Sunday, September 07, 2008

The Cardinal Sin: Laughter In The GOP

One would have to be disengaged not to notice that the Democratic Party, and the party's scribes in the press, are really quite angry about the ascension of Sarah Palin. But it is not Sarah Palin that has them upset; it is not John McCain or George W. Bush or Mitt Romney or Rudy Guiliani that has the left in high dudgeon. It is not any one person or defined group that has given them fits. What has them so agitated is that the very visible Republican National Convention showed Republicans doing the worst of all possible things: It showed Republicans laughing at the Democratic Party and its candidate. And there really can be no greater sin.

Please take a few minutes to read the inane (and mostly insulting) comments of New York Times columnists Paul Krugman, Judith Warner, and (inane to a lesser degree) Bob Herbert. You should also read today's piece by the Times' Frank Rich, "Palin And McCain's Shotgun Marriage." I urge you to read these pieces because they prove two things: they prove that Mr. Krugman is wrong that Democrats, at least many Democrats, do not consider themselves elite, and they prove that Republican laughter is justified.

If we simply take as a starting point Mr. Krugman's apparent incredulity at the assertion that Democrats who propose to lead this country come across as elitists, and juxtapose this with the essays mentioned above drafted by his own colleagues, we end up not merely with a glaring contradiction. What we end up with is a rousing good joke. We end up with something to laugh at (even if we are not Republican). And we end up with something to pity.

The very title of Frank Rich's piece is condescension of the highest order. It is the sort of condescension one would expect to hear in the Hamptons, or perhaps over cocktails on a Montauk veranda. McCain and Palin -- a shotgun marriage? How funny! How cute, Mr. Rich! How clever and deft! How deliciously and naughtily adroit in an ironic and pleasing "get-the-dinner-guests-laughing" sort of way! (Of course, you prove that Paul Krugman must be in another room.) And that first line, Mr Rich. How daring and devilish! Who would have thought to describe John McCain as old? Brilliant. I love to hear you speak truth to power!

Ms. Warner's statements hardly help Mr. Krugman's defense of the indefensible. Nor do Mr. Herbert's. When Ms. Warner (she found Gov. Palin's nomination "nauseating"), suggests in an essay about Ms. Palin that women "are perhaps reaching historic lows in their comfort levels with themselves and their choices," you know you are not just hearing a malicious woman, you are hearing an elitist woman. But if you can't hear Ms. Warner's elitism, perhaps this quote will shout elitism loud and clear, and in a most vicious tone:
"Why does this woman [Sarah Palin] – who to some of us seems as fake as they can come, with her delicate infant son hauled out night after night under the klieg lights and her pregnant teenage daughter shamelessly instrumentalized for political purposes — deserve, to a unique extent among political women, to rank as so 'real?'"[emphasis added]
And this statement by Mr. Herbert is surely not issued from the muted bowels of intellectual lowliness, but from the voluble summit of smugness:
"If there were any good ideas at this convention of mostly rich and mostly right-wing delegates about how to haul the country out of this mess that the G.O.P. has gotten it into, they were kept well hidden. Perhaps they were tucked away behind the more prominently displayed creationism and “just-say-no to global warming” documents."

That "creationism" pokes its head up here is as funny, as twistedly funny, as Mr. Krugman's swipe about alleged Republican anger at the convention being in part fueled by "fundamentalists" ticked off about evolution and abortion (forget those pro-life Catholics, for they suggest so much more than "fundamentalists"). Surely the truly sophisticated among us know what these columnists are doing: they are reacting from their very high places, throwing out insults and code words all designed to make the smug even more smug (and playing on elitists' fears). And Republicans do, and should, find all this rather funny.

Sarah Palin laughed at Barack Obama on Wednesday night. She poked fun at him. She mocked his ridiculously lofty rhetoric. She pointed out his condescension: she held him to account for his own words about gun-clinging, Bible-hugging, embittered townies allegedly uncomfortable with differences in skin color. And on Thursday night, John McCain did the same thing. And they both did so in language that indicates something rather plainly: Republicans made Democrats look like a joke. (And I think this is the root of Bush/Cheney hatred, as both men have been known NOT to take their critics seriously, and have had the temerity to laugh at Democratic Party ideas and tactics.)

Paul Krugman is wrong about the politics of resentment, but only in part. There has never been a columnist, in my opinion, as resentful as Paul Krugman. Resentment is what he sells. But resentment is what his party sells, too. It is the very marrow of class and social warfare; resentment politics are what this election is about. But what Mr. Krugman does not realize is that Republican resentment is bred by men like Mr. Krugman. He -- and countless other pundits and wannbe pundits -- continually portray Republicans as a joke. All the Republicans are doing is demonstrating that they are sick of the gross misrepresentations about them manifested in print, in broadcast journalism, and in film. Republicans are tired of being the media's favorite caricatures, and they fought back in Minneapolis by enjoying a good laugh or two at the big corporation built around the Barack Obama brand.

What Mr. Krugman and his colleagues don't understand is that the reaction to Gov. Palin coursing through the media like a pandemic proves that the Democrats are ultimately a humorless, petulant bunch. They can dish it out, but they can never take it. That's always funny.

And what we are discovering in this political process is that what really galls the humorless Democrats is that Republican resentment manifests itself not as a grimace, but as a very toothy grin.


©2008. All Rights Reserved.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Speaking as one who resides in that vast wilderness which exists between Hoboken and Hollywood, I find it amazing that so many journalists/pundits and so forth refuse to actually visit the heartland to see what we're all about.

I just returned from church, a Southern Baptist Democrat stonghold, if the Obama bumper stickers are any indication. Yet, there were only good things being spoken about Governor Palin and mostly spoken by women who live in mobile homes, work two jobs, and have kids that are permanently lodged on our prayer lists. Governor Palin is someone they recognize. She is one of them. And they don't like how she's being treated.

Whether this disaffection will translate into votes for McCain, I cannot say. But I wonder whether Governor Palin has the potential cause defections in the Democratic Party in the same way Ronald Reagan did in the 80's. If so, history make look back on this time as a momentous shift in American politics.

Cheers.

Chris Wilson said...

Bill,

You have more ideas packed into your parenthetical asides than these hacks have in their whole piece.

It is evident to me that these cloistered upper east side liberal elitists are suprised that the pesky right wing culture warriors are back (as if they ever left!). They really need to get out more.

I don't know if you read Peggy Noonan's commentary this weekend, but it was interesting for two reasons: 1) The Democrats will now likely cast this election as War vs Peace (a Tolstoy), preferring to get Obama's resume off the minds of the American people, and 2) her last sentence, after going on about Sarah Palin, was positioned as a throw away line, but was in fact, very telling, "John McCain also made a speech. It was flat."

In the wake of the Sarah Palin nomination, John McCain has almost been reduced to an irrelevancy, which to the point of your blog post, is no laughing matter. John McCain cannot allow this election to be about his running mate. He needs to bring ideas and authority to the table or Obama, the rhetoritician extraordinaire, will clean his clock, and the liberal media attack dogs will help him do it.

Peace,

Chris

Bill Gnade said...

Dear Chris,

I did read Peggy Noonan's piece, and I thought she made some very fine points. I am not sure Sen. McCain's speech was all that flat; maybe it was not particularly peaked -- more like a rolling countryside -- but I don't think it flat. Of course, flat can be quite lofty: most of the mountains of New Hampshire are not as high as the Great Plains. But I wander.

I want you to know that I appreciate your concerns that Gov. Palin was a bad choice. I have begun to have second thoughts myself, but my reasons are probably quite different from your own. Perhaps I will comment about it in the next few days.

Peace,

BG

Bill Gnade said...

Dear RS,

I believe that if the Democrats continue to spray spittle as they talk about Gov. Palin's lack of experience or her familial decisions, they will only foment outrage -- against themselves. I believe they must know this to be true, but they cannot help themselves. Their helplessness proves that they believe Gov. Palin is a major-league threat.

As hard as it is for them to believe, Democrats MUST remember that there is such a thing as a conservative Democrat.

Peace,

BG

Nick said...

Hi Bill, I find myself visiting your blog more and more lately and envying your writing skills (though I often disagree with you). Just wanted to share a post with you from evangelical Christian William Grigg's blog. It's titled Behold a Palin Horse . If you have any thoughts I would be interested in hearing them. My own views are libertarian rather than conservative or liberal and I don't care much for either major party. I have to say the GOP convention in my view (with the overt militarism and chants of "USA, USA") felt more like the Republican National Socialist Convention than it did anything resembling real small-government conservatism. Thanks.

Bill Gnade said...

Dear SE,

Thanks for the comment.

I am glad that you don't agree with me all the time. Egads, I don't agree with me all the time.

Your libertarian interests are fine in my book, even when I am afraid libertarianism can be rather partisan in its own way. I am an independent; in New Hampshire, where I live, that means I am "undeclared."

I, too, was uncomfortable with some of the chanting at the RNC, but I find that I have to let go of that. I don't know if you are aware that much of the chanting of "USA!" during Sen. McCain's speech was intended to drown out the voices of hecklers attempting to interrupt him. And only today I learned that one of the chants was "NBC!", which I hadn't noticed while watching; it came as a result of voiced discontent with the media.

Crowds, as you know, are given to chanting things; from rock concerts to pep rallies, people do get worked up. You should've seen me in high school at a basketball game: I'd sit as far from the cheering crowds as I could. I am cursed with being too self-analytical sometimes, though I am probably just telling myself such a flattery in an attempt to conceal that I am really too proud to be a member of any group, especially an enthusiastic one. I tell myself I am being wary when I am probably just being conceited.

As for the militarism, I have to confess that it does not bother me. It USED to bother me; when I was a college kid, nay, even when I was in my thirties, I had a real dislike for the military. But my eyes are opening to its culture -- and it is a culture, though not perfectly homogeneous -- and I find myself feeling as if I've missed out on something special. I can't explain myself here, but what I especially do not see is bellicosity or imperialism. What I see is the pride of service and sacrifice. I cannot at all relate to the sort of pain, suffering and surrender military families have endured, but I can see that they are powerfully bound together because of their many sacrifices. I am just bowled over by what many soldiers do, on and off the battlefield. The military has in its ranks, either caught in the fray or standing as alumni, some very serious and capable souls. My own pretentiousness got the better of me when I was young: I was a humanities snob, convinced I was doing something more important than my peers in the armed forces. I still love the humanities, but my recent and rather vague understanding of the military has made me hate my snobbery.

Peace to you,

BG

Chris Wilson said...

SE,

My god, the Nazi card again. I fail to see any correlation at all between what we saw at the RNC and National Socialism. The ease at which people level the charge of Nazism suggests a profound ignorance of the types of evil and inhumanity that were actually celebrated on the parade grounds at Nuremberg. Are you really suggesting that you see even the most superficial parallel here?

I'm not even a Republican and this offends me. Can we come up with other more relevant analogies?

Chris

Nick said...

Chris, I stole that line about the National Socialist Convention from the great Lew Rockwell, who certainly seems to detect something that smells like fascism in the Bush administration's expansion of executive power and disregard of the bill of rights that you fail to see. However, please note what I actually wrote: I have to say the GOP convention in my view...felt more like the Republican National Socialist Convention than it did anything resembling real small-government conservatism. It's a matter a degree and comparison, not exact analogy. Nowhere did I say that the worshipers of a powerful federal government (as long as Republicans are in charge) at the GOP convention were Nazis. But please remember that fascism doesn't necessarily happen over night, it can take over in smaller steps.

Bill, thank you for your reply. The argument isn't so much over disliking the military or those that choose military service, but the role of the military and whether it is really in our interests to have what amounts to a world empire. Much of what we see from what passes as "conservative" today seems to be more pro-war than pro defense and that's what I find appalling about the current state of the Republican party. While we were invading and occupying a country that did not attack us we also left our borders wide open for any terrorist to cross at will. So much for homeland security. Thanks.