Posted on 05/17/2004 6:15:51 PM PDT by epigone73
I can't fault her championing of Phyllis Schlafley and I'll admit Coulter has some true zingers at times but I think Coulter herself would tell you she's no Phyllis Schlafley and has no hope of ever attaining the intellectual honesty, integrity and substance of her heroine, Phyllis.
And while I'm at it ... kudos to both Phyllis and Eleanor Schlafley. They are heroines of mine too as a member for years of the Cardinal Mindzenty Foundation.
It's women like those two who expose Coulter for what she is ... yet another bleached blond in leopard print and dog collars hissing and spitting on current events so as to entertain with political catfighting the average Fox viewer.
I think I'll go re-up with Mindzenty right now. For too long, I've been riding on the coattails of my grandparents' subscription.
I think that all too many conservatives miss what you picked up; communism was but a part of a much larger problem.
On a more prosaic level, communism was the radical expression of trends well in play within the modern, Enlightenment West.
Chambers knew it, but I fear that too few realize what he was talking about.
trust me, Anne is much easier on one's eyes than was old Whit.
It is natural to assume that a man of Chambers' brilliance and courage would have been unpopular among his fellow conservatives, if only because real intellectual depth and nonconformity are so uncomfortable to many people, so tend not to be appreciated.
But the truth is that Chambers was a great hero of the right in the 10 years remaining to him after writing "Witness" (he died in 1961). He was a close friend of Buckley's and of Nixon's, just as one example.
In addition, Chamber never took purist political positions. He was a loyal, though critical, Republican. In various letters (since published), he made clear that conservatives must begin with, and work with, the fundamental political facts and limits of their time. He would not have hesitated to endorse Bush over Kerry or any other Democrat. He would have been especially appreciative of the fact that Bush is so hated by the liberals, of Bush's sincere spirituality,
and of his insistence on the reality of evil -- and the need to use that term in public discourse.
But these women you speak of are excoriated in the media. Their views are never given any sort of fair hearing. Liberals will immediately change the channel when they are on. But a few might listen to Coulter. A few might even buy her book. A few of these might even try to find "Witness" if it's even available in their local library. The journey of 1000 miles starts with a single step.
All right then, what books would you suggest to make conservatism accessible to the average oprah fan?
For my part, I think they're a lost cause, and the best we can hope for is to minimize the damage they cause.
Oprah fans are too stupid to be important. It is more worthwhile to reach five intelligent, energetic, public-spirited, active people who can convince others than 50 Oprah fans. For those who have the characteristics I've described, "Witness" is a good recommendation. Another is "Suicide of the West" by James Burnham. Written 40 years ago, but still very, very timely.
For some excellent catalogues of conservative books, or classics that conservatives should read, try: ISI, Encounter Books, Liberty Fund, Claremont.org.
How so?
Is Ann Coulter a role model? Does she make folks think long and hard about facts or her features?
Does she err on the side of substance or is she someone Log Cabin Queens give snaps for her wit as well as wardrobe?
I think those who are "good for the cause" are those who couldn't care less about popularity or success but who remain faithful and true to what is essential.
And what is essential is often invisible to the eye and has nothing whatsoever to do with momentary political gains of one sort or another or sitting around scoring points (or collecting salaries) -- Whoreowitz style -- at the expense of others.
Particuarly given the consistently leftist mode and premises on which both parties operate anymore, I guess I would be very wary of paying too much attention to the "media darlings" of either side.
It starts with education I believe. And that does not mean more Federal money. I haven't read Coulter's books nor have I read any of the current conservative crop therof. I don't need to. I understand the poblem. Have them do a google search for the soviet art of braiwashing. If they read that and have any sort of clue, they may get an idea of what has happened. Try Bella Dodd. She predicted the fall of the Catholic church. Try this:
http://www.fatima.org/review/perspective235.htm
You and I differ here.
I think that there's not much for us to do; we should perhaps retreat, to the extent possible, and try to wall off a corner of sanity for ourselves and our families. Try to ride the thing out, as it were.
as for politics, I think we should, natch, support the Pres and the WOT, but I have no illusions about the bulk of Americans.
Decadent, depraved, degenerate, no, not even the majority, but enough so we notice it, these will surely bring us crashing down.
thing to do is try to minimize the harm, and push the thing off for as long as possible.
Oprah fans, et. al., should be discouraged, wherever possible, from any activity of any kind.
You seem to be implying that she is bad for the cause. I heartily disagree. She can be a step towards a conversion from liberalism towards conservatism. I am surprised you don't see this. It won't happen overnight. Have you read the columns of Ben Shapiro? He is only 20 years old. Perhaps he's the forerunner of a new conservatism. He's alot smarter than Coulter.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/archive.shtml
=== She can be a step towards a conversion from liberalism towards conservatism. I am surprised you don't see this.
Oh, I do. I have more than a couple books by Horowitz at my house. (One of which I begged a visitor to JUST PLEASE TAKE WITH HIM recently. =)
That's why I loathe him so. I read him and he snowed my ass. I don't think everyone has the dumb luck to get past people like Coulter or Horowitz or the gamut of other entertainers posing as analysts out there for whom it's fun to cheer (or lust for, as the case may be).
Because they lack substance and stick to the surface as a rule, they're only good for corraling folks into the morass of the middle.
I honestly think that will be our death ... that darkness falling thanks to the "personally opposed, but ..." mindset by which we keep our True Light carefully out of the Public Square ... saving our "offense" for arch, homosexual style bitching like queens (against our own, as often as not) with a sound and fury signifying nothing at the end of the day where the Good Fight's concerned.
PBA Ban? Parental Consent? It's not just that these are potemkin measures which (except in Utah, where parental consent is concerned) MEAN NOTHING, it's the way a party whose mantra on the question of abortion is "rape or incest only" cannot suddenly revoke that conclusion that abortion is okay sometimes. For Pete's sake, it's been the cornerstone of their Compromise for 30 years!
It's the foot in the door which will keep abortion legal, in other words. "Well, the pro-life Republicans have ALWAYS said that it's okay in the case of rape or incest."
Even on a subject so critical as the killing of the unborn (much less their manufacture for industrial applications by biotech profiteers), it's the GOP who holds the line and crosses into Brave New Frontiers of "humanitarian" research.
I guess eventually folks will wake up and see how silly is the pretense of "partisanship" or how shallow are those around whom we flock at Fox News and "acceptably tolerant" conservative publications sans any theory about the "conspiracy" which the likes of Lenin felt defined the Revolution as a rule.
Ask Whittaker ... he'll tell you how cells work. And, with Nixon's cattle prod, you may even find homosexuality has more to do with the equation than not.
Thanks for the link, btw ... I'll check him out.
Smarts don't mean as much to me as integrity or "wholeness" and consistency do.
But I suspect we're simpatico on that score.
I thought I answered that in some of my other posts in this thread, although maybe not to you, but I'll try again.
She can get people interested in conservatism. See her, buy her book and then find out about Chambers and look deeper. And then understand. And then become an activist.
I read your reference. You seem to think as Chambers did that the battle is lost. Could it be you're wrong?
For my own part, I'm convinced he WAS right. the battle with communism was a dispute over tactics, not much more. the West is still in Crisis, and is sick to death.
communism was simply a more virulent form of the rational-techincal materialism which dominates western man since about 1600 or earlier. nothing more.
In a way we are. But you seem to make morality an all or nothing thing for inclusion in whatever movement that will start to turn back "the tide of history". That is not realistic to me. The abortion issue is a red flag for the left. But the way I read the left, even mentioning the problem will bring scorn. Seems to me a return to a semblance of morality should come first. How? Through education that is controlled at a local level. And through people like Coulter and Savage who are sowing the seeds of new ideas. I have no illusions with Bush's policies. But I would suggest that he is slowing down and may even stop the leftist movement. For instance, the medicare/drug thing in conjunction with the amnesty for illegals program could be looked at as a situation where the increase in population of tax-paying amnestied-illegals could help pay for the deficit in medicaid and social security. Of course, the whole system could go bankrupt but to try to deal with it as things presently are is political suicide. I wish I could find some of Milton Friedman's recent ideas on this subject. But I do note he is very much involved in education reform.
Tactics? Whose tactics?
communism was simply a more virulent form of the rational-techincal materialism which dominates western man since about 1600 or earlier. nothing more.
I have no idea what rational-techincal materialism is. Would you please define it?
To be materialistic is a part of man's nature. That wlll not change.
"Tactics? Whose tactics?"
The tactics by which the goal of the application of science to the relief of the human condition could best be brought about; what has been called "the enlightenment project"; the dispute with communism was a dispute within the Western tradition.
"I have no idea what rational-techincal materialism is. Would you please define it?"
Materialism is the belief that that which cannot be measured and manipulated in the physical realm does not exist; "rational-technical" modifies this term, meaning the application of the modern technical sciences, which are wholly materialistic, to the problem of Man. If all problems are physical ones, then all solutions must be physical as well. Communism was simply a more radical expression of this belief.
"To be materialistic is a part of man's nature. That wlll not change."
A part, yes; but modern (post 16000 materialism) denies the existence of the non-material altogether.
what I'm getting at is this: Communism represented a variant of what the West had been building up to for a long time. Commies were'nt democratic, but they thought, as we do, that the problem is that people just don't have enough stuff. we differed on how to get that stuff, that's all.
depressing, but true.
The way I see it is that since 1600 one thing happened that was unique, the American Revolution. It was somewhat co-opted by the Civil War which interestingly occurred right around the time of Marx. Did you know that Marx wrote columns for a New York paper from about 1852 until after the beginning of the Civil War?
Yeah, I agree that science applied to solving problems involving controlling men's interactions is the wrong application of science. Humans are not ants.
Leftists have taken down the church. I'm not sure if it's influence can be restored. I guess it has been replaced with multiple 12 step programs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.