Eummy's Happy Funtime Uncle Jonah Goldberg Adventure Thread

[eumaas]

http://liberalfascism.nationalreview.com/

Obama at the 9/11 Forum Thing

When the transcript is up, I'll publish the excerpt. But readers of my book — who are actually watching this — should have immediately recognized the moral equivalent of war argument in Obama's opening remarks. In short, he wants to recreate the spirit after 9/11 — just without 9/11. He wants Americans to act like they did when we felt we were under attack and at war, but just without war.

Two points:

1) This is the century old American progressive project, pure and simple. Create a climate where everyone joins in a collective, state-run or directed, effort without the external threat of actual war. This Jamesian vision was the galvanizing principle behind progressivism and fascism alike, and they endure today — and we call them noble.

2) It can't be done. You cannot sustain a civil society war footing without a war (or natural disaster) for long before people (rightly) return to their own lives.

[eumaas]

What, no ire from Hooky?

[Dr. Medulla]

I don't know the exact context or material from Obama's speech to which Jonah the Whale is referring, so I can't really respond. I mean, the clumsy generalities of a monolithic progressive project that is stealth collectivization is so heavy handed as to be laughable. There are varying strains left of centre that contradict just as there are on the right. That kind of monolithic talk isn't worth refuting. The second point is essentially true, but I have no idea how it's connected to Obama (other than in Jonah's flabby brain).

[eumaas]

I don't know the exact context or material from Obama's speech to which Jonah the Whale is referring, so I can't really respond. I mean, the clumsy generalities of a monolithic progressive project that is stealth collectivization is so heavy handed as to be laughable. There are varying strains left of centre that contradict just as there are on the right. That kind of monolithic talk isn't worth refuting. The second point is essentially true, but I have no idea how it's connected to Obama (other than in Jonah's flabby brain).

I just think it's funny because the Repubs do it with a war and apparently it's just as noble.

Also ignores that the Nazis did it with war too.

[Dr. Medulla]

I don't know the exact context or material from Obama's speech to which Jonah the Whale is referring, so I can't really respond. I mean, the clumsy generalities of a monolithic progressive project that is stealth collectivization is so heavy handed as to be laughable. There are varying strains left of centre that contradict just as there are on the right. That kind of monolithic talk isn't worth refuting. The second point is essentially true, but I have no idea how it's connected to Obama (other than in Jonah's flabby brain).

I just think it's funny because the Repubs do it with a war and apparently it's just as noble.

Also ignores that the Nazis did it with war too.

But the Nazis were extreme liberals in Jonah's world, no? My guess is that Jonah would defend it by connecting war with survival, and so that kind of collective purpose is justified, whereas when liberals want it, it's to destroy society.

[eumaas]

I don't know the exact context or material from Obama's speech to which Jonah the Whale is referring, so I can't really respond. I mean, the clumsy generalities of a monolithic progressive project that is stealth collectivization is so heavy handed as to be laughable. There are varying strains left of centre that contradict just as there are on the right. That kind of monolithic talk isn't worth refuting. The second point is essentially true, but I have no idea how it's connected to Obama (other than in Jonah's flabby brain).

I just think it's funny because the Repubs do it with a war and apparently it's just as noble.

Also ignores that the Nazis did it with war too.

But the Nazis were extreme liberals in Jonah's world, no? My guess is that Jonah would defend it by connecting war with survival, and so that kind of collective purpose is justified, whereas when liberals want it, it's to destroy society.

Ah yes. War spending is pro-freedom, healthcare and education spending are anti-freedom.

[Dr. Medulla]

I don't know the exact context or material from Obama's speech to which Jonah the Whale is referring, so I can't really respond. I mean, the clumsy generalities of a monolithic progressive project that is stealth collectivization is so heavy handed as to be laughable. There are varying strains left of centre that contradict just as there are on the right. That kind of monolithic talk isn't worth refuting. The second point is essentially true, but I have no idea how it's connected to Obama (other than in Jonah's flabby brain).

I just think it's funny because the Repubs do it with a war and apparently it's just as noble.

Also ignores that the Nazis did it with war too.

But the Nazis were extreme liberals in Jonah's world, no? My guess is that Jonah would defend it by connecting war with survival, and so that kind of collective purpose is justified, whereas when liberals want it, it's to destroy society.

Ah yes. War spending is pro-freedom, healthcare and education spending are anti-freedom.

I often read lefty pieces that detail all the things that could have been achieved with the trillions spent in Iraq—everyone gets a college education, cancer cured, etc. Um, why would you assume that any of that money would have been available for those projects? Sorry that kind of cash is only available to arms suppliers and mercenaries.

[IkarisOne]

Jonah Goldberg is a joke to every serious conservative. He's the embodiment of how low the Republicans have sunk since the Gingrich Era and into the present day.

[Wolter]

Jonah Goldberg is a joke to every serious conservative. He's the embodiment of how low the Republicans have sunk since the Gingrich Era and into the present day.

The sad (scary?) thing: I have met a lot of (supposedly) intelligent and (ostensibly) mainstream Republicans that defend him. And these aren't the wacky Charlie Biblethumps of my SC youth. These are mostly fiscal conservatives/social moderates from the Chicago area that can converse intelligently and respectfully on a lot of topics where we disagree.

In a way, that scares me more.

[eumaas]

http://liberalfascism.nationalreview.co ... FiYzJmNDY=

Interesting:

The posting on your Liberal Fascism blog about Tolkien and fascism reminded me of an intriguing passage in one of JRR's letters that I cannot resist sharing. He wrote the following in 1943 to his 18-year-old son who had just been called up into the Royal Air Force:

"My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs).... I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inanimate realm of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could get back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so as to refer to people. If people were in the habit of referring to 'King George's council, Winston and his gang,' it would go a long way to clearing thought, and reducing the frightful slide into Theyocracy.

"Anyway the proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity. And at least it is done only to a small group of men who know who their master is. The medievals were only too right in taking 'nolo episcopari' ['I do not wish to be made a bishop'] as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop."

[Wolter]

http://liberalfascism.nationalreview.co ... FiYzJmNDY=

Interesting:

The posting on your Liberal Fascism blog about Tolkien and fascism reminded me of an intriguing passage in one of JRR's letters that I cannot resist sharing. He wrote the following in 1943 to his 18-year-old son who had just been called up into the Royal Air Force:

"My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs).... I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inanimate realm of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could get back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so as to refer to people. If people were in the habit of referring to 'King George's council, Winston and his gang,' it would go a long way to clearing thought, and reducing the frightful slide into Theyocracy.

"Anyway the proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity. And at least it is done only to a small group of men who know who their master is. The medievals were only too right in taking 'nolo episcopari' ['I do not wish to be made a bishop'] as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop."

Very interesting. It's odd to think that a conservative and relatively dogmatic Catholic would jibe so well with classical Taoism as well.

[eumaas]

Here's one for you, Hooks:
http://gregransom.com/prestopundit/2008 ... oment.html

[IkarisOne]

Real conservatives are deeply mistrustful of all forms of power. And finally, a lot of the smart conservatives are waking up to the fact that big business and big government are essentially contiguous. Which is why fat buffoons like Goldberg (or Rush or Beck or the Savage Weiner) are shoved down our throats by the media. I think we're going to be seeing an interesting evolution where principled leftists and rightists are going to find common cause. I'm not a big Ron Paul fan per se, but I was thrilled when he told his voters to boycott the duopoly. Obama is so jejune- there is zero doubt in my mind he'd fall under the war industry's sway if he wins.

[Dr. Medulla]

Here's one for you, Hooks:
http://gregransom.com/prestopundit/2008 ... oment.html

Heh, yes, that's from The Last Campaign. Some people see fascist (probably more from the crowd's reaction), whereas I see him invoking Jefferson. Which is rather depressing that it's at that point—fascist or Jeffersonian, who can tell?

[Dr. Medulla]

Jonah Goldberg is a joke to every serious conservative. He's the embodiment of how low the Republicans have sunk since the Gingrich Era and into the present day.

How Buckley must have rued what he'd sown. People like Goldberg, Coulter, Savage, and Limbaugh make me think of the adage(?) about the first generation building the fortune, the second consolidating power, and the third squandering it. I've been reading a lot of the political threads at volokh.com, which is supposed to be a fairly high-minded libertarian legal blog, but the convoluted efforts at defending McCain and especially Palin are stunning. The recent thread on Palin's ABC interview yesterday is especially remarkable. The right wing is like a wounded snarling animal right now. Sad but especially dangerous.