The Suburbs of Hell
I have not turned on the television in over a week and have refused to listen to NPR's reverent coverage of the Democratic National Convention. Still, I cannot help picking up stray bits from here and there. What self-absorbed little people, doing star turns in the little plays they have scripted for themselves. Even James Carville could not help observing that the Democrats wasted their first night on the soft soap operatics of Ted Kennedy and Michelle Obama.
I get the inside dope on the Obama campaign because in trying to check out their website for information—it is as empty as Obama’s résumé—I had to register, which means a steady stream of “Dear Thomas” messages, first from Obama and then from Joe Biden, who is thrilled to be playing second fiddle to the great man. I am assured that Obama’s plan for the economy is better than Bush’s plan, but since neither man has a clue, much less a plan, it is hard to evaluate the claim.
It is not just the Democrats who are getting personal. A few days ago I got a call from a nice lady who assured me that Newt Gingrich was interested in hearing the views of important business and professional leaders like me. Ordinarily, I might have believed her, but having been the recipient of this pitch every few months or so either from the RNC or some other conspiracy against the common good, I knew they wanted money for nothing. I told the nice lady that she had made a mistake: There was nothing I would give to Mr. Gingrich including the time of day.
What a country in which a two-bit college teacher, smarmy hypocrite, and serial wife-dumper gets to be a “conservative” “leader,” where the presidential candidate of the Republican party has ditched his wife for a younger woman, who claims to be an only child even though she has a half-sister. Cindy’s mother, it seems, set the pattern by stealing a rich man from his wife and child. Then there is the millionaire without a past, Barack Obama, who lets his brother George Hussein Obama live on $100 a month in a hut. Then there is the John Edwards—“vote for me, my wife is dying”— comedic tear-jerker. All the time he was chasing around with another woman. It is not the immorality that is so striking but the stupidity. Edwards is so ill-read he probably had never heard the Gary Hart episode.
Why go on. Celebrity politicians in America are so much human slime, and, since bits of slime tend to stick together, Obama and Biden—the “pro-choice Catholic”—are a perfect fit. Perhaps Nancy Pelosi, who says she has read Augustine and concluded that the Church is ambiguous on the morality of abortion—can be chosen as the Secretary of Catholic Theology.
Cynics would say that politicians have always been like this but that is because they are not making cynics as they used to. To acknowledge the moral inferiority of American politicians would require a hard look at American reality that few people can bear to take because the politicians are only a supersized version of the average American. Politicians have always had large egos and too much testosterone, but, apart from a few notorious Roman emperors and French kings, they have had to comply—or at least pretend to—with the moral and social rules of their societies. American pols are no exception. Obama’s compassion for the world and neglect of his brother is only a caricature of people who neglect their neighbors and write checks only a caricature of people who neglect their neighbors and write big checks to the Red Cross; the vixen moral code of Cindy McCain and her mom is no different from the morals of the millions of the women who watch Desperate Housewives, and the Catholic theology of Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi is shared by tens of millions of Catholics who think they are entitled to make up their own moral theology as they go along. How are they different from people who put their libertarian philosophy above the Church’s teachings on charity and usury?
We are a feeble, stupid, and childish nation, incapable of leading the gaudy life that would put us somewhere in Dante’s Hell. We’d have to take a number and wait in line and then get seated somewhere near the kitchen. That is why this election means nothing, because we have—as every nation almost always has—the leaders we deserve.
142 Responses »
Trackbacks
- Conservative Heritage Times » What This Country Needs is a Better Class of Cynic :-)
- Conservative Heritage Times » Auto mechanic for President - The phony populism of Stephan Kinsella
Entries(RSS)
In short, both the political system and Christianity in America are both very bad jokes.
Mr. Bruce. True. But once that truth has been faced, the question, it seems to me, is what to do about it?
I guess we can all just pitch our tent amongst the Political Donatists and grouse about every single individual who has a possibility of actually winning an election and only support those who nine Americans will vote for.
Or, maybe we could support an individual who stands a future chance of incrementally making positive changes. Of course it took us a very long time to arrive at where we are now and the idea we can find an individual who can turn everything around immediately is a silly one but that idea makes a wonderful straw man we can rapidly form and fire and use as a source to rhetorically roast every damnable dull dufus American stupid enough to vote.
America, it seems, ain't worthy of us or our efforts.
Maybe we all ought to move to Serbia, a country worthy of our time and talents.
The conversation is getting a little silly. Not-Spartacus is arguing for a pragmatic approach to the election, which is fine in itself, so long as there is a less-evil alternative and so long as the evil he might do is not so bad that no sane person could endure it as the price to be paid. Others are arguing, quite reasonably, that neither candidate fills that bill. That the one would make war on society and, particularly on the White people of our society, while the other would project us into unnecessary wars, seems far from unlikely. The only reason, if this analysis is correct, to support one or the other is a desperate attachment to the democratic process. Perhaps such a move is justifiable, but it is not self-evidently the only sane thing that one can do in these times. There is hardly any point in insulting people who do not expect to find remedies to our ills in the bipartisan state.
The conversation is getting a little silly. Not-Spartacus is arguing for a pragmatic approach to the election, which is fine in itself, so long as there is a less-evil alternative and so long as the evil he might do is not so bad that no sane person could endure it as the price to be paid .
Until a Paleo Pelayo arrives upon the scene, one must make do with what has, unexpectedly, been handed to him.
All along my argument has been that McCain's unanticipated choice, once he wins, automatically puts Palin in the Presidential On Deck Circle. It is all we Christian Conservatives have. Right now.
It took Pelayo, and succeeding traditionalists, 700 years to complete the Reconquest of Spain. I think Christian Conservatives ought be wise as serpents and strike at this opportunity.
It will take a long time (not seven centuries I trust) to complete the reconquista of our Republic and the battle has to be joined at some point.
It may as well be now.
The American Conservative reports that Saint Sarah has now made her official pledge of allegiance to AIPAC and received their applause.
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/
Yes, this is truly what paleos have been waiting for - another Christian Zionist Israel-firster. Palin a Buchananite? The sad truth is that when it comes to political action, as contrasted to just writing and analysis, Pat Buchanan himself is no Buchananite.
This is just the reaction that the Rovians were looking for... Keep those who consider themselves "conservatives" coming back to the well and pulling the "R" lever by putting a supposed "Buchananite" on the ticket...
When the neocons sink their claws Palin they'll turn her into a Stepford Wife. Truly sad.
Is Ms Palin a "Christian Conservative"? I'm not sure what that means these days, but the rather strange group she belongs to--Assembly of God--is anything but conservative in historic Christian terms. Their obsession with End Times--to say nothing of their blind attachment to Israel and devotion to money--mark them as a rather radical group. My experience with some of their preachers has even caused me to doubt the propriety of referring to them as really and truly Christian, though that may well be too harsh a judgment. But the group's extreme Zionism is hardly compatible with the Christian faith as taught by the Apostles and their disciples.
Then again, what sort of conservative woman neglects her children in order to pursue a political career? I know we are all being told that this topic is off limits, but the fact is that a mother of a teenage daughter should be at home watching over her chick. Apparently the Palins do not care and appear to be absolutely thrilled that their daughter has conceived a child out of wedlock. These things happen, of course, in the best of families, and parents must make the best of things. But it seems to me Ms Palin is without shame in trumpeting her daughter's folly to the world and at the same time wrapping herself up in the mantel of "Christian conservatism."
I can remember a time when few conservatives would vote for a woman of any kind for the very obvious reason that women have not been designed, either by their Creator or by nature, to engage in the rough-and-tumble contests of career politics, any more than they have been designed to be NFL linemen. We are all supposed to be overjoyed that she is a gun-totin' moose-shootin' mamma, but while I have nothing against women who take up hunting and fishing in a small way to please their fathers or husbands, I cannot say that a woman's participation in blood sports is much of a recommendation. In charity we might regard her as a Tomboy who never grew up, but how enthusiastic can we be over a perpetual adolescent as successor to the oldest man ever elected President?
All in all, I conclude, that while the governor of Alaska may be the estimable person her supporters say she is, her lack of experience, combined with her eccentric religion and unfeminine and unmaternal lifestyle, would be enough to discourage me from voting for McCain, if I had ever been willing to entertain that unpalatable notion. Palin's success in winning over the Dobsons, Limbaughs, et al, is all the proof we need that American "conservatives" are a best capitalists and at worst sectarian religious fanatics.
Well since this website tends to two parallel aspects of life that may be interconnected but are surely also disjointed -- politics and culture -- then our approaches to "what to do?" need be different. Culture is a local, personal thing, whereas politics has a different reach. You can affect the election of people anywhere in a way you cannot help their culture (I guess you could destroy it).
So cultural advice seems difficult to dispense for the purpose of coordinated action. Do whatever it is that you do. Tend to your lives, buy things with attention to where they come from and how they are made when you must buy things. Sing and dance when you want. Don't let the despair that drives politicians ruin your life when you realize you can't make other people accept your culture. This election will come and go and will probably not much change our cultural cauldron.
Political advice is even more difficult perhaps in this late hour with regard to this specific election. There is an element of logic that is to be applied in your own way, so use that and vote. Surely not voting is part of the problem, do not convince yourself otherwise. They are counting on you giving up or buying in, but there are other options. No option is perfect. Send a message that best represents your ideal message.
If you think shooting yourself through one leg or the other is our only choice, then forget about this and look forward two years or four. So much can be accomplished, and political reach has a much longer arm. Educate, read and write. Or as Gov. Gary Johnson advised in yesterday's Rally for the Republic, "Adopt a Republican." Imagine what could be accomplished by doubling once and then again the number of people housing and living these ideals. Appeal directly to these ideals. You will not be disappointed.
Here is a fine speech (parts 1-3) from the squeeky Bruce Fein:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJiq1zDcc7c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHc0zLJsABw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTPMggDow8
If I found myself sitting and cheering and listening to the various speakers I heard yesterday -- having in the near past been completely unaware of their existences and only vaguely aware of their ideals -- then I assure you a lot can be done in a short amount of time; but persistence with gentle, simple truths above all else.
Thanks to Dr Fleming for a rare, truly conservative look at the Governorette. She is not conservative, she is liberal or radical, a careerist who leaves behind a special needs infant and a pregnant teen daughter to pursue higher power. And yet the GOP base eats this up. Authentic social or Christian conservatives would think that this woman should be at home caring for the children. Today's GOP thinks such an opinion is sexist, having made the transition to radical egalitarianism along with the Demos.
TJF @ 109. Didn't C.S. Lewis, in his characteristically polite manner, essentially define non-sacramental Christians as outside of Christianity? Isn't what she's a part of better described as a "faith community?"
The Palin situation and Republicans excitement seems to reflect the libertine-white-trash-ization of America (which I guess is better than the ghetto-ization of America). The clownish free-form naming of children (Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, Trig) and the idea that a women who kills and skins things for fun is attractive and cool. This type of woman is about as feminine as the wives of my college buddies who sit with their husbands in front of the TV with a long-neck Budweiser in hand shouting at the NFL game on the tube. Men now seem to want to marry another man who happens to have breasts and a uterus.
Apparently the Palins do not care and appear to be absolutely thrilled that their daughter has conceived a child out of wedlock.
I thought such venomous claptrap was reserved for the likes of the Socialist Spinster, Maureen Dowd.
Your other observations are quite questionable also. I think they are unnecessarily negative, harsh, and flat-out mean-spirited.
For a man with such a giant intellect you can be cruelly small-minded.
A man with a mean spirit might say that 2+2=4. I believe that the Palins have said that they are happy with their 17 year old daughter's marriage and regard the baby as a bonus. Not once have they gone so far as to say that teenage fornication is not in the best Christian tradition. Forget Christian, a Greek or Roman father would have killed the boy with his own hands.
I don't think it is at all mean-spirited to point to the flaws in a politician's character, especially when that politician is being sold as a "Christian conservative." "Questionable." Is the fact of her pursuing a career when she might have been rearing her children in question? Or are we going to question the moral truth that a mother's primary obligations are to her family? Is this where Republican loyalty leads, to a repudiation of the Christian moral tradition?
Her speech was an embarrassing exercise in self-glorification, and on the subject of earmarks and "The Bridge to Nowhere," her remarks go beyond duplicity into outright dissimulation. Not-Spartacus, with his constantly reiterated defense of the GOP's moral anarchism is sounding more like "Am-Too-Spartacus."
Thanks to Bruce for an excellent insight. Apparently Piper is named after the plane, Track because he was born in Track season (When
Ms Palin's mother asked her what he would have been named if he had been born during basketball season, her daughter shot back with Hoop.) I wonder if the term "faith community" may give too much. Sect might be the proper word or "belief community," since most of these dispensationalist/Millenarian groups put their emphasis on novel credal propositions that were either condemned in the ancient world as heresies or were made up out of whole cloth in the past two centuries.
If everything I have heard about this situation is true, Sarah Palin should resign from both the GOP ticket and the governorship of Alaska. Her failure to exercise even a minimally acceptable level of control and supervision over her wayward daughter is tantamount to dereliction of her duty to her family. It goes directly to her trustworthiness to carry out the duties of her office.
After all, if she cannot be trusted to do right by her delinquent child, how can she be trusted to do right with a position of authority over public servants and the public fisc ?
Her public embrace of her family's failing---and it is a family failing, not merely an individual one---as "who we are today" is further evidence that she is unfit for public office. I was brought up to believe that public office is a "public trust", requiring a higher standard of character, not a lower. It's as if a public official was caught drinking or taking drugs in the office and then claimed he was "just like us".
The daughter needs to quietly marry the father of this child and go take care of him. After a full, public apology to her family for her disgrace.
Sarah Palin, if she has any sense of personal or family honor, needs to resign. Forthwith, and with public apologies. To do any less would be to stain the office she holds and dishonor the people she allegedly wishes to serve.
Not that it will actually ever happen, but there it is. One more proof that American "democracy" is an unequivocal failure.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
This is not directed toward any comment posted above but only to comments that are not being posted. I would remind my real and virtue friends posting commentary to avoid personalizing the discussion. The question at hand is the GOP's claim that Ms Palin's fitness for high office include her credentials as a "Christian conservative." Several people have offered good reasons to treat this claim with skepticism. I would welcome evidence in support of the claim.
Tom Piatak suggested a link to our friend Kevin Michael Grace's blog, "The Ambler". http://www.theambler.com/
KRG has an amusing and informative discussion of the Palins' penchant for silly names.
Excuse me, KMG
My view is that Mrs. Palin is certainly no conservative. As to being a Christian, I am not privy to her heart, though by outward appearances I have my doubts about this, too. But, I think that most here are missing the point about her selection for V.P. I detect the satanic influence of Karl Rove in this. What is really important in this is perception. In her outward appearance, Mrs. Palin is every small town boy's dream girl. She is good looking, nubile, smart, and likes to hunt and fish. She also attends some sort of church. She even has a good paying government job so that her hubby can afford all sorts of nice toys. "It's caribou season? Here Honey, I'll load up some ammo for that nice Remington 700 rifle I bought for your birthday." She plays the frontier maverick extremely well. The dangers she poses to the Democratic ticket must be considerable judging from the rising tide of vitriol. I suspect that she is going to deliver most of the Red States to the undeserving McCain. Most probably, Hillary Clinton has ground her teeth to powder while listening to Palin's speech. The good Mrs. Clinton positioned herself to grab the brass ring the old fashioned way. She hitched her star to a politically successful philandering sociopath. Mrs. Palin, on the other hand, is equally ambitious, and yet managed to move at least one step ahead of her on her own efforts. She did this while having 5 children, running a business, and getting elected to a series of posts on her own. And, worse yet, did so without darkening the doors of Yale University Law School. Then, there is being first runner up to Miss Alaska. I will not be voting for her, but I have conservative friends, some of whom are Christian, who are positively delighted with her candidacy and are jubilant supporters. We can only hope for Divine Providence in this matter.
Thanks, Steve, for the cautious defense of the lady. Another friend has written in with this suggestion:
I would also suggest, respectfully, that you ask all website posters to use their real names. Perhaps that's unenforceable, but would I have a real-life conversation with someone calling himself IAMNOTSPARTACUS? No; I would tactfully move across the room and gently sound out the host as to what sort of a dinner party I was in for.
" would I have a real-life conversation with someone calling himself IAMNOTSPARTACUS? No"
Tom,
This does indicate the level of fear in our culture for speaking the truth as one sees it. Justin Raimondo often gave the Free Republic posters hell for assuming rediculous names under cover of fear. It is the same everywhere. I AM WHO AM NOT is who Alias Sparticus really is, and before that (In Ancient Times) his name was BEEZELBUB!! This whole internet contraption has become a hive for these neurotic types and has almost cured me of associating with any web page but Chronicles.
I heartily support the idea that people should use their real names. There is no excuse not to do so since the country is not yet fully totalitarian.
I admit I tended to like much of what little bit I heard about Mrs. Palin. Then I heard her speak with that awful Deep North accent, the ugliest of all American forms of speech. The result of Iowa Swedes being taught a simulation of English by the lowest class of New England Yankees.
Lord Karth -- I agree wholeheartedly. Not out of a judgmental spirit but from an insistence that those who aspire to high office be cut of a different fabric. I feel certain that if Robert E. Lee had had such a scandal in his family (and yes, it is a scandal) he would have resigned his commission promptly. No one seems to have the grace to do that nowadays.
People who saw the speech were more impressed than those who, like me, merely heard it.
In the past, we tried to make people use real names and gave exceptions to people in sensitive jobs, which is really a small number. If a man, generally speaking, is too timid to use a real name, perhaps he should be reticent in the expression of his opinions. I agree with Clyde Wilson that whatever fears people have are probably exaggerated.
Now, I would add that for many people, internet names are like the CB "handles" of the 1970s. I have met Woodcutter, for example, and always knew his name, and I doubt he was ever hiding behind anything. Similary, I very much doubt that Lord Karth or Grumpy Old Man would be unwilling to share their real names, not necessarily on every post, but occasionally. After all, the columnists are exposing themselves to criticism. Perhaps the critics should identify themselves? Anonymity is too often a refuge for bushwhacking cowards who refuse to fight in the open.
I have no problems posting under my name. I rather suspect that my FBI file is already larger than I am. I have thought about sending them an FOIA request for an Internet posting I made at the behest of the late Jim Bohan, AKA Lobo Azul, setting up a spoof support group, "Bulemics for Dole" during the 1996 campaign. It was one of my wittier works, and I no longer have a copy. I am not really defending Mrs. Palin, but trying to determine the nature of her appeal. When people like Gloria Steinem and Maureen Dowd attack her, it reinforces her attractiveness to her constituency. One of us is being attacked by Them. This also plays with Obama's fumbling attempt to explain real Americans to his Hollywood donor base. What Mrs. Palin is doing is being the lightning rod for the attacks from the most Blue of Blue State Blue Noses. If the economy, and Republican plutocratic corruption are issues that Obama is attempting to use against McCain, you do not hear even a peep about the Keating Five in all the uproar about the V.P. nominee. Nobody is paying him much attention at all these days. So, a man whose demeanor and "family life" are reminiscent of the Joe Isuzu character in the old car commercials does not have to face the stones and arrows of his opposition for some time to come. Also continuing on with her appeal as the dream girl of any red blooded small town American boy, recall that Dr. Fleming at a Randolph Club meeting some years back sagely stated that it was the dream of every Iowa boy to be staggering down Bourbon Street with his plastic cup of beer clutched in his hand. This is true, but what that Iowa boy would really like in addition, is to have his other arm around Miss Sarah on the way back to the motel with her in a similarly drunken state.
Dr. Fleming,
I can understand the call by many for the use of real names here, but there are a legitimate group of us who cannot and will not on a public forum such as this for no other reason than fear of a backlash that could result in the loss of our livelihood. And, to counter an analogy above, this is not a dinner party. Dinner parties demand a different level of personal interchange that a public forum on the Internet does not.
Speaking on my own behalf, I do not think I have been rude to anyone on these forums and I hope that I have added what little I can in those instances when I have chosen to post. You recognize my moniker and know me personally through direct email exchanges and meetings in person. Prof. Wislon does as well, from past meetings at JRC, though he has no reason to know my moniker here. I am more than happy to send Clyde Wilson a personal email revealing my identity, but I wish to maintain my anonymity on the forum itself.
As such, I sincerely hope that you will not forbid the use of aliases on this forum.
To Eagle: I do understand in your case and that of a few others, and the fact that we have personally corresponded eliminates any concern I might otherwise have had. To Steve Berg's "I rather suspect that my FBI file is already larger than I am" I can only say that this is quite a claim, as anyone knows who caught your performance as the Danish enforcer at a JRC meeting.
To others posting anonymously, I would say we are not yet imposing a rule, but it would be a graceful gesture either to reveal yourselves publicly or at least send a note to the webmaster giving your identity and saying why you wish to remain pseudonymous.
Mr. McCabe wrote:
"Surely not voting is part of the problem, do not convince yourself otherwise. They are counting on you giving up or buying in, but there are other options. "
I would respectfully disagree on this point. I think a low "turnout" of the eligible electorate would indeed present a problem for the entrenched oligarchy. I think about it this way: Consider how we all criticized the process of the Supreme Soviet when a candidate received 97% of the votes cast. Now consider how silly our system will look when only 20% (or 10%, or whatever is the magic number) of the eligable voters turn out to cast a vote. How legitimate will the system seem at that point? How grand will our democracy look to the rest of the world?
Besides, voting is a sign of confidence in a system...a system which the voter believes he is empowered to influence. I do not for one second believe we have that power. A third party will not prevail under the current conditions. Diebold and other enabling factions will ensure that the "correct" choices are made, and probably that an appropriate level of voter participation is maintained, for that matter....
Eagle, I do understand your point, but I have come to disagree with it because of another (internal) perspective and functional examples other than the USSR.
We in Minnesota, with our horrible accents (I've come to find them very cute in the ladies), brag of our voter turnout at something like ~65%. That is not very functional, since there are enough people not voting to change the outcome of the vote, the way the votes usually fall out. Furthermore, a healthy two party system would exhibit signs of majority rule, not this fractured plurality that we have. Look at Italy or other countries that string together these weak coalitions to limp through elections; coalitions that soon fracture.
And although we are not a national democracy, without looking it up, a majority of popular support for our president has not happened in awhile, regardless of electoral outcome.
A majority of support, and a high voter turnout are two different issues, but they are related, I think, at least through certain ranges of the two variables.
Furthermore, political science experts at my university and others, as well as private major party calculators like Rove, read the low voter turnout as a form of silent consent. "Well marge, we can't go wrong with either shmuck, so let's go to bingo instead." Indeed, our parties are close together and depend upon emotional and fiscal bribery.
The example I offer you, in order to change your mind, is that of Ross Perot. Not that long ago, he mustered 1 out of every 5 votes across this country. Some argue he gave Clinton the election. He had a real political effect in the very least that 4 years later, control of the debates was handed over from the League of Women Voters to the 2 parties, so that Dole could keep Perot out and Clinton could limit the number of debates to protect his lead.
That is an example of third party action that did make a difference by sending a clear message, if not affecting the election itself. The fact that the rebound action was a negative should only strengthen our resolve and inform our aim.
However, the broader debate about political action on this page does remind me of my history lessons about early black civil rights leaders. Do you stand against the system in an effort to change it? Or join it in an effort to become powerful?
I say you do both, but you do not do nothing. I am not sophomoric enough to say act for the sake of acting, but I believe there are responsible alternatives. I also appreciated a suggestion by the baboon Jesse Ventura who wanted a law putting on every state's ballot the option "None of the Above" which would certainly allow an active dissent.
I also humbly submit that those who believe not voting (in general) is a fine idea in our current bleak situation are usually either copping out from the real work to be done, lack all creativity and mirth, or are weakly hiding in the low shadows of their own sense of moral righteousness.
That all being said, I am undecided for whom I will vote in the upcoming election and am looking for guidance from this site and other people. However, I can guarantee you my name will be checked off the registry on election day, and I will not rest easily after that either.
The only reason I can find to vote for McCain now rests on the assumption that he will appoint constructionist judges to the SCOTUS. The oldest ones are all the worst ones whose replacements could matter. He has vowed to do so, and Palin makes it seem more so, but he also voted for Ginsburg. What a great Maverick he is!
The only reason I can find to vote for Obama is that he might actually shrink some of our foreign military presence. But I am also fairly sure he will hasten the internal destruction of our country.
My other main considerations now are Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin, though at this moment, I haven't been able to easily find if they will be on the ballot or not.
I'm only writing to respond to what Palin's daughter's pregnancy says about Palin. I think we can all agree that shame has fallen out of favor and no matter what mistakes people make, our society now views shaming the sinners as worse than the mistakes themselves. We may not like it, but that's the way it is.
In that context, read the statement about the pregnancy:
"Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents."
There is nothing in this statement that suggests the Palins are happy about or proud of the pregnancy. Rather, the statement is designed to protect the daughter by focusing on the future and on her right decision to have the child and marry the father. I imagine the Palins were livid, but, like most families would, have simply accepted reality, moved on, and made the best of a bad situation.
I won't vote for or support McCain-Palin because McCain is at the top of the ticket, but I would vote for and support Palin. She is far from ideal, but she's about the best we can hope for today and at a minimum is tolerable in today's climate.
Dr. Fleming, could perhaps you recommend a book on etiquette and civility? I agree with you that we should be looking at preserving some sort of communal life where we can, but having been brought up in California, I fear that I do not have a sufficient grounding in traditional American customs and etiquette. I believe Fr. Lovasik has a book talking about kindness and consideration, but I think it is more general, and I am looking for something that goes into detail. I fear that the 'updated' popular guides (e.g. the one by Emily Post) may not be dependable.
Dr. Fleming, how much of traditional etiquette do you think should be replaced by contemporary practices, in order to 'fit in' a place such as California and to keep the door open for 'dialogue'? (For example, addressing unmarried women by "Ms." instead of "Miss." There are other examples of traditional customs that have been discarded in favor of the new egalitarianism.)
I do not at all think anyone should point the finger at Ms Palin, though given the choice between fulfilling her primary duty as well as possible and playing politics, she chose the latter. She has made more than one reference to her daughter's pregnancy and never expressed any sense of shame, but to the contrary she has referred to the child conceived out of wedlock as a bonus. Now, the child per se is more than a bonus, and she and her husband should be happy with its birth--though her remark that the decision to carry the baby to term was made solely by her minor daughter is an odd thing for a pro-life politician to say. Nonetheless, what happened is not a good thing either for the daughter or the grandchild. If politicians are going to front for the Christian right, I think they should be far more careful in the way they conduct themselves. I do not advise anyone else, but I cannot imagine voting for a candidate who combines inexperience with duplicity.
I don't have a clue as to an etiquette book, though an early edition of Mrs. Post would help. I am not so much concerned about which spoon to use or when it is acceptable to go black tie to the theater, but with the etiquette of the heart, which is an expression of Christian morals and chivalry. For example, Christian humility suggests that do not talk about ourselves and our achievements, if we can avoid it; we never exult in our victories or in the defeat of our rivals. We do not convert conversations about facts and ideas into discussions of the other man's character, nor do we inquire too much into his private life. I do not claim to be a well-mannered person: My wife has much better manners, but I find the behavior of many people today is not just discourteous but arrogant and indicative of self-absorption. The tiniest example is the way people shout their private affairs into cell phones in public places. It is probably too late to salvage much of formal etiquette, but it is not too late to maintain the Christian moral core.
The requirements for good citizenship have become awfully narrow in this discussion. "Christian" is apparently not narrow enough, and acceptable conservatism is now narrowed down to a splinter group. I get the impression that anyone who can be described as a good citizen must come from a very select group indeed. How can freedom exist in a society of such exclusivity? And whatever happened to the admonishment, "Let him without sin cast the first stone"?
A fair enough question. I should think the point is not so much whom one would vote for as what principles does one hold. For example, one might well vote for McCain as being marginally preferable to Obama in some (though not all) respects, without enthusiastically endorsing him or his VP or claiming that either represent conservative principles or the Christian tradition.
At Chronicles we use the term conservative in a variety of ways that are not inconsistent to refer to those who 1) maintain long-standing traditions, such as the rules of formal manners and formal verse, and 2) those who adhere to many if not all traditional-conservative principles such as the rights of states and smaller communities, rejection of socialism, adherence to traditional moral norms, and 3) an understanding of human nature and the limits it imposes on social and political experimentation. All three are quite distinct from the faux-conservatism preached by globalist neoconservatives or from the conservatism-lite proclaimed by Rush Limbaugh. There are conservative elements in what Ms Palin says, but it would be hard to say she is conservative in any of the three senses I have listed.
I don't think I am alone in believing the term "Christian" is used much too loosely. Everyone who calls "Lord Lord", we are told, will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and people who justify the slaughter of Christian Arabs for the sake of the Jewish state have wandered rather far afield from Christian teaching. I do not say that Assembly of God churches are not connected with Christianity, as traditionally understood throughout its history, only that the connection is not always easy to see. A woman who has been baptized in a tradtiional church and then is rebaptized at the age of 12 and has never apologized for it, can fairly be regarded as someone who does not regard Catholics (and by extension Orthodox, and probably Anglicans and Lutherans) as Christian. This shows much the same spirit as Mormons who refer to Christians as "gentiles." It is Ms Palin, and not her critics, who has put herself outside the mainstream of Christianity.
Finally, on casting the first stone. Scriptural citations of this sort are a good illustration of why Biblical interpretations should not be bandied in a frivolous manner. In the first place, our Lord was quite literally telling adulterous males not to kill a woman taken in adultery. This is hardly a command not to make moral judgements. He was Himself far from being non-judgmental in castigating the Scribes, Pharisees, and hypocrites or in kicking the money-changers out of the Temple. But, having said this, I would repeat what has been said many times here. The point is not that Ms Palin's daughter got carried away. It happens all the time. But Ms Palin has chosen to lead a life on feminist rather than Christian terms and yet appeals to Christians for their vote in much the same way that she has declared opposition to earmarks while at the same time being the Alaskan Queen of the earmark.
People who aspire to high position and who hold Christian and conservative banners aloft should not be exempt from scrutiny. When Bill Clinton claimed to be a Christian, Republicans were quick to point out his lapses in marital fidelity. I doubt that conservatives like Newt Gingrich, divorcee and adulterer, were much concerned about casting the first stone. There are reasons why good people will hold their nose and vote for McCain-Palin, but there are also reasons why they should hold their nose. That, I believe, is all we are saying.
I appreciate the distinctions you make and think they are valid.
But where does that leave the willingness to compromise as demonstrated by the founding fathers when they accepted less-than-perfect matches in the colonies for the purpose of putting forward a united front to England and to Europe. Could it be that people among us today similarly believe that this is a time to put aside some differences for the purpose of unity? It may be that we will never get a perfect candidate for any office.
You are more than correct in saying that we shall never have a perfect candidate for any public office and completely reasonable in calling for compromise. The political process is, as they used to say, the art of the compromise, but it is not so much the compromise of ideologies as of interests. As a Middle-class European American traditional Christian, I look in vain for national candidates who even know what interests I think I have, though it is clear that to the extent he understands me and mine, he would like to eliminate us from the body politic. To interest me in a candidate, the candidate would have to be shown to be doing something good for me, such as lower my taxes, not send my children to a pointless war, punish crime, protect the borders, promote my particular business interests (e.g., lower the postage rate on non-profit publications), or do something to elevate the abysmal moral, cultural, and social tone of our society. Nope, I can't think of a single thing either party is even willing to lie about to interest me.
What if there were no "founding fathers" but only community leaders within 13 separate states with quite different interests? What if these local and state leaders were persuaded to get together to make a set of compromises that made it difficult for one group to mistreat another, say big states/small states, commercial/agrarian, northern/southern, Puritan/Anglican. And suppose further that this compromise depended on strong separate states with decentralized internal power structures that permitted Connecticut Baptists to get along, more or less, in a Congregationalist state. One could then imagine an almost unending series of finely tuned compromises that oiled the cooperation of these rather disparate communities. But, instead, the commercial/northern interests and the agrarian/ southern interests broke out in increasingly passionate conflicts over, for example, the admission of Missouri or tariffs that protected northern industry at the expense of southern farming. Suppose further, though it seems silly, that one party decided to go its own way and was forced back into subjugation by its victorious enemies who destroyed everything they could not steal before going on to revolutionize society, education, morality, and culture? Well, sir, that is about the way we got to where we are. For many conservatives, I know, compromise with the likes of Joe Lieberman and John McCain seems a pragmatic exercise. To others, it is nauseating to think that such people have ever been permitted to enter the Senate of the United States.
When I used to spend a good deal of time with my anarcho-libertarian friend, Murray Rothbard, I persuaded Murray to agree to a simple criterion: Political movements, legislation, parties, etc. could be supported so long as the net effect was to reverse the power flow that had sapped real communities--from families to churches to the separate states--and fattened a coercive national government. I called it the federal principle, obviously broadening the notion of federalism a good deal, and it meant, for example, that a good Rothbardian could not support the intrusion of the federal courts in a local censorship case, simply because he believed in freedom of expression, nor could a Catholic conservative support national abortion legislation, except in so far as it stripped all three branches of the national government of their jurisdiction.
What quaint ideas we had in the 1990's! Today, on a practical level, I would be mildly content with a party that sincerely promised to do three of these: lower my taxes, get out of culture and educational funding and control, avoid unjust wars of aggression, defend the border against illegal immigrants, impose a reasonably restrictive immigration policy, and abandon anti-White racialist policies such as affirmative action and multi-culturalism. I don't really care what they say they think about abortion, because they are never going to do anything and probably anything they did do would end up causing more harm than good. The truth is, though, no politician is sincerely advocating any of the above. The idea of trusting Open Borders McCain on immigration ludicrous. I do not say that no one should vote nor do I promise not to vote, when the time comes, if it is not raining or I don't need a hair cut or they are not playing music I like on the radio.
It is Obama and his party would like to eliminate us from the body politic, much as Mr. Buckley once threatened to "excrete" us from the wholesome body of conservatism. How wholesome that body is can be judged by the number of conservatives waxing eloquent on the virtues of McCain and Palin.
@ 19 Rublev
In answer to your question, Lew Rockwell rates Warren Harding as the least bad president of the 20th Century. But I prefer, Silent Cal, America's first Libertarian chief executive. He cut the size of government while making services such as the Post Office run more effieiently.
If only the rest of today's elected shower-of-shaving-cream would stop squandering taxpayers' money while claiming that "things" (people) are getting "done," we could have real progress in a return to sanity.
@131 Chan
PJ O'Rourke wrote Modern Manners -- an etiquette guide for rude people. Do the opposite of what it recommends and you'll be close.
Personally I recommend using all the silly rules that have become obsolete.
Walk between traffic and your lady to shield her from drive-by louts.
Drink tea without using bags, brew it in a pot and pour through a strainer. Use special pot and cups. It's a great ritual.
Open doors for ugly women.
Say good morning to people you detest.
Tell really dirty jokes and then apologize to anyone who might be offended, then callously reply, "I'm glad you're offended!"
Remind any and all that political correctness is one of the bitter fruits of Mao's Red Guard and the Cultural Revolution.
Mr. Chan (132),
I've dabbled around a good bit in books on manners, etiquette, and the like, hoping to find some good treatments of the subjects for my young daughter (my mother--the epitome of everything that is good in the Southern lady, and from whom I had hoped my daughter would imbibe these things first-hand--having tragically died while my daughter was quite young, thus depriving us of the best possible source of learning these things). I have not been terribly interested in the Post/Baldridge/ et al. cyclopedia approaches (how to set the table and arrange your guests ,and which forks and spoons to use when and how, which glasses for the reds, whites, burgundies, etc., is pretty ubiquitously available, in as little or much detail as one might desire) but rather in deeper treatments of the underlying elements of gentlemanly and gentlewomanly character and conduct. Here are a few items I've run across that I think are good treatments in various respects, that I think you or anyone might find of interest more broadly as well:
A Book of Couretsy, by Sister Mary Mercedes;
Social Graces, by Platz and Wales;
Better Than Beauty: A Guide to Charm;
Choosing Civility, by PM Forni;
The Rise and Fall of the Plantation South, by Raimondo Luraghi;
Recollections and Letters of Robert E. Lee (several different editions available);
Lanterns on the Levee, by William Percy;
"Manners for Men" and "Manners for Women", by "Mrs. Humphrey"
Thank you very much Tertium Quid!
(#114, TJF) "Is this where Republican loyalty leads, to the repudiation of the Christian moral tradition?"
Do you really need to ask?