Conservatives Make Me Laugh, Unintentionally

10:30 am EST October 26th, 2009 | News | 46 Comments

From Redstate.com (the failed Kos clone):

As you may know, RedState has started a Great Books style program. We are rather slowly making our way through a series of books on conservative thought and ideas. We have started with Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism.

They really are so gosh darn cute. What a difference in how the two sides view themselves idealogically. When we were out of power Democrats and liberals argued about our positions on economics, how to appeal to the religious, how strongly we should advocate for our beliefs after years of going GOP-light via center-right organizations like the DLC, etc. The right? They read books based on shoddy research that draw the conclusion that the Democratic party is just like Hitler.

Bwahahahahahahaha!

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

46 Responses to “Conservatives Make Me Laugh, Unintentionally”

  1. Dennis says:

    Something must be going right for conservatives:

    New Gallup Poll Finds 40% of America Conservative– 20% Liberal

    Gallup reported:

    Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group.

  2. Dennis says:

    Oh, come on, Repack, don’t you guys think you’ve said everything there is to say and then some about Goldberg’s blockbuster?

    Jonah’s book was ahead of its time; what else is there for you guys to say?

    Maybe you could get the White House to attack it so that even all independents and the dismayed center left decide to read it too; two groups increasing in number in leaps and bounds, apparently.

  3. dirtyCommie says:

    And Dancing With The Stars is the top-rated Monday night show (http://is.gd/4CB65). That means I should watch it even though it’s made for the brain-dead consumer, right?

  4. dirtyCommie says:

    Oh, and Goldberg’s book is a well-debunked piece of crap. http://is.gd/4CBxU

  5. anotherbozo says:

    Polls! Haven’t we already established that you get a result depending on how you phrase the question? To wit: what is it, a mere 20% of voters identify themselves as Republican? And how many “liberals” are, in fact, fiscal conservatives? (the word demands quotations, because based on classical definitions, ALL Americans are liberal in the Lockean sense) I’M conservative insofar as I think we should conserve what’s best in our traditions.

    But I’d like sometime to take the discussion to a new level. I’ve never read a so-called political conservative who’s intellectually honest, historically well-informed, AND linked emotionally to fellow human beings (ie, believing that his/her own humanity is contingent on the lot of his/her fellows) Any names? William F. Buckley didn’t cut it for me, never mind the current crop. But maybe there’s SOMEONE out there, some plausible philosophic position…

  6. SaveFarris says:

    Yes, yes. RedState should have focused more closely on meticulously researched literary classics like Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Dude, Where’s My Country?

    I guess all the problems with the economy, health care, the debt, the environment, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan, domestic spying, gay rights, the Patriot Act, and Gitmo have all been taken care of if we’ve got time to discuss the reading list for some third-rate website.

  7. Indeed says:

    what else is there for you guys to say?

    Um, that–on its cover–Liberal Fascism compares Hillary Clinton to both Hitler and Mussolini. Dude, Jonah Goldberg is a laughingstock, a punch line.

    But don’t take my word for it, take your newfound boy Jonny Stew’s.

    Ooh, here’s the Financial Times chiming in:

    Ever since the “Reagan revolution”, conservative intellectuals have dominated the battle of ideas in American politics. But the success of Jonah Goldberg’s silly book, Liberal Fascism, suggests that American conservatism may now be in some intellectual trouble. The book has done well in the United States. It reached number three on The New York Times bestseller list. Yet it is dedicated to an absurd proposition – that American liberals are the direct ideological heirs of Mussolini, Hitler and Franco. This is the kind of ya-boo politics that has deformed American talk radio for years. But it is depressing that you can get a bestseller out of such nonsense.

    Goldberg is not a stupid man. A pundit and commentator, he writes fluently and occasionally amusingly – and he has read lots of books about fascism. The opening pages of his own work are a quasi-learned dissection of the central tenets of fascism. But the purpose of the book is not to understand fascism. It is to discredit American liberals. Goldberg piles example upon example, to draw harebrained comparisons between American liberals and fascists. Liberals buy organic food. But did you know that “Dachau hosted the world’s largest alternative and organic medicine research lab and produced its own organic honey”? Well, I never.

    Over the course of almost 500 pages, Liberal Fascism pursues a tedious argument of insidious intent to lead us to an overwhelmingly stupid question: “Was Bill Clinton a fascist president?” Surprisingly, the answer to this question is No. Clinton, it seems, wasn’t even good enough to deserve the label fascist: “To say that he was a fascist himself is to credit him with more ideology and principle than justified.”

    [...]

    At the end of his book, Goldberg encapsulates his anger at the unfairness of American liberals by recalling with approval an exchange between Gore Vidal, the leftwing novelist, and the late William F. Buckley, who founded the conservative National Review (a publication that now boasts Goldberg as a contributing editor): “In 1968, in a televised debate, Gore Vidal continually goaded William F. Buckley, eventually calling him a ‘crypto-Nazi’. Vidal himself is an open homosexual, a pagan, a statist and a conspiracy theorist. Buckley, a patriotic, free-market, anti-totalitarian gentleman of impeccably good manners, could take it no more and responded: ‘Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in the Goddam face and you’ll stay plastered.’”

    Buckley himself swiftly regretted his outburst. Goldberg has taken it as the inspiration to write an entire book.

    If Goldberg’s book were the best that American conservatism had to offer, the outlook for the American right would be extremely gloomy.

    Or does the FT have a Liberal Bias like Reality and Facts?

    tbogg has much, much more. And it’s intentionally funny too!

  8. Indeed says:

    Right. This also proves, for certain, that McDonald’s hamburgers are superior to Winstead’s. Or that Allah is the one true God.

    But what can you do? Weak, ideologically-guided thinking breeds more of the same. And it’s sooooooooooo easy to mock and shoot down. So easy.

  9. Dennis says:

    Mark Helprin, anotherbozo.

  10. Yes, the coalition that elected president Obama is at about 56% of the population.

  11. Because clearly what I write about is what the White House is working on sheesh. And at least you admit Redstate is third-rate, though that might be overstating it a bit.

  12. Dennis says:

    The Huckster trails Obama by three points, Oliver.

    Mike Huckabee. 3 points.

    People are bummed. Obama just basically told all the people he’s disenfranchised and left jobless the last few months to start watching Fox News.

  13. mambochicken23 says:

    Obama just basically told all the people he’s disenfranchised and left jobless the last few months to start watching Fox News.

    Oh, shut the fuck up, Dennis.

  14. The Dark Avenger says:

    Goldberg’s quote demonstrates he knows nothing about Gore Vidals’ approach to sex(Vidal always prefered “Homosexualist” to homosexual as a term of reference)and that he’s a know-nothing in general.

  15. Tater Salad says:

    Obama Sends A (Love) Note To Cuba
    October 25th, 2009
    From those fans of dictators of all stripes at Reuters:

    Ecuador’s Vice President Lenin Moreno Garces (L) puts a medal thanking Cuba for medical help to Ecuador on former Cuban President Fidel Castro in Havana during a meeting October 20, 2009.
    Obama asked Spain to deliver message to Cuba: report
    MADRID (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama asked Spain to send Cuba a message about reform when he met Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero earlier this month, the newspaper El Pais reported on Sunday.

    Six days after their meeting on October 13 at the White House, Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos visited the Caribbean island and met President Raul Castro.

    “Have (Moratinos) tell the Cuban authorities we understand that change can’t happen overnight, but down the road, when we look back at this time, it should be clear that now is when those changes began,” Obama told Zapatero, according to diplomatic sources quoted by El Pais.

    “We’re taking steps, but if they don’t take steps too, it’s going to be very hard for us to continue,” Obama said.

    Obama has pledged a “new beginning” in ties with Cuba as part of a new era of U.S. partnership and engagement with Latin America and the Caribbean…

    Moratinos met Castro on October 19 and said the communist leader had affirmed his commitment to economic reform and expressed his desire to continue improving relations with the United States…

    It should be clear that Mr. Obama is more than willing to meet the Castros half war.

    Painfully clear

  16. Jesse Ewiak says:

    The thing is, there are plenty of good books by conservatives. Starting with Goldberg’s wingnut welfare-funded piece of crap just shoots the idea in the head from day once.

  17. Tater Salad says:

    Does this make anyone laugh?

    http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=14939

  18. Indeed says:

    More great stuff here, you know, a reminder:
    http://crookedtimber.org/2008/01/02/heil-myself-and-other-rude-goldberg-devices/

    One highlight from the lengthy piece:

    Jeet Heer (whose anthology, Arguing Comics, is really good!) has been doing some digging through the archives:

    Since its founding in 1955, National Review has been a haven for writers who are, if not fascists tout court, certainly fascist fellow travellers.

    Let’s put it this way: if Woodrow Wilson and Hillary Clinton are fascists then what word do we have for those who admired Francisco Franco? When the Spanish tyrant died in 1975, National Review published two effusive obituaries. F.R. Buckley (brother to National Review founder William F. Buckley) hailed Franco as “a Spaniard out of the heroic annals of the nation, a giant. He will be truly mourned by Spain because with all his heart and might and soul, he loved his country, and in the vast context of Spanish history, did well by it.” James Burnham simply argued that “Francisco Franco was our century’s most successful ruler.” (Both quotes are from the November 21, 1975 issue). Aside from F.R. Buckley and Burnham, many of the early National Reviewers were ardent admirers of Franco’s Spain, which they saw as an authentically Catholic nation free from the vices supposedly gripping the United States and the northern European countries. National Review stalwarts like Frederick Wilhelmsen, Arnold Lunn, and L. Brent Bozell, Jr. made pilgrimages to Spain, finding spiritual nourishment in the dictatorship’s seemingly steadfast Catholicism.

    The really twisted side National Review’s philo-fascism came through in 1961 when Israel captured Adolph Eichmann, a leading Nazi, and tried him for crimes against humanity. National Review did everything they could editorially to offer extenuating arguments against the prosecution of Eichmann, arguing that he was being subjected to a “show trial”, that this was post facto justice, that pursuing Nazi crimes would weaken the Western alliance and further the cause of communism. As the magazine editorialized on April 22, 1961, the trial of Eichmann was a “lurid extravaganza” leading to “bitterness, distrust, the refusal to forgive, the advancement of Communist aims, [and] the cultivation of pacifism.” (The editors didn’t consider that a mere 16 years after the death camps were liberated, a “refusal to forgive” the architects of genocide might be understandable).

    But perhaps because more people read the National Enquirer than Crooked Timber, it’s, like, totally better. Or something.

  19. deus ex machina says:

    “What I stated was, that the Conservative Party was, by the law of its constitution, necessarily the stupidest party. Now, I do not retract that assertion; but I did not mean to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.”

    John Stuart Mill, Public and Parliamentary Speeches, 31 May 1866.

  20. kth says:

    Said to be a fine novelist, but he’s definitely a stone wingnut politically. So. Yes. Bozo. Like you.

  21. jr says:

    Will there be more affirmative action jokes?

  22. Dennis says:

    Even the feminist groups are bummed at this guy, mambo:

    NOW President on President Obama’s All-Male Athletic Outings: ‘It’s Troubling’

    That’s a bigger rebuke than they gave Clinton for the whole serial groping thing.

  23. Indeed says:

    Concern Troll. So concerned.

  24. mambochicken23 says:

    This quote makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

  25. mambochicken23 says:

    Even the feminist groups are bummed at this guy, mambo

    What’s your point? I told you to shut up because of the dishonest and stupid way that you phrased your prior comment. And you KNOW it was dishonest and stupid.

    You want to make a point about people being disappointed in Obama’s job performance? Go ahead and make it. But don’t expect me to take you seriously when you say things like “Obama just basically told all the people he’s disenfranchised and left jobless the last few months to start watching Fox News.”

    Seriously.

  26. Dennis says:

    Ok, don’t just take my word for it, mambo:

    How about the LA Times?

    Fox News relishes Obama administration scorn

    But the White House’s stance also gave extra lift to the network at a time when it is on track to record its best ratings year ever. This year, Fox News has averaged nearly 1.2 million viewers across all its programming, a 16% increase over the same period last year, according to Nielsen. In the two weeks since aides to President Obama took after the coverage, the audience has been 8% larger than the previous two weeks.

    If anything, the Obama administration has succeeded in reinforcing Fox News’ identity as a thorn in the side of the establishment — a role the network loves to play.

    Who do you think comprises this influx of viewers, mambo?

    The right? They’re already tuning in.

    The Left? Obama made them hate the station even more and forced them to give up their princples of free speech to support him.

    It’s the indies and center-left, and if you need verification that these groups are feeling disenfranchised and/or are jobless, let me know.

  27. Paul_D says:

    It should be clear that Mr. Obama is more than willing to meet the Castros half war.

    Right on! Assassination attempts, half-assed beachhead invasions, airline bombings, industrial sabotage and embargos will soon someday topple the Castro regime -look how well that’s worked for the last 50 years!

  28. Indeed says:

    Indeed:
    http://www.google.com/reader/view/?tab=my#stream/feed%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fmediamatters.org%2Ftools%2Fsyndication%2Fcountyfair.rss

    LA Times: Fox News isn’t legit, but WH was wrong to say so

    As the MSM commentary of the Fox News/WH ‘debate’ continues to deaden the senses, with its now almost comical uniformity of how horribly wrong the administration is for fact-checking Fox News, the Los Angeles Times’ Tim Rutten’s belated, yet predictable, entry to the genre caught our attention if only for this passage:

    Even though the White House is right on the merits when it describes Fox News as operating mainly as a surrogate for the Republican Party, making an issue of that fact is a tactical mistake.

    Are you following? Rutten comes right out and concedes that the White House is right on the facts; that Fox News is not a legitimate source of journalism. In fact, according to the newspaper’s columnist, Fox News consists of “long stretches of editorial comment, conservative and pro-Republican, interspersed with snippets of normative reporting.”

    Wow. That’s exactly the point the White House has been making. But Rutten isn’t interested in holding the news media outlet accountable for his unprofessional brand of partisan reporting. Rutten, like virtually every pundits on the planet, is sure it’s the White House that’s out of line with its critique.

    Incredibly, Rutten agrees with the critique. Rutten agrees that Fox News is essentially a propaganda outlet for the RNC. Rutten just doesn’t think it made sense tactically for the White House to highlight that fact publicly.

  29. john says:

    It is a very serious, thoughtful list that has never been made in such detail or with such care.

  30. Amused Observer says:

    Who would have ever thought that a book equating fascism with liberalism would be unpopular on a far left website? Even stranger is the definition of fascism has many parallels with the current liberal administration.

    Fascism;
    a system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism

    With the exception of the last portion regarding belligerant nationalism and militarism, Obama does’t really have enough pride in his alleged homeland to qualify for the former or the balls for the latter, everything else seems to fit given the constraints he has to work with. Sure the suppression of the opposition isn’t forced but the will to do that is there just not the means. The private enterprise under centralized government control project is proceedingly nicely.

    LOL, the biggest difference between Obama and Mussolini is Mussolini got the trains to run on time, Obama would federalize the rails, turn them over to SEIU and slow them down.

  31. john says:

    We have rails, they are not “federalized.” Indeed, we don’t have nearly enough of them.

    What would happen is that Obama would propose more rails to meet current needs, some conservative would say that Mussolini talked about rails, another conservative would say that ACORN runs amtrak because they both have offices in Baltimore, and that the whole thing is a communist plot.

  32. mambochicken23 says:

    Who do you think comprises this influx of viewers, mambo?

    I don’t give a shit.

    The right? They’re already tuning in.

    Anyone who takes Fox News seriously as a news organization is an idiot. There, I said it.

    The Left? Obama made them hate the station even more and forced them to give up their princples of free speech to support him.

    Lies, all lies, Dennis. Obama is not forcing anyone to give up their principles of free speech. This is complete nonsense.

    It’s the indies and center-left, and if you need verification that these groups are feeling disenfranchised and/or are jobless, let me know.

    I objected to your claim that Obama personally left them disenfranchised and jobless, like he went around the country and fired people. It’s dishonest and stupid.

    Here’s a problem: There’s no control to know how unemployment would be if someone else was at the helm of the Presidency. You compare the unemployment rate now as compared to immediately prior to Obama’s taking office – the issue is that it’s not a fair comparison. There are almost certainly other factors that impact joblessness differentially than who is President. There’s little reason to suspect that unemployment rates would be any better or worse under a Republican president at this point in time.

    I doubt you are capable of grasping this, however, so keep crowing about how the unemployment rate is high and how that’s awesome for the Republicans. If it turns around, and unemployment goes down, I suspect that you will be as silent as a mouse. Just like what happened with your commentary on the Dow earlier this year.

  33. mambochicken23 says:

    Ah, damn. Stupid html.

    I objected to your claim that Obama personally left them disenfranchised and jobless, like he went around the country and fired people. It’s dishonest and stupid.

    Here’s a problem: There’s no control to know how unemployment would be if someone else was at the helm of the Presidency. You compare the unemployment rate now as compared to immediately prior to Obama’s taking office – the issue is that it’s not a fair comparison. There are almost certainly other factors that impact joblessness differentially than who is President. There’s little reason to suspect that unemployment rates would be any better or worse under a Republican president at this point in time.

    I doubt you are capable of grasping this, however, so keep crowing about how the unemployment rate is high and how that’s awesome for the Republicans. If it turns around, and unemployment goes down, I suspect that you will be as silent as a mouse. Just like what happened with your commentary on the Dow earlier this year.

  34. mambochicken23 says:

    You’re just not that bright, are you, AO?

  35. You guys are gonna be really bummed in 2012 when America votes CommieSocialistMuslim.

  36. Pryme says:

    When I saw the part about “books” I really thought they were talking about classic authors making sound arguments for conservatism. I should have known it was basically mental regurgitation.

  37. Quaker in a Basement says:

    Winstead’s?!?

    OMG, what I wouldn’t give for a Winstead’s double right now.

  38. Bobby Thomson says:

    I take issue with the FT’s claim that Goldberg is not a stupid man, or that he has actually read several books about fascism himself. Goldberg was mocked mercilessly when he asked his readers for help on his “homework.”

  39. Jaim says:

    Good luck finding your way out of the forest with lightweights like Jonah Goldberg. Obama couldn’t ask for a better set-up for 2012.

  40. calling all toasters says:

    Next on the reading list of deeply philosophical conservative works: either “Going Rogue” or the Classic Comics version of “Gunga Din.”

  41. Jaim says:

    Nice use of 한국어 by the way.

  42. Amused Observer says:

    Say how are the voting numbers looking in old virginni right about now. You guys forget about the old pendulum model. Political shifts are not linear and perpetual, they’re cyclical. Folks that don’t remember that, that’s what makes me laugh.

  43. barstoolcadaver says:

    I was so certain it was the whipping cream gas that made him laugh so.

  44. They also rely on candidates. Deeds has been pretty weak to date. I wouldn’t extrapolate too much out of it.