UPDATED: STRASSEL’S Non Sequitur

Conservatism, Foreign Policy, Military, Neoconservatism, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, Propaganda, Republicans, Ron Paul, Terrorism

KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL of the Wall Street Journal claimed, in “Why Ron Paul Can’t Win,” that “conservative Republicans” cannot accept Paul’s philosophy as it “fundamentally denies American exceptionalism and refuses to allow for decisive action to protect the U.S. homeland.”

Is STRASSEL equating American exceptionalism with the kind of non-defensive militarism America currently practices? It would appear so.

This writer’s position on said “exceptionalism”: “the United States, by virtue of its origins and ideals,” was unique. But most Americans know nothing of the ideas that animated their country’s founding. In fact, they are more likely to hold ideas in opposition to the classical liberal philosophy of the founders, and hence wish to see the aggrandizement of the coercive state and the fulfillment of their own needs and desires through war and welfare.

Thus, I find myself in agreement with this one statement by Princeton’s Joyce Carol Oates:

“[T]ravel to any foreign country,” Oates wrote in the Atlantic Monthly in November 2007, “and the consensus is: The American idea has become a cruel joke, a blustery and bellicose bodybuilder luridly bulked up on steroids…deranged and myopic, dangerous.”

[SNIP]

I thought Paul was strong on Jay Leno, but should probably not have cozied-up to the Left in the way he did. More on that later:

UPDATE: About Bachmann, Paul Said, “she doesn’t like Muslims, she hates them, she wants to go get ‘em.'” “In reference to Rick Santorum, Paul said he can’t stop talking about ‘gay people and Muslims.'” (ABC)

Leave aside whether these statements are true or not: Paul has taken a classic Chris-Matthews kind of ad hominem swipe against Michele Bachmann: she hates Muslims. Santorum hates gays and Muslims. Siding with the Left by adopting its arguments may be situationally advantageous, but it is wrong, and will backfire on a Republican candidate in the long run. This tactic, even if it was a not-so-funny joke, damages Ron Paul’s effectiveness from the vantage point of conservative libertarians who think that liberty cannot be reduced to the non-aggression axiom and has a cultural and civilizational dimension.

Paul is wrong to imply, reductively, that Islamic terrorism in general and September 11 in particular are the sole consequences of American foreign policy. Libertarians cannot persist in such unidirectional formulations. Our adventurous foreign policy is a necessary precondition for Muslim aggression but it is far from a sufficient one.

UPDATED: Famously Rear-Ended Reality Stars

Celebrity, Intelligence, Journalism, Media, Pop-Culture, Sex, The Zeitgeist

In my journalism-school days one looked up to the brilliant and brave late Oriana Fallaci. Now, it’s mediocrities like colorectal crusader Katie Couric and Barbara Walters who’re considered cutting-edge clever. The last is such an idiot. But being a little compromised himself, conservatives like Bill O’Reilly actually engage Walters over picking the Kardashians for her “Most Fascinating People List.” Past prime picks for this List were Paris Hilton, Victoria and David Beckham, and Justin Timberlake.

So you have Billy arguing with batty Bawbawa that the women have no merit as they don’t act, don’t sing, do nothing but whine. Acting and singing would not necessarily make them fascinating.

The meaning of the word “fascinating” evades Barbara and her interlocutor: “Possessing the power to charm or allure; captivating.”

Go to the next room. Crank up the sound so that you can get an earful of the nasal, narcissistic monosyllables that tumble from each Kardashian’s mouth. How “fascinating” is that without the visuals?

Repulsive, freaky, morally rudderless, inappropriately sexual and depraved, so much so that I can’t stop staring: That is a precise description of the “Kardashians.” And it is not the same as “fascinating.”

The “family” is contemptuous of one another (and in general), licentious, libertine, promiscuous; a really nasty bunch of people that browbeats an effete and ineffectual father and bitches at one another. Each female adores and will do anything at all for … herself. I’ll grant her this: Kim is probably the least offensive as a human being. There is something in her eyes.

Another conservative, Sean Hannity, once touted that all-round vulgarian and one-time porn star Kim Kardashian as a role model for young girls because she does not imbibe. For the sake of good taste I will not post a hyperlink to Kim’s on-camera, bottoms-up gymnastics with a former boyfriend. But I hope Hannity’s daughter, if he has one, does not take her dad’s moral guidelines seriously. (More HERE about other Fox News porn pinups.)

Promoted by errant adults like Hannity and the moron Walters, reality show filth has seduced budding slut Montana Fishburne.

“According to TMZ.com, the 19-year-old daughter of Oscar-nominated actor Laurence Fishburne recently said that she was inspired to get into the porn industry because Kardashian found mainstream success after starting out as a sex tape star.”

Laurence Fishburne told his daughter, “I’m not going to speak with you till you turn your life around.” “You embarrassed me,” he said. “You used your last name. No one uses their real name in porn.”

For every plainspoken Fishburne, there are incoherent, meandering conservatives—this one from Pajama Media—aplenty.

UPDATE (Dec. 18): FB thread: A depraved culture supports a depraved politics and vise versa.

UPDATED: Christopher Hitchens, Great Rhetorician & Writer, Dies At 62

English, Human Accomplishment, Intellectualism, Intelligence, Journalism, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Literature, Neoconservatism, The Zeitgeist

I can’t say that Christopher Hitchens had a philosophical core—he did not. Thus the attempts in this BBC tribute to imbue the stands Hitchens took over the years with nobility fall flat. However, the late Mr. Hitchens possessed a formidable intellect and was both a great rhetorician and writer. One can agree with the somewhat prosaic Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who once worked as an intern for Hitchens.” Clegg said: “Christopher Hitchens was everything a great essayist should be: infuriating, brilliant, highly provocative and yet intensely serious.”

BBC News doesn’t divulge who dubbed Hitchens “a drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist popinjay.” BUT I can tell you it was MP George Galloway. The quaint “popinjay” coinage gives Galloway (what a character!) away. Besides, back in 2005, I had blogged about the delightful joust between Galloway and Hitchens, RIP. I am nothing if not consistent. Here is what I wrote at the time:

Now hold your horses, will you, because I also admire Christopher Hitchens as a stylist, conversationalist, and an extraordinary flyter. What is flyting, you ask? It’s an ancient Scottish form of invective, a true master of which is the MP George Galloway. I don’t care for his or Hitchens’ ever-shifting views, but I loved the flyting that flew between the two. Galloway called Hitchens a drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist popinjay. Hitchens responded over the pages of an august publication by likening the lickspittle praise Galloway once bestowed on him to spittle flung in place of argument. Later on, the two dueled deliciously on C-Span, where, I’m afraid, Hitchens proved his uncontested superiority in this spontaneous rhetorical art.