Month: May 2006

A reader makes this sharp observation:

When you linked to The Marketing of Evil, what caught my eye was the similarity between the subtext of this book and modern liberalism.

John Kenneth Galbraith, a man best described as "brilliantly wrong," burst on the scene with "The Affluent Society." TAS basically argued that the American people were well-meaning sheep. In their naivete, Americans would fall for any kind of slick advertising. JKG believed you could sell just about anything to the American people if you used enough bells and whistles. He wanted to show Americans the man behind the curtain so we would get on our knees, thank him for his wisdom and get behind increased government spending and excess at the hands of President Adlai Stevenson. That he was empirically wrong was of little consquence to him.

The Marketing of Evil doesn’t have the same goals as JKG. They would settle for Americans clamoring to overturn Roe, pretending gay people don’t exist and put the sexual revolution genie back in the bottle. But they don’t think the American people actually want Roe/gays/sexual freedom – we’re just naive sheep that follow the loudest bells, brightest colors and most pleasant whistles. And just like JKG, they will eventually be proven wrong – this is what the American people want. Americans may argue about how fast we are going "there," but our intellectual journeys aren’t the product of slick marketing. But just as JKG couldn’t comprehend why Americans favored a proven leader of men like Ike over the scholarly Adlai, the supporters of this tome cannot comprehend that America has chosen liberty over "traditional" morality.

A political movement is decadent when it starts describing the voters as duped sheep. And if the far right believes that Americans want to return to an era with gay people in the closet or jail, abortion banned, and contraception unavailable, they may soon be in for an electoral shock.

That is the term used by Michelle Malkin to describe her political opponents. I described it as a mark of incivility. A reader comments that I am missing the deeper resonance:

What is disturbing is when incivility moves to dehumanization. One need look no further than Rwanda to see the cockroach invective in play. The Hutus commonly referred to the Tutsis as "inyenzi," literally meaning cockroach. Though I’m certain that people like Malkin aren’t about to go on a machete waltz, the fact that political debate has devolved from disagreement to dehumanization is not a good sign. No good can come out of dehumanizing someone on the basis of politics. In my opinion it’s a sign of some kind of atavistic psychosis. Or, to put it better, as Cormac McCarthy said in Blood Meridian, "All progressions from a higher to a lower order are marked by ruins and mystery and a residue of nameless rage."

I wonder if Malkin would agree to withdraw the description, or issue some form of regret for it. We all occasionally say things we do not mean. Perhaps she will reconsider.

When Michael Ledeen and Kevin Drum agree, they may be onto something. Me? I think it’s a natural and somewhat predictable call on the chess board. Mr Ahmadinejad, your move.

I haven’t commented because I’m waiting for the official report. This context, while in no way excusing what may have happened, is nonetheless worth considering.

This is pretty embarrassing.

Kevin Drum observes some cracks in the Christianist movement – and some nastiness as well.

The stock price for the New York Times hit a new low today. At $24, the stock has lost around half its value in three years. (Hat tip: Steve Bartin.)

Another book; another hideous title. And check the blurbs. My favorites:

"Did you ever want to know – I mean really know – how and why America is being transformed from a unified, Judeo-Christian society into a divided, false, murky, neo-pagan culture?" РJoseph Farah.

And this, from the usual suspect:

"Now watch the cockroaches run for cover," – Michelle Malkin.

When political debate is reduced to describing your opponents as "cockroaches," then it’s fair to say there is no civility left. How bad does it have to get before civil conservatives disown this type of rhetoric? Or are there really no enemies to the right any more?

It’s not just the religious right that does it.

"Bob Wright describes how a combination of a) a third party in laptop (such as the effort reported by Jon Alter) and b) a timely dropping-out could lead to a quasi-parliamentary negotiated government and radical, elite-driven reforms. … The semi-paralyzing complexity comes when there isn’t one party in a laptop but five of them," – Mickey Kaus, today. Was that in English?