Comments

There Are 142 Responses So Far. »

1. 1 Comment by Tobias on 27 August 2008:

   You have written yet another good post, Dr. Fleming.

   McCain’s first wife had previously been married and then divorced her first husband. In the eyes of the Church, McCain’s first marriage would be of doubtful validity at best. McCain subsequently dumped her, for all of the wrong reasons. Nevertheless, if we were to introduce Christian teaching here, superficially there is more reason to believe that McCain and his current wife are validly married than there is to think that McCain and his first wife were. Superficially.

2. 2 Comment by Tobias on 27 August 2008:

   “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.”

   Is Taki Theodoracopulos’ admitted infidelity to his wife much better? He seems to think so, but it sounds like a judgment call between two types of low behavior to me. Yet he is a “paleoconservative leader.”

   At least the paleoconservatives admit that this is an issue, and Taki himself has addressed it. That is more than one can say about the Republicans and their womanizing leaders:

   http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/did_someone_say_elitism

3. 3 Comment by TJF on 27 August 2008:

   The logic of americans gets curioser and curioser. Who made Christian marriage the issue here? The only issues are behavior and the sickening hypocrisy of those who presume to lead the country. A man marries a woman who divorced her husband for infidelity. She is injured and puts on weight. He allegedly cheats on her, divorces her, and marries a younger woman with whom he had been having a relationship while married. Then he runs for the presidency at the head of the more “conservative” party.

   If “Tobias” were to get down from his soap box, he might recall that friends do not talk about the personal lives of their friends. One thing that one can say of Mr. Theodoracopoulos: He is anything but a hypocrite. He is also, the last time I checked, not running for the presidency or posing as a leader of any kind He is simply a writer with more guts and talent than most “conservative” writers. Like most good men, he simply is what he is and does not pretend to be what he is not. Saying this much is unpleasant. To have to suffer more of this sort of conversation would be offensive.

4. 4 Comment by Robert on 27 August 2008:

   Tobias,
   I admire Taki for his courage and honesty —in facing both his sins, his enemies and his friends. It is called character and one either has some or does not. Taki does and those paleos who still harbor the fear of puritans should at least admire their betters if they cannot admire their elders. One thing for certain, both conventions would have been a hell of alot better gatherings if Taki was running their shows.

5. 5 Comment by Fred Fowler on 27 August 2008:

   There is a repeated clause in the middle of the sixth paragraph, which reads:

   who neglect their neighbors and write checks only a caricature of people who neglect their neighbors and write big checks to the Red Cross;

   As for the statement itself, it is interesting that as long ago as the middle of the 19th century, Charles Dickens was satirizing such people in the person of his character Mrs. Jellyby. Someone else said somewhere–I am not sure who and where–that it seemed to be a tendency of the English to get more worked up by distant evils in some other country than by what was taking place in their own back yards. We Americans seem to share this tendency.

6. 6 Comment by Red Phillips on 27 August 2008:

   What this country needs is a better class of cynic.

   That is only half in jest. We do need more cultural critique that is willing to tell it like it is.

7. 7 Comment by Robert Bruce on 27 August 2008:

   Red, we did have one(better class of cynic) his name was George Carlin. Thing is he didn’t think too much of God.

8. 8 Comment by TJF on 27 August 2008:

   George Carlin–who reached his peak with Wonderful WINO–subscribed whole-heartedly to every Leftist cliche: smug, ignorant, self-righteous, Carlin posed as a rebel when in fact he consistently stooged for the real establishment. Next we shall be hearing how the Roosevelts and Kennedys betrayed their class, how Hollywood is filled with “social activists, and how John McCain is standing up, begad, for old-fashioned American values. Saying 7 dirty words on air is a twelve year old’s idea of rebellion. It would be sad, if Carlin had not made money posing as something he never was. Give me Lennie Bruce any day.

9. 9 Comment by Robert Bruce on 27 August 2008:

   I agree with him being somewhat smug and self righteous, but he did nail american culture for what it was, basically just all about consumption. I don’t see how he was a stooge for the establishment. If he was, I think he would have been more PC than he was. Only PC stance he seemed to take was with abortion and saying white people stole America from the Indians/Mexicans. Other than those he showed how vile and crass American culture was.

10. 10 Pingback by Conservative Heritage Times » What This Country Needs is a Better Class of Cynic :-) on 27 August 2008:

    [...] so insinuates Dr. Thomas Fleming in another biting commentary on our current sorry state of affairs. Cynics would say that politicians have always been like this [...]

11. 11 Comment by Allen Wilson on 27 August 2008:

    At least the speeches at the convention tonight were a sort of entertainment, in a sick, perverted way. That was true until Biden started puling tears out of the audience with the story of the tragic loss of his first wife and daughter, and how he overcame all that suffering, etc., etc. We’re not supposed to use such language here, but my god, what a psychopathic, manipulative scumbag, using the memory of his dead wife and daughter like that. He even had his son mention it while making the introduction. Wow!

    Many families go through things like that, but they would have more dignity and self-respect than to use their story to manipulate people’s emotions for crass politics.

    No, I never deigned to watch the whole circus, I just turned on the telly when I got up and there it was………….fifteen minutes later I had to run from it.

12. 12 Comment by pablo H on 27 August 2008:

    Dr. Fleming is correct on Carlin. You don’t get a glowing Obit in the New York Times and every establishment rag by being a “rebel”. You get a glowing Obit for attacking people the REAL establishment doesn’t like. I’m sure Carlin occasionally attacked and satirized things liberals liked. So what? Hitler disliked smoking and liked long walks on the beach.

    We get the Pols we deserve. This accounts for McCain and Obama. A large reason for that is structural, but where is the desire to change the structure? It doesn’t exist. The average American is A-OK with these two, just like he is satisfied with toxic waste that in on every movie screen and TV.

13. 13 Comment by Robert Bruce on 27 August 2008:

    At least that wasn’t as pathetic of when the Kerry daughters in 2004 told of how John gave their dying hamster mouth to mouth. Oh my god!!!!!!! That was absolutely the most ridiculous crap ever uttered at any political convention. Actually 2004 was what did it for me and opened my eyes once and for all in how pathetic the american political system was. Both families put out their single daughters in a ” who has the hottest daughters contest”. Lamest BS ever. I have only caught snippets of this DNC, but to me, there doesn’t seem to be much oomph or excitement as in previous years as they keep bringing out the same tired old baggage in the Kennedys, etc. Kucinich made a nice speech, but not much reaction to it. Not much cheering going on. I think the party is starting to come to a close. Folks are waking up to the facts that these politicians are scum, and don’t believe the crap they are dishing out. God I wish we had some facists and commies to watch. I mean the real deal, not these facsimile versions. At least those guys would make it interesting.

14. 14 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 28 August 2008:

    We have the leaders we deserve. Heaven help us.

15. 15 Comment by MAP on 28 August 2008:

    I remember telling people back during Reagan’s first run that he was setting a bad precedent. Using the vast influence of TV and being an actor, he could portray any character he wished and so affect people’s emotions. The present campaign is, it seems, only the expected evolution of this deceitful concept. The stump has become the stage.
    Ah, As the World Turns.

16. 16 Comment by TJF on 28 August 2008:

    Yes, “the Bruce” has put his finger on an important element of American political culture today. For 100 years our politicians have been, for the most part, corrupt liars with only the slightest shreds of human dignity. What Mencken said unfairly of Bryan could be applied to most of our leaders since Franklin Pierce: “Zanies without sense or dignity.” But, Mencken enjoyed a political scene that provided the gaudy antics of Pitchfork Ben Tillman, the Lafollette-Wheeler ticket, Huey Long, and–to bring it closer to our own time–Joe McCarthy, Orville Faubus, George Wallace, J. William Fulbright, Happy Hubert Humphrey, and Clean Gene McCarthy. Fulbright and McCarthy were literate men by the standards of the day, and the others had sincere passions which they could communicate to others. What we have now are dinner theater actors playing at being prime time politicians. Compared with the hijinks of Chirac and Sarkozy, to pick from only one country, our political theater is a drab spectacle.

    And MAP hits an equally large nail on the head. In ‘79 I was shushed by conservative friends when I suggested that an actor was a dangerous kind of person to make a political hero. Their life is illusion and they know how, to quote a pop song, to use their illusions. I can think of few precedents. Nero the amateur singer comes to mind, and I suppose one could name Sheridan, an actor and son of an actor. But Sheridan attended Harrow, was the most important playwright in English for nearly two centuries, built Drury Lane into a great theater, and consorted with men like Johnson and Burke. If he is the exception, he is clearly the exceptio quae probat regulam.

17. 17 Comment by Red Phillips on 28 August 2008:

    Since we are talking about vain politicians, I couldn’t help but notice that Biden has more hair than he did when he ran in ‘88. Hmmm… How could that be?

18. 18 Comment by Robert on 28 August 2008:

    Red writes : “I couldn’t help but notice that Biden has more hair than he did when he ran in ‘88. Hmmm… How could that be?”

    Red,
    Years ago he and Bob Dole teamed up together to promote Viagra as a sign of America’s bi-partisan desires against grid-lock. What alot of insiders know in Washington is that the drug helps stimulate hair growth, high blood pressure and morning talk around the water coolers in most American businesses. Vote John “I Hate Buchanan” McCain for more of this gross growth or Barrack “Yes We Can” Obama for more of the same sex. Either way, America’s political structure is sound and our alternatives are again twiddle dee or twiddle dum. Or a third party twiddle dee-dum. “Heigh Ho, The Holly !! This life is most jolly, most friendship mere feigning, most politics mere folly ” or words to that effect.

19. 19 Comment by Rublev's Dog on 28 August 2008:

    Has there been a decent American president since Grover Cleveland?

20. 20 Comment by Tom Camp on 28 August 2008:

    I enjoy Mr. Theodoracopoulos’s writing and his contributions to this site, however, I fail to see how behavior like that can not be condemned. Everybody has to serve someone and if Chronicles didn’t recieve Mr. Theodoracopoulos’s support, I don’t believe that sort of behavior would be explained away. In my opinion, TJF is being hypocritical. None of us are perfect, but justifying marital infidelity so cavalierly seems an odd stance for Chronicles to take.

21. 21 Comment by MAP on 28 August 2008:

    Obama represents diversity. The Democrats are reaching far out to hopefully ensnare those millions new to our shores and with no stake in our heritage or history; that is, our replacements. With the sucess he has shown already, I suspect we’ll see many such in the future. From this perspective alone, I hope he fails miserably.

22. 22 Comment by Robert on 28 August 2008:

    “I enjoy Mr. Theodoracopoulos’s writing and his contributions to this site, however, I fail to see how behavior like that can not be condemned.”

    Tom,
    I have never read a word anywhere in Chronicles that did not condemn infidelity. A man is many things and commits many sins, so let’s allow those who know Taki and enjoy his friendship, be the first to cast the stone. As for me, I have enough of my own problems to work on without searching for the specks in anothers eye. I can never remember being so ashamed of American politics as when our government pretended scandal at The Wild Bill Clinton and Monica soap opera.

23. 23 Comment by TJF on 28 August 2008:

    Mr. Camp’s grammar is as imperfect as his logic: “No one is perfect.” Since no one has justified Mr. Theodoracopoulos’ behavior, there is no hypocrisy involved. I suppose Mr. Camp and other pillars of perfection have no friends who eat too much, drink too much, have impure thoughts about women, are ambitious about making money, fudge on their taxes, or entertain high opinions of themselves. It is too much to ask from Americans these days, I imagine, to expect them to be able to distinguish between ordinary sinners and the hypocrites who speak of lofty universal moralities and fail to live up to their most basic commitments. When Newt divorced his first wife, she was recovering from cancer treatment and he snookered her into entirely inadequate child support, a move he later justified to a judge on the grounds that his career involved high expenditures. People who put themselves in the positions that McCain, Obama, Biden, and Gingrich have done, where they insist on spending our money on their moral pretensions are in an entirely different category from other people, who may become prominent by reason of their talents or wealth. Again, it is too much to expect of Americans to make that distinction, but Mr. Camp’s display of grotesque bad manners goes beyond the pale even for this nation of sports fans.

24. 24 Comment by Gintas on 28 August 2008:

    But, see, Taki’s not a hypocrite about it. Since he’s honest and up-front about it, it has been transmogrified into something of a virtue. Maybe we should call him “the heroic Taki.” And here I used to think that hypocrisy was the compliment that vice paid to virtue!

25. 25 Comment by MAP on 28 August 2008:

    Judge not, lest ye be judged. Horrors if I should be judged by what I did in my youth! Fortunately, the Lord allows us to ask for forgiveness. However, I don’t know of any forbidden act of the Bible that is not common practise among the Washington set. Most outside of Washington wth that level of corruption and wickedness are serving time in some prison. To compare anyone with them is a pretty low insult.

26. 26 Comment by Tom Camp on 28 August 2008:

    I never claimed to be a pillar of perfection. I readily admit to being a flawed person and when I engage in behavior that I know to be wrong, I am inflicted with the guilt that thirteen years of Catholic school has instilled in me. I just cannot see how a statement like “womanizing is a matter of honor” can be justified. And yes, you are justifying it, Mr. Fleming. Adultery is immoral, and when Mr. Theodoracopoulos talks about his own foray into this behavior without a hint of remorse or acknowledgement of what this may have done to his wife or children, I have a hard time reconciling it with what I usually read on this site. Why is this such a taboo subject and an example of “grotesque bad manners” to discuss something that Mr. Theodoracopoulos has openly talked about in the past?

    I am not a professional writer, but I do the best that I can. If you were to scour the Chronicles site, I am sure you could find far more egregious grammar errors than mine. Why pick on my supposedly poor grammar and not address the content of my comment?

27. 27 Comment by Sean Scallon on 28 August 2008:

    Corrupt people corrupt institutions and that is why you will have scandal in government, the church, business, education, sport, the military you name it. These crooks and wretches do not come down from Mars, they come from you and me.

    Indeed Americans do get the leaders they deserve and not only that, but when it comes to being President they tend to vote against those who have some shreds of moral fiber. Simply put, Americans will not vote for a goody-goody. Perhaps it’s because we tried that with Carter and Bush I and the results were not that satisfying. Indeed the ideal of Jimmy Carter as President was a good one but execution did not work at all. Americans chose Nixon over McGovern and Clinton over Bush I and Dole, a slick draft dodger over two bonified war heroes. Say what you want about Al Gore but no one ever accused him of being at cocaine parties in Midland, Texas.

    The American people have shown again and again they will not vote for someone who thinks he’s better than they are or more moral than they are. So if I was Barak Obama, I’d hang around Tony Rezko more often. He’s needs a sleaze coating to match McCain’s.

28. 28 Comment by David N. on 28 August 2008:

    Back in 2004, my late college history professor put me on the DNC email list. Like Dr. Fleming, I get periodic messages from Joseph Biden, Barack, and Michelle. I hit “delete” as fast as I can.

29. 29 Comment by D Simmons on 28 August 2008:

    Derelection has its price and the bill is coming due.

30. 30 Comment by TJF on 28 August 2008:

    We did not establish a discussion forum for gossipy Puritans or National Inquirer readers. If Mr. Camp wants to lick his chops over the vices of others, there are many sites set up for exactly that purpose. It is bad enough he wants to use our website for attacks on the character of a friend and columnist, but then when the situation is explained he goes on to call me a hypocrite and by extension a liar. He still does not understand why this is unacceptable. Perhaps there is a copy of Emily Post on the internet he can consult. I have asked the webmaster to block his access. A personal note of apology to the webmaster will be sufficient to lift the ban.

    If Gintas is not the blogger writing nonsensical muck about our decision to run translations into Spanish and (soon) into Italian, he had better make that clear.

    Thanks to Sean, Robert, and MAP for trying to bring the conversation back around to its point. A friend sent in a private email raising the question of how much damage Puritanism has done to the American character. Our Lord supped with tax collectors and protected an adulteress. He reserved his anger for the Pharisees and hypocrites who feigned virtues they did not practice.

31. 31 Comment by R. McCabe on 28 August 2008:

    Mr. Camp, I agree with you that TJF took a short cut at your grammar and manners, but I also think his point is being missed. He is concerned with two aspects here, one being the general problem of living life one way and preaching another way for the purpose of gaining money and power, and the second aspect being that Mr. Theodoracopulus is somewhere between an associate and a friend of his. This brings into question the problem of decency and manners. Mr. T’s actions were not defended by TJF nor brought up by him in the first place as Mr. T has become some *deus ex machina* to this thread thanks to the first commenter.

    I have discovered this site and have been following it when I can for the past few months now. What a great source of information and debate it has become for me, although I suggest an unfortunate air of cynicism. TJF indeed contributes some of the best material on a consistent basis, though I would argue with him over his repetitious tone containing “you Americans” as he often retreats to the comfort of ancient Greeks. Certainly, there is a deep well of knowledge there. But at what point do the educators become the cynics become the court jesters? See how naturally this thread arrived at Bruce and Carlin?

    As @12 asks, “but where is the desire to change the structure?” I suggest there is desire. As a youngish man who has more cards to play than stories to tell, I have been turned on to new(old) ideas about small ‘r’ republicanism that have simply not been implemented within my lifetime. They seem radical in their simplicity and effectiveness, and I hope that this site continues to produce informed pieces and civil debates.

    But 10,000 people already are lining up for the sideways GOP convention in Minneapolis, called the Rally for the Republic. Upon hearing so many of these ideas for perhaps the first times in our lives, many are finding action and optimism easy. Please keep guiding, but beware the cynical finger!

    And God bless.

32. 32 Comment by Gintas on 28 August 2008:

    I have no blog, but I have been a subscriber for these past 18 years. I was truly surprised to find Taki writing in Chronicles. Not because I have any voyeuristic interest in his private life, but because he boasts so shamelessly about it I couldn’t help but hear through my hands clapped over my ears. His life can hardly be called a private life, and for Mr. Fleming to call this “gossipy Puritanism” is simply ridiculous. It’s common knowledge in all the paleocon right, where he has a prominent voice.

33. 33 Comment by Baldrick on 28 August 2008:

    It is hard to beleive that the precious energy of the universe was spent on creating Joe Biden. Why would God do such a thing ? One of his mistakes?

    George Carlin hated White Amerians. I would go so far as to say that George Carlin like his leftists comrades Alexander Cockburn and Jefferey Sinclair over at Counterpunch have genocidal intentions towards White Americans. Go take a look at Carlins recent performances on You Tube. Leftist world view:White Americans=pure evil;Non-whites=pure good.

34. 34 Comment by TJF on 28 August 2008:

    Thanks to Mr. McCabe for understanding the debate. In my foolish youth I once criticized The American Spectator for publishing a notorious profligate. I did not attack the profligate’s character, but I was being stupid. TAS did not profess Christian morality–quite the contrary–and the infamous writer had talent and something to contribute. Among the contributors to Chronicles have been at least two pornographers, whom I will not name, one dead who wrote in a foreign language hardly anyone in America can read, one still alive who writes under a pen name but no longer is permitted to write for us. I discovered both facts rather late. We have also published one or two divorcés, at least two men I know have been less than perfectly faithful to their wives, a poet who neglected his family, a fairly large number of drunks, a glutton or two, scads of the slothful. I have tried to eliminate the envious–they are unpleasant to have around–and the proud, who are unbearable. I don’t think we have any murderers, though at least three of them were man enough to punch out guys who paid unwanted attentions to their wives. I suppose they would have killed the punks, if it had come to that. Yes, it is Puritanical to discourse on the mote in Taki’s eye while pretending not to see the beam in your own.

    I would suggest to Mr. McCabe that it might be a mistake not to respect the language and enforce its rules. The next step in the descent is to repudiate the rules of manners and it is a short step down to morals. I think there is skepticism here, one that has had to be cultivated, but cynicism. Cynics always attribute the lowest motives to others and repudiate all worldly attachments as unworthy of the human spirit. Nothing is good enough for them. Skeptics are always ready to challenge false assumptions, faulty evidence, bad reasoning, and even sensory perceptions. David Hume and Sherlock Holmes were skeptics; Ambrose Bierce a cynic.

    Without patting the backs of my collaborators (or my own) too much, I would say that we are trying to provide honest analysis and interpretation based on fundamental principles, without running off into ideological extremes. The core is a classical and Christian tradition that is still worth defending, even though the Western elite classes have rejected it. Our political principles, though they took concrete form in the early American republic, are not limited to those two generations, but can be applied to monarchies and empires. When politics fail, as they so often do, grown men and women should know how to get on with their lives. That is why we have a two-track approach, one that is political on the surface and a deeper approach that is cultural and moral. I hope you will stay with us long enough to benefit from both. You should also subscribe to the magazine and buy our books.

    I take Gintas’ answer as a “yes,” that he is the Gintas who has been writing defamatory nonsense about us on racial-nationalist websites, claiming that our decision to take advantage of an opportunity to reach out to Spanish-speaking rightists is really a decision to sell out our country. I don’t read these sites, but friends send me the screeds when they find them. What a lot of time they spend, telling their invidious little lies. I had always hoped, as Nietzsche did, that we would have great and noble enemies, and instead…

    I am quite fond of the many little nations of Eastern Europe, Slovak and Serb, Lithuanian and Finnish, and I deplore the bigotry to which they have been subjected in the past. I do have some Ellis Island ancestors as well as old stock, but I cannot quite suppress a smile when someone with an impossibly alien name accuses us of selling out the country our ancestors wrested from the Indians. On the other hand, perhaps he is right. On one side, my people were Scots who had signed an oath not to fight against the King and went to Prince Edward Island in the 1770’s rather than violate their oath. Always traitors, it seems.

35. 35 Comment by TJF on 28 August 2008:

    I should have written “not cynicism”.

36. 36 Comment by Bill Smith on 28 August 2008:

    Me thinks the emperor has no clothes…

37. 37 Comment by Edward on 28 August 2008:

    I think it was in your chapter ‘Too Much Reality’ that you wrote about social reformers who couldn’t uphold even the slightest decency in their personal lives. Marx, Rousseau, Voltaire, and Florence Nightingale were some of the more memorable examples. It was the most eloquent critique of this phenomenon that I have ever read and it is a point that goes too often unnoticed. It is obvious that it is easier to focus on the problems of the world rather than the problems of your household or even your own soul, but what frustrates me enormously is that Americans (and people in general) willingly place their unflinching faith in these utter hypocrites. I think I would rather have kings and royal families leading us. Then at least we wouldn’t have to hear arguments every four years about why one loser is better than another.

38. 38 Comment by Frank on 28 August 2008:

    Dr. Fleming,

    Gintas and others have probably just been mislead by LA. I recall Gintas responding in these writebacks some years ago – he’s no troll, though I don’t know him from anywhere other than LA’s blog and here.

    We’ve all said things on the internet we later regret – I’m no exception: I don’t fit perfectly into any group on the internet, so I’m always grumbling…

39. 39 Comment by Frank on 28 August 2008:

    Ah, please disregard the additional posts sitting in the filter.

    It appears someone’s now checking the filter :p (this didn’t used to be the case – we used to have to resubmit our posts for one to appear).

    My apologies for the triple post.

40. 40 Comment by TJF on 28 August 2008:

    Frank: We all say things we regret, I no less than most, whether in person, in letters, or on the Net. The question is: How bad is what we said and when we realize we have done wrong, are we willing to make amends.

    Gintas is probably a fine person, and I am more than willing to give him benefit of the doubt–though i only know him through his posts and, I believe, a private email. i have not blocked his posts, because what I know of him through these indirect methods suggests sincerity, but I have asked the webmaster to put his comments into Moderation pending my return from the wilds of Douglas County WI, where I cannot control responses to my column. If this is the same Gintas who made ridiculous allegations–and, after all, how many people named Gintas do you know?–then he at least owes us an apology for the ridiculous charges he has made, namely, that we have given up on our country by appealing to our friends at Razon Espanola. What if we had, shudder, put up something in Lithuanian? To excuse his absurd behavior on the grounds that he has been hanging out in virtual reality with people like LA is a little like a man who excuses the fact that he has given his wife AIDs because he has been hanging out with prostitutes. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas is an old adage appropriate to our times. We all make mistakes, and all he has to do is say so.

41. 41 Comment by polemicscat on 28 August 2008:

    It is a very bleak picture that has been painted by Dr. Fleming.
    And I think it is largely true. But the government we are obviously going to get is probably NOT the kind of government that ALL the people living here deserve.

    I’m thinking of my grandchildren ages 9 and 11. It just may be that they will never know the kind of country this once was but probably will never be again.

42. 42 Comment by Tertium Quid on 28 August 2008:

    I’ve never submitted a comment to this site before that I can recall, but I must say that perhaps instead of blathering on and on about “grotesque manners” and “soap boxes” and “grammatical errors”, we should just demonstrate a little good manners ourselves, and stick to addressing the substance of the comments in question. If those comments are that wrong-headed, surely it wouldn’t require such ad hominem flailing about to dispatch them. If not, then maybe we should leave them alone.

    I do indeed recognize the difference between, on the one hand, hypocritical politicans like the loathsome Gingrich, McCain, et al., ad, on the other, and Taki Theodorocopolous, who is posing as nothing other than what he is and asking no one to vote for him for or accept him as anything else, or as anything at all. I’ve read him with delight for years, from the Spectator, to, briefly, AmCon, to Top Drawer, to Takimag, to his books, to Chronicles, where I’m delighted to see he now included also. And I’ve been a devoted subscriber to Chronicles for many, many more years than that. I stood on the steps of the Montgomery Capitol with equal delight a long time back listening to Tom Fleming and others talk about Southern independence, and I hooted and hollered for it all.

    I certainly don’t agree with everything Taki says or does (nor surely would he in the reverse), yet I vastly enjoy his writing nonetheless. But at the same time, it doesn’t bother me in the least to read Tobias’s and Mr. Camp’s comments, whether or not I agree with all of them or any of them. On the contrary, I ENJOY reading them. Even if I disagree with them in part or whole they are intelligent, reasonable, humane comments. (And they may well be right and I wrong, on Taki, etc.. ) The only thing that bothers me is seeing names tossed at such persons who obviously are supporters of Chronicles and TRI, and who are participating humanely in a public forum MADE AVAILABLE by and as SOLICITED BY by those two entities. If there are bad manners anywhere here, THAT’S where they lie. And I’ve seen them in more threads than this one. What the hell would be so difficult or inadequate about just responding (if at all) to the comments themselves and skipping the other nonsense?

    One probably would need far less than one had to count the things I’ve ever disagreed with Tom Fleming about. And (though it matters not for my points here) for the most part I’ve a WHOLE lot more to learn than to teach ANYONE about forbearance and tact. But I am not impressed by the tenor of some of the responses lobed at these to Tobias and Camp, and to some other equally reasonable commenters on this site. They do not flatter this forum or it’s sponsors.

43. 43 Comment by C Bowen on 29 August 2008:

    I am pleased that no Dries have infiltrated the pages; keep up the vigilance, Dr. Fleming, and the Guns N Roses references are appreciated by your friends in low places like New England.

    #40, you have it all wrong. It’s the Boomers to be pitied. Your grandchildren have a far better chance of knowing and loving their country and its history as it is. Every argument, almost every word and effort was twisted and used against you to divide and further one’s own destruction.

    It is a given that this election means nothing, but it remains fascinating, in the tragic sense, that Dr. Fleming can write as much as he did four years ago and while before my frame of reference, I presume four years earlier, and all those mystic chords of fatalism and decline still ring true–all over a meaningless election.

    Not “traitors”, Dr. Fleming, Scot by way of Flanders, but permanent interlopers, something you mentioned in a column years ago. If and when the draft comes back, I’ll be writing from Prince Edward Island with my boys and whispering ’secede’ to my neighbors.

    A statesman is an easy man, He tells his lies by rote
    A journalist makes up his lies And takes you by the throat
    So stay at home and drink your beer
    And let the neighbors vote.
    -Yeats

    Just one political graveyard note, Gingrich took over Larry McDonald seat, the last conservative Democrat, after his demise…

44. 44 Comment by Red Phillips on 29 August 2008:

    Mr. Bowen, actually Buddy Darden (D) took over McDonald’s seat after he died. Beating out McDonald’s widow. He lost his seat to Bob Barr in ‘94.

    Gingrich represented the south Atlanta suburbs and sections of west Georgia. He was my representative when I was younger. He later moved to a new and safely Republican district on the north side of Atlanta after he was gerrymandered out of his old district. (He stayed in the Sixth, but it was a totally different district.)

45. 45 Comment by C Bowen on 29 August 2008:

    Thank you for the correction, Red. I should know better then to trust the tales of the Internet, even when it makes for a better story.

    PS, you’ll be pleased that if my e-mails are correct, the Ron Paul folks (who bother to) will vote Baldwin as Barr is not on our ballot (as of yet). Our CP folks up this way are a mixed bag of Corsi-ites so there will be little interaction or party building but perhaps my Peroutka 04 vote will not have been in vain.

    I can’t let go either.

46. 46 Comment by pablo H on 29 August 2008:

    @41 – Taki’s marital relations – good or bad – have nothing to do with Dr. Fleming’s original post. In fact Taki himself has nothing to do with the original post.

    Why do you keep beating this dead horse?

47. 47 Comment by Tertium Quid on 29 August 2008:

    Interesting to see someone else from Gingrich’s old South Atlanta/W. Georgia district, Mr. Phillips. (I’m failing to come up now with the name of the man who was our long-time representative there before “Newt”–was it Jack Flynt?.) I too was a much younger type then. Though I was a died-in-the-wool, devoted Republican then, and thus quite the supporter of Gingrich, my father, an otherwise extremely well informed, long-time political officeholder on the Southside, distrusted him and had no use for him from the earliest days, not only but not least because he said Gingrich had been a “punk” when at W. Georgia College and was a blowhard generally. He didn’t trust anyone who talked that much, he said. (He also told me then that Reagan was no great conservative.) It was all very puzzling and a bit frustrating to me at the time. (After all, Daddy was a former sharecropper’s son from rural Alabama, and I was off in college in DC!) As with Twain’s, it’s amazing the wisdom my father gained after I left home.

48. 48 Comment by Bill Smith on 29 August 2008:

    @47 I believe it was actually ben Jones who played Cooter Davenport on the Dukes of Hazzard series…

49. 49 Comment by C on 29 August 2008:

    The purpose of the government is not to define, promote or sustain culture. That is the role of people. Religion and tradition are ‘culture’ and, from the first amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. (Of course this also means that the government should not establish secularism, multicuturalism, or any other pseudoreligion.) The purpose of the government is to maintain civil peace and prohibit laws that violate our “free exercise thereof [religion]“.

    Even more so with elections, which are essentially public vetoes – they are not the vehicle through which we constitute a republic. We constitute our society (the republic) through our mutual voluntary associations, our obligations to family and neighbors (of whatever race they happen to be), and the shape of these is, in turn, dictated by our ‘conscience’. If one is a believer, ‘conscience’ of course doesn’t mean our subjective feeling, but God’s sovereign imprint on our minds and hearts. If we as a people constitute society well, our political leaders don’t have to do very much.

    So, regarding this election, it’s not meaningless in my opinion. It’s only meaningless if you think the purpose of electing leaders is to constitute republics, or to elect a ‘good leader’ which we cannot do since politicians are not our true leaders. But in our system all we are meant to do is veto leaders that violate our free exercise. That is important and that we can do.

    It doesn’t matter if we don’t believe a word of what Barack Obama says or what we speculate he will do. I personally feel it is my obligation to veto the rule of the Republican party which has grossly disrupted civil peace around the world and is setting up the aparatus required to crush the first amendment at home. If Obama wins and turns out to be worse, so be it. Then we’ll veto him too. But, we don’t need to place ourselves in the present in a boxing match against imagined demons – the devil loses in the end. But our job is to keep the devil in the present “way down in the hole” (excuse the musical reference).

    The work is to be done in the constitution of the republic, in, paraphrasing TJF accurately I hope, our ’small communities of civility.’ Beyond that, it is not in our hands.

50. 50 Comment by Red Phillips on 29 August 2008:

    TQ, I’m from Fayetteville. Before Newt was before I followed such things, but it was Jack Flynt.

    The district was conservative and should have been naturally Republican, but Newt always did less well than would have been expected because the south Atlanta suburbs were made up heavily of unionized airline employees (including my Dad), and they hated Newt.

    If you recall, David Worley, a Harvard grad liberal, ran against Newt twice and almost beat him.

    Ben Jones (Cooter) replaced Pat Swindall, a good conservative who got indicted by a very zealous prosecutor by the name of Bob Barr. What intrigue.

    I was in the College Republicans during some of this time and the CRs privately thought Newt was a bit of a jerk and we loved Swindall.

51. 51 Comment by Red Phillips on 29 August 2008:

    Just more fun facts. Ben Jones represented the Georgia Fourth which was later represented by Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney.

    Part of the confusion is that with the rapid growth of Atlanta and demographic shifts, the districts have changed a lot. I think McDonald represented much of the area that was later represented by Darden/Barr and Jones/McKinney.

52. 52 Comment by Grumpy Old Man on 29 August 2008:

    #49 C

    Well, my father always said, “Throw the rascals out! Elect the new rascals.”

    I’d add, “Count the silverware before and after the old rascals leave.”

53. 53 Comment by TJF on 29 August 2008:

    To return to several questions raised, which can be summed up as “Where do we go from here?,” I would begin by suggesting that we need to be careful in using words like “politics” and “culture.” The word politics can be used in many ways, though its original sense of acting within the polis or commonwealth in common with other citizens is still the most useful. In this sense, politics is not really possible or practical in a tyranny. It has been said here, quite reasonably, that elections provide an opportunity or necessity of passing a veto on bad leaders, thus one can vote for Obama to throw the rascals out. This would be true under certain circumstances and conditions, for example, where elections are not rigged and where the two sets of rascals are actually opposed to each other. If we live, as is often claimed (by me among others) under a bipartisan party-state in which both parties are agreed upon most fundamental principles and strategies, then it would hardly matter which set of rascals lands in the White House. I do not say that this is entirely true, only that if we thought it was true, we would be less likely to think we could cast a meaningful veto.

    As for culture, it is a pretty dodgy word. I have written on this so often I can only summarize here. The human cultura is, literally, the tending and care of human persons within a society, just as agricultura is the tending of fields. Cultural institutions–codes of manners and dress, artistic traditions, education and religion–form the character of the young and enrich and delight the character of the mature. It is perfectly true that governments should not be in the business of creating culture, as C says above. However, cultural traditions and institutions are not private or individual, either. As Thomas Aquinas has said, the commonwealth does not exist to impose virtue but to establish and maintain the conditions that are propitious to virtuous living. Thus, in a healthy society, there are institutions of common life, often involving government, that affirm the identity and principles of the society and censor and repress cultural expressions that undermine that identity. The Greek religious festivals, at which athletic contests were held and songs and plays performed, are an excellent example of how it works.

    Our own political rulers either hate what is left of our civilization–and this includes the English language itself–or else they have so poor a grasp of it that they are indifferent. There have been, over the years, a few exceptions, such as Gene McCarthy and, on a lower level, Robert Byrd, but Byrd is a freak in the Congress today. Then what is to be done? The only serious alternatives would seem to be a coup d’etat, followed by a cultural revolution or a grass roots from the ground up program. I believe the first approach to be both dangerous and, practically speaking, impossible. That leaves the second. In this connection, let me quote again a popular bit of Confucianist lore:

    The ancients who wished clearly to manifest illustrious virtue throughout the world would first govern their states well. Wishing to govern their states well, they would first regulate their families. Wishing to regulate their families, they would first cultivate their own persons. Wishing to cultivate their own persons,they would first rectify their own hearts. Wishing to rectify their hearts, they would first seek sincerity in their thoughts. Wishing for sincerity in their thoughts, they would first extend their knowledge. The extension of knowledge lay in the investigation of things.

    From careful observation of the world, one proceeds to sincerity–a refusal to deceive oneself about perceptions–and then to gain control over personal behavior, which allows one to set a good example within the household, and so on. Rather than imposing order on the world, the ideal ruler sets an example within his own home.

    Elsewhere, the Confucianists speak of calling things by their right names. That, I suggest, is the beginning of sincerity, but names are only a part of language. It is true that everyone makes mistakes in grammar and usage, and it is also true that it is increasingly difficult to maintain standards in a society that has taken a nose-dive into stupidity, but, in general, correct English is far from being a trivial or superficial concern. It is a basic step toward the mental clarity and honesty that is the first step toward rectification of society. The same goes for many basic rules of courtesy, violations of which often indicate a deeper disorder. In a real, as opposed to virtual, human community, people meet face to face and understand that they will be exiled or ostracized for offending against civility. It is more difficult in a virtual community.

    To show that this street runs both ways, I close with the famous observation of Thomas de Quncey:

    “If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination.”

54. 54 Comment by jeff w. on 29 August 2008:

    “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.” Thomas Fleming

    That’s Carville’s role (seriously, he’s improved) as a kind of gargoyle. We used to sculpt same kind of foreboding images [of gargoyles] and attach them to the outsides of our Cathedrals to scare the bad spirits away. Fight fire with fire long as it’s pointed outward – same principle in fighting a forest fire along with the saving element of wate. Doesn’t he look like a gargoyle…it’s a compliment.

    His wife’s a republican spokesperson – gosh they’ve got all the bases covered. Put your wallets on a chain and attach [it] to your belts.

    I threw out my t.v. … It’s been like stone lifted mercifully off the top of the skull, after my initial withdrawl pains… well worth it. Get a dvd player – and rent foreign movies mostly if you need to fill the void.

    Amen.

55. 55 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 29 August 2008:

    Our Jeffersonian forebears—Jefferson, John Taylor, Calhoun, the Confederacy—taught that the purpose of government was to protect society. Society, the creation of Providence, was a given. They lost out. after a gallant holding action, to those for whom government is an instrument to aggrandize themselves and change others.

56. 56 Comment by TJF on 29 August 2008:

    All too true. Jefferson did think that Virginia should have a state plan for education and helped to found UVA. So long as government is merely reflecting society, there is probably some good it can do–at the lowest conceivable level–in encouraging good manners, morals, music. However, this should not be read as a justification for the NEA or NPR, state agencies that make war on local traditions. This was a point on which the late WFB was quite misled by a kind of do-gooding elitism.

57. 57 Comment by Red Phillips on 29 August 2008:

    The problem with the pols is that they want to use the government to agrandize themselves and change others. A broader problem with the electorate is that they think the society equals the government.

58. 58 Comment by Tom Jacobsen on 29 August 2008:

    I think that, at this point, there is nothing that can be done by the American populace to “save” the system. The government is too powerful. It is in fact the most powerful institution in the world today, if not the world’s history.

    The only thing that people can do is tend to their own gardens and communities.

    I don’t fear for our future, though, for as strong as the system seems from a distance, a close look reveals that its foundations are on quicksand, as the ever increasing mountain of debt that maintains the system will also lead to its downfall.

    I’ve never really seen honest government, unfortunately. I’m too young for that. But I do hope that I will see it someday.

59. 59 Comment by Frank on 30 August 2008:

    #53 is a powerful post.

    Reg. Gintas, I just expect less from people I reckon – it’s none of my business though. Not sure why I’ve a tendency to meddle whenever there’s an online conflict lately haha.

    Anyway, I’m here to read posts like #53, which I probably already knew but ah haven’t acted on as I ought.

60. 60 Comment by M.A. Roberts on 30 August 2008:

    TFJ: “As for culture, it is a pretty dodgy word. I have written on this so often I can only summarize here. The human cultura is, literally, the tending and care of human persons within a society, just as agricultura is the tending of fields.”

    This is a good point, unknown to many people. The modern notion of ‘culture’ (as opposed to the agricultural meaning) is largely a creation of the 19th century, and necessarily involves abstraction (and deracination?). Prior to the popularization of this vague term, one would discuss the civilization of a particular people in more concrete terms, such as “the British people,” “ancestral tradition” (mos maiorum), “Celtic peoples,” “Germanic peoples,” etc.

    Dr. Fleming, do you think the modern notion of ‘culture’ has added any clarity to understanding or is it a symptom of decline?

61. 61 Comment by M.A. Roberts on 30 August 2008:

    TJF: “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.”

    And even worse, our children will have to grow up in a world partly shaped by rogues like Barry Hussein or Juan McAmnesty.

62. 62 Comment by Chesterbelloc on 30 August 2008:

    “Thus, in a healthy society, there are institutions of common life, often involving government, that affirm the identity and principles of the society and censor and repress cultural expressions that undermine that identity. The Greek religious festivals, at which athletic contests were held and songs and plays performed, are an excellent example of how it works.”

    Whether it was conscious or not, Dr. Fleming gives a good rebuke of the hatred lewrockwell.com has shown toward the Olympics. Libertarians love the ‘natural state’ of humanity, but cheering for those who represent one’s culture at the Olympics is the natural product of a healthy society. Our culture is breaking down in many ways, but there is still enough of one to make watching the Olympics worthwhile.

63. 63 Comment by robert m. peters on 30 August 2008:

    “…cultura is, literally, the tending and care of human persons within a society,….”

    Cultura is literally being practice in our climes today. My ninety-one-year-old mother and I, while my good spouse convalesced in the aftermath of a severe flu, were out and about getting ready for Gustav – the staff of the gods. If he keeps to the path currently projected, he should pass over and through our farm sometime Tuesday or Wednesday. We reckon with several days’ loss of electricity and water. So, we prepared for that with propane for our stove, canned food, containers for water to be caught in his rains – that is called leveraging the enemy’s strength to your advantage – and such. The car and truck are fully fueled and checked with lights, water and food in them. We have battened down everything that we can.

    After we got ourselves squared away, my mother, new to our community having moved here from Old Pollock, insisted that we go check on several “old” folks whom she has already met in her new Church. She wanted to be sure that they at least had water and food and that if their homes were damaged, they could come to our placing, assuming it is not damaged.

    We, of course, are not the only ones getting ready. Today, in one of the stores, a lady, one of many who shared concerns and conversations about the advent of Gustav, said that ten of her grand nieces and nephews from south Louisiana, along with their kids, were arriving at her house today. Their projected stay is to be three weeks. She said that she felt blessed that her grand nieces and nephews knew that they had a save haven with her and that she was looking forward to their company despite the hardships of close living.

    In these parts, about the only government official people really turn to for leadership is the sċīrġerēfa – shirereeve – sheriff. My household sits astraddle two parishes – Natchitoches and Red River. We currently have the good fortune to have two very able men in those positions. While they are “lawmen,” they stress their roles as peace officers and wardens of their communities. Baton Rouge is about as alien to us as is Washington.

    So, those of you who frequent this website, pray for us, not only that we weather the storm but also that we demonstrate the best of who we are by carrying for our kith and kin and also for the many strangers who will be sojourning among us.

64. 64 Comment by Chesterbelloc on 30 August 2008:

    I would like to know why my comments are deleted. They always touch on the topic discussed, and are never rude. What a boorish way to behave! I hope whoever moderates this site doesn’t act that way in person. You’ll have few friends if you do.

65. 65 Comment by I am not Spartacus on 31 August 2008:

    That is why this election means nothing, because we have—as every nation almost always has—the leaders we deserve.

    I disagree. From the little I have read about our political history it seems to me the American Voter has done his level best but Judges have defeated their desires by doing their mountainous worst.

    It was not the American people who desired a National Government. It was not the American people who desired Reconstruction and having the unratified 14th and 16th ammendments stuffed down our liberty-loving throats. It was not the American people who desired a National Bank. It was not the American people who desired the Federal Reserve. It was not the American people who….(the list is nearly endless once one begins)

    I do agree with Prof Kreeft that the people will suffer when their leaders are immoral but blaming American Voters for the decisions of Judicial blackguards or the actions of the poltroons of the political class seems a bit unfair.

    You say you want a revolution?

    If not, then maybe the alternative is to take a chance on McCain and Palin because when McCain wins (and he will win big) the victory will move Palin into the Presidential On Deck Circle and she can pick Bobby Jindal as her running mate and the baby-killing liberals will have to gnash their teeth for a score of years.

    It may not be much, but it does represent a ray of hope.

66. 66 Comment by TJF on 31 August 2008:

    To refine a bit on cultura. It comes from the Latin verb colere, which means to tend or take care of. In farming, it is the tending of fields (but also by extension to settle in a place or inhabit a house); in religion, it is doing what is necessary–e.g., worshipping, respecting–towards the gods. It can also be applied to virtues or studies. Thus culture is not simply high art as bought and consumed by rich people, but culture consists of our most serious and worthy pursuits. The English word was given a particularized meaning by Tylor and became more or less synonymous with “what anthropologists study.” It is very useful, if we stick to a literal understanding, but the fuzzier it gets–and the more abstract–the more dangerous. On this point, Frank is quite correct. If we say that every political and legal problem has a cultural root, then, we are saying that the American mores have been corrupted and not just on the surface.

    I don’t think anyone here would underestimate the evils done by activist judges and corrupt politicians, but such men do not get elected by accident. It has been a long decline, since, say the 1850’s, to say nothing of the 1790’s. In the first 60 years of the republic America was not governed by angels or demigods, and corrupt fixers like Van Buren could even get elected president, but the damage they did was limited not by our intelligence–which has never been the strong suit in our country but by the American character that could often distinguish between the false and true or at least between a talented and public-spirited humbug like Daniel Webster and the sort of shabby liars that filled the Grant administration. This is a long story, but the closing of the frontier, combined with mass immigration, have produced an American character that has some virtues but is quite distinct from the old American. We still produce an occasional trouble-maker like Edward Abbey, but Abbey in his lifetime was already an anachronism. The Americans of 1835 would not have stomached a ruling class (including judges) that mistreated them in the way we are mistreated today, nor would the opposition consist of loud-mouthed yahoos. It would have been led by the sort of people who led the revolution.

    Finally, I hope no one is going to be sucked into the McCain camp on the strength of his choice of an inexperienced and dizzy hockey mom as VP candidate. It is true that Palin has more executive experience than Barack Obama–but, then, so do I. I have nothing to say against Mrs. Palin, who is probably a fine person and a good mother, even if she does name her children things like Bristol, Track, and Trig. She says she is pro-life, though what she has done to protect life I don’t law, and opposed to gay marriage and civil unions. When Alaska passed a law limiting spousal benefits, she vetoed it, apparently on the advice of the attorney-general, but friends also say that because of her homosexual and lesbian friends, she is sensitive to their rights. I wonder if she knows any one who has had an abortion. I am not saying she his a hypocrite, only a ditzy journalism major who does not seem to have thought through the issues.

    The idea that Mrs. Palin might become president does inspire a bit of glee, but only in the malicious sense that Mencken once said he could never leave America, because in a country full of clowns, he could pose as a wise man. She is a satirist’s dream, but in that she is only slightly more qualified than Biden and McCain.

    Legalizing abortion was a terrible thing to do, not because we should run around wringing our hands over the fact that millions of babies we don’t know are being judicially murdered, but because a million plus mothers a year are killing their own children. Changing the laws will deter some of them, but only some. The problem is not so much the law: What if they passed a law legalizing cannibalism? If millions of Americans took to eating each other, wouldn’t there be a deeper problem? Similarly, I don’t know if there are laws against coprophagy, but with or without a law, we don’t eat excrement, and if it were legalized, even our contemporaries might think twice about taking up the habit. Judges are chosen by presidents and approved by senators, who with the presidents are elected by the people. I do not say all Americans are guilty or even most, but it is an exercise in futility to think that McCain-Palin can change our world for us, even if they wanted to.

67. 67 Comment by TJF on 31 August 2008:

    To Chesterbelloc: Because of the crazies and rudies who infest our site, new commenters are put into moderation until the writer or webmaster can review them. Since I have been away, I have been unable to monitor my column, for which I apologize.

68. 68 Comment by Chesterbelloc on 31 August 2008:

    I apologize if I jumped the gun. I thought I was being lumped in with the stream-of-consciousness ramblers and neo-nazi’s!

69. 69 Comment by TJF on 31 August 2008:

    To back to the question I raised earlier–what is to be done?–we might shift gears and, instead of scrutinizing the deficits of our national character, we might draw up a list of assets, strengths on which something might be built.

    Let me contribute one thought. American foreign policy is often superficially moralistic, though at root it is more often a ruthless expression of libido dominandi. Then why do are leaders insist on selling us all these crusades for liberty, campaigns to eradicate evil, etc.? One reason is that most Americans would reject all our recent wars, if anyone ever told them the truth. I have found this to be the case both in the Balkan conflicts and in Iraq. In Kosovo, for example, it apparently takes a few months for many American soldiers and even their officers to wise up to who is who. That is why, I have been told, they have to be rotated out on a regular basis, because they realize how violent the Albanians have been and still are. Surely, in this American sense of decency–which persists to this day among many of our people–there is something to appeal to? What else?

70. 70 Comment by TJF on 31 August 2008:

    PS: Re Mrs. Palin, I just looked at a polite but critical comment by Ilana Mercer, a courageous and intelligent commentator with whom I occasionally disagree but respect: http://barelyablog.com/?p=1205

71. 71 Comment by R. Oliver on 31 August 2008:

    Aside from decency, I would add a strong work ethic. It’s why welfare programs are no longer sold on remedying “injustice” but rather on giving a helping hand to struggling working “families” (i.e., single mothers) who just need a little boost. Degenerates, of course, never benefit. No one should buy it but I don’t think you can deny the pitch is designed to appeal to the American work ethic.

72. 72 Comment by I am not Spartacus on 31 August 2008:

    …but it is an exercise in futility to think that McCain-Palin can change our world for us, even if they wanted to.

    I have family that was from County Cork so exercises in futility are both natural and fun.

    With Obama – Biden you have two world class pro-aborts and the absolute worst pair of collectivists ever assembled by the Evil Party.

    The Stupid Party (SP) at least has to pretend it is pro-life and it may have unintentionally blundered by plucking Palin out of obscurity. I do think the SP uses abortion as an electoral issue but if my,admittedly magical-thinking, ticket of Palin-Jindal eventuates, then, maybe, the SP will actually become pro-life and, if that happens, who knows what else may happen?

    I think we all know a Phillips, Buchanan, or a Paul can not be elected so malcontents like me are left hoping against reality and
    casting our eyes about for some sign of hope on the distant political horizon. And while Palin ain’t the sun of man, she does appear to be a ray of hope.

    And, in the mean time, those of us who do hold out some hope are not total fools. I am realistic in the sense I do not think McCain- Palin will change our world, but, maybe, just maybe, their election will lead to positive, incremental changes.

    The alternative, it seems to me, is to throw up our hands and not vote and tend to kith and kin, blood and soil, Faith, friends and farming etc.

    But I do not see why one can not do all of those things while still voting for this cycle’s candidates of the SP, while voting on the State and local levels for pro life, pro peace, sound-money, small-govt candidates.

    I think the easiest thing to do is just to say to Hell with everything and let the collectivist baby-killing bastards win.

73. 73 Comment by Lord Karth on 31 August 2008:

    At the risk of sounding totally cynical, I have to wonder if the American “national character” actually has very much in the way of “assets on which something might be built”.

    Dr. Fleming (and the rest of you), what “assets” would you include on that list ? For the life of me, I don’t see many. A work ethic maybe, and some of us still seem to care about our children, but not much more.

    Your servant,

    Lord Karth

74. 74 Comment by Sean Scallon on 31 August 2008:

    Unfortunatley Dr. Fleming there are those who are being suckered into voting for McCain, thinking that Palin is one of us and that in selecting Palin and putting her close to throne, she’ll eventually take power, either through McCain’s premature demise or through the wishful thinking he’ll only serve one term in office. Then she’ll name Pat Buchanan as Secretary of State

    This is exactly what Karl Rove wants. This is why he encouraged McCain’s staff, which used to be his staff, to play up her bonifides while discouraging Joe Lieberman’s, whom McCain probably wanted in the first place.

    It may very well be that Palin was a Buchanan Brigader in 1996 or maybe 2000, we don’t really know (and right now she’s busy denying it in order to keep the necons happy). She said some nice things about Ron Paul in 2008 but apparently wouldn’t take the step to support the only reform Republican running for President. Maybe she was just keeping her options open, who knows? But one thing is for certain, this is not a person with any kind of deep intellectual development and one without a philisophic core because one doesn’t not need such a core serving on the Wasilla City Council. She’s a local Republican office holder, no different than a GOP Secretary of State, a mayor or a county Register of Deeds. Would you go to the Register of Deeds or the county coroner for an opinion on Iraq or the crisis in the Caucuses? Of course not, which is why she’ll defer to McCain and his neocon advisors if they’re elected. She’ll be the pretty face in an administration of some very ugly people and her presence will not change this.

    Ms. Palin has many admirable qualities and seems to be a very multi-dimensional politician, one who was willing to attend Libertarian Party meetings in Alaska. It’s sad she has to be paired up the War Pig John McCain because in spite of her presence on the ticket, there can be no voting for her. It’s McCain who gets that vote and if he does, the bombs start to fall on the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow.

75. 75 Comment by polemicscat on 31 August 2008:

    43,
    I think you were responding to my comment.
    I should clarify my point.

    I am concerned about my grandchildren because I don’t
    think the United States will be a very good place to live in about 60 more years.

    All of the West will probably have lost its cultural heritage by then. Here are the reasons I think so.

    Not many Americans have recognized the threat that jihad poses to our way of life. Its battle is here and today in a thousand places around the world. Europe has already been seriously infiltrated and its politicians and church leaders, etc., have tried to placate Muslims by giving in step by step to demands that they assimilate into the Muslim world. The Muslims recognize weakness and a lack of will when they see it. Look at what has happened in Europe since the cartoons issue.

    In nearby Canada the same sort of thing is playing out. Muslims are using the timidity and irresolution to push each little point of opportunity in multicultural and political-correctness. Freedom of the press is virtually dead in Europe and Canada when it comes to criticizing acts of jihad.

    In the United States the President has not identified the enemy yet. And several of the people writing on this site seem oblivious to the dangers of the real world and are isolationists although they may not know it. They are content to say spiteful things about the so-called “neo-cons” as though that will solve some problem.

    It is naive to think that the United States could or should stand on the sidelines when —as the most powerful nation on the planet — it has had the power to do something about the wrongs of the world thrust upon it. But it either doesn’t know how to behave like a world power or doesn’t have the will to do it.

    The Democrat left has no clue as to how a world power should behave. It started talking about exiting strategies just after the US overthrew the Iraq military. Of course, the Muslims knew at that point that all they had to do was to keep the blood flowing until the US tucked its tail and ran. And the wimpish people may have given us a Muslim President by next year this time.

    I wasn’t in favor of the Iraq invasion to begin with and said so to anybody who would listen, but I also believe it is a mistake to give aid and comfort to the enemy once the President has committed troops to battle in a foreign war.

    Hundreds of American soldiers died on some days during WWII, but no citizens tried to get the President to withdraw the troops. Instead they pitched in every way they could to help win the war. Presidents FDR and Truman were able to hold out for unconditional surrender because the nation was with them.

    Take another case. The British empire went into India without a strategy for withdrawal and stayed for generations and taught the citizens of that occupied country Shakespeare and English—-and the value of education. Now India is the world’s largest democracy. And her citizens are benefactors of that occupying force; they are the ones you reach by phone when you have a problem with your computer at night.

    The United States can’t help anybody today because it has lost faith in itself. It can’t even help itself. Its border are not secure, and it is trying to buy friendship from countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia and is getting despised in return. And it gets no respect from its European “allies.”

76. 76 Pingback by Conservative Heritage Times » Auto mechanic for President - The phony populism of Stephan Kinsella on 31 August 2008:

    [...] the ones he has.” Dr. Fleming told of his concern about electing an actor president and was hushed up for his [...]

77. 77 Comment by Polemicscat on 31 August 2008:

    The word should have been “beneficiaries.”

78. 78 Comment by Frank on 31 August 2008:

    Mr. Scallon,

    there’s no way I’d vote McCain, but you really think America could go to war with Russia?

    Mr. Roberts,

    Another important facet of culture is that we need to honor it and live it ourselves. We live in a time when the West could just as easily be snuffed out as be resurrected, and we who remain loyal to the West will have to ensure we remain true to its core values.

    One result of the theories of how religion and tradition are beneficial is they serve to undermine the faith in religions in general, and tempt man to play god by creating his own religion. I’d argue the understood positives of Christianity should increase one’s faith despite that religion has been used in the past to control and that Christianity is similarly meant to guide our behavior and thought.

    It troubles me though how globalist Christianity, some have taken to calling the American evangelical wing Judeoxianity (with Marx as the Messiah) as a play on the term JudeoChristian, when I don’t find it be so – though I’ve admittedly more to learn…

79. 79 Comment by Allen Wilson on 31 August 2008:

    What other strengths in the American character could we appeal to?

    That’s a hard question to answer. I might say religion, at least in some areas of the country, but that religion is so degenerated now.

    They all seem to recognise that the schools are failing to educate and are corrupting their children, but there seems such a malaise in this regard. How could we appeal to their desire for their children to have a good education and character? Most wouldn’t go for the concept of privatisation, at least not yet, and they dont have time for homeschooling.

    It seems that every time I think of something, there is something else that counteracts it. Skepticism of politicians, perhaps a healthy trait in times past, becomes cynicism and a sense of alienation and hopelessness.

    The realisation that we are not really better off now with air conditioning and freeways, etc., as opposed to close nit extended families and agrarian living is offset by the desire to keep the air conditioner and freeways, etc. They never seem to realise that it’s not necessarily the air conditioner or freeways, etc., that are the problem, and that it doesn’t necessarily have to be an either/or choice.

    I’ll keep trying.

80. 80 Comment by Edward on 1 September 2008:

    One reason it is so difficult to list the assets of the American character is that most people in America, despite what the pundits and polls say, are generally complacent with the life that they have been given. Maybe my personal experience is unlike all others, but the people that I know, friends and neighbors, are materially content. People spew general platitudes about gas prices and the economy, but that is all they really are, platitudes. This is the reason why candidates for president can be pathetic in every sense of the word and still voted into office. The millions of ways in which the federal government intrudes into the lives of its own people continue practically unnoticed because, in many instances, they fail to strike at the heart of daily life. As long as there is peace at home and food on the table, people seem generally reluctant to do anything considered ‘extreme’ by the liberal popular culture. It seems as if the ‘conservatism’ of the people is what prevents them from being conservative.

81. 81 Comment by Sean Scallon on 1 September 2008:

    Frank, if Randy Scheuneman has his way, and he’ll be the NSC advisor in a McCain administration, America will certainly cross swords with Russia, in either a new Cold War or a hot one.

82. 82 Comment by I am not Spartacus on 1 September 2008:

    Unfortunatley Dr. Fleming there are those who are being suckered into voting for McCain, thinking that Palin is one of us ….

    Well, if she was one of you she would not have accepted McCain’s offer.

    Maybe the lady is not a scamp. It may be small potatoes, but at least the Stupid Party has dished out a modicum of hope. Who’d have thunk it?

    It seems to me there is a blogosphere race to be the first to declaim there is no hope and that all is lost (that is my normal default ideological position).

    But, maybe this was a move that’ll blow up in the establishment’s face. You know, they may seem all powerful but they lost the senate and house due to their stupidity. Maybe this time their stupidity benefits those who have not extinguished hope.

83. 83 Comment by Kirt Higdon on 1 September 2008:

    #82 – “they lost the senate and house due to their stupidity.”????

    Last I looked the US Senate and House were firmly in the control of the establishment and were busy writing blank checks for the boy emperor’s war on terror, his domestic spying, and were urging a blockade of Iran. Do you seriously imagine that Pelosi and Reid are NOT part of the establishment. The gushing over the selection of Palin pretty much convinces me that at least half of the paleos belong to the stupid party.

84. 84 Comment by Sean Scallon on 1 September 2008:

    Spartacus, (oh wait a minute you’re not Spartacus) no matter how much I approve of the Palin choice and I do, I’m not going to give another four years to the neocons with my vote, because that’s exactly what voting for Palin will do. And besides, you don’t vote for Palin alone, you for McCain-Palin, emphasis on the McCain, and he’s the one with control of the button, not her.

    I think the Palin choice does show there’s hope because it shows the powers that be recognize there’s a constituency of disgruntled conservatives and libertarians that could sink the GOP. That’s why she was picked. But I’m not going to let hope cloud my better judgment.

85. 85 Comment by I am not Spartacus on 1 September 2008:

    Mr. Higdon. When it is called for, I can gush, but, I think calling what I have written “gushing” is on the order of describing blushing as a Super Nova.

    I live in Wellington, Florida and, on Feb. 24, 1998, I registered as an “NPA” (No Party Affiliation) in Precinct 6143. The status of my registration remains unchanged.

    I do not think I could have made it any clearer that I was writing about The Stupid Party and that they are the ones who lost The Senate and The House.

    While it is, of course, true that both the Evil Party and The Stupid Party are run by the establishment, that establishment is not impeccable and The Stupid Party has, I think, erred in their selection of the pretty Palin and that, maybe, there is cause for hope because of that error.

86. 86 Comment by Robert Bruce on 1 September 2008:

    The Palin pick didn’t give McCain any real bump in the polls. Her pro life stance will negate the fact she is a woman with regards in trying to pander to the Hilary woman supporters. The fact is McCain is the main man you are voting for, the VP is just someone that attends funerals of the rich and powerful. Palin is just being used to unite the GOP one last time so we can have our next world war and they start the new economic order afterwards. The next administration is going to be a one termer as the chickens come home to roost in 2009-2010. Lew Rockwell thought the election was virtually over once he heard Palin was picked, and another one on Lew’s site thought the pick locked the GOP into the presidentcy til 2020. Can’t see that happening at all. McCain/Palin might win in ‘08, but lose in ‘12 as they will be seen as just as impotent as Bush in dealing with runaway inflation, more huge job losses, foreclosures, etc. Not to mention a possible world war. We are really trying to provoke Russia in the Black Sea right now.

87. 87 Comment by Robert Bruce on 1 September 2008:

    I agree Sean,

    McCain is the man with the real power if the GOP ticket is going to win in ‘08. Palin will just be in the VP mansion taking care of her little ones or going off to important photo op functions ala funerals, etc.

88. 88 Comment by Kirt Higdon on 1 September 2008:

    #85 – When I originally wrote that part about gushing, I had in mind people like Richard Spencer over at Taki’s. Now that I’ve read some of the stuff you’ve posted there, Not Spartacus, I think gushing applies specifically to you as well.

    With respect to your clarity on The Stupid Party, here is what you wrote -

    “But, maybe this was a move that’ll blow up in the establishment’s face. You know, they may seem all powerful but they lost the senate and house due to their stupidity.”

    The antecedent of the pronoun they is the establishment, not The Stupid Party, so yes I think you could have made yourself a bit more clear. First step in the direction of clarity might be the realization that both parties are part of the establishment. Second step, a realization that Sarah Palin is now very much in the inner circle of that establishment. Third step a realization that her selection was specifically for the purpose of fooling people like you.

89. 89 Comment by Andrew G. Van Sant on 1 September 2008:

    Dr. Fleming, in response to your comments regarding foreign policy at #66: I see the term “national interest” used in much of the commentary on U.S. foreign policy, but there is almost no attempt to define what our national interests are. The commentator just states that the policy or action that is recommended is in our national interest. We need a national discussion on what our interests are in the world today and what policies and actions will protect, promote, or support them. Can you recommend any resources that provide guidance in this area? (Perhaps an issue of Chronicles on this topic would be useful.)

90. 90 Comment by Andrew G. Van Sant on 1 September 2008:

    oops! I meant your comments at #69.

91. 91 Comment by jeff w. on 1 September 2008:

    I’m glad I’m only shadow posting at the moment again. But at this late hour not to be talking about the politics as it is and still dancing around it, i.e. list our strengths etc., and not who’s running the show is like graffiti. You need to talk about both etc. Reminds me of an Anton Chekhov plot except, he wasn’t pretending to be commenting about the political and shunned it in his works. From what I can glean of it, not even addressed discretely; for him at least in what he wanted to deal with, it’s only about the ‘emotional.’

    Don’t you understand the ‘other’ culture once it got the media taught the plutocrats to be even worse than they would have been. Or even are NOW, that most of them have been moved out of the picture in behalf of the ‘other’ culture’s hegemony.

    Here’s my recipe for you – read Israel Shamir – realize the only thing he’s off kilter about is he’s an old leftist probablfy yet at heart – but everything else he points out is the ‘god’s honest’. Then measure the distance in terms of what you are either ‘allowed’ to say in that regard or if it’s another story-the distance between that and what you yet ‘believe’ is the case. Forget me – you’re right about that – I yet remain ‘virtual’ by comparison to yourself and others etc. who have reputations and families and careers to consider. If that’s it only – good, I DON’T think you should sacrifice that. But realize you’ve lost then, and already ARE slaves. That shouldn’t upset you – there’s nothing prohibiting it in the Bible.

92. 92 Comment by Rubelv's Dog on 2 September 2008:

    We can stop discussing McCain-Palin. The revelation of her daughter’s pregnancy will be exploited to the maximum by the MSM. The ploy would have worked short of a scandal. Prepare thyself for President Obama.

93. 93 Comment by Rublev's Dog on 2 September 2008:

    We can stop discussing McCain-Palin. The revelation of Palin’s pregnant daughter will be exploited to the uttermost by the MSM. The GOP ploy might have worked short of a scandal. As it is, prepare thyself for President Obama.

94. 94 Comment by MGB on 2 September 2008:

    In response to #89’s query in search of a definition of national interest, allow me to throw in this version.

    “The sum of the special interests is not necessarily the national interest.” – James Earl Carter

    Sadly, Carter’s hope has not played out in practice.

95. 95 Comment by I am not Spartacus on 2 September 2008:

    Mr. Higdon. Obviously, Maybe the lady is not a scamp. It may be small potatoes, but at least the Stupid Party has dished out a modicum of hope. was not clear enough, for you.

    After your comments, I must roll over and expose my belly and respond like Ron White did to the cops, “Ya got me. I am Tater Salad.”

    You got me, Mr. Higdon. “I’m a fool”

96. 96 Comment by Jack on 2 September 2008:

    I can’t wait for TJF’s commentary on the Palin mess. Reinforces what he wrote above, and then some.

97. 97 Comment by Robert on 2 September 2008:

    “To live without faith, without a patrimony to defend, without a steady struggle for Truth, that is not living, but existing.”

    Blessed Giorgio Prassati, Turin, Italy 1922 and Blessed Tom Fleming, “Suburbs of Hell,” Rockford, 2008

98. 98 Comment by TJF on 2 September 2008:

    To ASV: Yes, “national interest” is a slippery term. My old friend at the Washington Times, Ralph Hallow, once took me up on this, when I said that we should not engage in wars unless they were in the national interest. He pointed out rather abruptly that imperialists could always one pretext or another. A special issue is an excellent idea.

99. 99 Comment by C on 2 September 2008:

    In response to #69 – assets to build on in the American people:

    I think a good many Americans genuinely want to “build up treasures in heaven” by doing good and I agree that many are willing to work hard. I think the problem is that American thought and practice is almost completely monistic when it comes to the relationship between treasures in heaven and treasures on earth.

    Thus, liberal elites are under the impression that achieving socio-statistical targets are what Jesus meant by healing the poor and too much (not all) of the country’s working classes are under the impression that ‘taking care of your family’ means providing extra helpings of video games and orange soda for the kids so they won’t feel left out in comparison to their friends.

    Regarding culture, I agree with Babbitt that we ought to start by a redefinition of the word ‘work’ to mean something closer to the achievement of an intellectual and spiritual standard. In modern times that means discrediting the idea that ‘work’ is equal to material productivity in society and physical fitness in the individual. If we do the real ‘work’, all these things will be given to us, but, by our false definition, we see that we are not only not obtaining the real standard, but we are slowly losing even the subservient material standard in the form of diminishing competitiveness in the economy and obesity in the population.

100. 100 Comment by Gintas on 2 September 2008:

     I apologize to Mr. Fleming for my hot-headed and intemperate accusation of willful and conscious and catastrophic surrender to the Mexican hordes. Mr. Auster even said I went too far.

101. 101 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 2 September 2008:

     We ought to be doing something more constructive than agonizing over the pointless question of who to vote for

102. 102 Comment by Robert Bruce on 2 September 2008:

     Mr Wilson, I agree, but what can we do? Another party would be easily infiltrated and effectively neutered. Just ask folks at both the Libertarian and Constitution Parties about that. A general strike maybe? Another Revolution? Those won’t work as it will just be used as an excuse to further the police state that is coming down on us. The best course of action is to just live a good Christian life and be a good witness, but that unfortunately is irrelevant anymore in terms of fixing the culture, unless you are considering the extremely long term, especially with the broad based Evangelical movement being nothing more than a shill for the State. In short, both the political system and Christianity in America are both very bad jokes.

103. 103 Comment by I am not Spartacus on 3 September 2008:

     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.

104. 104 Comment by TJF on 3 September 2008:

     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.

105. 105 Comment by I am not Spartacus on 3 September 2008:

     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.

106. 106 Comment by Kirt Higdon on 3 September 2008:

     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.

107. 107 Comment by Bill Smith on 3 September 2008:

     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…

108. 108 Comment by Sean Scallon on 3 September 2008:

     When the neocons sink their claws Palin they’ll turn her into a Stepford Wife. Truly sad.

109. 109 Comment by TJF on 3 September 2008:

     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.

110. 110 Comment by R. McCabe on 3 September 2008:

     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.

111. 111 Comment by Jack on 3 September 2008:

     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.

112. 112 Comment by Bruce on 4 September 2008:

     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.

113. 113 Comment by I am not Spartacus on 4 September 2008:

     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.

114. 114 Comment by TJF on 4 September 2008:

     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.

115. 115 Comment by Lord Karth on 4 September 2008:

     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

116. 116 Comment by TJF on 4 September 2008:

     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.

117. 117 Comment by TJF on 4 September 2008:

     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.

118. 118 Comment by TJF on 4 September 2008:

     Excuse me, KMG

119. 119 Comment by Steve Berg on 4 September 2008:

     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.

120. 120 Comment by TJF on 4 September 2008:

     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.

121. 121 Comment by Robert Reavis on 4 September 2008:

     ” 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.

122. 122 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 4 September 2008:

     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.

123. 123 Comment by Old Hop on 4 September 2008:

     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.

124. 124 Comment by TJF on 4 September 2008:

     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.

125. 125 Comment by Steve Berg on 4 September 2008:

     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.

126. 126 Comment by Eagle on 4 September 2008:

     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.

127. 127 Comment by TJF on 4 September 2008:

     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.

128. 128 Comment by Eagle on 4 September 2008:

     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….

129. 129 Comment by R. McCabe on 4 September 2008:

     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.

130. 130 Comment by R. Oliver on 4 September 2008:

     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.

131. 131 Comment by T. Chan on 4 September 2008:

     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.)

132. 132 Comment by TJF on 5 September 2008:

     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.

133. 133 Comment by Kearney Smith on 5 September 2008:

     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”?

134. 134 Comment by TJF on 5 September 2008:

     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.

135. 135 Comment by Kearney Smith on 5 September 2008:

     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.

136. 136 Comment by TJF on 5 September 2008:

     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.

137. 137 Comment by TJF on 5 September 2008:

     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.

138. 138 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 6 September 2008:

     @ 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.

139. 139 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 6 September 2008:

     @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.

140. 140 Comment by Tertium Quid on 6 September 2008:

     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”

141. 141 Comment by T. Chan on 8 September 2008:

     Thank you very much Tertium Quid!

142. 142 Comment by Tom Flinn on 8 September 2008:

     (#114, TJF) “Is this where Republican loyalty leads, to the repudiation of the Christian moral tradition?”

     Do you really need to ask?