Does the Stupid Party Have to be This Stupid

Catholic Exchange ^ | 10/20/08 | Mary Kochan

[Mary Kochan]

John Stuart Mills famously called the English conservatives of his day “necessarily the stupidest party.”

Now, I know that a lot of people would take exception, and some would take umbrage, at the notion that John McCain (current “standard bearer”) and the current Republican administration (and/or party leadership) represent anything like conservatism, regardless of how stupid they have been. But relatively speaking, in comparison with the other national party, and according to their own claims, they are the conservative party and true to form, they seem hell-bent on making sure they don’t challenge the “stupid” appellation.

[Tax-chick]

Do you mean “John Stuart Mill,” the 19th century political philosopher?

[Rudder]

Do you mean “John Stuart Mill,” the 19th century political philosopher?No, the lead singer with the Mills Brothers.

[3AngelaD]

Oh. I thought it was Hayley’s father.

[Revolting cat!]

This dude! Sheesh!

[Tax-chick]

That man can't be one of the Mills Brothers.

[Mary Kochan]

A-a-a-u-g-h!!! Thanks for catching that. I have changed it on the original now. Is there any way for me to change it here?

Anyway, hope that won’t keep you from reading the whole thing.

[Tax-chick]

We were just having a little fun :-). Admin moderators will sometimes change an erroneous title, but usually not the text of a post.

[Mary Kochan]

Well please let me know what you thought of the article and if you think it is good, please share it with others. But please share from CE instead of from here so the corrected one gets out.

Thanks so much.

[Tax-chick]

Just to not be a quibbling nitpicker, I went and read the whole piece. Not bad. I agree that our candidates seem unable to nail their positions firmly to first principles. On the other hand, Alan Keyes is great at that, and his success at achieving elective office is ... waiting ... *crickets*

It's worth noting, since you brought up Mr. Mill, that the "conservatives" of his day were rather sensible types, while J.S. Mill was a wild-eyed "scientific" radical. Think Al Gore and his "scientific consensus."

In other words, he considered them "stupid" because they disagreed with him, just as the self-proclaimed geniuses of today's Democrat (and Republican) elite consider us stupid because we won't abort our babies or send our sons to Gay Camp.

You seem, from this line, Why did they get Bill and Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama, while conservatives ended up with George Bush, John McCain and Sarah Palin? to believe that Democrat candidates are objectively more intelligent than Republican candidates; however, the evidence to back that up - rather than bald assertion - is mighty thin. Barak Obama's LSAT scores, anyone? Brilliant writings of the Clintons? Outstanding inventions or accomplishments? Mastery of classical or Biblical Greek?

*crickets*

[Mary Kochan]

I think that Mill’s point was larger, but it really is not germiane to my point. I am not saying that conservatives are any dumber than liberals. Or that liberals are smarter. My issue is with the presentation of arguments — or their non-presentation — in the public square.

I agree that Alan Keyes can do that. Keyes’ political problem has nothing to do with articulation, obviously, but that doesn’t let McCain off the hook.

[Tax-chick]

I think that Mill’s point was larger, but it really is not germaine to my point. I am not saying that conservatives are any dumber than liberals. Or that liberals are smarter.

Now I'm confused. If John Stuart Mill's political philosophy is not relevant to your point, then I assume you used the quote simply to introduce the phrase "stupid party." "Stupid" is universally held to mean, "Not as intelligent as (the person describing someone else as 'stupid'."

Since you say your point is the poor articulation of conservative principles by Republican candidates - with which point I fervently agree - perhaps you could totally rewrite the essay to make *that* point clearly and appropriately.

[Mary Kochan]

Yes, because “stupid party” is generally understood to mean “conservative.” And I am pointing out political, not intellectual, stupidity.

Thanks for reading it and commenting. God bless you.

[Tax-chick]

Best wishes.

[x]

Why is it that with all the terrific conservative writers and speakers in this county, conservatives cannot seem to field a single national figure since Reagan who could string together a coherent, sustained argument for conservative principles? Or forget a coherent, sustained argument. I’d settle for single coherent sentence.

Most of the time people are disappointed with politicians. The same complaints about Bush were made when Bush I or Ford or Eisenhower were in the White House. Democrats spent years looking for another FDR. And Bill Clinton was never as good a speaker as people pretend nowadays. I'm not saying politicians now are good or great, just that the average is always pretty low.

[Tax-chick]

Bill Clinton communicated marvelously! His unmistakable message was, “Money for nothing and the chicks are free!”

Hillary? Fuggedaboutit. She’s the mean high school civics teacher who “accidentally” clonked you with a clipboard if you fell asleep. Obviously, “I deserve to be President for putting up with that slimeball all these years,” wasn’t a winning message even among Democrat voters.