McCarthy for Romney; Frum still in conclave

Andrew McCarthy, who had been a strong Giuliani supporter (see my comment on his support for Giuliani and my debate with him on Giuliani and traditional values), has joined the Romney campaign.

Meanwhile, no white smoke has emerged yet from David Frum’s Diary signaling his decision on which presidential candidate will receive his election. It’s been 38 hours since his latest word. The world waits with bated breath.

Also, after describing me earlier this week as the “famously testy Lawrence Auster,” Frum still has not replied to my question: is it not the case that Frum is urging, at least on certain key issues, what is in effect an abandonment of conservatism?

But though he won’t admit it to me, that seems to be what he is up to. KPA writes this morning from Canada:

David Frum was recently interviewed by a CBC reporter. The telling moment was about 1/3 of the way into the interview when he says about conservatism: “We’re moving toward new formations [not conservatism as we’ve known it, and not liberalism either] … and there are going to be big prizes for the people who can figure out how to get there first.” I wonder if he feels that it is his mission to make this new formation, which from his interview has nothing to do with conservatism?

“Big prizes for the people who can figure out how to get there first”! The comment plainly suggests not only that Frum is seeking a reformulation of conservatism, but that his interest in this reformulation has at least as much to do with personal and political advancement as with the public good, a consideration he is unembarrassed to admit. But there I go again, being “testy,” the real meaning of which is that I attempt to identify the real meaning of what is being said by writers and public figures.

* * *

Also in the interview, Frum says that while he believes in the importance of traditional marriage, today’s society is moving in the opposite direction. His message is clearly that conservatives need to to stop opposing homosexual marriage, so as not to be out of step with current beliefs and trends. Only the people who understand this will be able to reap the the “big prizes” that Frum promises to them. And remember, this is the guy who thought that Giuliani was the best conservative candidate.

- end of initial entry -

Note: The spelling above, “bated breath” (short for “abated”), is the correct spelling, not “baited breath,” the latter conjuring the unfortunate image of a person who has been eating earth worms. Here is a discussion of the common error. And guess who was the first writer to use “bated breath”? Shakespeare, in The Merchant of Venice.

James P. writes:

Listen to Frum’s views on McCain (video link):

The McCain Method (according to Frum): Tell Republicans They’re Racist, Wrong and Stupid

Given all the clearly true things Frum says about McCain here, how can Frum possibly still be up in the air about which candidate to support? He understands McCain perfectly—Frum knows that McCain hates Republicans in general and conservatives in particular, especially when they dare to disagree with him. So why does Frum still need to “make up his mind” between McCain and Romney? Does he think it doesn’t matter that McCain hates conservatives? Or does Frum hope and expect that conservatives will be forced to follow wherever McCain leads them?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 02, 2008 10:28 AM | Send