Given the perpetual parade of “intellectuals” who are not intelligent in our media—Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, PBS and the “parrot press”—I don’t expect many Americans to be familiar with political philosopher Paul E. Gottfried. Nevertheless, Paul (he’s a friend) is one of the most important intellectuals in the United States. In “The Mainstreaming of Michelle Malkin,” he writes:
“A recent syndicated column by Michelle Malkin indicates what happens to interesting conservative commentators when they sign on as GOP flacks: They become predictable Republican mouthpieces and attack dogs against the Dems. For years I read Michelle with delight as she railed against weak-kneed politicians in both parties. She was murder on Republicans as well as Democrats—indeed, on anyone who truckled to the Hispanic immigration lobby. Even more refreshingly, she never indulged any politicians who caterwauled about victimized minorities. Michelle happily banged around the NAACP and other groups that played the victim card. The fact that she’s Filipino may have allowed her to get away with some of her rhetoric, but I doubt that particular ethnic background has provided her with much benefit. Being a devoutly Catholic Filipino doesn’t bring much in the way of liberal grace. That identity is far less useful than being an angry black woman like Michelle Obama screaming against American white racism.
“Yes, there is corruption in the Democratic Party, but this disease is hardly limited to those who bear the ‘D’ label.”
Then I noticed Michelle editorializing against corruption in the Democratic Party. On December 10, 2008, she began her new career with a long screed for National Review Online on the “Democratic Culture of Corruption.” After a series of polemics against Reid, Pelosi, and Barney Frank on Fox and in the usual GOP venues, Michelle came out with a well-publicized book, The Culture of Corruption, thanks to the tiresomely Republican publishing house Regnery. …”
MORE.
While I agree with Paul—and have expressed similar misgivings, for example here and here— I still harbor some fondness for Malkin and Coulter. Yes, they are of and for the mainstream, but they both have talent.
Next, Paul needs to tackle the second-tier, mezzanine-level, Republican tart brain trust: SE Cupp, Margaret Hoover, and similar heavy hitting idiots, who’ve never uttered an original thought, and whose writing is like Ann Coulter’s vomit (to paraphrase Kevin Michael Grace).
UPDATE I: I have to disagree with Brett Gerasim on the wonderful job Mouths of the Republican mainstream are doing. Someone who spouts half-truths is still a wholesale liar. Moreover, he/she lacks the intellectual wherewithal to grasp the whole picture—of what a devotion to limited authority and republican virtues actually mean.
UPDATE II: Prof. Gottfried replies:
“Like Ilana, I would prefer to listen to Michelle or Ann than someone like Sean Hannity. But that’s not the issue I address in my commentary. What irks me is that perfectly intelligent and highly articulate conservative commentators have turned themselves into GOP hacks to advance their careers. This is not something that Ilana or I, even if we had the opportunity to sell out, would be likely to do. Moreover, Michelle and Ann would hardly be paupers even if they behaved with dignity and stopped kissing up to the GOP. They raked in loads of money before assuming their present abject roles. Although I’ve only heard him a few times, I have a much more positive impression of Mike Savage, who is quite happy to sock it to both of our zombie parties. Savage does not look as if he’s hurting financially because he’s failed to line up.”
Paul
UPDATE III: I think Paul takes for granted his analytical gifts. My good friend imagines that these women are capable of his insights, but are holding back. But anyone with such well-honed herd instincts is not that bright. Both are brighter than average, but that’s not saying much in “Age of the idiot,” as my father has termed the times in which we live.
Coulter is smarter than Malkin. Malkin believes every warring word she’s ever uttered. Ditto Monica Crowley, who is no fool, but is a statist to the core. These ladies are limited in their analytical capacities and in their individualism. Their integrity is also capped.
UPDATE IV (June 24): MONICA MINDLESS? I made a horrible mistake. Prof. Gottfried was kind enough to correct me:
“I agree with your update. By the way, I knew Monica Crowley when she was still serving drinks for Richard Nixon during my visits to the former president’s home in New Jersey. She is far less clever and pretty than Michelle or Ann. Paul.”
