The Sniper's Tower
The sad state of American feminism: a great Mother’s Day gift!
Hillary Clinton’s campaign is in a tailspin; Phyllis Schlafly is getting an honorary degree from a prestigious university; even the painfully hip Juno has given the Left’s picture of abortion as “just a choice” a thumbs-down. Such hard times for feminism leave us with one question: who’s bringing the keg?
Perhaps it is uncharitable to dance on feminism’s grave today; I’m sure that some feminists are also mothers who would appreciate the chance to enjoy their special day in peace. However, while the saints who raised us are enjoying breakfast in bed, conservatives should take the holiday to consider how best to spend the political capital that the flailing feminist Left has handed us.
There’s no reason to turn back the clock completely. “Feminine,” like “humane” or “radical,” is an idea that’s in constant flux. Some of feminism’s advances are worth keeping, but only those advances that have contributed to the gradual and organic evolution of femininity, not to its radical transformation or destruction (which are the same thing).
However, as anti-feminist lines go, “If a woman wants to stay home with the kids, she shouldn’t be criticized for it” is too modest; it sidesteps the fundamental question of whether being a woman is more or less incidental than having blonde hair or not liking green beans, and instead makes a bee-line for freedom of unstigmatized choice—very liberal territory.
If we believe that conforming to femininity is every woman’s responsibility in the same way that conforming to manliness is every man’s, conservatives (especially conservative women) shouldn’t be shy about saying so. A lifelong adventure of discovering what femininity means is both more daring and more fulfilling than granting oneself (thoroughly illusory) freedom from one of humanity’s most important and universal traditions, just as ”it is not free love but the vow that is daring.” This shouldn’t be a hard idea to sell, given that lots of people from every point on the political spectrum have rejected both “feminism as the elimination of female and male as cultural categories” and ”feminism as arbitrary tribal loyalty.”
Maybe today is a good day to give feminists a hard time, if only to remind them that “motherhood” is a very different thing from “parenting,” and something altogether higher.
Taki writes in The Truth About The Good War of
“the madness that gripped Versailles, a vengeful spirit that alienated America, mutilated Germany”
But it did as much to motivate as mutilate- everything from ‘rocket clubs’ to the freikorps. In the inter-war years German enthusiasm for military technology blossomed as the economy recovered from the hyperinflationary catastrophe brought on by Versailles.
Before the historical argument boils over, recall that both sides were aware of an accelerating revolution in military affairs. Weapons of mass destruction were being actively developed on both sides, and neither wanted to see the other develop and deploy them to crushing advantage.
The Nazi’s had the lead in nerve gas and missiles to deliver it, and it must not be forgotten that the splitting of the uranium atom was discovered in Berlin.
The rush to war, for whatever constellation of historical reasons, imposed military priorities that disrupted German developments from jet aircraft and trans-channel guns to ICBM’s, and accelerated such great undertakings as the Manhattan Project. All these developments re-emerged as components of the technological stalemate of the Cold War, after Russia and its erstwhile allies helped themselves to the techno-loot in 1945.
Had Churchill not prevailed on Roosevelt to override the America First movement, a longer peace might have led to an even more violent war.
Since the GOP didn’t feel many pangs of conscience over No Child Left Behind or the 500 some-odd billion dollar Medicare extension package, it’s rather surprising to be reading passages like this from the Post:
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) yesterday called the domestic add-ons ‘unnecessary extra spending’ and denounced Pelosi’s decision to bring the bill to the House floor without first letting the Appropriations Committee review it. To show their displeasure, Republicans forced procedural votes this week that delayed consideration of the bill.
What is this pork-barrel bill? A big corporate bailout? A new welfare program? Appropriations for Hillary’s Woodstock Museum? No, it’s Jim Webb’s new 21st-century G.I. Bill, which provides 11 billion for benefits to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, including one year of college tuition.
Webb added his program on to a $195 billion bill, 162.5 billion of which was allocated to continuing both wars well into 2009. The added benefits and tuition credit amounts to around 5% of the total expenditure.
McCain made it clear a while ago that he wouldn’t back Webb’s bill, and now the GOP is threatening a filibuster.
Our ”big government conservative” love to spend, spend, spend on programs that make them feel really “conservative"--like federal marriage counseling or abstinence training in Africa. They become tight-fisted, however, when a bill comes up that might serve as a constant reminder of the f%cking mess they’ve made of soldiers’ lives.
Kant famously tested any moral precept by his categorical imperative: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Neoconservatives act in foreign policy according to something of a categorical imperative too: “Act only according to that maxim whereby your foreign policy principles would have obliged a preventative war against Nazi Germany before September 1, 1939.” Thus, the neoconservatives champion wars to prevent wars, wars to vindicate the human rights of ethnic and religious minorities, and wars simply to assert America’s benevolent hegemony anywhere and everywhere.
Of course, this is problematic. Any such principle would also have demanded war against Soviet Russia in the 1920s, not to mention Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. We know in the cases of the latter, that communism eventually fell without recourse to a third world war.
Worse still, under this view, the neoconservatives should have little negative to say about the Vietnam War, a noble (if doomed) effort to protect a reasonably pro-American democracy with whom we had a treaty from Soviet Communism and its North Vietnamese proxies. As everyone knows, most neoconservatives themselves moved heaven and earth to avoid the Vietnam draft during the 1960s and early 1970s. Indeed, most neoconservatives spoke at the time against it and served in lower numbers than Americans at large.
Heck, in spite of their famous love for Israel, most neoconservatives haven’t even served in its armed forces, as some American Jews do out of romantic attachment to the land of their coreligionists.
Neoconservative foreign policy, in spite of its pretentsions of idealism and consistency, appears as results-oriented and ad hoc as that of the much maligned realists. Worse still, it’s a highly moralistic categorical imperative that seems to have no impact on how the neoconservatives themselves live their lives. They’re the “whiskey priests” of American military action.
It is extremely rare indeed to attend an “Old Right” speaking event and find the entire audience, including the liberals and neocons on hand, rolling in the aisles. But such was the case when Bill Kauffman spoke at CATO yesterday afternoon about antiwar conservatives and his new book. I certainly can’t reproduce his charm, sharp wit, and èlan, so I’d suggest that you watch a video of the event here.
There are two lines from his talk worth repeating:
“Why should political discourse be delimited by Arthur Schlesinger’s ghost and Bill Bennett’s ghost writer.”
“War: it spreads venereal disease, if not quite democracy.”
In his response to an article on the supposed, mystifying limits of spreading democracy by Lawrence Kaplan in The New Republic, Richard Spencer seems bothered by Kaplan’s examples that “all peoples are capable of democracy.” When Kaplan mentions the Germans, Japanese, and Catholics of South America as those who managed to practice democracy, contrary to onetime misconceptions, Richard offers what is intended as a refutation of the misrepresentation of the Germans. He notes that Germans had a constitutional monarchy in the nineteenth century. Moreover, German cities and towns are dotted with Rathäuser, where presumably since the Middle Ages local councils had met under the direction of an elected mayor. The neocon response would be that none of this constitutes self-government, since neocons had not given it their stamp of approval. In fact every German elected body up until the postwar reeducation of the defeated Germans was pseudo-democratic and probably a preliminary stage leading to Hitler’s Final Solution. Therefore what would normally constitute sufficient proof of a constitutional, Western society would not apply to the Germans. Indeed the fact that Germany in 1900 or even 1850 had far more intellectual freedom than it does right now, under government-enforced “antifascist” rules for expressing opinions or research findings, proves exactly the opposite of what we might think. It means that societies in the past were “less democratic” because they did not act with sufficient vigor against German nationalists. In Germany’s case being “democratic” has nothing to do with self-government. It refers to indoctrination and intimidation carried out by German and EU courts and public administration, in which what is practiced is the opposite of freedom and self-government.
Richard Spencer’s guarded statement of preference for Obama over Baldwin got me to thinking why there may be some merit in his counsels. Although I don’t think the media would be any more likely to notice our vote in the fall than it was to report the 16 % of the Pennsylvania Republican primary vote that went to Ron Paul, there is still a compelling reason to vote for Obama, and particularly if we can assist in the defeat of Bob Dole II. The last thing we should want out of this fall’s presidential election is a neocon mouthpiece pushing his party, and in all probability the establishment “conservative movement,” toward the Left. What we get with Obama is the hero of the nutcase antiracist whites and of resentment-filled blacks, typified by Obama’s spouse, minister, and his other black supporters whom I’ve heard interviewed. From my Leninst perspective, such an intensification of the power of the post-Marxist Left can have one of two outcomes. Either the populace welcomes the new order of affirmative action pushed through our eyeballs, PC enforced from the federal level on down, massive taxation to defray new social programs and to effect a redistribution of wealth and (lest I forget) an invasion from Mexico; or else there is a reaction that causes the political center to moves dramatically in our direction. The first result is as likely as the second; and for examples of the acceptance of government-orchestrated social ruin, one need only turn to Spain, Quebec, the non-Flemish regions of Belgium, and the gelded former nation of Germany.
But is just as likely that a backlash would occur; and if that did not consist of the Middle American uprising that Sam Francis once vainly promoted, it may be what the Marxists used to call a “revolution at the polls.” The window of opportunity for such a reversal is extremely limited because our enemies control public administration, the media, the bogus conservative movement, and public education. Nonetheless, if President Obama is even half as god-awful as I think he would be, we may be back in business. That is why I prefer him to the decent, pious patriot Chuck Baldwin, who will not likely go anywhere in the fall election. I am not recommending Obama as the nicer of the two but as a disaster waiting to happen.
As my last attempt at humor shows, I’m highly skeptical of all forms of conservative Obamania. Still, I think that voting for Obama over a third-party traditionalist like Chuck Baldwin might be a good idea. Even if I’m not totally convinced myself, here’s my reasoning:
Baldwin might get the VDARE-Takimag seal of approval, but he’s simply not going to be taken seriously by the major media outlets, and he’ll undoubtedly end up getting under 1% in the general. That is, he’ll quickly become the “crazy conservative” candidate who’s all too easily marginalized and demeaned. None of this is fair, but it’s reality.
Republicans crossing over for Obama, on the other hand, is a major phenomenon, and the media is beginning to key in on it. Moreover, this represents the kind of movement that is disruptive of the Left/Right status quo in ways that the Constitution Party simply is not.
Sure, lots of the Obamcons are far from perfect (and here I’m thinking of those that actually believe in the Hope crap). But even these people prove that there is a large contingency of fairly conservative people who don’t go in for “Conservatism=Iraq + GWOT + vulgar Bushian patriotism.”
An Obamacon movement could be perceived, if we communicate effectively, as “these guys see little difference between McCain and Obama on domestic issues, and they really want to end the Iraq war now. Wow, maybe we need to rethink Left and Right.” This isn’t too much of a stretch, even a FOX News regular like Ann Coulter would say publicly that what divides Mac and Obama on domestic matters is inconsequential.
If we went for Baldwin, our vote would be perceived as, “Wow, those guys are to the right of John McCain!” This is not helpful.
Lawrence Kaplan, a neocon of the New Republic deviation, has some rather intriguing things to say to say about what the Iraq war will ultimately mean:
I also think that the Iraq experience has set back the cause of idealism in American foreign policy and the willingness of Western countries to intervene for humanitarian reasons. Take Darfur: I think it’s because of Iraq that nobody wants to intervene there. So on the whole the effects have been huge and overwhelmingly negative. I don’t see anything good that’s come from this war, I’m afraid.
If it’s true that the interventionist class has been chastened—and I’m not positive that this is the case—than this would be the single good thing that I can see coming out of the Iraq debacle.
To give Kaplan some credit, he does make an attempt at self-criticism:
Before the war, Iraq was an abstraction, an idea. Once you have seen the place you can’t help but be much more cautious with the ideas that you put on the table.
Later on:
So being less ‘neo’ and more conservative today makes me much less idealistic and much less optimistic about man’s capacity to change and to improve the world. I am more inclined now to a Hobbesian view of the world and to the view that this condition cannot be changed.
A Neo-culpa? Perhaps. But then what Kaplan’s words really reveal is just how much is at stake for many neocons, how the Iraq disaster threatens to explode their most cherished beliefs:
If one says that you can’t democratize Iraq because they are Iraqis or Arabs, one is really taking a step into outer space in the sense that you then have to embrace arguments about culture and pursue a certain relativism that I am not ready to embrace. We have to remember that there were also those who said that the Japanese and the Germans and the Catholics of South America could not be democrats. I still believe that all cultures are capable of democracy and liberalism. Everybody wants to be free. But obviously, in Iraq this assumption ran into a wall. Now why is that?
Yes, for the sake proving that American “democracy” (whatever this is?) is the One True Way and that all cultures want it, Kaplan is prepared to keep going in Iraq and spend at least another 1.6 Trillion and maybe throw in a few more thousand reservists. Indeed, a willingness to make other people bear any burden and meet any hardship so that he does not have to face reality is probably what Kaplan means by his becoming more “Hobbesian” or “conservative.”
(Also, BTW, the wicked proto-Nazi German Empire was a Constitutional Monarchy with a full-functioning parliament., and the proto-Hitler Prime Minister Bismarck actually installed the first social welfare system (a dubious honor.) Hitler actually seized power democratically. Also, when I traveled through the evil German parts of the world, and the doubly evil German and Catholic lands, I noticed that towns featured lots of large buildings all going by the name Rathaus. I don’t know what that that means, but I think it has something to do with representative government. As for South America, isn’t their problem not a little too much “democracy.”)
As I find myself sliding into an advanced stage of Obamania, I think I might be well suited to write a serious pathological study of this terrible disease, which is striking down so many of our best conservative and libertarian thinkers in their prime. It’s also very important that we start looking into Obamania now, for even if a cure might be out of reach, the disease seems to be having an appreciable effect on the current presidential race. According to experts in these matters,
Obama owes his first-place standing to the millions of independents and Republicans who voted for him in states that allowed them to participate in the Democratic nominating contest, the News found.
Clinton would top Obama by more than 360,000 votes if only Democrats were counted, and the delegate race--which Obama leads by 135--would likely be tighter.
It’s a pandemic! And worse still, Obamanaia has multiple strains. The disease takes effect in different patients for different reasons. Indeed, I’m tempted to say: Tell me about your Obamania, conservative or libertarian thinker, I’ll tell you who you are.
What follows is a brief catalogue of the varieties of Obamania and some of their symptoms.
Terminal Obamania: Many of these sufferers call themselves “conservative” for no apparent reason political, social, or economic, and simply became Republicans because it seemed like the really patriotic thing to do. For them, Obamania lay in a dormant stage, even while some were employed by President Bush as his media advisor or special aide. Symptoms include feeling a “thrill go up your leg” while listening to Obama speak and to use with all earnestness phrases like “Make History,” “Hope,” “the American Dream,” and “what we are as a nation,” which all seem to be interchangeable and to signify not much of anything. Sometimes this strain even affects Romney propagandists, who begin to lose powers of self-control and feel “tempted”—“he almost had me last night[!]”
Barrack Bargainers Disease: The strain afflicts people who think that electing a candidate with a high Melanin count would relieve them of the need to confront tricky issues that bother them to no end but which they’d prefer not to talk about in polite company, not to mention oppose vigorously on principle. Ergo, they make arguments like, “If Obama really wanted to transcend race, he’d end affirmative action.” There’s also a vague hope that if we elect Obama, Al, Jesse, and friends will stop calling America racist . Clearly, these people are delusional.
More sophisticated forms of this strain make patients believe that if we’d only elect this half-Kenyan Harvard-educated senator, all issues of class, race, and resentment would magically vanish—poof!:
Black and minority America would be fully integrated into the nation as the British working class was fully integrated into the British political nation by George V. Americans would feel better about themselves and the world would feel very differently about America.
White Pride Delirium For these patients, Obamania creates a spectre in their minds that electing Obama would be the thing that finally turns American whites into ethno-nationalists (as riots and miscarriages of celebrity justice didn’t quite do the trick). Some have dreams that Obama will appoint Rev. Wright as secretary of the interior, Michele to the Department of Labor, and Farrakahn at State.
Those afflicted with this strain suffer blindness to the fact that Obama is pretty skillful at dumping black nationalists once they’re no longer useful; and while he probably won’t appoint any racist reverend to high office, he’s very likely to install some really horrible white people like Samantha Power and Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Realpolitikitis: This strain only affects the most intelligent commentators, who are willing to put up with some liberal domestic programs for the prospect of ending the war in Iraq. (And in all honesty, could Obama’s liberalism really be that much worse than Bush’s!?! If anything, it’s likely to be marginally better.)
Unfortunately these patients have been focusing so intently on Iraq that they’ve developed myopia, failing to see that while Obama might be the best positioned to remove troops from Iraq, he’s likely to redeploy them somewhere more politically correct.
Leninitis of the Right Brain : The symptoms of this strain are dramatically different than those of Terminal Obamania. Conservatives who are susceptible almost always have a predisposition towards mean-spiritedness and curmudgeonliness. They look on with wicked glee at the election of Obama as the American public getting the government it deserves and the GOP suffering embarrassing, catastrophic defeat. Some have hope that this strain might inoculate the Republican Party from the far worse disease of Bilingual Open-borderitis, which has been drifting over from Arizona.
* * *
What strain do I suffer form? I think I have a bad case of Realpolitikitis, but with some warning signs of Leninitis of the Right Brain. Can I be helped?