Michele Bachmann currently looks like the Republican front-runner, based on... well, based on something called the 'Iowa Straw Poll', which apparently has something to do with eathing corn dogs. Because clearly fifty seperate votes for party leader just isn't enough... Michele Bachmann's ascendancy has to be good news for Stephen Harper, since it stands in such stark constrast to his own 'moderate lunacy'. Harper can get precisely as nuts as his haircut will allow over the next four years and still not even approach Bachmann-like levels of madness.
But the thing is that Bachmann barely even stands out from the crowd amongst Republican hopefuls. Amazing to think that even though there are only two parties in the United States, the best one of those two parties can muster up is this current crop (and after Obama, the best the other party can do is Joe Biden). After a vice-presidential candidate who merely was married to a seperatist, we now have a declared presidential candidate, Rick Perry, who was also apparently one too. Nycole Turmel must be shaking her head at the scant notice paid Rick Perry's previous dalliances with Texan seperation while guitarist for Aerosmith, but the thing is that seperatist dalliances on the right of the spectrum are okay, because they never really mean it. It's the conservative version of post-modernist irony.
It seems funny to think that Americans could even have seperatist movements, given how united they can all stand behind the act of chanting their three-lettered name at sporting events. Yet of course if any two states were likely to have independence movements (excluding states marooned in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, because they all vote Democrat anyway), it makes sense they'd be Texas and Alaska. After all (a) each of them happens to be huge anyway, and I refer not to girth, (b) they both used to belong to other countries anyway, so they know what it's like, and (c) they're not stuck in the middle. Imagine the poor dolt aiming for Kentucky independence who looks at a map and realises he'll be stuck surrounded on all four sides by his sworn enemy.
Ah, but who am I kidding? The sworn enemy isn't Kentucky's neighbours, is it? The sworn enemy is a tiny isolated city stuck between Maryland and Virginia. Or rather, it's that man in the big house downtown. The biggest fear I have regarding 2012 is that a certain amount of Americans will be so driven to defeat Obama at any cost that they'll vote for any old nutbar with a corn dog in her mouth.
Then it won't be so easy to laugh.
Maybe I`m wrong here, though. I mean, who knows what will happen? Election day 2012 is still a long way away (fully a year - a lifetime politically), and after all a 'straw poll' just doesn't sound like it's built to last, does it? If you're really looking for long-term repercussions, you might look into a wood poll next time out. Hell, even an adobe poll would have more staying power. All straw is good for is making fake humans to hang in fields to scare away crows.
Or do I misunderstand? Maybe it's straw like the thing you drink out of - like the GOP has cut different lengths of straw and held them in its hand, and America has just drawn the short one.
You know, the one labelled 'Bachmann'.
Showing posts with label Conservatism in the United States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservatism in the United States. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Dennis Miller Makes No Sense at All
Some three years ago I had a blog that I called "Makes No Sense At All", named after the Hüsker Dü song. The point of it was to give me an occasional soap-box from which to give into Andy Rooney tendencies and just grumble and complain about whatever took my fancy. I didn't carry on with it too long, and it was read by, like, a maximum of five people who were not GoogleBots. So since it's just sat there moribund, collecting digital dust down the years. I decided I might as well close down the old blog and syndicate its contents here, in weekly installations. I've eliminated a few blog entries that seem too anachronistic by now, but the blogs that I have included I've not edited at all. So enjoy watching me at my grumpiest... Makes No Sense at All.
Originally published 22 August 2008.
I like my comedy. I like a good laugh as much as the next guy, and even fancy myself a bit of a card myself. Not that I’d expect that to manifest itself in this here blog in any way or anything…
I’m really quite particular with my comedians. One thing I hate is an unfunny stand-up comedian, and something I hate just as much is a slightly funny stand-up comedian. Anyone who seems at all tired or half-baked, and I’d sooner be watching nature documentaries about lions.
This obviously means I have no time for Saturday Night Live, and haven’t in fact seen a single episode in probably some fifteen years now. It’s become this strange testament to survival as a virtue. The most awe-inspiring thing about Saturday Night Live is that is has somehow managed to stay alive all of these years.
Well, of course, people have been saying that about SNL pretty much non-stop down the decades, and picking out an era to call SNL’s “Golden Age” based less on the relative merits of the show down the years and more on which years the commentator in question was a teenager.
I was a teenager during the era with Kevin Nealon, Chris Rock, Dana Carvey, Julia Sweeney and some other people I can’t remember. Older people back then were glorifying the previous years, with Chevy Chase and Bill Murray and whoever else. Thing is I knew a lot of what I was watching then was pretty lame (I mean, really, Pat?) but even in the middle of the worst episode, you knew you’d have five minutes of great comedy. The highlight for me was always “Weekend Update”, and that was all down to my favourite comedian, Dennis Miller.
Back then, Dennis Miller was a genius. People big up his so-called arcane references, but for me it’s not that they were arcane (hardly a virtue in and of itself) but that they were spot-on and incisive. And, okay, maybe a little elitist, but it’s rewarding to get a joke that flies over the heads of other people. Dennis Miller spoke not only with wit and humour but also with passion. When he was really committed to what he was saying, years before he seized on the word ‘rant’ as a promotional campaign, he would let fly with an invective that was cathartic.
A righteous invective, what’s more. He would take on politicians and other sacred cows and take them down, and my teenage iconoclastic self would cheer. And agree.
Over the years, I’ve changed. Everybody does. But many things about me are still the same. So when I listen to the bearded blowhard spouting right-wing rhetoric on baiting TV programs today, the once-proud independent working as the GOP’s spokesman, I’m forced to conclude that the one who’s changed more, and not for the better, is him.
Apparently, September 11 ‘woke Dennis Miller up’. Apparently that tragedy is what brought about his political change of heart. Clearly the death of 3000 innocents shook him enough to turn his searing questioning of, and contempt for, political double-talk and lies into an unquestioning support for our generation’s most objectionable elected regime. Somehow, this terrible tragedy has not merely led him to the conviction that the Republican Party is stronger on foreign policy than the Democrats but has somehow pushed him so far off centre into the reactionary right that you can now find him chumming with the likes of Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly, defending gas companies and condemning environmentalists.
People have the right to change. People have the right to progress on their policies and beliefs from one point to another. And people also have the right to be disappointed in their childhood heroes when those heroes become reactionary blowhards. Frankly, continuing to like and admire someone who’s gone so far to the right and become so partisan that he might as well seek office as a Republican would make no sense at all.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
My protest, your protest
So I found myself wondering... the people in the USA, the ones who see Arab Muslims as evil and as the biggest threat to democracy, the ones convinced Obama is a dictator and who take to the streets, placards in hand, to decry his so-called encroachment of civil rights... the people who see a world starkly divided between 'common man' freedom-loving patriots and a web of dark interests worldwide trying to deny them that freedom.
These people who love freedom and who hate Muslims. What is their take on what's been going in North Africa? How does it fit with their mentality to see Arab Muslims demanding the same kinds of things they themselves cynically claim to be demanding? Do they support the cause of 'freedom'? Do they see these Arab kids as kin? As fellow-travellers?
Not that I've seen.
These people who love freedom and who hate Muslims. What is their take on what's been going in North Africa? How does it fit with their mentality to see Arab Muslims demanding the same kinds of things they themselves cynically claim to be demanding? Do they support the cause of 'freedom'? Do they see these Arab kids as kin? As fellow-travellers?
Not that I've seen.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Anti-Marriage-Equality Activists Make No Sense At All
Some three years ago I had a blog that I called "Makes No Sense At All", named after the Hüsker Dü song. The point of it was to give me an occasional soap-box from which to give into Andy Rooney tendencies and just grumble and complain about whatever took my fancy. I didn't carry on with it too long, and it was read by, like, a maximum of five people who were not GoogleBots. So since it's just sat there moribund, collecting digital dust down the years. I decided I might as well close down the old blog and syndicate its contents here, in weekly installations. I've eliminated a few blog entries that seem too anachronistic by now, but the blogs that I have included I've not edited at all. So enjoy watching me at my grumpiest... Makes No Sense at All.
Originally published 22 May 2008.
Ah, the contemporary conservative... it's such an interesting position to be in, grabbing onto the back of a train, digging your heels in the ground, being pulled forward - like it or not - anyway, effectively doing nothing more than slowing down the train's progress. And annoying the conductor...
It's always the same with conservatives: new ideas are presented, the conservative reflexively condemns it, a pointless and time-wasting struggle ensues, progressives win, the conservatives eventually accept the new position and pretend that they always supported it.
It's only a few decades since the American Supreme Court forbade Anti-Miscegenation laws. Those, for those who don't know, were laws that existed in a good many states banning marriages between the races. In several states of the US, it was illegal as late at 1967 for a black person to marry a white person.
I put the date in italics, because it came to me as a surprise and hopefully will come to you as a surprise too. The simple basic reality that no government could possibly have the right in good conscience to forbid marriages based on skin colour is so firmly entrenched now that, outside of radical fringe and hate groups, you wouldn't find anyone seriously taking issue with it. Ask any member of the Republican Party in the USA and (unless they're being candid) they'll tell you how much they support the freedom and human rights of 'mixed' couples.
Forty years. A blink of an eye.
Why did it take so long for those laws to be repealed? It was those damned train-draggers, digging their heels in and fighting progress just for the sake of fighting it. Instead of showing contrition and humility and admitting that they were wrong, the conservative approach is to be shamed into accepting the new reality, and then pretending that they always did.
So last week the Supreme Court of California voted to overturn its ban on same-sex marriages - a decision that unfortunately at present we're obliged to regard as a 'breakthrough' and a 'landmark' (even though it's shameful that it's taken this long). It's great to see, even though the journey is far from complete. As can be expected, the knee-jerk reaction from 'social conservatives' has already begun: the screaming, the haranguing, the beside-the-point Godtalk...
Just as surely, we can alread start writing the history books for, oh, 2048 (just a guess). We can right now talk about the anti-progressives who so vehemently protested something that, by then, has become completely accepted.
And conservatives in 2048 will, of course, through gritted teeth pretend to have always supported same-sex marriages. Anybody publically denouncing the rights of all people to marry regardless of gender will be seen as representative of a radical fringe.
And the reason it'll take that long? No good reason whatsoever. Just conservatives doing what they do best: getting in the way...
Sunday, December 19, 2010
The Death (and Resurrection) of the Modern Conservative
There's a phrase I hear every now and then, that 'the modern conservative is a dying breed'. You might think that my answer to this would be 'good riddance', but it's not. My answer would be closer to 'of course they are'. By definition really, a conservative is an endangered species, a product created with built-in planned obsolescence. On the other hand, the conservative has a phoenix-like quality of rebirth. The conservative merely is reborn, well, differently.
Inevitably, throughout history, whenever the concept of progress, or a specific example of it, has entered the public consciousness, public opinion splits into two. Probably by nature those who instinctively support progress are called 'progressives' and those who instinctively fear it are called 'conservatives'. Arguments ensue in the public arena, with the conservatives fighting progress tooth and nail and the progressives frustrated by their successes.
But here's the thing - while conservatives are usually successful enough at slowing down progress, they are dismal failures at stopping it completely. Without exception, progress wins. Progress carries the day - across the grand scheme of things, I mean. Setbacks can keep the tide in check for even a full generation or more - which is frustrating as hell - but they never actually manage the trick of turning the tide. It just never happens.
So what happens, then, is that once progress happens, the conservative recognises a battle lost and moves on to adopt a new batlle - or rather, as the progressive agenda marks one victory by launching a new step forward, conservatives cut their losses and move on to resist the further progress.
Last generation's conservative is this generation's bigot. Conservatives fought tooth and nail as progressives worked diligently to create a fairer world for women, and a fairer world for religious minorities, and then a fairer word for ethnic minorities, and now a fairer world for gay people and one for recent immigrants. Every generation has had its conservatives, and opinions about the equality of women or of black people that were considered mainstream conservatism in their era would now be considered unacceptable even by most conservatives.
So they lost. These fossils, the 'conservatives' of previous generations, lost their battles. Their imprint on society has been nil, except to slow down the pace of progress. Modern conservatives will try to establish themselves as inheritors of a historical conservative movement - as the curators of history, of tradition, etc. - but when directly asked the extent to which they consider themselves the continuation of sexists, anti-semites, racists and other scum of the past, they will deny it. They will accuse you of distorting their intent in order to vilify them. But quite obviously they are the inheritors of that legacy.
And I'm not trying to imply that modern conservatives are sexist, anti-semitic or racist. I genuinely believe that many or perhaps most in the mainstream are not. I know that these prejudices still exist and are still openly flaunted somewhere out there in the body politic, so one might say 'why not call today's nutbars the inheritors of that historic legacy?' Well I do, but only to a limited extent, because these people are no longer in the mainstream - because progressives have successfully redrawn the map - and so they don't really matter much in the grand scheme of things. Today's conservatives, fighting against for example equality for LGBT people, are the inheritors of that sad legacy of previous generations because they insist on denying the very basic, and easily comprehensible, fact that right is right, slowing down progress to the benefit of nobody at all.
This is why Ann Coulter (who unlike much of the conservative mainstream very clearly is sexist, anti-semitic and racist) could address a group of gay people, taunting, 'marriage is not a civil right; you're not black'. Coulter presents it in stark terms, but the majority conservative opinion does appear to be that extending equality to black people is a good idea but extending equality to gay people is not.
So, due to their successes, marriage equality is still a work-in-progress in the USA and in much of the world. The thing that's frustrating is this: the conservatives will lose. There is absolutely no question about it. The countries of the world and states of the American untion that have legalised marriage equality will never repeal those laws. The list of jurisdictions where marriage is a recognised right will only grow; it will never shrink. Sooner or later marriage rights for gay people - and basic social acceptance for gay people and LGBT people as a whole - will be universal and will be an uncontroversially accepted fact of life. Homophobes will remain, but they'll be on the sidelines, universally condemned as bigots.
And there will still be conservatives, yet these will have accepted equality of sexuality and will get upset at anyone who draws a connection between them and the conservatives of 2011, the ones who spouted nonsense like the following: "Anyone listening to this show that believes homosexuality is a normal lifestyle has been brainwashed. It's very dangerous if we start accepting lower and lower forms of behavior as the normal." (This was said by Sean Hannity, in 1989 - which is a long time ago, but the man is still very much a prominent conservative name today.) Future conservatives will accuse future progressives of hate-mongering for lumping them in with the Hannitys and the Coulters of today. But they will be the same breed. And they will be fighting tooth-and-nail against whatever form of progress is in the headlines then. And they will lose, again. Sooner or later. This is how society works.
So is the modern conservative a dying breed? On the one hand, yes. And in fact, thank God yes. But on the other hand, like Dracula, they just keep coming back again and again and again...
Inevitably, throughout history, whenever the concept of progress, or a specific example of it, has entered the public consciousness, public opinion splits into two. Probably by nature those who instinctively support progress are called 'progressives' and those who instinctively fear it are called 'conservatives'. Arguments ensue in the public arena, with the conservatives fighting progress tooth and nail and the progressives frustrated by their successes.
But here's the thing - while conservatives are usually successful enough at slowing down progress, they are dismal failures at stopping it completely. Without exception, progress wins. Progress carries the day - across the grand scheme of things, I mean. Setbacks can keep the tide in check for even a full generation or more - which is frustrating as hell - but they never actually manage the trick of turning the tide. It just never happens.
So what happens, then, is that once progress happens, the conservative recognises a battle lost and moves on to adopt a new batlle - or rather, as the progressive agenda marks one victory by launching a new step forward, conservatives cut their losses and move on to resist the further progress.
Last generation's conservative is this generation's bigot. Conservatives fought tooth and nail as progressives worked diligently to create a fairer world for women, and a fairer world for religious minorities, and then a fairer word for ethnic minorities, and now a fairer world for gay people and one for recent immigrants. Every generation has had its conservatives, and opinions about the equality of women or of black people that were considered mainstream conservatism in their era would now be considered unacceptable even by most conservatives.
So they lost. These fossils, the 'conservatives' of previous generations, lost their battles. Their imprint on society has been nil, except to slow down the pace of progress. Modern conservatives will try to establish themselves as inheritors of a historical conservative movement - as the curators of history, of tradition, etc. - but when directly asked the extent to which they consider themselves the continuation of sexists, anti-semites, racists and other scum of the past, they will deny it. They will accuse you of distorting their intent in order to vilify them. But quite obviously they are the inheritors of that legacy.
And I'm not trying to imply that modern conservatives are sexist, anti-semitic or racist. I genuinely believe that many or perhaps most in the mainstream are not. I know that these prejudices still exist and are still openly flaunted somewhere out there in the body politic, so one might say 'why not call today's nutbars the inheritors of that historic legacy?' Well I do, but only to a limited extent, because these people are no longer in the mainstream - because progressives have successfully redrawn the map - and so they don't really matter much in the grand scheme of things. Today's conservatives, fighting against for example equality for LGBT people, are the inheritors of that sad legacy of previous generations because they insist on denying the very basic, and easily comprehensible, fact that right is right, slowing down progress to the benefit of nobody at all.
This is why Ann Coulter (who unlike much of the conservative mainstream very clearly is sexist, anti-semitic and racist) could address a group of gay people, taunting, 'marriage is not a civil right; you're not black'. Coulter presents it in stark terms, but the majority conservative opinion does appear to be that extending equality to black people is a good idea but extending equality to gay people is not.
So, due to their successes, marriage equality is still a work-in-progress in the USA and in much of the world. The thing that's frustrating is this: the conservatives will lose. There is absolutely no question about it. The countries of the world and states of the American untion that have legalised marriage equality will never repeal those laws. The list of jurisdictions where marriage is a recognised right will only grow; it will never shrink. Sooner or later marriage rights for gay people - and basic social acceptance for gay people and LGBT people as a whole - will be universal and will be an uncontroversially accepted fact of life. Homophobes will remain, but they'll be on the sidelines, universally condemned as bigots.
And there will still be conservatives, yet these will have accepted equality of sexuality and will get upset at anyone who draws a connection between them and the conservatives of 2011, the ones who spouted nonsense like the following: "Anyone listening to this show that believes homosexuality is a normal lifestyle has been brainwashed. It's very dangerous if we start accepting lower and lower forms of behavior as the normal." (This was said by Sean Hannity, in 1989 - which is a long time ago, but the man is still very much a prominent conservative name today.) Future conservatives will accuse future progressives of hate-mongering for lumping them in with the Hannitys and the Coulters of today. But they will be the same breed. And they will be fighting tooth-and-nail against whatever form of progress is in the headlines then. And they will lose, again. Sooner or later. This is how society works.
So is the modern conservative a dying breed? On the one hand, yes. And in fact, thank God yes. But on the other hand, like Dracula, they just keep coming back again and again and again...
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
If only she were a witch
I find it absoluely hilarious that Christine O'Donnell has decided to spend advertising money quashing rumours that she is/was a witch. That of any of the hundreds of preposterous things she appears actually to believe in, the one rumour she was most worried about spiralling out of control was that she's a witch.
If only she were a witch. That would be way less harmful and worrisome than what she actually is and represents. I would much sooner vote for a witch, blood-filled Satanic altar and all, than vote for Christine O'Donnell.
If only she were a witch. That would be way less harmful and worrisome than what she actually is and represents. I would much sooner vote for a witch, blood-filled Satanic altar and all, than vote for Christine O'Donnell.
Monday, July 19, 2010
American Conservatives
I'm referring, at the moment, to the Tea Party. It appears to try to present itself as a movement in favour of small government, in favour of lower taxes, and, of course, in favour of freedomfreedomfreedom, that oh-so-powerful word the American Right bandy about at every given opportunity.
If it were just that, the Tea Party wouldn't deserve the derision it often recieves. When elements of the Tea Party made an effort to distance themselves from the Bush years, when they've said that overspending is a bad thing whichever party does it... well, they may not have a policy I agree with, but at least they seem to have one.
But where the American Right mystifies me is where fiscal conservatism meets social conservatism: I'm not so clear on what the two have to do with each other. Social conservatism is a frankly scary concept to me: based, as far as I can tell, on the notion that one's personal morals and values should be the law of the land. You needn't really look for a coherent moral vision from a social conservative: whatever bits of morality they cleave to are hardened into 'principle' and turned into the subject matter of theoretical laws.
Laws. The government using its power. This is where is all falls apart for me. If you're comfortable deriding as 'socialism' the idea that the government could, say, put environmental regulations on free enterprise or limit access to weapons, why are you suddenly comfortable entrusting the government to make laws forbidding, say, gay marriage? I know they'll claim that they're just trying to preserve the existing laws, but surely in one's quest for freedomfreedomfreedom, the current state of laws should be of no significance, right? After all, I don't think they'll stop calling for the repeal of Obamacare based on the notion that it's now the status quo.
This is where their position to me becomes untenable. Giving the police power to demand ID of foreign nationals is a policy that Tea Party supporters as a whole tend to embrace, but the simple fact is it ought to be anathema to everything they claim to stand for. They ought to deride it as the 'Big Brother' government impinging on the rights of ordinary people. Yet they don't. I sometimes get the feeling that Tea Party members practically beg people to label them as racist and/or xenophobic, so I'm trying to avoid doing so. But it's tough not to feel that the Tea Party would feel differently toward the laws in Arizona if they actually thought that they themselves might be stopped by police there. But clearly they don't feel that they have to worry about that.
The freedoms that appear to be important to the American right are, in fact, only a scant few freedoms. It would seem that what really gets them upset is the idea that the government would attempt to interfere with the free market. Freedom is an economic term, it would appear - though obviously the right to bear arms is also a big one with them. I don't know if I'd consider that a social freedom. But the idea that people ought to live the lifestyle of their own choosing has no resonance within the American right. Certainly 'flying the freak flag' is anathema to the American right. These are the people that have no problem closing down a high school prom rather than letting a same-sex couple attend. If somebody attended a Tea Party demonstration wearing, say, a leather bondage outfit, it's tough to imagine the people there saying, "Now here's someone embracing their God-given freedom!" Freedom would suddenly seem like licentiousness, and would scandalise and anger them. They might even say "there ought to be a law."
Because when it comes right down to it, the American right are not anarchists. They believe in the government and in its ability to make laws that affect society. Ultimately what it means to be an American conservative is to embrace laws, and aspects of the government, that fit with your way of thinking, and to decry as a socialist affront to freedom whichever ones don't.
Related articles by Zemanta
- How Obama Changed the Right (themoderatevoice.com)
- The GOP base with a different name is still the GOP base (washingtonmonthly.com)
- Is 'Leave me the Hell Alone' Conservatism on the Rise in the GOP? (themoderatevoice.com)
- Al Franken's Wonderful Speech on 'Conservative' Legal Degeneracy (beliefnet.com)
- Gallup: The Tea Party Is Just The Republican Party (oliverwillis.com)
- The Tea Party And Demographics (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


