Skip to comments.Palin, Frum, and the Tea Party
Posted on 10/19/2010 11:14:58 AM PDT by Kaslin
Conservatives need to understand what is at stake and get their act together.
The misunderstandings revolving around Sarah Palin and the Tea Party appear to be ubiquitous. Canada, where I live and write, is no exception to this tarnished rule. Sarah Palin is generally regarded as a hyper-emotional hussy whose message is purely reactive rather than proactive, while the Tea Party is supposedly vitiated by a lowest common denominator of right-wing vehemence, unbecoming religiosity, and a simplistic attitude toward political reality. This is strangely the case among many conservative intellectuals as well. The acclaimed commentator and beltway insider David Frum, a Canadian who makes his home in the U.S. and whose articles frequently appear in the Canadian media, provides one of the most celebrated instances of this dissenting perspective.
Even one of our sanest and most brilliant columnists, Barbara Kay of the (generally conservative) National Post, is highly skeptical of both Palin and the Tea Partys motives and comportment. In a column for September 29, 2010 (A Canadian Reverting to Type), defending Frum who has run afoul of the Republican mainstream, Kay writes that Frum has justifiably objected to the manner hostile, inflexible, Palinesque in which conservatism is increasingly expressing itself. Frums call for conversational civility, it appears, stands in marked contrast to the apparent conservative and Republican bombast he associates with presumably strident evangelists like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and, from his point of view, the half-baked and feckless maunderings of Tea Party revivalists and their boosters. Similarly, an article by Thomas Walkom of the (left-wing) Toronto Star for September 25 takes it for granted, in the course of an otherwise respectable argument, that the Tea Party is ultra-right, anti-immigrant, anti-government. This sort of misconstruction has become standard fare by now, the Canadian legacy press aping the current memes and tropes of the American liberal-left media.
A good example of the American template is furnished by the Izvestian Frank Rich who, in a New York Times op-ed for March 27, 2010, notoriously referred to the mob which opposes Obamas health care program as enacting its own small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht and branded the Tea Party-Glenn Beck base as extremist as if the views he ventilates were not extremist. Although no one of any reputable standing takes Frank Rich seriously any longer, readers may be susceptible to the marginally more sophisticated Tom Friedman. In an op-ed in the New York Times for September 28, Friedman denigrates the Tea Party as all steam and no kettle which cant have a positive impact on the country because it has not generated specific plans for debt reduction and productive growth.
On the face of it, this assessment sounds far more reasonable than Richs trademark ranting. But the Tea Party is not a registered political party, like the Democrats or the Republicans, and does not speak in the voice of a supervening committee with the authority to formulate policy. Further, it is still in its infancy and Friedman wants the toddler to get its drivers license, its credit card, its college degree, and all its grown-up credentials while it is still learning to walk. This is a clever form of disparagement. One would expect no less from an untimely, self-inflated pundit who is prepared to quash the butterfly before it has emerged from the chrysalis.
Lets consider the assorted actors featured in the current drama of redemption and damnation.
Ideally, David Frum may be right about the importance of civil discourse in contemporary political exchange I have made similar arguments but, on reflection, this may not be the time for gentlemanly palaver. It is extremely doubtful that one could reach consensus with Obama and his satellites, with Olbermann, Matthews, Schultz, and the lot, with MoveOn.org, with Counterpunch, with the Daily Kos, with ACORN, with the ACLU, with the SEIU, with Code Pink, with the vast tribe of neo-Marxist academic colporteurs busily canvassing their university clients (aka students), with Soros, with the Tides Foundation, and with innumerable other like-minded individuals and organizations. Indeed, it is totally implausible to infer communicative accord with the left in general where the levels of animadversion, pure hatred, antisemitism, anti-Zionism, reverse racism, sheer vulgarity, character assassination, tractarian defamation, downright lying, all the worst human traits, eclipse by parsecs anything one hears on the conservative side.
To my mind, Frum is tooling about in another galaxy; yet, oddly enough, his mugging of Sarah Palin in a series of newspaper articles belies his own recommendation. According to Frum, Palin is rambling, angry, and self-pitying. She self-immolated in the 2008 elections and is guilty of dereliction of duty. After having once dismissed her as a neophyte what, one wonders, does that make Obama who, unlike Palin, had no governing experience whatsoever when he came to power? Frum goes on to suggest that there is a sexual dynamic at work in the enthusiasm for Palin among a contingent of conservative men. What other reason, after all, could explain such advocacy? Palin is hot and conservative males are randy. Whatever impulse it is that so excites Palin supporters, he opines, it is not shared by their wives. Frums drearily incessant diatribes steer perilously close to unwholesome obsession, so much so that there seems to be something distinctly Freudian about his imagined relationship to the poor woman. It is as if, pace Frum, there were a sexual dynamic at work here too. Certainly, when it comes to Sarah Palin, he has not availed himself of the temperate address he solemnly urges upon others.
Furthermore, his criticism of Republican mugwumps like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh seems somewhat misplaced. He does not appear to understand the gravity of the current electoral situation or to realize, as does Lee Harris in his new book The Next American Civil War, that a kind of civil war is indeed brewing, that Thomas Paine is once again the go-to political thinker and Henry David Thoreau the literary source for principled resistance, and that a war is not a debate in which one can serenely abide by Roberts Rules of Order. Nor does he seem to realize, as Ive indicated, that Democratic invective rises to a crescendo that outstrips anything we find on the right and so demands, at minimum, to be robustly parried. True, Limbaugh has called Obama an economic illiterate and a jackass while Oliver Stone maligns Sarah Palin as a moron and implies that the suffragettes were crazy stuff. But if one studies the plethora of sites, interviews, and outlets on the right and the left, one quickly discovers there is no parity of execration. In the tournament of competing expletives, the left wins hands down.
Frum is way too nuanced about the battle for Americas soul that is playing out before our very eyes. He may ride a bicycle to the Washington Mall a nice little touch but he would be far more useful, metaphorically speaking, doing yeoman service in a tank. Frum, I suspect, was always a PRINO, a Prospective Republican in Name Only. Its consoling to note that Frum seems to be wrong about most things. He predicted that the economy will have improved by this November and that the advantages of Obamas health care legislation will have become evident by then. He predicted that Sarah Palins career seems headed nowhere positive with her approval ratings in free fall. Perhaps we should take a cue from Lewis Carroll and shun the frumious Bandersnatch.
Palin, for her part, is constantly being savaged and grossly misrepresented by an educated elite, including many of a conservative persuasion, whose scorn and contumely seem to be a function of class. She is derided as grammatically challenged, but then she does not rely on a teleprompter and speaks extemporaneously, pretty much like any normal person. She is derogated as flaky and impetuous, as someone who would not fit in with the New York cocktail crowd or the Princeton intellectuals, and is regarded by the patrician cenacles as, in effect, a rabble-rousing commoner and uncouth provincial. Such taunting is truly beyond the pale, or beyond the Palin, and only reflects back upon the empty self-regard and caste pretentiousness of the accusers themselves.
I have heard people say responsible, thoughtful people that Palin is a one-dimensional dilettante, someone who has never read a book. Apart from the absurdity of this claim, it should be obvious that reading a book with understanding and profit depends upon sensibility and temperament. Obama has presumably read a book (apart from The Communist Manifesto and Alinskys Rules for Radicals), Van Jones has read a book, Larry Summers has read a book, Tim Geithner has read a book, John Brennan has read a book, Cass Sunstein has read a book, Valerie Jarrett has read a book, Rahm Emanuel has read a book, Hillary Clinton has read a book, Robert Gibbs has read a book, Joe Biden has read a book (well, maybe not), David Plouffe has read a book, Andy Stern has read a book, David Axelrod has read a book, Pete Rouse has read a book, Ken Salazar has surely read a book some of these people have even written a book and look at the mess they have created. Seriously, though, Palin strikes me as better informed than all of these political actors lumped together. She has most certainly read a book with understanding and profit and it wasnt Lamont the Lonely Monster or Fun with Dick and Jane. Her recent speeches have been impressive and display a sure knowledge of American history and the intricacies of the Constitution far superior, as it happens, to the presidents wobbly grasp of such matters.
There is another factor at work in the demonizing of Sarah among people who should know better. Even those who believe they are inured to the medias disingenuous spin and are too savvy to be influenced by its microbial indoctrination are nonetheless subtly infected. The often unfavorable response to Palin by both liberal and conservative intellectuals is, without their being fully aware of it, in some measure a response to the medias artfully crafted simulacrum. Palins one public relations disaster was the infamous interview with Katie Couric, but we forget that the interview was pre-recorded and that many hours of tape were afterward segmented and spliced to put her in the worst possible light. The gaffe-prone Joe Biden was treated very differently by Couric (who infamously let slide his remark about FDR going on television after the stock market crash of 1929), as was, for that matter, Barack Obama and his numerous howlers, displaying both unfitness for public office and wholesale ignorance. Palin, being neither liberal-left nor a member of the prestige class, was and is a customized victim of cliché knowledge, which circulates readily despite the supposed immunity of the intelligent. The media contagion goes deep.
The staple accusation that Palin is merely an uncultivated zealot who has no program to bring to the nation can be easily refudiated (lovely word!) by simply paying attention. Palin has strongly endorsed the basic Republican platform limited government, reduced taxes, race-neutral justice, Constitutional oversight, sealed borders, a muscular foreign policy, closer ties with Israel much of this before the new Pledge to America was released. So it’s not correct to say that she is merely reacting rather than proposing.
On the contrary, Palin should be respected for her natural intelligence, her stick-to-it-tiveness, and her patriotic instincts. She had no real material advantages, came from relatively humble origins, did not attend the best schools (had she been African-American, affirmative action would likely have lofted her into Harvard), yet rose to become the governor of a state whose political sewers she cleaned out despite determined opposition. This is not a feat that many politicians would have been capable of. Palin is indisputably miles above anyone on the liberal-left side of the ledger. If one compares her on such criteria as personal integrity, logical consistency, moral authority, strategic insight, and political rectitude to the other two most conspicuous women in the political theater, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, well, its just no contest.
As for the Tea Party, according to many reports, it is now the largest popular movement in the U.S.. Like all such huge conglomerations, it will have its lowest common denominators and its highest common denominators. Many people, including some Republicans, contend it has done damage to the conservative cause in the number of unqualified candidates it has sponsored. This is no doubt a worrisome development and one not predicated on electoral calculations. What is one to make of Rich Lott in Ohio who rather stupidly, if innocently, re-enacted Nazi SS maneuvers as part of a military history group? Frumious conservatives have also been hard on Christine ODonnell in Delaware. Yet, when ODonnell beat out Mike Castle for the Republican senate nomination, she displaced a dubious RINO who tended to vote with the Democrats. If Castle had won the nomination and, looking ahead, had trounced Chris Coons in the elections, there would have been another DEBN in the senate, that is, a Democrat in Everything But Name. Whats the diff? In any event, the Tea Party has done enormous good and some fine candidates have profited from its support, such as Joe Miller in Alaska who sidelined another RINO, Lisa Murkowsky.
The Tea Party is not ultra-right as its censurers claim, though there are ultra-rightists among the mix. It is not anti-immigrant, but like Canadas Conservative Party argues for a rational immigration policy based on the nations needs for skilled workers and professionals. And it is manifestly not anti-government but rather for limited government, according to the articles of the Constitution. For all its warts which is only to be expected since it is composed of millions of human beings of every conceivable personality stripe it provides genuine hope for the American future. In the words of Bryan Preston, the Tea Party is a quintessentially American movement. Its a gathering of citizens seeking their Constitutionally guaranteed redress of grievances from a government that is not listening to them. To call the Tea Party a violent movement is nothing less than a smear. When conservatives in particular express their uneasiness with the Tea Party, they are only reinforcing the leftist misrepresentation of a truly extraordinary phenomenon.
To conclude. The Democratic left is running out of credible narrative and appears to have little choice but to fall back on the heavy-handed tactic of omnibus calumny, making use of the entire bandwidth of aspersion. We must fight the forces of evil, the conservatives in this country, said MSNBCs Ed Schultz at the One Nation rally in Washington, as he reeled off one lie after another with the fulminating conviction of the pathological hater. Politics has always been a variety of dirty pool, but a fluctuating baseline of normative conduct has usually been, at least theoretically, assumed. The left, however, has no concept of decency whatsoever. Aside from the tireless spreading of fables about its putative accomplishments, the Democratic left will pursue its campaign of dedicated libel in every way it can. It will slander and delegitimize Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, and any threatening conservative it can sink its teeth into. Thats the nature of the game as its now being played. But when those of a conservative bent and signatory or presumptive Republicans do something similar, we are witnessing a travesty in the making.
Conservatives should not, to paraphrase Shakespeare, slubber the gloss of their new fortunes. In the current political domain, it is not Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh who should be looked on askance, but Keith Olbermann and Frank Rich. It is not Sarah Palin who should be distrusted, but the mole in the White House. And it is not the Tea Party that should be condemned, but the American liberal-left that is remorselessly undermining the nation. Soft conservatives need to stop being so good and noble and realize what is actually at stake and act accordingly. The same applies as well to the coterie of old boy Republicans who feel their control of the Republican Party is in jeopardy.
The essential point is this, if I may rephrase Matthew 7:3: Why do we behold the mote in our brothers eye when we should be considering the beam in our adversarys? This is not the time for quasi-ethical niceties and epicene pangs of conscience. By concentrating on what is a comparative mote, we lay ourselves open to being walloped by the beam. That is what we should be concerned with. We can deal with the mote later.
Frum, who is Obama's ally? Hmmmm. Hmmmm. Hmmmmm.
AND Karl Rove the scum of Election Apocolyse 2006/2008.
Excellent analysis of the current state of U.S. politics in this election year with a cogent recognition of what drives some on the right to sneer at Sarah Palin and pretend to be concerned about negative influences of the Tea Party movement. Although unity is often elusive and/or temporary in politics, David Solway urging conservatives to ‘get their act together’ rings true.
As many FReepers have said; “Romney is a scum bag that needs to be driven from the GOP”.
The US is now on record as having gone after the least threatening of the three members of the "Axis of Evil" while dilly-dallying with the other two.
So, when Sarah Palin becomes the nominee, Romney endorsing, raising money and campaigning for her isn’t welcome?
There is nothing more I detest as when foreigners stick their noses in our country’s business
I am going to TRY to remember David Solway’s name, because he sure seems to understand Sarah Palin’s value!
He not only recognizes her accomplishments, he also brings to light the dirty deed that cBS and Couric did to her, and he likes Sarah’s word “refudiate”!
Bravo! David Solway!!!!
I'd hate to see Frum have to explain you with this worldview, onyx :^)
Frum would have to “Man Up” to even try to explain ‘anything” to me, dirtboy.
If Frum is married, I’m certain it’s a Frump.
Message to all centrists, RINOs, intellectuals, liberals, etc. - you know that Constitution thing? The original one, without the 14th Amendment destriction of rights and the imposition federal oversight into every possible aspect of our lives?
Agree to it, or get out.
It's okay if you don't understand. We don't care anymore. It's okay if you're upset, confused, misrespresented, offended, angry, frightened, frustrated, anxious, concerned, appalled, enraged and every other bad, horrible, nasty, rotten thing. None of it matters one damn bit anymore, because we're fed up with you. We've had it with your ceaseless lying, and your staggering levels of parasitical, hypocritical, unending, sabotaging abuse of our great and precious country. Period.
So just agree with the original Constitution, or get out.
That’s right... blame the speechwriter!
It is a stupid point, if Romney decides to stay Republican this time, then what he does for survival is just that.
Remember that Romney left the GOP in the 80s because of President Reagan and conservatism, Romney was against the 1994 “Contract with America”, and Romney was against conservatives like Jesse Helms.
“Romney endorsing, raising money and campaigning for her isnt welcome?” You mean like he used to do for Democrats before he re registered Republican in 1993, to run for the Senate in 1994?
Romney would want to survive a conservative victory of Palin winning the nomination, but all of his behind the scenes efforts will be to defeat conservatism, and undermine Palin and the tea party, Romney is the candidate head of the Romney/Rockefeller wing of the GOP.
Mitt Romney: “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”
Mitt Romney: “I’m not a partisan politician. My hope is that, after this election, it will be the moderates of both parties who will control the Senate, not the Jesse Helmses.”
This is an excellent article! BTW, if Olbermann isn't fired by NBC's new owners, there is no justice. I know a woman who actually watches Olbermann every night, and she loves obama and algore. She's angry, bitter, and hostile about Sarah Palin, George Bush, Republicans in general, and the FNC. You can't talk to this woman. She thinks she's informed.
“She thinks she’s informed.”
May she become informed of the level of her “informity” Nov 3rd.
Sarah Palin is generally regarded as a hyper-emotional hussy whose message is purely reactive rather than proactive, while the Tea Party is supposedly vitiated by a lowest common denominator of right-wing vehemence, unbecoming religiosity, and a simplistic attitude toward political reality
Canada, land of liberal mugwhumps, socialist harumphs, and big government spittles. As stated before, why should I care what the land of lumberjacks and curlers thinks about Palin.
Amen, amen and amen!
This is the frum that is a disgusting little gollum for satan.
LOL. She thinks she’s informed because she watches Olbermann every night. Oh dear. I’m afraid there’s no changing a mindset that.
None of the RINO or Libtard talking points matter when it comes to Palin. But she is highly vulnerable on her right flank. And that matters.
Can one imagine how they would attempt to denigrate and destroy the men who penned the following words?
"I do not think it for the interest of the General Government itself, and still less of the Union at large, that the State governments should be so little respected as they have been. However, I dare say that in time all these as well as their central government, like the planets revolving round their common sun, acting and acted upon according to their respective weights and distances, will produce that beautiful equilibrium on which our Constitution is founded, and which I believe it will exhibit to the world in a degree of perfection, unexampled but in the planetary system itself. The enlightened statesman, therefore, will endeavor to preserve the weight and influence of every part, as too much given any member of it would destroy the general equilibrium." --Thomas Jefferson to Peregrine Fitzhugh, 1798. ME 10:3
"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278
"If Caesar had been as virtuous as he was daring and sagacious, what could he, even in the plenitude of his usurped power, have done to lead his fellow citizens into good government?... If their people indeed had been, like ourselves, enlightened, peaceable, and really free, the answer would be obvious. 'Restore independence to all your foreign conquests, relieve Italy from the government of the rabble of Rome, consult it as a nation entitled to self-government, and do its will.' But steeped in corruption, vice and venality, as the whole nation was,... what could even Cicero, Cato, Brutus have done, had it been referred to them to establish a good government for their country?... No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and their people were so demoralized and depraved as to be incapable of exercising a wholesome control. Their reformation then was to be taken up ab incunabulis. Their minds were to be informed by education what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and deterred from those of vice by the dread of punishments proportioned, indeed, but irremissible; in all cases, to follow truth as the only safe guide, and to eschew error, which bewilders us in one false consequence after another in endless succession. These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure of order and good government. But this would have been an operation of a generation or two at least, within which period would have succeeded many Neros and Commoduses, who would have quashed the whole process. I confess, then, I can neither see what Cicero, Cato and Brutus, united and uncontrolled could have devised to lead their people into good government, nor how this enigma can be solved." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1819. ME 15:233
"An enlightened people, and an energetic public opinion... will control and enchain the aristocratic spirit of the government." --Thomas Jefferson to Chevalier de Ouis, 1814. ME 14:130
"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820.
"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them. And it requires no very high degree of education to convince them of this. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787.
"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, 1789.
"Whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, the people, if well informed, may be relied on to set them to rights." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, 1789.
From James Madison:
"Although all men are born free, and all nations might be so, yet too true it is, that slavery has been the general lot of the human race. Ignorant they have been cheated; asleep they have been surprised; divided the yoke has been forced upon them. But what is the lesson?... The people ought to be enlightened, to be awakened, to be united, that after establishing a government they should watch over it."
"A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people."
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
"To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea."
Do these words not sound more like Palin and the Tea Partiers than the political elitists in both Parties who dominate American politics today?
Betcha' that Palin understands the meaning of every one of these declarations; whereas the followers of Mao and Marx will disavow them, deny them, and evade their wisdom.
When this election is over I wanna see Frum in a piglet costume beg for his momma in soiled diapers.
BTW, there is a reward out for anyone who can determine what Frum and the rest of the pukeneos actually do for a living. None of the pukeneos have any visible means of support, unless you count:
(1) media prostitution,
(2) infiltratng the US government,
(3) endless think-tank pontificating on how nice it is to have US troops invade foreign countries,
(4) squatting in the Repub Party, hoping to destroy it from within, and,
(5) kicking so/con Repubs to the curb.
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.