11 October 2005
Elitism by proxy
Who suffers from (or perhaps enjoys) it? Andrea Harris has the details:
[M]any people ... have suddenly revealed a perplexing attachment to academic credentials that was not in evidence in the many red-state blogger sneers directed at the shenanigans of the "snobbish" liberal intelligentsia. But maybe I'm wrong maybe they reconfigured the definition of "elitist" while I was sleeping, just like they apparently reworked the definition of "conservative" to mean "supports the War on Terror but otherwise is indistinguishable from a liberal Democrat."
Gotta love that word "shenanigans": it conveys both malfeasance and triviality.
What the TruCons want, of course, is someone so plainly hard-right that (s)he doesn't even have to write any opinions: they'll already know how it's going to come out. The President didn't give them one, and I suspect it's because he figured those same TruCons didn't have the stones to get one through the Judiciary Committee, let alone the full Senate. The spectre of Donald Rumsfeld, I suppose: "You work with the Congress you have, not the Congress you want."
Oh, it's going to be great fun the next couple of weeks as Republicans force themselves to crib from the Democratic How To Obstruct A Nomination playbook. Those Texas gals (and I used to be married to one, so I know what it's like) can really mess with your head.
Posted at 7:38 AM to Political Science Fiction
Hrm, no. I have no doubt Aunt Harriet will be confirmed. Never have.
It's just a damn disappointing situation, and rightly or wrongly we look to our leaders to -- here's a thought -- LEAD.
Bush isn't leading here.
I mean, even on the fight for his own nominee, he ain't leading.
A made up controversy to say the least. She is what they want and will get ... The GOP'ers are following The 48 Laws of Power , specifically Laws 3,4,27, and 31 .... IMHO.
Rove as always a Michaevellian wizard ... hats off to the devious fella!
Rove was supposedly out of the loop on this nomination, which of course merely adds to his reputation.
The "TruCons" are really just liberals anyway -- the only "conservative" idea any of them seem to believe in is the one where they get to pay less taxes. As for the rest of true conservative convictions -- that one should lead a sexually restrained life, reverence for tradition, distrust for newfangled ideas, the lack of a boundary between the private life and the public one (since God can see all)... these are about as popular in America as they've ever been.
I would agree with Andrea ... a lot of "conservatives" are just folks who want to look like they are on the right side of things but secretly could just give a rats ass. And of course there are conservative convictions which she pointed out and the extreme variety -- sexual repression, rote Pavlovian dedication to the past, Flatworlder/Luddite tendencies, and lack of separation between church and state (the sky God doesn't like that)that are seen as bulwarks of God inspired good livin. A like case could be made for "liberal values" and their extreme as well.
When it's all boiled down (IMHO) the majority of the Silent Majority (they are still very much alive and as apathetic as always)just want to know what time Desperate Housewives comes on and wondering if they bought enough beer for the weekend :)
The assessment of these (and my extreme version I must concur) would appear to be about as popular (in practice) as they have always been.
I feel better ... Charles dear, is there any beer left in the fridge? :)