Ignorant Armies: Final Thoughts on the Election
This election is too tedious a farce to deserve a serious editorial, but since I wake up every morning with a few complaints that I inflict upon my family, I may as well subject my readers to some of them.
Watching McCain on the news or in a commercial, I become convinced that he is the most evil piece of selfishness who has ever run for the presidency, but my disgust quickly ebbs away when the simpering Obama takes the stage. I can understand people who vote for McCain's resume or support him as the lesser of two evils, but I no longer want to know anyone who votes for Obama for any reason. He is an enemy of anything good that has ever been done in this country or this civilization, and when he is elected, I hope that all those Silicon Valley libertarians who supported him will live to see their property confiscated and their kids sent to reeducation camps. Yes, that is mean-spirited and unChristianm but it is unsettling to realize that you have lived among such monsters for so long without grasping the depth of their depravity and stupidity.
The McCain people are apparently too stupid to pin Obama as a Marxist. When Obama answers the charge that he favors redistribution of wealth by giving his cute line about sharing his cookie in kindergarten, all McCain had to do was to point out that Obama is not planning to share his cookies but ours. Poor Rush Limbaugh cannot believe that the American people are stupid enough to vote for socialism. I wish I shared his naiveté. The McCain camp is forever dissecting Obama's tax proposals as if they seriously believe that campaign platforms and policy statements have anything to do with reality. All politicians are liars--surely McCain looks in the mirror often enough to know that--so nothing they say in a campaign can be interpreted as a sincere reflection of what they actually believe, much less as a proposal they intend to carry out. Getting bogged down on what the O'Reilly likes to call minutiae (all those facts he cannot comprehend) is exactly the wrong strategy. To the extent Obama believes anything he is a socialist, to the left of Biden and Pelosi. He may not be able to do much about it, other than impose socialized medicine, bankrupt the government, and wreck the economy, but it will not be for lack of conviction.
Where is Willie Horton when you need him? The Republicans have to play the "race card" because they have few other cards to play. White Catholics are gravitating toward Obama, even some pro-life Catholics. People who have lost their money in the markets are praying for another Clinton administration. And, by now, the argument that "the surge has worked" is cutting little ice with people whose sons and daughters may be stuck in Iraq for another decade. The fact is, Obama has been friends with anti-white bigots of the worst type, and if McCain were not both obtuse and cowardly, he would not hesitate to play the race card--or arrange for some front group to play it for him. The world awaits the return of Willie Horton in the guise of Jeremiah Wright.
The other night in New York I told a small gathering that I did not blame anyone for voting for John McCain. Someone shouted out that he was voting for Sarah Palin. I was content to point out he could not have read the ballot, but, really, in the unlikely event of a McCain victory, I will pray for the continued health of Senator McCain. Palin is Dan Quayle in a designer outfit. Quayle was a cute guy, they all said, and a sound conservative. Mr. Buckley informed the world that Dan Quayle was not as dumb as he seemed. His spiritual heirs are saying the same thing about Ms Palin. Perhaps both of them have IQ's high enough to boil water on the Celsius scale, but there is more to dumbness than a low IQ. Some peope are simply clueless, incapable even of realizing just how obtuse they are. That is Palin in a nutshell.
Dan Larison on his Eunomia blog now on AmCon has drawn attention to our old friend Stacy McCain's defense of ignorance. Palin and her supporters are virtuous, he is arguing, precisely because what they don't know won't hurt them. I fear, however, that it will hurt us. This is worth an entire issue of the magazine. Since Socrates (at least) we have understood that to pilot the ship of state requires skill, not just a good heart, especially when that ship is no longer a simple republican skiff but a nuclear powered submarine armed with missiles carrying nuclear warheads. Besides, it is easier to make a judgment of someone's experience and competence than of the soundness of his heart.
I haven't liked a candidate since Ronald Reagan, and even he struck me as too Hollywood to be President. My portfolio went up under Reagan, but that is about the only good thing I can say. The good news is that human happiness does not depend on which imbecille or thug is in the White House. Vote if you must, but go to bed early on election day and do not bother to read the front page of your newspaper the day after. Stick to the funny papers: They are more intelligent and more relevant to our condition than news stories and editorials. Over and out.
89 Responses »
Trackbacks
- I’m almost there « Stony Creek Digest
- Fleming on Why Conservatives Who Support Obama Really Aren’t Conservative « Versed in the Permanent Things
- I’m Shocked: Palin Turkey Video Reveals a Shocker « But As for Me!
Entries(RSS)
M.G. at 49. May I respectrfully suggest that you have slandered Jimmy Carter. In so doing, you adhere to the delusion that a Republican is somehow more likely to be better than a Democrat. It is that delusion which has been keeping alive the Republican party for decades now. The only hope for reform is the destruction and replacement of the Republican party. Its only function is to capture the votes of decent Americans by a pretense of representing them and then to make sure that their wishes are thwarted. If Ronald Reagan had not abandoned his supporters and made Bush major his heir, there would be no Bush minor as president. How many brick walls have to fall on you folks before you see the light.
MG, if I remember correctly my Marxist theory, a communist paradise is supposed to spawn from the most advanced country on earth first and then spread around. The Marxists were at odds to explain why the revolutions succeeded where they did prematurely. So perhaps that explains it. If a Republican party needs to be destroyed so that real Conservative movement can succeed, then I am all for it, but it's hard for me to imagine how this will play out. One can equally argue that it is the organizational and ideological strength of the Left that usually succeeds in making the Right appear weak, corrupt and clueless. (for example, convicted Democrat congressmen and senators keep their seats but not the Republican ones.) Communists have won and stayed in powere wherever they gained it but Conservatives have not prevailed anywhere in the end. The only respite was achieved during Reagan years due to the demonstrated American strength. With Obama, the biggest weakling ever to seek the presidency,(who in fact wants the capitalist America to be defeated) they will be back with a vengance world over. How anyone can perceive that to be good for America on any level is hard to fathom.
@49Miles Gloriosus
More like the new Woodrow Wilson.
JB51 wrote: "With Obama, the biggest weakling ever to seek the presidency,(who in fact wants the capitalist America to be defeated) they will be back with a vengance world over. How anyone can perceive that to be good for America on any level is hard to fathom."
Clearly it isn't, but with this we-are-all-one-big-global-society claptrap now emanating from both parties, I don't see how a plausible defense of conservatism (classical liberalism, really) can be made. When our leaders defended American interests first, we at least could see the possibility of an America, sovereign and independent, offering an alternative to the world.
Unless we recognize the importance of putting America first (and the interests of her citizens over those of international bankers and multinationals), we'll continue in our occult vassalage
Dr. Wilson,
Why do you think they Republican party, or the other party could ever be destroyed and replaced? The two parties are dependent on each other. If the Republicans really took such a beating that they collapsed, the Democrats would be forced to resurrect them. The two party system needs two parties and it needs two parties that serve the same master.
I think the only hope is to weasel our way into power in the Republican party, slowly stalling and then reversing the current trends.
Rollo
You have it figured exactly. The difference between Deomcrats and Republicans is the same as that between Buick and Pontiac. All profits go to GM, the rest is just about market share. The same as with teh Soviet Union and the US. Both sides realized that teh demise of the other would be bad for business. All antogonists need a protagonist and vice versa, one giving meaning and purpose to the other. Soviet Union out, War on Terror in, all manufactures to keep your share of the market needing and believing in the efficacy of the snake oil you are peddling. The pathetic ones are those that actully take any of it seriously.
The forces that are bringing this latest chapter of American history to an electorial climax on Tuesday have been a long time in the making.
The "wire pullers" that have created the nonchoices and the endless election drama are as sophisticated as ever. These forces have wealth and techniques of mass manipulation never imagined by the original puppeteers of the "peoples will" back in the 18th C.
Dr. Fleming has mentioned the posibility of discussing Cochin's writings. Perhaps, when the dust settles from this current round of national "elections" in the US, and the memory of this campaign of deception is still fresh, it would be an opportune time to look at Cochin. What better way to try to understand who is behind the current hype and to understand just how these forces are organized?
Some responders are clearly not reading what I have written. Obama is bad news for many reasons, worse news probably than McCain, but this is hardly the first indication that the US are in serious trouble. Electing FDR President for life should have been a clue. The one thing that BO can bring to the revolution is his principled commitment to socialism plus a symbolic endorsement of welfare and affirmative action programs that rob the American Middle Class to subsidize a criminal class. It is a serious mistake, as I have explained previously to confuse the evils of fascism with the evils of socialism. Fascists pandered to the responsible middle-class and even draped themselves in religion and patriotism. Our socialists for the most part hate their country, its tradition, and its religion. National socialism, as John Lukacs has been pointing out for years, has been the dominant ideology of modern times, but a) fascism is not reducible to national socialism and b) the left wing of Democratic Party is far from nationalist.
One final caveat against the ill-considered use of fascism as a label. The great tactic of the left has been to identify every decent impulse as fascism--love of family, attention to sex roles, bourgeois morals, patriotism. It seriously confuses the issue, then, to use such a term for Obama.
I will not be able rouse myself from this slough of despond long enough to even bother casting a vote. Nor will I watch the election returns. The thought of seeing hordes of ecstatic Mohammedan louts flouncing gleefully through the streets around the world is only slightly less repugnant than the knowledge that the citizenry will be a captive audience to Michelle Obama's mindless mouth for the next four years, should the Republic survive that long.
Fuit, fuit ista quondam in hac re publica virtus, ut viri fortes acrioribus suppliciis civem perniciosum quam acerbissimum hostem coercerent.
We may well be facing ruination at the hands of the most pitiless enemy with the very conniving of the republic's most pernicious citizen. Di nos servent.
I urge all readers to write in my name as President. My platform?
Bring the troops home from Iraq, march them to the Capitol, arrest every congressman and give them an ultimatum: leave the country or I will hang every last one of you.
My reference to fascism was to the Republicans; I see them as the greater evil at this time. As for the Democrats and Obama's socialism specifically, they seem to fit the more benign form of democratic socialism. Not being familiar with TJF's larger criticisms of fascism and socialism, I can't comment compentently on any of those claims.
george is absolutely right on Zbignew Brezinski for playing a major role in creating Al-Qaeda and empowering Pol Pot. He will more than likely further damage America's reputation around the world serving as Barrack Hussein Obama's foreign adviser.
American patriots only have two real choices for change: Chuck Baldwin or Bob Barr.
My comments have to await moderation? My Buchanan is a moron statement @ #34 was fairly moderate I think. The guy gets the royal shaft from the Neocons and dumped by the GOP in 2000 for espousing "paleo" virtues in one of his books, goes 3rd party, then quits active politics to help found the American Conservative, which is totally anti Neocon and an anti war publication. So what does he do when push comes to shove? He endorses the neocon presidential candidates in both 2004 and now 2008!!!!!!! I mean does Buchanan believe the stuff he writes or does he just pander to the crowd that made him such a celebrity? I mean selling millions of books that debunk the necessity of WW II, the danger of illegal immigration, and the pursuit of empire, then asking folks to vote for a guy that is exactly 180 degrees from his policy positions is outright moronic, unless Pat is just full of BS.
Mr. Bruce's statements do not have to await moderation, but name-calling, moderate or not, is not tolerated, especially toward men who have been friends of this magazine and its editor for over 20 years. If people are now angry with Mr. Buchanan as a fallen leader, it is because they made the initial mistake of choosing him--or any man--as a leader. As I have said many times, this conversation is carried out according to the same rules that would obtain in my house or in a seminar at our office.
Maybe Mr. Buchanan in the end supports Republican nominees that stand for many things he finds abhorrent only because, like many of us, he just can't stand to see their liberal socialist opponents win.
I can't believe some of the supporting comments I made recently for McCain. It is settling in how awful it will be when Obama takes office, and that disgusts me even more.
Whatever Mr. Buchanan faults may be, he sure has contributed greatly in his writings and campaigns, even if it falls on mostly deaf ears.
Don't blame me: I'm voting again, though for neither Republicrat. The more we go on record as voting for principled candidates, the more the tide turns.
RB, I don't think you will find one other person here that thinks that Pat is a sellout, quite the contrary. To understand why this is so, you need to study your Paleoconservatism more. But since there is a strong possibility that you are an Obama seminar writer, this should explain to you why Obama lost. You needed to come up with far cleverer stuff. Phony righteous indignation just won't do it.
I'm thinking of writing Mr. Buchanan in to atone for the fact that I once voted for a Republican president.
I apologize for my inability to take this election seriously (not really). I see it as being little more than a glorified high school student council election. The real power behind the throne--the principal, as it were--will still be in control of the school.
(( Any conservative who supports Obama a) never was much of a conservative or b) no longer is. ))
Essential to the definition of "conservative" is some reference to what one wishes to conserve.
What to conserve, then? The Department of Homeland Security? Warrantless searches when you get on a plane, combined with warrantless wiretapping of phones and email? A "no fly list" of people who have criticized the administration? A Pyrrhic war on the Muslim world? Torture? Halliburton's bottom line? Deficits as far as the eye can see? The wreck of the American economy? To be hated and despised by civilized people around the world, and for good reason?
I am a conservative and support (tepidly) Obama because I think that to support the Bush-McCain faction is to endorse national suicide.
Obama might be terrible, but it's difficult to imagine that he would be worse than McCain. What America needs right now is radical change, and there's a chance Obama might provide it if he hasn't already been co-opted by the corporatist state. It's only a chance, but with McCain, I believe we would have no chance.
Many people whom I respect, including Dr. Fleming, disagree with me. I trust that whoever wins tomorrow, we'll be able to carry on in supporting the things on which we do agree.
There is only one conceivable motive for supporting Obama, and that is self-hatred. The alternative is lack of awareness of reality that borders upon stupidity. If we hate Stalin, we are not obliged to vote for Hitler, especially if we happen to be Jews. If we hate McCain and the GOP--and with good reason--we are not obliged to vote for Obama, especially if we are middle class Whites. It used to be that one did not have to point out the obvious. What do you think, that the man who chided his grandmother for her "racism" will not take out his resentments on us? No, it is not possible to collaborate with those who wish to destroy themselves and take the rest of us with them. To vote for Obama is like paying for your mother's abortion, retroactively.
"The one thing that BO can bring to the revolution is his principled commitment to socialism plus a symbolic endorsement of welfare and affirmative action programs that rob the American Middle Class to subsidize a criminal class." TJF
Dr.Flemming you have hit the nail on the head! This the reality of the socialist commentary that the bleeding hearts of the left ( and the cowards of the right ) have embraced for the sake of appearing to care. It is much easier to be a bleeding heart coward than to carry the cross of truth.
This is indeed a desultory election season. I've never felt so much dismay about voting for president. Today I'm saying the hell with it and casting my vote for Nader. (Chuck Bladwin almost got my vote but lost it because of his desire to build new oil refineries. Nuclear plants, absolutely; coal and oil polluters, no.)
I thought about voting for Ralph, a quondam Chronicles subscriber and once upon a time contributor to the American Mercury, but his gratuitous endorsement of abortion rights and same-sex "marriage" is a bit much to stomach, not so much that one cares about his positions as these shifts indicate an opportunist.
I'm still in 2000 mode, when Nader disparagingly referred to the "gonadal politics" of feminists and pro-choicers. I hope Nader's not a true opportunist. But if he is, it just confirms that there's not even the right kind of environment in this country for developing really good political leaders. As for same-sex marriage: I was recently thinking of the significance of using quote marks around the word marriage in the phrase "same-sex marriage." Given the recent nonsensical declarations from the courts about how equality requires homosexual wedded rights, liberals can be expected to react with extreme hostility to that scare-quote tactic. The consequence, I predict, will be the rise of a militant center-right populism that may become the biggest story of American politics in the next decade. (This would be clearer to everybody right now if Obama didn't portray himself as an opponent of same-sex marriage because of his religion.)
@76 TJF: excellent point with which I heartily agree. Either Ralph Nader is an opportunist (a quality that is part and parcel of any politician's resume} or he is such a liberal to believe that women have a "right" to kill their own babies or that homosexuals have "rights" which God has condemned. By the way, I just learned, today, in the polling booth as I was perusing my ballot, that Ralph Nader was representing the "Natural Law" party. What a hoot!!
Too bad there has not been a word during this whole campaign about Admiral John S. McCain Jr.'s (McCain's father) role in the disgraceful coverup of Israel's 1967 attempt to sink the USS Liberty, an unarmed spy ship sent to the coast of Gaza (intentionally sent there, no doubt, to be sunk) during the Six Day War. The ship was intended to be sunk, and with no survivors to say otherwise, the attack would have been blamed on Egypt, and Arabs in general-- much the same as Arabs have been successfully framed for 9/11.
The "investigation" into the attack was conducted through the London office of Admiral McCain. It was, in the words of survivor James Ennes, a complete whitewash. The protectors of Israel even went so far as to have young sailors incarcerated until they learned to keep their mouths shut about the attack.
It may not be fair to blame the son for the father's treason. But it's difficult not believe that John McCain's successful political career is not at least in part payback for his father's "loyalty." And it's easy to see that should McCain assume the presidency that the way would be paved for yet another homicidal false flag attack-- aimed at Americans, blamed on Muslims-- to be carried out by our Zionist friends.
#73 - I have to disagree with Dr. Fleming that the only conceivable reason for voting for Obama is self-hatred. The lack of awareness of reality which he gives as an alternative is probably closer to the truth. I can think of no conceivable reason to vote for McCain, other than fear of Obama. It is really counterintuitive that voters would reward the Republicans for involving the country in multiple endless wars, for the collapse of the value of their homes, for the loss of their IRAs and 401Ks and of their jobs. Anyone who would vote for the Republican candidate after all of that would have to be a real self-hater, a blind partisan, or one of the few who is actually benefitting from the current situation. Almost all people, however, are so thoroughly indoctrinated into the two-party system that any alternative vote for a third party is simply unimaginable. Returns up to now show a vote of 1% for all third parties and independent candidates COMBINED. It makes me appreciate how exceptional my extended family is. Among us, the race was between Chuck Baldwin and Ron Paul as a write-in candidate.
.... meet the new change ! Same as the old change !
This election, to put it in marxist terms, is a constest between the lenenist and the trotskyites.
Dr. Fleming's comments were a great tonic for the incredulity and dread I experienced after I learned the election results. He is right. We should not let who occupies the Oval Office be the determinant of our happiness. If we love God and or neighbors (the real kind, as in the ones next door and across the street) as ourselves we will ultimatley end up in the right place.
I just read the election results a little while ago. I should be looking up aneurysm in the dictionary to see if I just had one. Being a Chronicles reader, however, prepared me for this mad post-election world long ago. For which I'm thankful.
"Don't blame me - I voted for Koto." -Homer Simpson
I voted for Chuck Bqaldwin...perhaps he is liked by Mr. Fleming?
Mis-spelling alert:
Chuck Baldwin!!!!!
Hate to break it to you, but - "bankrupt the government, and wreck the economy"? - the government is already bankrupt and the economy is already wrecked. Maybe the $550 BILLION dollars spent on the Iraq war might have something to do with it...ya think?
We've been socialist for years, haven't we been? The two-sides-of-the-same-coin parties put on the same old "All-Star Wrestling" thing every 2-4 years to make the still painfully naive hang on the the belief or hope that we have any real choice in the ballot booth. The Fed-cum-Goldman Sachs makes a mockery of any so-called capitalism/"free market" we may still think we have. But how can you run a Counter-Revolution when the sheeple, room temperature IQ types are all running interference for the Wizards of Oz?
I'm going to read more O.T./N.T., Cicero and Mencken, along with the good Dr. Fleming, to ease my pain, as I've given up the cerveza and Martini habit, so now I've got to confront this blasted reality with good reads, not good stiff drinks. But I think I picked the wrong year to do that!