Liberals, conservatives, smears, and the inversion of reality
As Richard Cohen of the Washington Post sees it, when Sarah Palin said that being a mayor entails more responsibilities than being a community organizer, she was directing a “low blow” at Obama’s “strength,” and that this was an “outrageous” thing for her to do—worse, even, than a “mere smear.” Ramesh Ponnuru expresses his wonderment at Cohen’s silliness.
Question: if liberals lose their minds over a perfectly legitimate political riposte that was not a smear at all, how would they respond to a real smear? The thought occurs to me: maybe they wouldn’t mind it at all. I say this because the mission of liberalism is not to uphold and defend objective standards, but to subvert and destroy objective standards, because objective standards result in unequal outcomes. Therefore honestly condemning a genuine smear as a smear provides no payoff to liberals, but falsely attacking a perfectly legitimate comment as a smear is right up the liberals’ alley.
What then about the conservative’s absurd attacks today on Barack Obama for allegedly implying that Gov. Palin is a pig and making a “sexist” attack on women, when of course he intended no such thing? I think it shows that the “conservatives,” in abandoning conservative principle in response to the Palin selection, have become like the left: they no longer believe in truth, but in the assertion of their own will against the truth. Thus they now prohibit any questions about the natural differences between men and women as related to child care and career.
In this connection, a female professor of literature once told me how the feminists in the academy promoted mediocre female writers, such as Alice Walker, while they ignored top notch female writers such as Emily Dickenson, and she wondered why this was so. I replied that the feminists’ purpose was not to advance genuine achievements by women, but to destroy the very idea of genuine achievement and thus assert their own will over objective reality. To teach a fine female writer because she’s fine would do nothing to advance the feminist and leftist rebellion against the order of existence.
Jon W. writes:
I believe you’re wrong about BO’s thrust at Palin. I haven’t personally verified it, but my understanding is this. When BO uttered the lipstick on a pig line, the crowd “got it” as being directed at Palin. Tapes played on talk radio showed the crowd chanted or shouted “No pit bulls” or something to that effect immediately after BO made his lipstick remark.LA replies:
His context was not Palin but some other topic. Lipstick on a pig is a common phrase, everyone uses it. He’s an idiot for having used it this week, when everyone’s been talking about Palin’s “pit bull with lipstick” comment and naturally “lipstick on a pig” would instantly be associated with Palin. So he’s incredibly gaffe prone (what happened to this man’s legendary smoothness?) and he walked right into it. At the same time, I think his intention was innocent.LA continues:
I’ve now watched the YouTube video of Obama’s comment and it confirms what I just said. He was talking about economic police. Now it’s true that the moment he said, “lipstick on a pig,” the crowd screamed with delight because of course the comment made them think of Palin’s famous comment. And I think it’s probable that Obama was deliberately playing off the Palin comment. But that’s not the same as saying that she is a pig. And for Repubicans to go into overdrive over Obama’s supposed “sexist” attack on Palin demonstrates that Republicans are without principle. They will say anything, including making leftist-type charges of “sexism.”Alan M. writes:
You write:Thucydides writes:
The arguments about Obama’s remarks about lipstick on a pig are of course absurdist, but they are the norm in a mass democracy. The huge majority of voters are profoundly ignorant—one recent survey found fewer than 30 percent could state any difference between the two major parties. Only 40 percent know that we have branches of government, and can identify them. Roughly half belief Iraq launched the 9/11 attacks, in spite of having been told the contrary by public officials. Almost none can locate Iraq on the map.Terry Morris writes:
You wrote:LA replies:
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 10, 2008 04:27 PM | Send