Mar 15 2010
The Embracement Of Wallace/Palinism
Jonathan Rauch in the National Journal writes about the legacy of George Wallace and reminds us not only of the force that was George Wallace but that he was more than his racist statements.
Wallace’s national appeal, he states, came from ”a deep sense of grievance,” …. a feeling that elites “are not only screwing you over but at the same time they’re laughing at you, they’re looking down their noses at you.”
It is this sentiment Republicans have expressed of late. It is this grievance Sarah Palin, who Rauch likens to Wallace in her populist appeal, echoes from her speech lectern while evangelizing her talking points of big government elitists and aw shucks advice.
Her faux apostolic tirades may have broad appeal to the disenfranchised Christian Conservative Right but they and she fail to see the irony in her words as well as the lack of sound agenda. Palin rails against big government but provides only ambiguous solutions, she labels Democrats as elitists while earning an income far above her target audience’s earning capacity and while having a TV studio built in her house.
Furthermore, in her speeches, Palin, like Wallace, fail to “frame a coherent program or governing philosophy.”
Rauch closes his article with these thoughts:
“I am not saying that today’s Republicans are a bunch of Wallace clones. Or that everything Wallace did or said was wrong, or that Republicans should shun all of his themes just because he used them. I am saying three things.
First, with the important exception of race, not one of Wallace’s central themes, from his bristling nationalism and his court-bashing to his anti-intellectualism and his aggressive provincialism, would seem out of place at any major Republican gathering today.
Second, and again leaving race aside, any Republican politician who publicly renounced the Wallace playbook would be finished as a national leader.
Third, by becoming George Wallace’s party, the GOP is abandoning rather than embracing conservatism, and it is thereby mortgaging both its integrity and its political future. Wallaceism was not sufficiently mainstream or coherent to sustain a national party in 1968, and the same is true today.
Conservatism is wary of extremism and rage and anti-intellectualism, of demagoguery and incoherent revolutionary rhetoric. Wallace was a right-wing populist, not a conservative. The rise of his brand of pseudo-conservatism in Republican circles should alarm anyone who cares about the genuine article.”
Good points. Where I disagree, though, is his statement that conservatism is wary of extremism, rage, anti-intellectualism, demagoguery, and incoherent revolutionary rhetoric. Conservatism these days is all about rage and extremism, just read or listen to any right wing blog, radio station, TV station, or website and you will see the revolutionary and racist rhetoric is downright chilling and the call to arms blatant.
As to the anti-intellectualism, any wariness of that attribute dissipated the second Palin took the national stage with her insidious Machiavellian brand of incendiary idioms.
Further, conservatives seem to equate ‘elitist’ with ‘educated’ and in an attempt to distance themselves from that label make all manner of anti-intellectual statements like our President is not a citizen, is a socialist and is a Muslim. All statements that make about as much sense as a screen door on the bottom of a boat. Republicans do not seem to be distancing themselves from the Wallace/Palin brand of conservatism but are embracing only it’s toxicity. It is this, not conservatism itself, that is the most alarming.
|
Previous Post «« David Axelrod To GOP: Make My... |
Next Post WorldNetDaily's Bullet »» |
“Conservatism these days is all about rage and extremism, just read or listen to any right wing blog, radio station, TV station, or website and you will see the revolutionary and racist rhetoric is downright chilling and the call to arms blatant.”
…
Just one question:
Are you stupid?
[Reply]
@ Anomaly: Palin was stuck with $500K in debt due to legal fees. What would you do if you owed that much money? She is a popular albeit polarizing figure, but she has great future as a political pundit. With all the horrible insults and vicious attacks from the left you have one pissed off soccer Mom on your hands. Palin will be around to irritate you for some time.
You have said you don’t get Republicans. Let me be the first to tell you: You don’t get conservatism either.
[Reply]
I meant hockey mom. Sorry!
[Reply]
ChrisG
just one answer: No.
[Reply]
Rebel
Oh, I understand conservatives and Republicans extremely well. I did not say I ‘didn’t get them.’ The point of the piece is to point out the embrace of toxicity instead of topical discussion and moving the country forward.
[Reply]
@Janine: You can’t label all Conservatives, Republicans, and Rights “extremists”. Saying that was stupid and that was what I meant. But then again, that is what the left does. You put ALL into one box and use one label to describe it. Surely you can see that…I hope.
[Reply]
By the way, my site is right wing. Go through my entire site and pick out all the racism. You won’t find any because I do not support it. Just because I dislike what Obama is doing does not make me a racist. Use some common sense.
Are there extreme right wing racist blogs? Probably. But there are also extreme left wing blogs too.
And the Constitution actually supports revolution in the face of tyranny in government. That is what I support and that is why left wing people like you hate and despise the 2nd Amendment.
And as for Palin…the reason she is taking so much heat from liberals is because…she is right.
[Reply]
Janine – Nothing I have observed in your extensive body of commentary would give me any reason to think you understand “Conservatives and Republicans” at all. Let alone “extremely well.”
To the contrary, your commentary suggests an inherent lack of ability to even discuss the difference on a level playing field or from a position of equality.
Case in point: Do you not recognize the “toxicity” on the part of Dems and Liberals in the Heath Care Reform Debate?
NOT to say there is none on the part of Conservatives and/or Republicans. But do YOU recognize toxicity ONLY on the part of “bsfc” Republicans and Conservatives?
Everything I have ever observed from your commentary points to that being the case.
[Reply]
Hank,
by extensive body of commentary on this blog is this post and the comments underneath it.
this piece is not about the Health Care Reform Debate.
Do both sides sling mud, yes. Again, however, this post is about conservatives embracing toxic thought and displaying those actions. Nothing more, nothing less.
[Reply]
Chris,
I do not despise the 2nd Amendment. This piece is not about the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution.
Sure, Chris, there are some conservatives blogs and sites that do not speak in racial slurs, the comment sections however, are a different story and certainly the call to arms against this sitting President is blatant in the numerous blogs and websites I have visited. Granted the ethernet is vast and I haven’t been to all of them
Of course, Chris, there is extremism on both sides. I am not blind nor am I stupid. Your objection would seem to be that I did not temper my comments with “there is extremism on both sides”
A visit to your site indicates your posts are presented with your slant, your point of view. You can hardly fault another writer for something that you yourself practice.
[Reply]
[...] was posted by a lefty over at FON. Liberals tend to put all Conservatives and Republicans into a box and label it “right wing [...]
Janine, I think that’s a little dishonest.
Do “Some” conservatives embrace toxicity? Yes. More so than the other side? Enough to warrant being singled out and targeted? No.
That’s just the way “you people” marginalize legitimate dissent and disagreement.
Personally Janine, I think you are too intelligent to sit around and just rubber stamp stupid thinking. Radicalism on either side of the ideological spectrum is damaging to reasonable debate and subsequent progress.
As is evidenced by the current morass over the Health Care Debate, not much gets accomplished when both sides are simply sitting around pointing fingers and calling names. The problem I see with some people, and I number you among those, is that you only see fault on one side.
[Reply]
Hank,
one of the favourite past times of conservative commenters is to call a poster or other commenter ‘dishonest.’ this is a non argument and has no bearing on the truth. You do not know me or how honest I am. Nor do I rubber stamp anything. My opinions come from research and intelligent and reasoned thought. Just because I think differently from you doesn’t make my opinions any less so.
As evidenced in my comment to Chris, above, I do not see fault only on one side.
Again, this post is not about that nor is it about the Health Care Debate.
If you would like to discuss the above post without personally commenting on attributes I may or may not have then I would welcome such discussion.
[Reply]
@Janine
“I am not blind nor am I stupid”
As a liberal, by definition you are both.
[Reply]
Janine – with respect, I don’t recognize your authority or expertise to frame my commentary. I have stated my opinion based on what I have observed in the original post, your responses and what I have observed in the past about your commentary.
Let’s leave it at that. Unless, like most of “you people”, you don’t think I’m entitled to my opinions. Like most of “you people” you dismiss how I arrive at my opinions. Like most of “you people” you find no merit in thought that does not fall lock step with your own.
Yes Janine. Dishonest. That’s generous.
If it’s any consolation, I don’t think you are either blind OR stupid.
[Reply]
Rebel
and there are liberals who would say the same of you.
how does this tit for tat further topical discussion?
[Reply]
Hank
I see you cannot cease your attacks. You framed my post and commentary, I was merely responding. Again, you cannot fault me for behaviour you yourself have.
Again, Hank, Rebel, and Chris, if you would like to have a meaningful discussion regarding this piece I would be happy to do so. If you do not your efforts may be better served by commenting elsewhere
[Reply]
@ janine: Of course they would and they have. Much worse things have been said about me by the kind hearted liberals here.
This whole rant about Wallace and Palin is gibberish. I don’t see where he set the bar for conservatives or defined conservative philosophy. Rauch’s article and your babbling are all a bunch of crap that makes no sense.
This is all so very simple. Conservatism is simple. That is what the liberals hate about it and where the Republicans stumble all over themeselves when they try to redefine it. McCain was no conservative – and that is one of the main reasons why he lost. Bush I and Bush II had some conservative leanings, but succumbed to Washington politics once they got in office.
If you want to define conservatism and the type of leadership needed two set this Country back on the right track you only need to consider two words: (1)Ronald (2)Reagan.
[Reply]
Rebel
isn’t conservatism for less government? If so I’m surprised that Ronald Reagan is your hero, he expanded government.
You see my post as gibberish and babbling. Since that is the case I am curious why you would want to even engage in any discussion.
[Reply]
@Jenine:
Yes, my site IS my own point of view. Like most blogs including this one. Duh…
Look, if you cannot take a difference of opinion, then I highly advise you to stop writing. Don’t cry about it because you won’t get sympathy. Suck it up.
Hank is not attacking…please specify you own definition of “attack” because it would be known as disagreeing.
I simply pointed out a section of your article and thought it was a little lame to put ALL Conservatives into a box and label us as “extremists”. That was stupid.
And you want a “meaningful” discussion meaning having all agree with you. Not gonna happen. Get out of your fantasy world and step into reality. We can all agree to disagree but I see no one attacking you. That is stupid.
[Reply]
@ Janine: Reagan was a true conservative. He was a hero to me. I know that he increased government revenue by drastically cutting taxes and expanding the economy if that is what you mean by “expanded government”. He made mistakes like any President, but he stuck to his core conservative beliefs and principles and made a huge impact. Millions upon Millions of people are free now in Eastern Europe because he would not back down to the evil Soviet regime. No other Republican leader since has come close to his legacy. None of the conservative pundits anywhere are going to argue with me about that. If you want to argue with me about how Reagan was not a conservative, then you are going to make a fool out of yourself.
I engage you because you irritate me. I engage you because I am intrigued how liberals can be so incredibly stupid. I engage you because I want to understand you liberals better so that I can prevent you from doing further damage to society. I have said it before and I will say it again. The Rebel is here to confront you liberals and defeat you with truth, logic and common sense. When I see that our Country has good conservative leadership from our Government and is back on a positive track then I will go away.
[Reply]
Rebel
what you fail to realize or comprehend is that liberals deal from a place of truth, logic, and common sense as well.
and I was not arguing whether or not your hero was a conservative I was merely pointing out he expanded government.
[Reply]
Janine said: “what you fail to realize or comprehend is that liberals deal from a place of truth, logic, and common sense as well.”
@Janine:
Fine. Explain to me the logic of your version of “attack” when you said this:
Hank
I see you cannot cease your attacks. You framed my post and commentary, I was merely responding. Again, you cannot fault me for behaviour you yourself have.
Again, Hank, Rebel, and Chris, if you would like to have a meaningful discussion regarding this piece I would be happy to do so. If you do not your efforts may be better served by commenting elsewhere.
…
Please stop being a liberal just long enough to answer my question. And all comments made HAVE regarded this post just not in the way you were hoping.
[Reply]
@Janine: Welcome to my world!! LOL!
[Reply]
Well, she (Janine) seems to be reluctant to engage anyone on equal footing. She wants to establish first that she is superior and that’s why she can’t discuss anything without first establishing herself as being well above the fray, only momentarily stooping down to grace us with her wisdom.
She may well be a bright person. She is certainly rather articulate. But she is as bad about calling people names first, then attempting a discussion as anyone I have ever seen.
More than enough about Janine. I think she means well. But I think she is misguided.
Many people are disturbed with the way our Country is going now. They are afraid and articulate that fear as best they can. Some may not do it as well as others, but the discontent is uniform.
People like Janine (and yes, I think SHE views herself “Elitist”) look for the most radical (Obama as Hitler) example out there then try to characterize ALL opposition as extreme or radical. It just doesn’t work. You can’t lump everyone that is less than happy with this Administration as “Half Wits” and “Dumb as rocks.”
I know many Liberals that think this Administration is wrong about many things on many levels.
How does that fit into the mold?
[Reply]
ChrisG
*heavy sigh*
okay, most of the comments have called me stupid, dishonest, unable to have a balanced discourse and made untrue assumptions as to my political beliefs.
those are ‘attacks’ or if you prefer a softer word ‘casting aspersions’
It is difficult to have a meaningful conversation when a person begins their comments with those types of statements because what that tells the receiver is that the deliverer does not want to have a conversation but would rather name call.
I did not have any hope this post would be commented at all, therefore, had no expectations as to the comments
[Reply]
Janine – Smacks eerily of the famous, Pee Wee Herman style of debate, “I know you are, but what am I.”
It’s okay Janine. I promise you won’t contact any sort of nasty disease. You can discuss anything with us you want safely!
I’m just not sure what you expect when you start out with, “what you fail to realize or comprehend is that liberals deal from a place of truth, logic, and common sense as well.” I’m sure you understand what that implies.
And do “Liberals” (tell you what, if it makes you feel better, I’ll say ‘Libruls’) have an exclusive on dealing from this “place”? I feel that is what you imply. And given the tenor of your comments, I “assume” (I know, I know) that is what you mean.
The original post appears to lump all dissent into a very negative group. You appear to agree with that. I think that is where most of the commentary is coming from.
[Reply]
@Hank:
hit the spot.
@Janine:
I apologize if I came on a bit harsh. As Hank said…you appeared to lump ALL Conservatives and Republicans into the same category and you seemed to agree. Thus my “stupid” remark.
If you care to have an intelligent and meaningful discussion…create an intelligent and meaningful reading.
[Reply]
[...] FreakOut Nation: Sarah Palin, meet George Wallace. [...]
ChrisG
isn’t that the pot calling the kettle colors? Your blog lumps all liberals into the same category. Again, you can hardly criticize another when you do the same thing.
I did create an intelligent and meaningful reading. You don’t like what I have to say and so are wholly discounting it.
[Reply]
@janine:
I have every reason to lump all liberals into the same category. They ALL think alike. You happen to lump ALL Republicans and ALL Conservatives into the EXTREMISTS category. Not to mention anyone else who would dare disagree with liberals.
That is pretty harsh considering you don’t even know what a “extremist” is.
Do I think ALL liberals are extreme? Course not. Do I think they all need brain transplants? Yes.
Me? I demand to know what makes me “extreme”. You lumped me into that category so go on, tell me.
[Reply]
I don’t know that the comparison of Wallace and Palin says much for Palin. He was effectively the governor of Alabama from 1962-1986, whereas she can’t be bothered to finish one term in office.
Moreover, Wallace responded to the 1970 campaign by mellowing his racial politics and opening the state government to blacks at a rate faster than most northern states OR the federal government. I doubt Ms. Palin will EVER experience the kind of Road-to-Damascus moment Wallace had in those days; the chances of her redeeming herself are slim.
[Reply]
ChrisG,
You say you have every reason to lump all liberals into the same category because they all think alike.
You say that I lumped you into a category along with all other conservatives and republicans. Chris you did the same to me. Again, you are faulting someone for behavior you yourself employ.
would it soothe your hurt feelings if I said “some conservatives are extreme” or “most conservatives are extreme”?
[Reply]
@ Janine
“what you fail to realize or comprehend is that liberals deal from a place of truth, logic, and common sense as well. ”
If both liberals AND conservatives deal from truth, logic, and common sense then we wouldn’t have all these disagreements. How interesting that your statement in and of itself does not make any sense, is not logical, is untrue and shows a lack of common sense on your part.
[Reply]
Rebel
You said: The Rebel is here to confront you liberals and defeat you with truth, logic and common sense.
My words: “what you fail to realize or comprehend is that liberals deal from a place of truth, logic, and common sense as well. ”
were responding to your comment and directed to you.
of course you would think my statements not logical, untrue or lacking in common sense. You think that, no doubt, because you are not capable of having an adult debate or discussion on the topic. You resort to name calling to make your unintelligible point.
[Reply]
@janine: I am a gentleman. I am going to let you make an ass out of yourself on your own. I don’t need to add anything.
Just one thing though, you really sound like a liberal elite academic. Are you a college/university professor?
[Reply]
@Rebel
I am a lady, we do not use the ‘a’ word.
You sound like a conservative elite, what do you do for a living?
[Reply]
@janine:
Um, You DID lump me into an “extremist” category, lol.
Come now, read what YOU wrote:
Conservatism these days is all about rage and extremism, just read or listen to any right wing blog, radio station, TV station, or website and you will see the revolutionary and racist rhetoric is downright chilling and the call to arms blatant.
I am Conservative. According to you, I am all about rage and extremism and racism. And don’t kid yourself about my feelings being hurt. I am thoroughly enjoying our conversation
I am simply saying what you said is a lie. Plain and simple.
[Reply]
Rebel,
You come here to defend Conservatives from the charge of “racism”, and you bring up Ronald Reagan?
Can you explain to me why this hero of modern conservativism kicked-off his 1980 presidential Campaign in Philadelphia, MS?
If you’re stumped by the question, Google “Southern Strategy”, “Lee Atwater”, and “political dog whistles”.
————-
Open question for the rest of you. Of all the wrong-headed reasons to blame for the recent financial crisis, why are Conservatives more apt to blame it on the Community Redevelopment Act rather than, say, “sun spots”?
[Reply]
@ Berto The Southern Strategy refers to a supposed GOP strategy during the Civil rights movement and during the Nixon administration. I don’t dispute the fact that there was racism during the era of the civil rights movement in both the GOP and within the Democratic party. Ever heard of William Fulbright? Do me a favor and google him. He was Bill Clinton’s mentor.
We are talking about 1980 with Ronald Reagan’s speech – long after the civil rights era of the 1960′s. Reagan was all for States rights. That is one of the core conservative beliefs that Reagan communicated so well. I don’t have any problem with that.
To say that the location of the speech had anything to do with racism is nothing more than gibberish. Reagan was all about freedom and liberty.
As for your other question, the “Community Redevelopment Act ” was all about encouraging banks to lend to those who could not afford their mortgages in the misguided liberal belief that home ownership was a right, not a privilege. All the way down the line, it was Democrats and liberals behind the series of events that caused the real estate bubble to burst.
[Reply]