Posted on 08/07/2002 6:07:59 AM PDT by Clive
I was at an airport for two or three or nine hours the other day and so, having exhausted USA Today, The Pocatello Indicator, and Utah Bondage Contacts Monthly, I gave in and bought The New York Times. The news section had a profile of Colin Powell by Todd S. Purdum, who had been given special access to the Secretary of State. All seems to have gone swimmingly, except that evidently Mr. Purdum found it somewhat difficult to write while simultaneously hanging off the General's zipper:
"As one of the world's most admired celebrities for more than a decade, with approval ratings that rival President Bush's, Secretary Powell has special status -- and singular political value -- in a Republican administration supposedly eager to demonstrate its commitment to compassionate conservatism."
Any idea what that means? It's "compassionate" to make "one of the world's most admired celebrities" Secretary of State? And what's that "supposedly" doing in there? Is Todd saying that the Administration's "eagerness" to "demonstrate" its "commitment" is fake? That they're just pretending to be eager about demonstrating their commitment but in reality they'd rather be undemonstrative about their commitment? No matter. The point is Republican motives are always suspect. Whether it's the compassionate conservatism that's suspect or their commitment to it or their demonstration of their commitment or their eagerness to demonstrate it, it always helps to have a "supposedly" in there somewhere.
I must confess I'd initially confused Todd Purdum with his near namesake Edmund Purdom, who starred in The Student Prince (MGM, 1954) with his singing voice dubbed by Mario Lanza. Like Edmund, Todd has an uncanny ability to stand there open-mouthed while the old favourites just pour out effortlessly:
"Mr Powell's approach to almost all issues -- foreign or domestic -- is pragmatic and nonideological. He is internationalist, multilateralist and moderate. He has supported abortion rights and affirmative action and is a Republican, many supporters say, in no small measure because Republican officials mentored and promoted him for years."
So supporting "internationalism," "multilateralism," abortion and racial quotas means you're "moderate" and "nonideological"? And anyone who feels differently is an extreme ideologue? Absolutely. The New York Times is rarely so explicit, at least in its "news" pages, but the aim of a large swathe of the left is not to win the debate but to get it cancelled before it starts. You can do that in any number of ways -- busting up campus appearances by conservatives, "hate crimes" laws, Canada's ghastly human-rights commissions, the more "enlightened" court judgments, the EU's recent decision to criminalize "xenophobia," or merely, as the Times does, by declaring your side of every issue to be the "moderate" and "nonideological" position. As Elizabeth Nickson pointed out in her magnificent column on Friday, if you're a Minister of the Crown in Ottawa the preferred tactic for dealing with the mildest criticism is to denounce your opponents as Klansmen and Holocaust deniers. This is somewhat cruder, as befits Da Liddle Guy's style of government, but is in line with the general trend -- different tactics but the same aim: to rule certain issues beyond debate, and thus render the conservative position if not illegal than at any rate unmentionable.
Miss Nickson, in noting the number of right-wing bestsellers, also reminded me of why I loathe those small bookstores we're all supposed to prefer over the big-box impersonal chains. I used to date a gal in Burlington, Vermont. She was swell, but the one bookstore in that quintessential latte burg drove me nuts. There's a whole category of books they ought to call "Bestsellers That Are Entirely Unavailable In American College Towns": Rush, Dr. Laura, anything by anybody on Fox News. You might as well be asking for "One Hundred Great Yak Recipes From Bhutan" in the original Bhutanese. Actually, it's worse than that. You might as well be asking for "One Hundred Great Bhutanese Catamites Under Nine" for the looks you get if you enquire about any book on Ronald Reagan that doesn't assume he was an economic illiterate and nuke-crazy airhead.
Fortunately, in Burlington, Barnes & Noble opened up on the edge of town, and the small personal bookstore attuned to the needs of its customers closed down almost immediately. So now, instead of the allegedly charmingly quirky independent bookseller with his idiosyncratic tastes, everything's ordered by some computer in New Mexico or Bangladesh or wherever the hell it is. Result: not only is the gay and lesbian section much bigger but you can get Rush and Dr. Laura, too.
That's all I ask, really. That the left stop pretending all these things have been settled, and anyone who disagrees is a racist sexist homophobe hater. Take Todd Purdum and his Powell paean. Now I'm sure Todd sincerely believes his views on everything are really non-partisan, and it's only the other side who are being partisan. But the majority of Americans are not "internationalist" or "multilateral," at least not if that means letting Kofi Annan and the EU have a veto on the next moves in the war of terror. The majority of Americans are opposed to racial preferences. They're about evenly divided on abortion in general, but 86% oppose third-trimester abortion, and 82% favour letting the parents know before allowing a minor to have an abortion.
Yet if you're a Bush judicial nominee who's ruled in favour of parental notification you'll be denounced by Planned Parenthood as an "anti-choice extremist." It's you and the rest of your 82% who are extremist and ideological and hopelessly out of step with the moderate, nonideological, pragmatic 18%. Amazingly, this line -- attacking the messenger not the message -- works very well for the left north and south of the border and across most of western Europe. That's why conservatives so often have winning issues without actually winning.
Meanwhile, the left has an hilarious bumper sticker: "Celebrate Diversity." In the newsrooms of America, they celebrate diversity of race, diversity of gender, diversity of orientation, diversity of everything except the only diversity that matters: diversity of thought. In Canada, the ruthless homogeneity of diversity is even more advanced. Someone asked me recently why I hardly ever write about domestic politics these days. As James Baker said of the Balkans, I don't have a dog in this fight. The "gay marriage" argument sums up Canadian politics very nicely: All the action's between the Liberal government and an even more "progressive" court. The court stakes out its turf, the government adopts a position a smidgeonette to the right of the court, and thereby claims to be pragmatic, moderate, a restraining influence on judicial activism. The role of the conservative movement in all this is totally irrelevant, though from time to time some obscure western backbencher will sportingly offer some off-the-cuff soundbite enabling him to be denounced as a homophobic cross-burning Holocaust denier.
As I understand it, Stephen Harper's strategy is mostly a negative one -- to avoid getting demonized in the hope that Chrétien and Martin and the rest of the gang will eventually turn on each other in some Quentin Tarantino-like bloodbath. Then he'll be left standing and he'll be able to institute his extreme conservative agenda of, er, holding the tax rate under 60%.
Harper has a point. The cultural isolation of the right in Canada, Europe and even America is such that we mostly have little choice but to wait for the left to collapse, as the Marxists used to say, under its own internal contradictions. But that's going to be a long wait. On everything from Indian policy to education, ideological purity now trumps even the most obvious failures in practice. Environmental groups devastate the environment: prohibit logging and you lose far more trees to forest fires than the most maniacal clearcutter could chop down. But the eco-nuts are still the good guys. Political coverage is a soap that never gets beyond typecasting.
You'll notice, incidentally, that I haven't used the word "liberal" to describe the left. "Conservative" has been carelessly appropriated by the media to mean no more than the side you're not meant to like. John Ashcroft is a hardline conservative, but so, according to the press, is the Taliban and half the Chinese politburo and the crankier Ayatollahs. So I think we conservatives ought to make an attempt to reclaim the word "liberal." We believe in liberty, and in liberating human potential. I don't know what you'd call a political culture that reduces voters to dependents, that tells religious institutions whom they can hire, that instructs printers on what printing jobs they're obliged to accept, that bans squeegee kids unless they're undercover policemen checking on whether you're wearing your seatbelt, etc., etc. But "liberal" no longer seems to cover it.
I don't know the situation in Canada, but he certainly described the GOP strategy to a "T."
The GOP offered up Bob Dole in 96 in the vain hope that Bill Clinton would die of herpes before election day.
It startles people, but sometimes it makes them think (which is a new feeling for them).
Steyn.
I hope the rest of the country appreciates him as we do here at FreeRepublic.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
Damn, even when he is obscure, this guy is good!
Read that EXCELLENT column here. Or read the original at the National Post, Slander is the sum of socialist politics.
The left better pray that some charismatic individual doesn't come along and rally their opponents. The results won't be pretty.
Pinging the Steyn list.
;-D
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.