Today’s Lesson in Progressive Politics: Rolling Stone

November 15, 2010

Rolling Stone, the magazine that brought you a five-star review of Mick Jagger’s Goddess In The Doorway album, is featuring in their upcoming issue a political roundtable to discuss the results of the midterm elections. The roundtable consists of Peter D. Hart, who is “known for his nonpartisan poll for NBC News and the Wall Street Journal,” every Democrat’s favorite sage David Gergen, and Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi.

Gergen, as is his wont, tries really hard to be as bland and faceless as a Journey Greatest Hits album and succeeds admirably. The nonpartisan Hart maintains that the results are “hard to stomach.”

But it is Matt Taibbi who gives the real lesson in What Progressives Think:

Taibbi: To me, the main thing about the Tea Party is that they’re just crazy. If somebody is able to bridge the gap with those voters, it seems to me they will have to be a little bit crazy too. That’s part of the Tea Party’s litmus test: “How far will you go?”

Gergen: I flatly reject the idea that Tea Partiers are crazy. They had some eccentric candidates, there’s no question about that. But I think they represent a broad swath of the American electorate that elites dismiss to their peril.

Hart: I agree with David. When two out of five people who voted last night say they consider themselves supporters of the Tea Party, we make a huge mistake to suggest that they are some sort of small fringe group and do not represent anybody else.

Taibbi: I’m not saying that they’re small or a fringe group.

Gergen: You just think they’re all crazy.

Taibbi: I do.

Gergen: So you’re arguing, Matt, that 40 percent of those who voted last night are crazy?

Taibbi: I interview these people. They’re not basing their positions on the facts — they’re completely uninterested in the facts. They’re voting completely on what they see and hear on Fox News and afternoon talk radio, and that’s enough for them.

Gergen: The great unwashed are uneducated, so therefore their views are really beneath serious conversation?

Taibbi: I’m not saying they’re beneath serious conversation. I’m saying that these people vote without acting on the evidence.

Thank you Matt for being honest. This is what Progressives think: those who disagree with their agenda are crazy and ignorant. And they call us intolerant.


Barack Obama’s Enemies List

October 26, 2010

The phrase has been written before by many more talented than I, and it’s even been bandied about here on The Clampdown. But if you need a crystal clear example of how Barack Obama views politics, consider the words coming from his own mouth:

Latino voters, the president said, would have an opportunity to send a message to Republicans, who Obama accused of “politicizing” immigration reform and the border security debate. Obama said “pressure has to be put on the Republican Party” if immigration reform is to become a reality.

“And if Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, we’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us, if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder — and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2,” he said.

So the man who has claimed to be the President for all Americans, who sees no red states or blue states but only United States, now claims that people—Americans— who are opposed to illegal immigration are enemies.

Consider this another lesson in Progressive politics. As a conservative I am deeply opposed to Barack Obama on a veritable ark of issues, but I have never once thought of him as an “enemy.” Anti-Christ, sure, but that’s a joke. But for the Progressive, the world is divided neatly into those who support their agenda and their enemies.

I’m absolutely opposed to illegal immigration and support Arizona in their quest to combat it. According to the President of the United States, I am an “enemy.” It shows the difference between a Progressive Republican like Richard Nixon who created the original Enemies List of media figures and politicians, and the dyed-in-the-wool, hardcore Progressivism of Barack Obama, whose Enemies List is much more generic and can be summed up as “anyone who disagrees with me.”

Well, count me in as a proud member of Barack Obama’s Enemies List.

UPDATE: Hot Air has more, including a quote I glossed over because it was seemed so typical: “Those aren’t the kinds of folks who represent our core American values.” Said about war hero and Presidential nominee John McCain, no less.


A Lineage of Conservatism

October 26, 2010

Shortly after I wrote Today’s Lesson In Progressive Politics: John Holdren, my father became very ill, very quickly. There was a week where he was in the hospital, getting progressively worse. On September 25th, my father died. The exact cause of death is uncertain. He either had a heart attack or he aspirated in his sleep, a side effect of the cancer that had blocked 95% of his esophagus. The doctor felt that aspiration was the most likely scenario in which case the end was painless and quick and most likely in his sleep.

The choices my father was facing were not good. The doctors told him that his only choices were to go to a hospice where he would be kept comfortable and would be gone in a couple of weeks, or to undergo surgery, have a stent put in, have a feeding tube inserted into his stomach, and hopefully build up enough strength to undergo radiation. This would likely buy him anywhere from 2-6 months of life. His children discussed and debated, and chose to go with option number 2. Prior to this sudden and rapid decline, he was 88 years old, active, and in full possession of his faculties. The guy was sharp as a tack. He may have lost much of his physical presence to old age, but he was as sharp as he’d ever been and that was pretty damn sharp.

Faced with two dreadful options, my father chose Door Number 3 and went out his own way, sparing his children the sight of watching this vibrant personality diminish to a whisper and an empty shell. A week before he died, he’d driven down to his favorite watering hole in Washington Heights, and swapped cop stories with his friends. He was pushing himself right to the end.

In the course of his life, my father saw a lot. He was a teenager during the worst of the Great Depression, raised by a widowed mother; a gunnery instructor in the Navy during World War II, a police officer in Harlem who was at a riot on the night that I was born. He was a man who put his life on the line every day for people he did not know, and once saved the lives of 14 people from an apartment building that was in flames. Those 14 people included his pregnant wife and my two sisters. He received numerous awards and citations for this action, taken while he was off-duty, and appeared on Kate Smith’s radio show where the singer presented the hero with new furniture (some of which we still have, believe it or not).

My father didn’t have a lot of interests. Armed only with a high school education, and raised in very tough times, he had no patience for anything that wasn’t real. He never read books, but he read the newspapers cover to cover and was a devoted news junkie. He liked to watch cop shows and Westerns on TV, and would read anything that had to do with politics.

My father was the product of FDR’s New Deal era. Roosevelt was President from the time my father was 10 years old until just before his 22nd birthday. It was the era of “Happy Days Are Here Again,” fearing nothing except fear, and promises of government-sponsored prosperity.

Even at that tender young age, my father would have none of that crap.

As a child and teen, he heard the empty promises of a government-run salvation through the New Deal. As an adult, he witnessed first hand the devastating effects of liberalism on the city of New York and, especially, the blacks in Harlem, through the fifties and sixties. He read the newspapers which, even back then, were promoting a progressive agenda, and he applied his training as a detective to figure out the parts of the story that were missing. He had the most amazing ability to see the parts of the news story that were being held back.

My father was a conservative long before it became fashionable in 1980. Through the worst years of liberalism in the 1960s and 1970s, my father preached that the direction the country was going in was bad. Without ever having read The Federalist Papers, he managed to intuitively articulate the underlying philosophy of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay.

My father learned early that in order to succeed in life you needed to be free. That meant not being reliant on others, from government agencies to big businesses. He knew that what the government provides, the government can take away and that if you wanted to avoid the pain of having things taken from you, you first needed to refuse the handout. Only through this way could a man truly be free.

My father was a great success in life. Not in business, since he worked in blue collar jobs his entire life. While we never lacked the necessities, my family was far from wealthy. But he had a wife he adored and who adored him and, together, they had six children who brought him enormous pride and satisfaction. His children have absorbed many of the lessons he learned from the streets: education is good, debt is bad, if you let others, including the government, provide for you then you are being infantilized and set up for a giant fall when the bill comes due.

My conservatism runs very deep. What my father learned from living and intuition, I learned from listening and reading. It all comes down the same way in the end…neither of us voted for Barack Obama, a man whose arrogant, Ivy League philosophy and insular narcissism stands in direct contrast to the reality my father saw every day of his life. My father opposed Obama because he recognized that Obama was nothing more than a gifted talking head, bereft of real world experience. When the world (including myself) was paying rapt attention to the then-unknown Obama’s 2004 Democratic convention address, it was my father the detective who said “No…this isn’t the whole story. He saying what he wants us to believe.” It was a cop’s intuition but he sure was right.

I don’t know the politics of his parents. They were both long dead before I was born. But I do know that my conservatism was born and nurtured within my family unit and while my mother was a conservative, it was my father who talked politics (and cop stories!) all day, every day. His argument was so strong and so convincing that even my older brothers and sisters, who came of age when conservatism was as hip as a Lawrence Welk performance at Woodstock, managed to skip the worst of the addled idiocies of the hippie and disco eras. For me it was easy, hitting my stride in the Reagan Eighties, but for my siblings the temptation to swing to the Left must have been strong. This lineage of conservatism has been passed on again, to my father’s six grandchildren and, hopefully, to his five (and hopefully more) great-grandchildren.

My father passed on a love of liberty to his children, who are passing it on again. God bless him for it.


Today’s Lesson In Progressive Politics: John Holdren

September 17, 2010

Remember John Holdren? He’s Obama’s “Science Czar,” who has advocated forced sterilization, forced abortions, eugenics and other tricks up the Progressive sleeve. I wrote about him here, but the definitive take down is all Zombie’s.

Now that the phrase “global warming” has been ridiculed to the point where people snicker whenever Al Gore’s face pops up on TV, and “climate change” is considered to be too namby-pamby, the Progressives need to find a new way to initiate their statist agenda. Voila! Courtesy of John Holdren, we now have “global climate disruption.”

It’s really a quite elegant solution. Since the globe isn’t actually warming and the research into global warming has been proven to be, let’s just say tainted, the Progressive solution is to rebrand the issue. Global warming didn’t work because the globe isn’t warming any more than it might naturally warm. Climate change doesn’t work because climates change naturally and there’s nothing scary about that.

But Global Climate Disruption? Wow. That sounds scary. Nobody likes disruptions. Disruptions are bad things. The beauty of it is that it’s a catch-all. Heatwave? Disruption. Blizzard? Disruption. Volcano? Disruption. Hurricane? Disruption. Plague of frogs? Disruption.

The lesson for today is that global warming was never a real fear. It has always been a means to an end. A succession of warmer than normal years allowed the Progressives to create a boogeyman in the closet with which to scare people into a conformity of thought and behavior. That thought and behavior would be dictated by the Progressives, naturally. Now that the closet door has been opened and the boogeyman has been revealed to be nothing more than a coat on a hanger, Holdren and his ilk are trying to tell us that the monster is now under the bed, and it’s hungrier than ever. The only way to placate the monster is to do exactly what the Progressives tell you to do. Do not ask questions. Do not look back. Just follow the leaders. The Socialist Utopia awaits.


The Roundup: Doug Powers is on it at Michelle Malkin’s site, and he makes this excellent point:

An administration that goes out of its way to make terrorism sound less dangerous than it really is (i.e. “man-caused disaster”) makes the push to sell “global warming” as more dangerous than it really is.


The Horror…The Horror

September 16, 2010

Coming to a theater near you, from the country that brought you World War II.

Make it stop…make it stopMAKE IT STOP!

H/T: Jonah Goldberg in The Corner, though I can’t tell if his “Oh, Dear Lord” header is a sigh of disbelief, or the beginning of a prayer to The One.