TNR BLOGS

December 02, 2008 | 4:23 PM
December 02, 2008 | 3:50 PM
December 02, 2008 | 2:56 PM

December 02, 2008 | 9:54 PM
December 02, 2008 | 9:51 PM
December 02, 2008 | 8:12 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

December 02, 2008 | 10:33 AM
December 01, 2008 | 6:03 PM
December 01, 2008 | 4:08 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
13.09.2008
Palin and Pegler

Among the trite bromides delivered by Sarah Palin to the Republican National Convention was this: "We grow good people in our small towns, with honest and sincerity and dignity." Wow, these sure are powerful words, certainly not the verbiage of ordinary people or even ordinary speech writers. Palin certainly didn't write her speech, and even her distinctly dismal assembly of words in her ABC interview with Charles Gibson were probably not hers. Apropos the wisdom about small towns, her staff also did not trust themselves to do a sentence approximating the thought. So they went to... well, not a treasury of great quotations. It is, after all, a rather banal thought, banally expressed. They went to Westbrook Pegler.

You have to be pretty old to know that Pegler would be a treasure house of right-wing populist jargon. The fact is--and I've been checking this all day--no one under 65 with whom I spoke had the slightest idea who he was. So who, then, would know to breeze through the writing of Westbrook Pegler, of all people, in search of what is, after all, just a cliche? Surely only someone knowledgeable (and sympathetic to?) native American fascism.

There were many native American fascists around during the thirties: Father Coughlin, Senator Bilbo, Charles Linndbergh, just to mention a few. And, of course, Pegler himself. A popular journalist, he was syndicated by the Hearst chain, which in those days shared the kind of patriotism articulated by fascists. I knew Pegler as a child from my mother's curses, although she did not read the Journal American which was the Hearst outlet in New York. He was also published by The Washington Post. (For liberals and for Jews "Pegler" was a symbol of everything truly hateful, a not inappropriate approximation.) Pegler was so bad that, when already in his dotage, even the John Birch Society refused to be embarrassed by his writing and pushed him out the door.

Some of you may be thinking that what I have written here is hyperbole. So comes to the rescue Sahil Mahtani, one of the new crop of reporter-researchers at TNR, with an a la carte menu of quotations from the wisdom of Westbrook Pegler--ugly stuff, truly ugly:

In her convention speech a fortnight ago, Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin quoted an unidentified “writer” who extolled the virtues of small-town America: “We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity.” (9/3/08) The unidentified writer was Westbrook Pegler (1894-1969), the ultraconservative newspaper columnist whose widely syndicated columns (at its peak, 200 newspapers and 12 million readers) targeted the New Deal establishment, labor leaders, intellectuals, homosexuals, Jews, and poets.

 

A cursory glance at his oeuvre yields plenty examples of such attacks:

 
On Robert Kennedy:

 

He wished in 1965 that “some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow flies.” (J. Sharlet, “Paradise Shot to Hell: The Westbrook Pegler Story”, in Boob Jubilee, Ed. T. Frank & D. Mulcahey, W.W. Norton & Company, 2003, p. 358)

 

On the Jewish community:

 

Jews, he said, could not be the victims of persecution because persecution “connotes injustice…They are, instead, enduring retaliation, or punishment.”  (D. Levitas, The Terrorist Next Door: The Militia Movement and the Radical Right, Macmillan, 2002, p. 71.)

 

He advanced the theory that American Jews of Eastern European descent were “instinctively sympathetic to Communism, however outwardly respectable they appeared.” (The New York Times, Obituary: “Free-Swinging Critic,” June 25, 1969, p. 43).

 

He had a habit of calling Jews “geese” because they, in his words, hiss when they talk, gulp down everything before them, and foul everything in their wake. (Diane McWhorter, “Revisiting the controversial career of Westbrook Pegler,” Slate, March 4 2004).

 

March 12 1945; In response to the Fair Employment Practices bill of New York State, which forbade Jews and other minorities from being restricted by quota in New York City medical establishments, Pegler attacked the new law as “pernicious heresy against the ancient privilege of human beings to hate.” (R. Kahn, The Era, 1947-1957, University of Nebraska Press, 2002, p. 44)

 

On the Civil Rights movement:

 

In 1963, less than 3 months after Martin Luther King Jr., delivered his famous “I Have a Dream Speech,” he wrote in a column, “[It is] clearly the bounden duty of all intelligent Americans to proclaim and practice bigotry.” (D. Levitas, The Terrorist Next Door: The Militia Movement and the Radical Right, Macmillan, 2002, p. 71)

 

In 1936, he wrote his famous lines, “I am a member of the rabble in good standing.” Yet that column was written in praise of a California lynch mob that killed two (white) men charged with a kidnapping-murder. (Diane McWhorter, “Revisiting the controversial career of Westbrook Pegler,” Slate, March 4 2004).

 

On the labor movement:

 

He once exhorted citizens to join strikebreakers “in the praiseworthy pastime of batting the brains out of pickets.” (J. Sharlet, “Paradise Shot to Hell: The Westbrook Pegler Story”, in Boob Jubilee, Ed. T. Frank & D. Mulcahey, W.W. Norton & Company, 2003, p. 358)

 

On Homosexuals:

 

In the spring of 1950, piling on the McCarthy era attacks on the state department, Pegler attacked the State Department for being too friendly to homosexuals. Five of these columns were addressed to Dean Acheson, offering suggestions for changes to make the department reflect “the distinctive spirit and character of so many of the personnel.” He suggested Acheson rename the street adjoining departmental headquarters Grimm Street after the author of the fairy tales; that he rename the smoking room the “Fag room”; and that he replace the standard handshake greeting with a curtsy and the standard mode of address from “your Excellency” to “precious.” Courses in interior decorating, he mused, might provide better preparation for entry into the foreign service than history or political science.” (D. K. Johnson, The Lavender Scare, The University of Chicago Press, 2004, 68-69, quoting W. Pegler, Washington Times-Herald, March 31, 1950, 14).

 

In 1950, this verse:

 

“How could [Truman] help it if parties

both unusual and queer

Got into the State Department

which true patriots hold dear?

To hear the dastards tell it

they are true to Uncle Joey

And call each other female

names like Bessie, Maud, and Chloe.

And write each other poetry

and confidential notes so tender

Lke they was not he-men at all

but belonged to the opposing gender.”

(from D. K. Johnson, The Lavender Scare, The University of Chicago Press, 2004, 65)

 

On Roosevelt:

 

He wrote that “It [was] regrettable that Giuseppe Zangara hit the wrong man when he shot at Roosevelt in Miami.” (W. E. Leuchtenburg, The FDR Years, Columbia University Press, 1997, p. 316).

 

On the WWII Japanese Internment:

 

“[T]o hell with habeas corpus,” (G. Stone, Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime, W.W. Norton & Company, 2004, p. 294).

Posted: Saturday, September 13, 2008 12:03 AM with 99 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

jacksondyer said:

Marty you said that most certainly she didn't write her own speech. Moreover, how do you go from some innocuous quote about small town people to this:

"Jews, he said, could not be the victims of persecution because persecution “connotes injustice…They are, instead, enduring retaliation, or punishment.”  (D. Levitas, The Terrorist Next Door: The Militia Movement and the Radical Right, Macmillan, 2002, p. 71.) "

The bigot Pegler doesn't seem very original either since the above quote was the traditional view of Jews held by the pre Vatican 2 Catholic Church.  

In any case, did Palin know about this?

Finally, the Pegler story is all over the internet posted by people hell bent on associating Palin with Fascists and anti-Semites.

I hope you guys have more proof because all these accusations if proven baseless will backfire.

September 13, 2008 12:43 AM

jacksondyer said:

On the other hand, if Palin knew of Pegler’s work ideas and still quoted him she needs to be taken off the ticket.

September 13, 2008 12:45 AM

gurdjieff66 said:

Also keep in mind that the speech was written by former Bush 43 speechwriter Matthew Scully.  Furthermore, Scully, like Hitler, is a vegetarian.  

September 13, 2008 1:26 AM

rozenson said:

I wouldn't assume that Palin knew she was quoting an asshole. What I draw from this is that she invoked small-town pastoralism, but she ended up proving what small-town conservatives are like. Small-town people carry Pegler's seal of approval, apparently.

Gah, damnit. Sorry, everyone. One of these days I'll cure myself of my pre-9/11 East Coast elitist mindset.

September 13, 2008 1:26 AM

ironyroad said:

I doubt if she knew -- it sounds like she just parrots what the McCain team puts on the teleprompter.

September 13, 2008 1:40 AM

luispc said:

One does not have to be an expert on fascism to understand that such a contextual reference to " small town Americans" is unmistakibly fascist.

Since what is being implicitly said is that there are "true Americans", which precisely are those "small town Americans" ("good people" with "honesty, sincerity and dignity") represented by Sarah Palin (the true "volklish" leader, being a "hockey mom", a "pittbul with lipstick" and all).

And one of the main features (if not the main feature) of fascism is the creation of an identity BY EXCLUSION (these ones are the "true" ones, the others are the "degenerated" ones) represented by a leader that carries in "his blood" and in "his soul" the "volklish spirit".

The guys at the propaganda machine behind Sarah Palin's speech surely read their Leo Strauss (and ultimately their Carl Schmitt) very well, creating a narrative and simultaneously an identity by exclusion (exploring an "exclusive identity" with a "true representative").

And they did it because they had to offer an alternative narrative to the one associated to Barack Obama, as a representative of the American dream and simultaneously of an INclusive identity.

As I said in other threads, the Dems seemed to have panicked instead of desmantling the Republican move. Because it can be desmantled if you insist on the narrative associated with Barack Obama as a "place" of American identity (which at the end of the day is the one that is quitessentially American: an universalist identity, an identity of INclusion, not of EXclusion).

Please understand that in Sarah Palin's speech there were two essential moves: to ridicule Obama (the community organizer, the author of two biographies) and to present herself as truly "volklish". They knew that they had to target the Democrats strongest point: Barack Obama himself as a place of American identity. And they knew that they had to offer an alternative narrative (that, to be alternative, had to mean an EXclusive identity).

And please tell at the people behind Obama that they must read and understand Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss very well in order to understand what the Republican propaganda machine is doing through Sarah Palin.

And one must not forget that THERE IS AN ANTIDOCTE to such an unmistakibly fascist move. Insisting: BARACK OBAMA, the representative of the the American dream, the "place" of true American identification since he means an INclusive identity (an identity without "enemies").

September 13, 2008 4:10 AM

JSmith125 said:

Some of my fellow commenters here are missing the point. It's not just that one line that happens to come from Pegler word for word. It's that in using it, in the context of a speech full of mockery and ridicule directed toward Democrats, elites, "community organizers" (= civil-rights activists, but you can't denounce them directly anymore because everyone now knows they were on the side of virtue), she announced herself, her speechwriters and her movement to be the ideological descendants, or at least cousins, of this appalling bigot and what he represented: a screeching outrage at the spread of modern ideas that tend to upset old social hierarchies and extend legal protection and political inclusion to groups of people who used to know their place. These are really, really angry people (Pegler to the point of psychosis, it sounds like), and they're going to get even angrier after the freaky mulatto with the Harvard degree beats the war hero and wins the Presidency of the United States.

September 13, 2008 4:26 AM

guptatomic1 said:

JSmith, what an interesting point.  It's the anger on the right wing that's troubled me more and more as time goes by.  I could have possibly understood during the Clinton years.  But now?   After a six-year lockhold on government?  What is that they would have wanted that they haven't had there within their grasp?  I think yours is a cogent explanation.  I recently read Bolaño's Nazi Literature in the Americas, which is (masterful) fiction -- this all seems reminiscent, somehow.  God keep us from Sarah Palin.

September 13, 2008 10:07 AM

sdemuth said:

Jacksondyer's first response on this nails it.  In fact Peretz impeaches his own argument by pointing out at the start that no one under 65 he as asked knows who Pegler was.  It's not unlikely that the quote came up on a Google search keyed by something like "small town good people" and no one dug any further.  I'd be impressed indeed if Sarah Palin knows enough American history to have understood anything about the context of what she read.

And as JD follows up: if we're wrong, and she knowingly and approvingly quoted him, she's contemptible and has not place in national politics.

What really gets me - and I've spent the significant majority of my life living in or just outside small towns - is the phenomenal ugliness of the sentiment in this.  Yes, there are people around me who are the salt of the earth, and you could trust your children's lives with them at the drop of a hat.   But there are also the worst sort of bigots, brainless reactonaries, people who haven't worked a day in a decade, and still expect to be supported by the government, and yes, even terrorists (viz Timothy McVeigh) in the mix.  Fewer of my small town/rural neigbhors believe in or understand religious tolerance, than do my "elite" urban and suburban co workers on the coasts.

So don't glorify us small town folk.  We're as good, and as flawed, as the rest.

September 13, 2008 10:20 AM

JSmith125 said:

guptatomic, I don't entirely understand their anger, and I agree with you that it's counter-intuitive in that it seems to persist independently of whether conservatives hold power or not. The best I can figure is that they're upset about cultural changes which are continuing -- indeed, are inevitable, historically necessary, and prevalent throughout the developed world -- and which government is powerless to prevent or reverse, regardless of the posturing of right-wing politicians. In fact, it could be that the very failure of conservative governments to turn back the sexual revolution, gay rights, the women's movement, etc., just increases the anger and paranoia of people like Sarah Palin's constituents, who invest their hopes in one new champion after another, only to be disappointed again and again. So, now, they imagine, Palin's going to do for them what Bush didn't, and Bush was going to do what Gingrich didn't, and Gingrich was going to do what Reagan left unfinished, etc., in an endless regress. I don't know, but that's what I think might be happening.

Anyway, it's not going to end well for them; they're simply on the wrong side of history here.

September 13, 2008 10:28 AM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

peretz,

I'm 48 and I believe I alluded to Pegler in a recent post critical of one of your many rants...

How did I know about Pegler?  Let me see, I think that I first read about Pegler in a biography of William Randolph Hearst and I do recall, about 20 years ago, I read a really fine review of the re released Manchurian Candidate and the right wing, night gown wearing columnist who Larry Harvey shoots was based on Pegler. As I understand this wretched little man, he was the precursor to the Limbaughs and Malkins of the world.

September 13, 2008 10:36 AM

ironyroad said:

The anger of the Christianist Right is not unlike the anger of the fundamentalist Islamists (yes I am comparing them, no I am not saying that they are identical or do identical things!).  It's a more diffuse type of resentment that is not going to be assuaged by x-number of years or terms in government.  The problem is not policy (if it was, policy would have satisfied them), the problem is that the world itself is diverse and various and unpredictable, and notions of desire and freedom and virtue and entitlement and suffering are all in flux and don't let themselves be pinned down by any one religious or philosophical sect.  The world was not always so, perhaps, but in modernity it is so.

The problem for the extreme Republican base is that those years in government, or even more years, have not produced and cannot produce the rollback of modernity that is the overarching desire of such a constituency.  For every "abstinence-only" policy decision, another Harry Potter novel comes out.  In the global run of things, neither the Islamic fundamentalists nor the conservative Christianists are anything other than an irritating and self-important minority of a minority.  However, as the global run of things is not what counts, but rather more local theaters of action, these constitutuences discover that they can hi-jack, as it were, a larger vehicle for their interests.  For the militant Islamists, it's the general feeling of paranoia that permeates a lot of the Muslim world (with its own fears about modernity such as the status of women), while for the right-wing evangelicals it's the Republican Party of the U.S. (with its own fears about modernity such as racial diversity and compromised masculinity)

However, as neither the broader Islamic world nor the broader United States will ever fall in line with the ideology of its respective disappointed sub-set, the knowledge of this tends to create a kind of closed-off world in which that particular minority circles and circles, convinced both of its own rectitude and its unjust marginalization (and in their own eyes they have been marginalized, because marginalization is simply an indispensable component of their own myth).  Hence, radical Islamism as the only home of tradition, purity, devotion to God.  Hence honesty, sincerity, dignity in small towns and nowhere else.

September 13, 2008 10:44 AM

jacksondyer said:

I must admit I never heard of Westbrook Pegler until recently.

I have been doing some research about the man and he is one of those people whose politics I despise the most. I don't believe he was a "fascist" rather he was a nasty little libertarian who lived at a time when these folks didn't have to hide their hatreds and bigotry.

The fact that he managed to get a Pulitzer in 1941 should tell us that his views were not that much out of the mainstream at the time.

Still, I see Marty's use of a Pegler quote in Palin's speech as a McCarthyite tactic and it doesn’t matter if we are speaking of Palin or her speech writer.

The quote itself might have been derived from other sources than from Pegler himself. Has anyone checked to see if the quote is included in a book of “famous quotations?”

I have been asking people that I know who grew up in small towns who also went to first rank Universities and a number of them did know the quote (or thought it sounded familiar) but didn’t know its source. One person I spoke to said that she had heard the name Westbrook Pegler but didn’t know the context.

One can despise Palin’s political views, one can believe that she is a twit and not qualified for the position but associate her with racists and or antisemites without any firm evidence that’s McCarthyism.  

September 13, 2008 11:01 AM

boxofrox said:

First of all the offending sentence isn't such an original construct to claim exclusive attribution and hence encompass a philosophical felicity with its supposed owner. Taken by itself it is rather innocuous reflection of small town pride. It was meant as a counter to the generalized indictment of bitter, guns, religion.

I am astounded on so many levels by this line of thinking. I have much to do today. I'll have more to say later. I know you can't wait.

Jesus H Christ. This is a thing to behold. Try and sell this on main street and they will rightly invite you to a little self examination. Palin, the fascist anitchrist and her followers.

September 13, 2008 11:06 AM

jacksondyer said:

"ironyroad said:  "The anger of the Christianist Right is not unlike the anger of the fundamentalist Islamists (yes I am comparing them, no I am not saying that they are identical or do identical things!).  It's a more diffuse type of resentment that is not going to be assuaged by x-number of years or terms in government.  The problem is not policy (if it was, policy would have satisfied them), the problem is that the world itself is diverse and various and unpredictable, and notions of desire and freedom and virtue and entitlement and suffering are all in flux and don't let themselves be pinned down by any one religious or philosophical sect.  The world was not always so, perhaps, but in modernity it is so."

That may be so, but Islamicism is right now more of a danger than is Christian fundamentalism for many reasons.

I am also surprised that you didn't include the extreme left in your list of movements that feed of people's resentments.

Moreover there is a phenomenon today that is not being talked about and which is potentially much more dangerous that Christian fundamentalism and that is convergence of wxtreme right wing and left wing movements. This has happened in Europe an its spreading to Latin America.

This movements tend to make common cause with Islamists and have singled out the US and Jews as their primary enemies.

September 13, 2008 11:06 AM

jacksondyer said:

"ironyroad said:  "The anger of the Christianist Right is not unlike the anger of the fundamentalist Islamists (yes I am comparing them, no I am not saying that they are identical or do identical things!).  It's a more diffuse type of resentment that is not going to be assuaged by x-number of years or terms in government.  The problem is not policy (if it was, policy would have satisfied them), the problem is that the world itself is diverse and various and unpredictable, and notions of desire and freedom and virtue and entitlement and suffering are all in flux and don't let themselves be pinned down by any one religious or philosophical sect.  The world was not always so, perhaps, but in modernity it is so."

That may be so, but Islamicism is right now more of a danger than is Christian fundamentalism for many reasons.

I am also surprised that you didn't include the extreme left in your list of movements that feed of people's resentments.

Moreover there is a phenomenon today that is not being talked about and which is potentially much more dangerous that Christian fundamentalism and that is convergence of wxtreme right wing and left wing movements. This has happened in Europe an its spreading to Latin America.

This movements tend to make common cause with Islamists and have singled out the US and Jews as their primary enemies.

I don't think Marty knows anything about this.

September 13, 2008 11:11 AM

teplukhin2you said:

"We grow good people in our small towns" is like praise for motherhood (Hitler!) or the working man (Lenin!).

This is really a stretch, to put it mildly, and one that does no favors for Marty's candidate.

September 13, 2008 11:14 AM

jacksondyer said:

luispc said:  "One does not have to be an expert on fascism to understand that such a contextual reference to " small town Americans" is unmistakibly fascist."

This is the kind of comment, Luis that makes it hard for me to take you seriously.

Did you ever live in an American small town? Life there, unlike Europe, is pretty diverse. This summer I visited some small towns in the mid West and saw an exponential growth in the Hispanic populations there.

Moreover in an age of mass media and the internet the mentality of small town people is not that different from that of people in any American suburb.

In fact one can argue that many if not most small towns have become suburban communities.

September 13, 2008 11:19 AM

jacksondyer said:

Irony, here is an exchange between a British leftist whose work I admire and a former American leftist who has become too right wing for my taste, though his analysis on political issues is still worth reading:

“It May Be The Party of Defeat”

By Nick Cohen

www.frontpagemag.com/.../Printable.aspx

How do you see resentment working in the views of someone like Soros, Irony?

September 13, 2008 11:29 AM

Mozier said:

interesting, jackson.  Links please?  I'd like to read more.

September 13, 2008 11:31 AM

jacksondyer said:

"Links please?  I'd like to read more."

For which post, Mozier?

September 13, 2008 11:38 AM

ironyroad said:

JD:  I thought my rider clearly stated that I didn't see Christianist fundamentalism as dangerous in the everyday sense.  But of course fundamentalist Islamism is radically more dangerous, without any doubt.

I agree also in the abstract that the extreme left feeds off people's resentments, but in America in 2008 that is not an issue.  We don't have Luminous Path or the Indian Naxalites here.  We don't even have the Weathermen anymore (just the residue).  Indeed, the startling phenomenon (a case for American exceptionalism?) is that the people whose resentments would, under normal circumstances, drive them leftwards are much more to be found at a Republican rally.

There have been odd and ominous convergences of left and right-wing extremists over time, especially in Italy in the 70s and 80s, and perhaps one should include the alliance between the German RAF and extreme Palestinian groups (e.g. PFLP) who maintained a front of progressive leftish nationalism but had a strong infusion of potentially genocidal anti-Semitism.

Obviously, apart from a lunatic fringe back in the 1990s, evangelical Christianists are not engaging in acts of violence.  But this is the United States, not Peru or Kenya.  What we do is important, and transmits involuntarily a signal as to our sense of ourselves.  And the idea that a large group of people here see our central values as a nation -- a nation that has three of the world's great cities -- exclusively represented in small towns (whether real or mythical) is a little disturbing.

September 13, 2008 11:44 AM

ironyroad said:

JD:  I like a lot of what Cohen writes but I would suggest that in this piece he mixes up two different things:  opposition to the Iraq war, and western liberal betrayal of Arab liberals.  They are not the same phenomenon, especially as I would be able to make, I believe, a good case for the whole Iraq adventure having made the position of Arab liberals in their own countries much more fragile than it was, and having made an open relationship with the U.S. much more radioactive than it was.

And to be honest -- after generations of super-rich conservatives funding one buttoned-down right-wing think-tank after another, I find myself profoundly unshocked by the vision of Soros bankrolling Moveon-org.  Yawn.

September 13, 2008 12:36 PM

JSmith125 said:

"Islamicism is right now more of a danger than is Christian fundamentalism for many reasons."

Maybe. Then again, Islamicism is nowhere close to holding political power or controlling a major political party anywhere in the developed world.

Christianism, on the other hand, has considerable influence within the world's leading superpower -- enough, for instance, to get the leader of one of its parties, against his own reported wishes, to put an unknown provincial governor with some (ahem) rather exotic views on a straight line to the world's most powerful office. Which is why we're having this conversation in the first place.

September 13, 2008 1:32 PM

luispc said:

One other try to give Jackson Dyer an honest answer.

First: Palin was surely not referring to those small towns filled with hispanics. She was referring  idealized small towns that one can see (today!) in America's films and that can fill her narrative against a "corrupted city" filled by "the elites". She shows up as "the redeemer".

Second: an "identity by exclusion" may not be racist in a narrow sense. In the Iberian peninsula fascisms there were identity by exclusion that were not racists.

Anyway, poor Mrs. Palin (who is not the anti-Christ, just poor Mrs. Palin) was sent to this campaign in order to embody a narrative in which there is unmistakibly an identity by exclusion.

September 13, 2008 2:48 PM

jacksondyer said:

luispc said:  "First: Palin was surely not referring to those small towns filled with hispanics. She was referring  idealized small towns that one can see (today!) in America's films and that can fill her narrative against a "corrupted city" filled by "the elites". She shows up as "the redeemer"."

How do you know what she was referring too?

Her husband, btw, is part Eskimo a fact about which she is proud.

September 13, 2008 3:05 PM

jacksondyer said:

JSmith125 said:

"Islamicism is right now more of a danger than is Christian fundamentalism for many reasons."

"Maybe. Then again, Islamicism is nowhere close to holding political power or controlling a major political party anywhere in the developed world."

This is silly JS and underestimates the ability of small groups well organized to wreck havoc in advanced socieities. A nuclear attack on the US or in Europe is all that it would take to trigger a catastrophic reaction.

In any case, the strength of well organized totalitarian minded groups is that they are seldon taken seriously until it is too late. This is how Lenin took power in Russia and Hitler in Germany.

September 13, 2008 3:09 PM

jacksondyer said:

ironyroad said:  "JD:  I like a lot of what Cohen writes but I would suggest that in this piece he mixes up two different things:  opposition to the Iraq war, and western liberal betrayal of Arab liberals."

I don't won't to reply the Iraq war right now.

I'll answer your previous post later on today.

September 13, 2008 3:11 PM

luispc said:

Again, with some editing and a few things more:

FIRST: Palin was surely not refering to those real small towns filled with hispanics (that I actually know, mainly when I visited California a few years ago). She was refering  to idealized "small towns" that one can see (today!) in American films and that can fill her narrative.

A narrative in which she (herself, coming from a "small town" IN ALASKA, not to be confused with a "small town" in Southern California or in the surroundings of New York) plays the role of the "redeemer" of a "corrupted city" when she finally "goes to Washington".

And the ones (many) that are moved by the narrative are moved by...THE NARRATIVE (they imagine Palin as bringing back those "small towns" -- of Alaska, Washington, Montana, Minnesota -- and their "spirit" against all those that are "soft on imigration", defend terrorists by insisting on "rights reading", etc.).

SECOND: an "identity by exclusion" may not be racist in a narrow sense (so it doesn't matter that her husband is an eskimo...).

I'm in a hurry now, but I'll try to come back later in order to develop my point. And also articulate it with Strauss' idea of political "myth making", which seems to be very present in the Republican propaganda machine.

September 13, 2008 3:39 PM

luispc said:

By Leo Strauss (on political myth making by the "philosopher king")

“[A]s Nietzsche saw, our own principles (…) will become as relative as all earlier principles [have] shown themselves to be; not only the thought of the past but also our own thought must be understood to depend on premises which for us are inescapable, but of which we know they are condemned to perish. History (...) teaches a truth that is deadly. It shows us that culture is possible only if men are fully dedicated to principles of thought and action which they do not and cannot question (...). It shows us at the same time that any principles of this kind can be questioned and even rejected. The only way out seems to be that one turn one’s back on this lesson of history, that one voluntarily choose life-giving delusion instead of deadly truth, that one fabricate a myth (…) The different values respected in different epochs had no objective support, i.e., they were human creations; they owed their being to a free human project that formed the horizon within which a culture was possible. What man did in the past unconsciously and under the delusion of submitting to what is independent of his creative act, we must now do consciously (…)” .

And what is the Republican propaganda machine "doing conciously"?

Where is the heart of their fabricated myth (a myth that Sarah Palin personalizes as the "redeemer of a corrupted city")? In an idea of inclusion of the other, of ALL Americans under one flag? Clearly not...

These conservatives do not even believe in their own "conservative principles". They just think that they are good for ordinary men that, then, develop a "character and style"...

This is what Karl Löwith calls "active nihilism". And it is the most disgusting thing the Western world knows since nazism.

September 13, 2008 4:56 PM

JSmith125 said:

jacksondyer, I'm just saying that the degree of danger that a political (or religio-political) movement poses isn't strictly a function of how violent or fanatical it is. It's also a function of how much access it has to political, military and/or economic power.

It could be that our grandchildren will look back and say, yes, the bigger threat in the early 21st century was Islamist extremism, which we underestimated up until the day it got hold of suitcase nukes and started planting them in Western cities.

Or, it could be they'll say that the bigger threat was the catastrophic effects of global warming, which we didn't act on because the nation that needed to take the lead on it, the United States, was in the hands of Christianist ideologues like Sarah Palin who denied the problem and who were hostile to the scientific ways of thinking needed to understand and address it.

I don't know which of these scenarios will be borne out, and neither do you. I do know that both major U.S. parties are opposed to Islamist terrorism, the spread of loose nukes (which Obama has actually been more active in stopping than McCain, I believe), etc., while the parties differ significantly on how they approach subjects like climate science. So to the extent that the second scenario is a serious threat, the Christian right poses a serious danger.

September 13, 2008 4:57 PM

Mozier said:

jackson, I was inquiring about left wing/right wing synthesis.

September 13, 2008 6:02 PM

dhuey0 said:

I have spent a good chunk of my life living in small town America.  I was born and raised in one of the few states smaller than Alaska.  The places I have lived have had many good people and many fine things happened in these places.  Nevertheless, I found luispc's description to be largely an accurate one.  Not surprisingly, people who live in the provinces, in my experience, tend toward being provincial.

Oh, BTW, I knew who Westbrook Pegler was and I remember my Dad telling me stories about arguments he had had in the '30's with friends and relatives who thought that Hitler-guy made a lot of sense.  I'm not sure there was a causal relationship but all the people he was talking about lived in small towns.

September 13, 2008 6:05 PM

jacksondyer said:

Mozier said:  "jackson, I was inquiring about left wing/right wing synthesis."

Here is one place you can start:

"Yesterday a Socialist, Today a Nazi"

David T, September 4th 2008, 9:45 am

"We’ve been discussing, over the last few weeks, the reasons that some people who think of themselves as socialists and anti-racists have, through the vector of anti-Zionism, found themselves attracted to the arguments of neo Nazis."

www.hurryupharry.org/.../yesterday-a-socialist-today-a-nazi

The whole web site is dedicated to looking at this phenomenon.

There is a vast  literature on the subject but this is a good place to start since the blogue is maintained by people sympathetic to the left and would like to alert people to this threat.

September 13, 2008 8:29 PM

jacksondyer said:

"I have spent a good chunk of my life living in small town America."

Which town or towns did you live in,  dhuey0?

September 13, 2008 8:30 PM

jacksondyer said:

"Not surprisingly, people who live in the provinces, in my experience, tend toward being provincial." dhuey0

Thanks for the tautology.

Being provincial is not the same thing as being a Fascist.

September 13, 2008 8:31 PM

jacksondyer said:

"Oh, BTW, I knew who Westbrook Pegler was and I remember my Dad telling me stories about arguments he had had in the '30's with friends and relatives who thought that Hitler-guy made a lot of sense.  I'm not sure there was a causal relationship but all the people he was talking about lived in small towns." dhuey0

I'll take you at your word, here. However, I should point out that in Germany the Nazi phenomenon was an urban one and not a provincial one.

The movement attracted such provincials as Martin Heidegger and Konrad Lorenz.

September 13, 2008 8:34 PM

jacksondyer said:

JSmith125 said:  "jacksondyer, I'm just saying that the degree of danger that a political (or religio-political) movement poses isn't strictly a function of how violent or fanatical it is. It's also a function of how much access it has to political, military and/or economic power."

But JS the Leninists in Russia got very little direct support from the Russian government and much less from the military.

Also the Nazi movement was thought of as a joke till the early 30's and the powers that be looked down on Herr Hitler.

Your are right that it's hard to tell what wil be the greater threat in the future.  

September 13, 2008 8:38 PM

jacksondyer said:

"And what is the Republican propaganda machine "doing conciously"? "

You remind me Luis of how the Communist used to argue. They would come up with a quote from some famous Marxist or the great man himself and say, "see, this proves my point."

September 13, 2008 8:40 PM

jacksondyer said:

"FIRST: Palin was surely not refering to those real small towns filled with hispanics (that I actually know, mainly when I visited California a few years ago). She was refering  to idealized "small towns" that one can see (today!) in American films and that can fill her narrative." Luis

reposting what you said above doesn't prove you point, either, Luis.

Again, how do you know what she was referring to? Where did she say "I am referring to idealized small towns that one can see today in American films?"

And which films would those be, Luis?

September 13, 2008 8:43 PM

ironyroad said:

"I'll take you at your word, here. However, I should point out that in Germany the Nazi phenomenon was an urban one and not a provincial one."

I think that's arguable, JD, at least as a partial comment, but the history has a few more strands and the German ambivalence toward industry and modern urban life also played a big role in providing cultural space for the Nazis.  That is, even big cities in Germany could be terribly provincial.  Furthermore, in Austria, there was a distinct pro-Nazi constituency going back to Karl Luger and the proto-fascist figures of pre-WW1 Vienna.  That is, it's not an accident that Hitler imbibed his early political socialization in Vienna and not, say, in Frankfurt.  However, in Germany the most left-wing city, Berlin, proved itself comparably resistant to Nazism, at least electorally.  Right until the dissolution of the Weimar constitution and the passing of the Enabling Law, the SPD and KPD taken together maintained around 60% of the vote.

September 13, 2008 9:07 PM

jacksondyer said:

ironyroad said:  I agree also in the abstract that the extreme left feeds off people's resentments, but in America in 2008 that is not an issue….. Indeed, the startling phenomenon (a case for American exceptionalism?) is that the people whose resentments would, under normal circumstances, drive them leftwards are much more to be found at a Republican rally.”

Yes, many people who harbor resentments can be found in the Republican Party. They can also be found in the Democratic Party.

What interests me is the kinds of people who are driving this phenomenon. In the Democratic Party it tends to be people who push identity politics and in the Republican Party it tends to be people who call themselves libertarian and not so much the Christian evangelicals whose world view is totally different and antithetical to that of the libertarians. It is surprising that these two groups should have made common cause since they hold antithetical beliefs. This was made clear by the kind of hatred

Mike Huckabee the Arkansas Governor encountered from the libertarian wing of the party when he raised social issues and talked about economic inequality.

The nomination of Obama and Plain has exacerbated these trends. Hillary when she first ran she tried to run as a Woman in order to appeal to women and when this failed she started running as a Democrats appealing to working class people and speaking on economic issues and defense. This was when she was at her best. (Bill Clinton too tried to move away from identity politics and was partly successful. The party seems to have gone back to a moment before the Clinton era.)

Among the Republicans is trying to reform his party and move it away from the libertarianism it has espoused. He has to go slowly since they are still a force there and from what I read and hear they still don’t trust him. Governor Romney was their man.

McCain win was totally unexpected because neither the Christian conservatives nor the libertarians trusted him. He rightly decided to court the Christian fundamentalists because they like he have a concern for economic and social issues. They tend to see the society as a social organism and not as something composed of monads. This is why he picked Palin.

Of course, he will have trouble down the road with them because his world view is very different from theirs. (He wanted to put Lieberman or Tom Ridge on the ticket but they refused because they are pro-choice.)

I hope he makes it and I hope he reforms the Republican party and takes it back to were it was before the Goldwater nomination in 1964.

David Brooks has a terrific column on this in yesterday’s NY Times:

“The Social Animal” By DAVID BROOKS

www.nytimes.com/.../12brooks.html

“What we do is important, and transmits involuntarily a signal as to our sense of ourselves.  And the idea that a large group of people here see our central values as a nation -- a nation that has three of the world's great cities -- exclusively represented in small towns (whether real or mythical) is a little disturbing.”

But you are missing the point of Palin’s reference. It was defensive. She was fighting back against those who think that she is not qualified to VP because she was the Mayor of a “small Town.”

She was saying, ‘yea I may be hick, but I have more character than any of you.’   I wouldn’t take it too seriously. She wasn't attacking large cities or the people in them. She didn't say only small towns "grow good people."

This why the quote she used appealed to her:

"We grow good people in our small towns, with honest and sincerity and dignity."

 I wouldn’t take it too seriously. She wasn't attacking large cities or the people in them. She didn't say only small towns "grow good people."

September 13, 2008 9:29 PM

jacksondyer said:

"I think that's arguable, JD, at least as a partial comment, but the history has a few more strands and the German ambivalence toward industry and modern urban life also played a big role in providing cultural space for the Nazis.  That is, even big cities in Germany could be terribly provincial."

Very true, but the hatred of big cities was born in big cities. Small towns or country folk now nothing about big cities.

Have you read "The City and the Country" by Raymond Williams?

Yes, big cities can "provincial."  

September 13, 2008 9:36 PM

jacksondyer said:

Speaking of small towns and rural areas, let's not forget that it was Democrats of small towns  in place like Montana, Iowa, Nebraska, etc. all rural States that gave Obama the nomination.

September 13, 2008 9:38 PM

LISAH said:

I think what most creeped me out about the Republican convention were the signs and chants of "country first." Classic organic state -- communist, fascist -- take your pick. Certainly not democratic. combine that with  "community organizer," Pegler, other statements, tone of the speeches and you've got a real scary bunch there.

And luispc -- you need to re-read Leo Strauss -- or at least stop taking him out of context. I've had it with tje left-wing shills on this...although I'm not saying you're in their manure pit.

September 13, 2008 9:39 PM

lymon1 said:

>> "The Jews have no sense of proportion nor do they have any judgement (sic) on world affairs. Henry brought a thousand Jews to New York on a supposedly temporary basis and they stayed...The Jews, I find, are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D(isplaced) P(ersons) as long as the Jews get special treatment. ..."

Harry Truman.  

Is anyone still saying "the buck stops here"?

September 13, 2008 11:05 PM

ironyroad said:

"Speaking of small towns and rural areas, let's not forget that it was Democrats of small towns  in place like Montana, Iowa, Nebraska, etc. all rural States that gave Obama the nomination."

Yes, of course, point taken.  But Palin isn't talking about real small towns.  She's talking about a kind of mythical white small town in which people like Obama either aren't resident or, if they are, they damn well know their place, "community organizers" (hah! we know what that means!) don't show up if they know what's good for them, and honest sincere and dignified folks go about their business (e.g. killing animals from a helicopter) unthreatened by such apocalyptic events such as a book about gays in the local library or a black dude in the White House.

It isn't about real places, JD, it's about fantasies of an America that doesn't exist any more.  And, interestingly, in Palin's rhetoric the real enemies (Wal-Mart, for example) of small towns never get mentioned.  Incidentally, Wasilla is about 44 miles from Anchorage (according to Google Earth) -- given the spread of American cities, this is an outer suburb, not some 1930s fantasy of neighborliness, virtue, and kids playing in the street on summer evenings.

September 13, 2008 11:55 PM

jacksondyer said:

"Yes, of course, point taken.  But Palin isn't talking about real small towns. "

You still haven't proven that this is the case. Don't pull a Luis on me by repeating claims rather than offering proof.

"Wasilla is about 44 miles from Anchorage (according to Google Earth) -- given the spread of American cities, this is an outer suburb, not some 1930s fantasy of neighborliness, virtue, and kids playing in the street on summer evenings."

Of course but as I said above she was responding to people who called her the Mayor of an insignificant small town.

September 14, 2008 12:22 AM

jacksondyer said:

"...this is an outer suburb, not some 1930s fantasy of neighborliness, virtue, and kids playing in the street on summer evenings."

Hey I live in a town right outside Boston where there is a lot of "neighborliness, virtue, and kids playing in the street on summer evenings."

Well, all except virtue. Marzilli did puncture that myth, didn't he.

Still it's a real place and it's on the East coast and not in the "heartland."

haven't you ever seen kids playin on the streets were you live?

September 14, 2008 12:24 AM

ironyroad said:

"Of course but as I said above she was responding to people who called her the Mayor of an insignificant small town."

Yeah, maybe.  But I can't help noticing that her response was not, "I was in fact the mayor of a growing community on the fringe of Alaska's major city."

Which might have been kinda neat.  But she couldn't do that, as it wouldn't have fitted the GOP's mythology.

September 14, 2008 12:43 AM

ironyroad said:

"Hey I live in a town right outside Boston where there is a lot of "neighborliness, virtue, and kids playing in the street on summer evenings."

That's nice.  They don't do it a lot where I live -- but it's an odd area (a few apartment complexes and a lot of big houses with mostly somewhat older people).  Less young families than you'd expect.  Some, but not a lot.

But I bet you a bagel to a jelly donut, JD, that Sarah Palin would have her fingernails pulled out before she would ever admit that your town on the outskirts of Boston might possess those qualities.

September 14, 2008 12:48 AM

jacksondyer said:

"Yeah, maybe.  But I can't help noticing that her response was not, "I was in fact the mayor of a growing community on the fringe of Alaska's major city.""

They should have hired you as their speech writer, Irony. Don't think you would have been happy otherwise.

September 14, 2008 12:52 AM

jacksondyer said:

"But I bet you a bagel to a jelly donut, JD, that Sarah Palin would have her fingernails pulled out before she would ever admit that your town on the outskirts of Boston might possess those qualities."

You are still in the realm of speculation.

She would be really dumb if she dissed a community which is part of the mythology of the Nations founding.

September 14, 2008 1:00 AM

luispc said:

Jackson, some things cannot be proven with phisical evidence. One cannot access the head of Mrs. Palin speechwriter and show you figuratively what kind of "small towns" he was a referring to.

Somethings are proven given context, meaning and purpose. Given all these elements it is very clear to which small towns Palin was referring to. Surely not East Palo Alto or some place near Newark... And as Ironyroad as putten it: "It isn't about real places, JD, it's about fantasies of an America that doesn't exist any more.  And, interestingly, in Palin's rhetoric the real enemies (Wal-Mart, for example) of small towns never get mentioned".

And the Republicans are doing this kind of thing for 30 years now. First when they presented Reagan as the "last jeffersonian" (forgetting that Jefferson himself was probably moving on his grave with disgust)...

"And luispc -- you need to re-read Leo Strauss -- or at least stop taking him out of context. I've had it with tje left-wing shills on this...although I'm not saying you're in their manure pit."

I've read (and re-read) Leo Strauss Lisah. I've read (and re-read) him thoroughly. And I've also read what his disciples (such as Michael Allen Gillespie and Stanley Rosen) wrote (without the masters "finesse" they're even plainer). For instance, notice this passage by Gillespie:

"If indeed the world and life are at heart irremediably nihilistic, (...) the proper response would be to cloak this nihilism in the shining fabric of myth and rationality so that this emptiness and its horrible consequences for human life might, at least by and large, go unnoticed, enabling most men to live relatively contented if fundamentally illusory lifes" (Hegel, Heidegger and the Ground of History, University of Chicago Press, 1984, p. 133).

Or see this passage by Rosen:

"Human existence in the normal or historical sense is perspectival and depends upon an immersion in illusion as though it were actual and stable. The structure of this illusion or perspective is defined by its table of values. Hyperborean existence [the existence of the one not immersed in illusion], on the other hand, is happiness of quite another kind (...). In Platonic language: stable illusion for the citizens of praksis, freedom from illusion for the genuine, transpolitical Hyperboreans" (The Question of Being - A Reversal of Heidegger, St. Augustine's Press, 2002, p. 147-148).

So I'm not taking anyone out of context. And do you know why these guys filthy move is so completely transparent to me? Because I'm actually a believing Christian and I've been studying for years and years the political meaning of Christianity.

So I can tell very well what it is to involve oneself into active political-theological MANIPULATION by exploiting fears and by creating exclusive identities. This has reached such a paroxism at this point that the simpletons they put on at those conventions to throw speeches (such as Palin herself) are not even conscious to be participating in an hoax.

They've already created those monsters with "stable illusion", simultaneously preventing them from reaching the true meaning of Christianity, which is a moral meaning, an INclusive meaning: all men are fundamentally equal, inherently dignified...

I can assure you, as a believing Christian, that the Christian God does not send anyone to war in Iraq and surely does not "talk" to the President of the United States (least of all W.). For Him, all Americans are true Americans, either they live in "small towns" or "big towns". For Him, they all have dignity.

September 14, 2008 3:04 AM

ironyroad said:

Oh stop JD!

You're an intelligent and educated individual.

I'm not, so you're ahead of me anyway.

But even I know what that Palin "small town" polemic was about.  It's not complicated -- it's meant to be understood.

September 14, 2008 3:14 AM

luispc said:

The kind of political manipulation I'm referring to started long ago: it was already evident with Reagan if not with Nixon.

But reached a completely new dimension with George W. Bush, particularly after 9/11.

Something Emilio Gentile (from Rome's La Sapienza University with impeccable credentials and probably the most important European authority on fascism today) has captured in his upcoming book "God's Democracy".

From the book description:

"In God's Democracy, Emilio Gentile argues that the presidency of George W. Bush sought to alter the way religion functions in American political life. Prior to the events of 9/11, the national government operated under a civil religious regime that placed a sacred umbrella over the entire country and its leading political figures. American civil religion was not only an inclusive faith, but one that provided ample room for citizens with different politics and different world views. But in the wake of 9/11, President Bush used religion to differentiate Americans on partisan lines. Relying heavily on his evangelical Christian base, he attempted to substitute for the inclusivism of the traditional American civil religion an exclusivist political religion in which Democrats were portrayed as hostile to religious values and incapable of dealing with the country's foreign enemies. This book provides the historical context for this attempted transformation, and shows in a detailed way how the Bush administration pursued it. Gentile concludes by posing the question of whether this radical shift in the way Americans understand themselves religiously will prove permanent. Unlike other works that strive to show how religion has generally come to be treated in American politics, this new book looks more squarely at the Bush Administration and its attempt to shut out Democrats from the political process by invoking religious language and ideals. He goes on to consider the political exclusivism and whether or not it will persist beyond Bush's tenure."

This "political exclusivism" (something unmistakably fascist) was very clear on Sarah Palin's speech. Her speechwriters have inclusively lost all subtleness.

They "played by the book" of fascist propaganda. What was EXplicit there can not be mistaken with anything else by someone that knows the first things about fascism and theological-political manipulation.

September 14, 2008 4:45 AM

LISAH said:

luispc -- this isn't the place to get into a discussion of the contradictions, tensions, and yes, the SO annoying complexities in Strauss. But it is the place to note that it's all those so annoying complexities that both the right-wing and left-wing fringes don't want to have to address. It's also worth noting that all of the neocont types had other influences, at Chicago and elsewhere, in addition to Strauss. I'm just fed up with seeing him demonized by the left-nut jobs who are no more able to deal with those complexities than are the right-nut jobs. The man died in 1973 -- where do the left-nuts come off blaming him for the Iraq war and other crap committed by the right-nut jobs?

September 14, 2008 10:11 AM

jacksondyer said:

LISAH, great post!

September 14, 2008 10:49 AM

jacksondyer said:

ironyroad said:  "Oh stop JD!  You're an intelligent and educated individual.  I'm not, so you're ahead of me anyway."

But even I know what that Palin "small town" polemic was about.  It's not complicated -- it's meant to be understood."

Now he is playing the naif.  You sure you are not from a small town? Did someone on Palin's staff write this out for you?

You don't need to be educated in order to figure out that you shouldn't impute intentions to someone without solid proof, Irony.

btw: no one who calls himself Irony suffers from a lack of education.

September 14, 2008 10:54 AM

jacksondyer said:

luispc said:  "Jackson, some things cannot be proven with phisical evidence. One cannot access the head of Mrs. Palin speechwriter and show you figuratively what kind of "small towns" he was a referring to."

That's right it can't and an honest and impartial observer wouldn't attribute ideas and notions to people he can't prove.

Moreover, contexts are notoriously difficult to set limits to, and intentions are merely the attribution of meanings.

Whenever you get pinned done in an argument, Luis, you start deploying an abstract vocabulary whose relation to anything actual or real is pure coincidental.

September 14, 2008 10:58 AM

luispc said:

Ok Lisah but what's your point on the subject at hand?

September 14, 2008 11:02 AM

jacksondyer said:

Finally, speaking of context, there is this about Palin's interview on ABC:

"ABC Edits Make Palin Seem Aggressive, Naive"

"Last night, Sarah Palin sat down with ABC’s Charlie Gibson in Alaska to conduct her first interview with a major news outlet. Gibson jumped right in to the foreign policy questions, pressing Palin repeatedly on key points, to the point of sounding

condescending. Palin seemed somewhat skittish and unsure, but overall did not make any major mistakes. Still, the questions posed to her were not especially difficult, and some of her answers sounded like she was trying to remember the exact words she was told to say.

Note that the interview as aired by ABC is very obviously edited, and is missing some key statements by Palin that show up on [1] ABC’s full transcript. Networks edit their interviews because of time constraints and flow, but what did not make it in can give a sense of any leanings a network may have. The cut comments show nuances and specific knowledge by Palin, and the way ABC edited it makes Palin’s answers seem simpler and disjointed.

Gibson starts by questioning her readiness to be Vice-President:"

Read the rest here:

www.theaugeanstables.com/.../print

We will be hearing a lot more about this.

These kinds of tricks will backfire. It will keep Palin in the news and it will get her more sympathy votes than she might otherwise have gotten.

Already Fox news is reprting that:

"ABC Misrepresents Palin Quote in ‘Holy War’ Question"

by FOXNews.com

elections.foxnews.com/.../abc-edits-out-palin-objection-to-holy-war-question

September 14, 2008 11:06 AM

luispc said:

Jackson. I'm sure I was "pinned done" in this "argument" (whatever that means). And I'm sure that the "abstract vocabulary" I used has no relation with "anything actual" (not "even coincidental") in your mind. Don't mind anything I say. Don't answer. Ignore.

Lisah. If you have the time read about the relevance of history of political ideas in practices that happen long after the authors' deaths. If you know anything about Strauss, you'll know a lot about that.

Anyway, I've made my point here to anyone willing to understand it.

Until next time and best regards.

September 14, 2008 11:15 AM

LISAH said:

luispc -- my main point was really  the "country first" slogan and its clear organic state theory -- hard to tell of course, whether the Republican leadership intended it that way or if the -- uh -- led understood it that way. But added to all the other scary stuff oozing from them these days, it just creeped me out. I wonder if others had that reaction.

As for Strauss -- well, you started that with your first reference. It's just another thing about political discourse, such as it is these days, that ticks me off...Strauss is just too complicated for the kind of simplification coming from the left...He'd likely be appalled at the ways both left and right have (mis)used his thought...

jackson -- thanks for the call-out -- but you gotta know we disagree, or at least I gather that, on this election cycle...

September 14, 2008 11:20 AM

lukelea said:

To the editors:

Could you please limit jacksondyer to one comment per post?  He hijacks every thread and ruins the reading experience for everyone else.  thanks

September 14, 2008 11:33 AM

jacksondyer said:

"jackson -- thanks for the call-out -- but you gotta know we disagree, or at least I gather that, on this election cycle..." LISAH

Of course we do. Not a problem at my end.

September 14, 2008 11:40 AM

jacksondyer said:

LISAH said:  " my main point was really  the "country first" slogan and its clear organic state theory -- hard to tell of course, whether the Republican leadership intended it that way or if the -- uh -- led understood it that way. But added to all the other scary stuff oozing from them these days, it just creeped me out. I wonder if others had that reaction. "

From my experience the last thing the average Republican thinks about is political Philosophy. They just want to win elections and rule and make money.

As to the slogan "country first" somebody probably thought that it would look good to their supporters and I assume that they were trying to counter the perceived internationalism of the Democratic party. Obamas trip to Europe and his speech in Berlin was like a red flag to a bull.

September 14, 2008 11:48 AM

boxofrox said:

Luis. I disagree with the gist of your argument on so many levels that it would take more than I am willing to contribute on this forum to address the fullness of implication. But on the most basic level allow mistaking the alchemical process and its temporal fruit is an exclusive inadequacy of both far left and far right persuasion. Your propositions intentionally exclude one side of the coin and then further argue from the basis of an illusion ( the unity of understanding God) an exclusive attribution of fascism. Make no mistake that there is a very tangible taste for fascism of the leftist variety.  The all inclusive unity of yore now perverted by Republicans is simply reflective of a wish to address blame for paradise lost. This is a most basic religious tenant. And so perfection becomes the ever contender.

Having seemingly gone this  far afield may I ask you to consider the archetypal staging of our political proposition and consider the import keeping the globalization pressures in mind. Aside from the symmetrical interest of competing President, VP contenders one might be inclined to allow we are being asked to ratify, on one hand, an amalgam of racial unity and on the other the ascension and reestablishment of the oldest and all encompassing Feminine.

These is always so much more to say and consider. Suffice that I agree with Jackson concerning the manifest of strange allegiance and destructive impetus. We carry a heavy burden in the US and concessions to competing truths of Individual and Collective our charge. It would appear as if Europe is demanding a temporal proof of universal alchemy. That Europeans are experts on the subject of fascism is no comfort in light of history.

September 14, 2008 11:52 AM

jacksondyer said:

lukelea:  "To the editors:  Could you please limit jacksondyer to one comment per post?  He hijacks every thread and ruins the reading experience for everyone else.  thanks"

Yes, let's have some censorhip around here. I am all for censorship just like Palin is suposed to be.  LOL

September 14, 2008 11:53 AM

jacksondyer said:

luispc said:  "Jackson. I'm sure I was "pinned done" in this "argument" (whatever that means). And I'm sure that the "abstract vocabulary" I used has no relation with "anything actual" (not "even coincidental") in your mind. Don't mind anything I say. Don't answer. Ignore. "

As long as you address the topic of this thread your comments become part of the conversation and any poster can address them if he or she so chooses to do. This is the nature of public debate.

September 14, 2008 12:01 PM

ironyroad said:

And who are you, lukelea?

In any case, JD, nobody called jacksondyer should become disngenuous to the point of making fellow posters cringe.  "Shoudn't impute meaning"?  Gimme a break!  Clearly, Sarah Palin, conservative goverrnor of Alaska and GOP Veep candidate speaking at the Republican convention, was not making an objective comment as to the value of small towns but was appealing to a strong trait of cultural ideology in the United States (and elsewhere, agreed) that sees small towns as the allegorical embodiment of specific social values and cities as embodying their opposite.

Sometimes the values are implicit -- as in, for example, the whiteness of small towns as opposed to the racial and ethnic diversity of cities.

Sometimes they are explicit -- as in, for example, the location of honesty in small towns as opposed to the untrustworthy nature of city dwellers.

Again -- this can't be emphasized enough -- it's not real small towns or real cities, but fictions of the same within a particular cultural and political tradition.

Needless to say, this doesn't make Sarah Palin a fascist.

It does however show the persistence of fantasies of the rural or quasi-rural in a basically urban nation.

September 14, 2008 12:46 PM