And since Ross and Reihan are finding a Strange New Respect for Buchananism (or whatever passes for “paleoconservatism” these days) I should say that I’m reminded of a point Ramesh made years ago in his article on Buchanan. “Conservatives tend to place a lot of emphasis, maybe too much, on the idea that ideas have consequences,” Ponnuru wrote. “They hoist their ideas up the flagpole and then see who salutes. Buchananism puts its idealized social base first, and lets it drive everything else.” This sounds quite a bit like what’s going on with Lower-Middle-Reformism.
The late Sam Francis must be smiling from wherever he is (I have my hunches on where that might be) knowing that his Middle American Radicalism is getting a fresh coat of paint. ~Jonah Goldberg
Tom Piatak joins in the enfilading fire aimed at Goldberg’s obnoxious post. Reihan responds in a fashion that is far more good natured and generous than the post deserves. I have every intention of drawing out just how many things are wrong with Goldberg’s post (I suspect I will have some help in this department), but for now a few simple points. No one does more flagpole-raising and salute-demanding than people at NR, whose last remaining productive function (besides flacking for the warfare state) seems to be the enforcement of ideological purity whenever it is challenged by a crunchy con, an anti-imperialist, neopopulist or, well, anyone resembling a traditional conservative. Right around this same time last year Goldberg bestirred himself to write off, if not write out, Rod Dreher and anything remotely resembling a conservatism of place and virtue. Idiotically, this champion of rootless, Wal-Mart America has decided that the advocates for “Sam’s Club Republicans” are the latest batch of dissidents to beat down and skewer with not-so-subtle efforts to associate them (however implausibly) with the ideas of Dr. Francis. He did the same to another young blogger from the other side of the spectrum, Matt Yglesias, who had the temerity to state certain obvious truths about the influence of hawkish pro-Israel people on the political process and the politics of foreign policy. Goldberg replied by noting the similarity between the views of Yglesias and Lindbergh, as if this were an innocent observation intended to further debate.
From my perspective, there is actually nothing wrong with being associated with Dr. Francis or Col. Lindbergh, since both were honourable, patriotic and admirable men, and if modern observers come to similar conclusions or express similar views as they did it is probably because these gentlemen were substantially in the right in their own time. However, the intent of someone at NR invoking their names is clear: it is to demonise, discredit and defame those being so compared, because their names have been (unjustly) tainted with the vicious smears of earlier ideological enforcers. Why make these comparisons? Because the one engaged in the demonisation knows he cannot actually take on his adversaries in legitimate debate, but must always resort to the cheap, heavy-handed tactics of a commissar.
To the end of exerting control over the collapsing movement they have helped to ruin, the ideological enforcers will be perfectly happy to appear otherwise very flexible, pragmatic, empirical and politically savvy, and they will be champions of a supposed mild reasonableness that happens to coincide perfectly with agreement with their own positions. In this view, other people “idealise” and “romanticise” things, whereas they are supposedly the epitome of cautious, grounded common sense. It would be a clever rhetorical move, were it not so utterly transparent and weak.
Some might have ”hunches” about the fate of Goldberg’s soul, but then charitable and decent people do not speculate about the eternal damnation of their political opponents as Goldberg was clearly trying to do.
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 28th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Christopher Hayes
The Ponnuru quote is a great compliment to “Buchananism”. With that quote and Goldberg’s use of it in mind, I’d think whatever he or Goldberg have to say would probably be the opposite of the truth.
Jonah can test that infuriating “ideas have consequences” tripe quite simply by walking into a room of average people. suggesting something like “If I say something stupid, please beat me with this chair”, and then proceed to speak. If the “beat me” idea has no consequences, he’s safe and he’s vindicated himself and Ramesh.
March 28th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
James Newland
Right now I am exceedingly sorry I went into the National Review entry on Wikipedia and erased the line “His biological father was LBJ” from the reference to Goldberg.
His was the only reference defaced in this manner. Does anyone wonder why?
March 28th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Grumpy Old Man
When Daniel posted previously on Lindbergh, I was at some pains to check out Lindbergh’s Des Moines speech as far as the charge of antisemitism goes, and concluded it was a bum rap. Some of Lindbergh’s language was un-PC by today’s standards. His argument was essentially that although many Jews, understandably horrified by Hitler’s antisemitic policies, were opposed to Hitler and favored entry into the war; as were the British, then badly in need of military help, and FDR’s administration, the views of those three groups did not exhaust the question of whether intervention was in the interest of America as a whole.
Whether Lindbergh was right or wrong, it was a reasoned argument. I tend to believe that once St. Woodrow bit into the forbidden fruit of intervention, US intervention in World War II became Nemesis, almost impossible to avert.
Opposition to intervention today makes even more sense than it did then both because no hostile power threatens to dominate all Europe or all Eurasia, and we have learned just how ineffective our cultural ignorance and our institutional failings make military intervention a clumsy and ineffective means of spreading what we perceive to be our virtues.
Because the rhetoric of intervention favors terms like “freedom,” “human rights,” and “democracy,” as opposed to realist concepts like “national interest,” its opponents are invariably denounced as opposed to all three (never mind that the first and last of these are often opposed to each other), and therefore not merely mistaken but wicked.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:15 am
James Newland
GOM wrote: “When Daniel posted previously on Lindbergh, I was at some pains to check out Lindbergh’s Des Moines speech as far as the charge of antisemitism goes, and concluded it was a bum rap.”
Of course it was, just as almost every charge made by our enemies have been bum raps. The accusations are not intended to be either truthful or debatable. They’re mere slanders, intended to allow the other side to have their way unimpeded. It’s fashionable these days to bash Ann Coulter, but she’s certainly right about this. It’s been the Left’s weapon of choice since way back…which explains perfectly why neocons like Goldberg don’t hesitate to use it.
Something like 70% of the American people were opposed to intervention in Europe until the attack on Pearl Harbor–and even then, the American people only agreed to go after the Germans because Japan was allied with them. So according to the Left, 70% of Americans were blatanly anti-semitic, and it was only by being taught the error of our ways through fighting and dying in Europe that we came to our current enlightened state. It’s all obvious horsesh**, of course, but that’s the official dogma believed not just by the hard Left, but by neocons as well.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
MDCLXVI
I don’t understand, was Francis a mean person? Did he ever cheat on his taxes or something? How would Goldberg explain his statement? “I think Sam Francis is probably in hell because….” People only use the hell thing with genocidal dictators, right? Was Francis ever even in a position of power?