In the wake of David Brooks's critical piece on Sarah Palin, I was going to point out that perhaps I was wrong about the right wing pundit corps. Maybe they don't marshal any argument, however foolish, in support of their "guy," whoever their guy is, or however silly his policy prescriptions. That would have been fun to write, as I enjoy being wrong, despite what people may think. But then I run across this morning's George Will column. He's not pro-Palin, but that's not going to stop him from making a pitch for McCain. Well it's not really a pitch for McCain, since he doesn't mention any of McCain's numerous virtues or policy proposals as a reason to vote for him.
What worries George Will, reputedly some kind of libertarian, about a Democratic Presidency is the possibility of (a) an (unlikely I think) expansion of unionization, (b) universal health care, (c) (unlikely again) laws regarding political speech. As a rule, one ought to dismiss out of hand Will's characterization of these issues, as he is, unfortunately, a serial straw man constructor. Perhaps one might find better arguments against those things elsewhere. What's silly is that these three things pose such a danger to the country and liberty, that Will finds their possible vetoing sufficient reason to vote for McCain. I mean, as they say, come on you've got to be kidding me. This is all you have?
Well, in other ironic matters, there's this:
Palin is as bracing as an Arctic breeze and delightfully elicits the condescension of liberals whose enthusiasm for everyday middle-class Americans cannot survive an encounter with one. But the country's romance with her will, as romances do, cool somewhat, and even before November some new fad might distract a nation that loves "American Idol" for the metronomic regularity with which it discovers genius in persons hitherto unsuspected of it.
"Liberals," of course, are elitists–i.e., not "everyday middle-class Americans." Don't they, by the way, belong to unions? Unions like the ones whose expansion this piece claims to offer reason to oppose? Then of course the irony: George Will, cursing elitism, makes fun not only of what lots of people watch, but of their aesthetic judgments as well. But perhaps he never cursed elitism.
In a related matter–this is dumbfoundingly hilarious.
4 thoughts on “American idle”
Come on. Just because you have a title of nobility and more money than pretty much everyone else in the world does not mean that you’re out of touch with Joe Six-Pack. I’m sure M’Lady enjoys sneaking out of her palace, putting on her peasant disguise and secretly slumming it with the locals when her Lord is off fighting the Saracens in the Holy Land.
And no, “middle-class” Americans probably don’t belong to unions, unless union members typically make upwards of $663,000 a year, as the McCain campaign seems to think.
That elitist jerk, Obama, wants to RAISE taxes on the rich and lower them for the poor! God, he is so out of touch with what the vast majority of Americans care about!
I have a request: would you please run this through the ringer?
Gotta love these fresh young conservative faces…
I read that on your suggestion. What I don’ t understand is why he spends so much time combing through the various accusations made in celebrity divorces. What is that guy thinking?
Thanks for reading that–I know it was painful, heh.
And Douthat purports to be one of the fresh young voices in the Republican party, bringing in new ideas…ugh.
“Maybe it’s worth sharpening the debate [on porn],” he says. This stuff won’t win any elections, I’d wager.
Comments are closed.