIST Fascist governance will stand
against Americans; when no one is left in America to stand against
Right-Wing EXTREMIST Fascist governance.
By OzarkMichael, May 30, 2011 at 2:25 pm Link to this comment
gerard says: “Reading a review like this is a journey through Goofy-land where nothing means anything much, and it all depends on who says it.”
The reason that the review is a journey through Goofy-land is because a Leftist wrote it.
The reason that the review makes the conservatives look like ‘nothing means anything much’ is because thats what the Leftist who wrote it wants you to think. How can anyone not know that? This is what Truthdig does, thats its function. It feeds the cicada buzz machine.
gerard wrote a nice, well-written post, but I woupldm have to describe it as cicada buzz. Folks like gerard are too easily led and ought to think for him/herself more. But at least gerard is coherent, unlike Martha/Thomas.
Report thisBy MarthaA, May 29, 2011 at 7:20 pm Link to this comment
Conservative Right-Wing EXTREMIST Republicans ARE the
Report thissame as Hitleresque Right-Wing EXTREMISTS, both are
Right-Wing EXTREMISTS and we know from the World War II
Era of Holocaust where Right-Wing EXTREMISM leads;
Fascism.
By gerard, May 28, 2011 at 9:31 pm Link to this comment
The problem with Conservatives (and of course not all Conservatives, and not only Conservatives) is lack of empathy—lack of ability put themelves in the shoes of those less fortunate than themselves. Or an aversion to doing so.
If you consider how widespread this lack, or aversion, is and how it is increasing (as evidenced by rising tolerance for mass poverty, increasing wars and destruction) you begin to wonder when the word will change from “conservative” to “selfish” and “insensate.”
It is truly amazing that a country which prides itself on being Christian is at the same time so heartless: Highest imprisonment rate in the modern world, worst war-makers of all time, poorest health care system, most extreme rate of surveillance of citizens for political divergences, most fearful of “terrorism” and “enemies” and so on and on. The most wasteful country in the world. Such views and behavior are far from conservative; they are radical in the extreme.
It is strange that we do not take exception to such misused terms as “conservative” and “neo-liberal” which is anything but new and anything but liberal.
Persistence of such misuses and misunderstandings—purveying in public media of these misuses, and non-questioning acceptance of the misuse—is a huge part of modern political and social decay. Concepts no longer mean what they mean, nor do we say what we mean—in fact, if we try, we are likely to be suspect as breaking the bounds of political correctness. In other words, it is correct to be incorrect.
Reading a review like this is a journey through Goofy-land where nothing means anyting much, and it all depends on who says it. Thus we have grown to believe that it is “acceptable” to actually believe that poor people deserve to starve or go without medical aid, that governments have a right to steal from their citizens and corporations a right to buy the government. And that people who object and question this Goofy-land scenario “deserve” to be watched over by secret police and brought before courts which rule against them, all under the sacred rubric of “conservatism.” What are they conserving?
Report thisInstitutionalized Bedlam, which could not exist for one month under a regime that knew and felt the meaning of the word “empathy.”
It is being said these days that, given the evidence of worldwide cruelty, a powerful number of human beings are (have become?) autistic—that is, cannot relate to others on a feeling level and are more deviant than that small minority born with childhood symptoms of Asperger’s syndrome.
By nitty_gritty, May 28, 2011 at 7:08 pm Link to this comment
As someone who is not a fan of Ron Paul and have admiration for him, I am seeing some serious flaws in
this review. Yes, I have read “Liberty Defined”. First, how can a follower of a certain school of thought extol its contradictions? Should Marx write a book on “Contradictions in Marxism”? What an insane comment.
Next, why should Ron Paul be concerned about a letter Mises wrote to Ayn Rand? This is neither a biography
of Mises or Ayn Rand, and what does the correspondence between them, be of any relevance to this book? Should every book about either of them talk about this letter? I dont understand the logic or the flow of thought.
Abortion: Seriously flawed arguments from your side. I am pro-choice myself. When Ron Paul talks
about morality, you ask whose morality? Whose morality do we all talk about when we deplore any
tragic killing? Not even the most left leaning liberal says abortion is a good thing, it is a just
a tragic necessity (in most cases to save the mother’s life). So as someone who accepts abortion,
It is impossible to say that in anyone’s definition of morality, killing a foetus is a ‘good’ thing,
just a necessary evil to save a mother. Again, giving the power of dealing with abortion back to the states, though not ideal, is a constitutional argument (not a libertarian one). Ron Paul has mentioned several times, that this is not something he personally favours, but it should be treated the same way murder, law and order etc are treated (states should deal with it, not the federal govt). So you dont know his position and you are terribly confused. Finally, you committed a blunder that you accused Paul of. You NEVER said Paul is a obstretrician who has delivered thousands of babies. This seems to be a far serious blunder when you criticize an obstetrician’s position on abortion than some crazy Mises-Ayn Rand letter connection !!
Taxes: “Who in his or her right mind has ever maintained that taxation is a blessing?” Duh, every liberal who wants to raise taxes. (how do we fund our schools, police, hospitals). If you want a name
Eliot Spitzer said “I am proud to pay my taxes”. If your argument is that they never said it is a blessing, then you must assume that schools, police, hospitals are not. How can a liberal be proud of doing something which is not a blessing? Again, silly arguments.
On economic recovery: Unbelievably, I hear talk in Washington that the only way to get us out of deep recession or depression is to get us into a war as FDR did.” (At least Paul seems to think that FDR did get us out of the Great Depression.) No Paul doesnt think that. The words “FDR did” merely means getting us into war. Even if you think FDR “did” get us out of the depression, Paul merely states the liberal fallacy that goes “FDR got us out of the depression because of WWII”. On top of your problems, you cant understand english.
The most disingenuous part of your review is on Bipartisanship: Wait, what? I thought the parties are very much alike. Which is it?” Here is the full quote from Ron Paul: “Bipartisanship will not help ... mainly because there are so few things on which the two parties agree THAT WOULD BE GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY”. You deliberately ignored the good for the country part of that statement. And you have the temerity to say Paul “keeps what he likes”?
Civil War: You have your view and he his. If you want to say “it was ONLY about slavery”, then it is too simplistic. I can go into details of Lincoln’s own quote of Saving the Union as the main cause, and that he would have kept slavery intact in the existing slave states; or his offer to make slavery permanent in his inaugural address.; or his refusal to support a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery. It is too simplistic to say that slavery alone was the cause of the war and no one should be forced to hold to that orthodoxy.
Your review has every flaw that you accuse Paul’s book as having (and more).
Report thisBy Marc Schlee, May 28, 2011 at 6:56 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Ayn Rand was a drug addict who died on welfare.
FREE AMERICA
REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY
Report thisBy jkr, May 27, 2011 at 9:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Your take on Liberty defined is glib, but neatly
assumes as established entire missing arguments.
Sort of how you accuse Ron Paul. Ron Paul could have
written a book on each of his essay topics, to
address your points, but instead was outlining his
thinking on a variety of subjects so people could
challenge it with their own.
Having said that, I couldn’t pass this quote from you
Report thiswithout commenting: “One of the easiest ways to pay
off the national debt would be to stop funding these
welfare states and let them be sovereign by paying
their own bills. But that’s not a solution that Paul
even mentions.” No, he assumes it. It IS his
philosophy. However, as happens Kentucky takes most
if not all of that extra money because two of the top
listed in priority of all of the army bases in the
country are there, and staffing them and managing
them and feeding the people on them sends funds
there, as with any other business. It is not an
entitlement.
By Night-Gaunt, May 27, 2011 at 1:53 pm Link to this comment
Ayn Rand was a cheerless demagog herself. She extolled the idea of hyperindividualism yet for her clique everyone had to conform to her whims and demands. The idea of having your own point-of-view was considered heresy. Whatever the queen bee said was law. Not a good way to start anything but a rigid police state—-just look at N. Korea and the dead Third Reich for examples of vanity countries. Not a bastion of freedom. But then Randroids are a peculiar lot anyway.
The mass and deep greed and selfishness promoted is all Ayn Rand, though larded with a heavy dose of Dominionist Christianity and its cheering for war, domination and spreading the gospel of god will only return after every person is under the boot heel of an American Christian soldier.
Report this