Monday, February 12, 2007

I Told You So...
Got into another argument with one of the I-WILL-Hold-My-Breath-Till-Blue-in-The-Face sort of..ahem..conservatives on FR recently, and I finally got at least this one to admit to something none of them ever will. The argument was begun on the premise that a certain Mr. Duncan Hunter, a backbencher Congresscritter, should be the Republican nominee for the Presidency in 2008. Mr. Hunter, so far as I know, has but one rock-solid conservative credential to his name: Ann Coulter said he should be President.

From Ann's luscious lips to God's ear, I guess.

Now, I seem to recall about this time last year, Ann putting her stamp of Conservative approval on another backbencher named Mike Pence for the same office. I similarly recall all the "excitement" generated by this coronation on FR and other conservative sites. I also recall that after a few weeks, Mr. Pence was found to be wanting in the conservative cojones arena, and the buzz that arose from his selection by Ann, quickly fizzled. If I recall, Mr. Pence, in keeping with his name, was Pence-wise and Pound-foolish; i.e. he was profligate spender of government tax revenue. A decided no-no if you wish to call yourself a conservative, you see (although it didn't stop half of the 109th Congress).

But I digress...

Now, so far as I know, Duncan Hunter is a fine and upstanding citizen, an honest representative of the people, and a snazzy dresser. However, I do know that when the prospective republican candidates at this time include the likes of Rudy Guiliani and John McManiac, Mr. Hunter is fighting an uphill battle. McPain at leats gets good press, Rudy is still fondly remembered for is leadershi on September 11th. I would very much like to hear what Mr. Hunter migth have to say, if only in the vain hope thathe might elevate the present political debate above it's current "oh yeah?" schoolyard character. Both McCain and Guiliani, naturally, will have their issues in the primaries, but that was not the gist of the debate.

The gist of the debate was that even if Mr. Hunter was a projected no-show come primary time, no "real" conservative would bend his neck and be "forced" to vote for either McCain or Guiliani. Considering that there aren't, to my knowledge, Republican Death-Squads, frog-marching people to the polls with guns to their heads, I hardly see how anyone is being 'forced' to do anything. There's nothing that says you can't be a republican and not vote for the party's presumptive nominee, although these folks ar ein a bit of a quandry; they will be blamed if a candidate which hasn't mustered up to their skewed visionof the role of government in society doesn;t win. They simply won't vote for someone they don't agree with simply for the sake of party unity. Fair enough. Conversely, they don't take blame for skewing the primary process in the first place by only ensuring that candidates who pass the majority of their litmus tests actually DO get to compete. Like most human beings, even in politics, they want their cake and to eat it to. However, the true reason why either McCain or Guiliani is such an odious choice, is of course, God. Or at least what many of the perpetually panty-bunched on the American right believe to be God's political agenda (notwithstanding all the "Render unto Caeser what is Caesar's, spiel). The problem, naturally, revolves around three cultural-conservative bugaboos;

a. Abortion should be illegal in ALL cases (I sorta-kinda agree with them on this point)
b. Gun rights (they need them thar flame throwers and RPG launchers from when the End of Days arrives to protect them from the heathens who won't be saved. Or, in some versions, to actually begin the chaos which will bring the Rapture upon us. Or, in a third version, to start the Second Revolution in which the people of "Fly-Over Country" will have to battle the federal Leviathan which has come under the control of the Fascist Gays with Fashion Sense).
c. The fact that you can say certain four letter words on television without being horsewhipped in public.

I generalize on the third issue, but you get the point; cultural conservatives rail against the coarsening of American society, seemingly remembering a time when everyone went around saying things like "gosh-darn-it!" and "oh pooh-with-sugar-on-top" whenever they were angry or required an interjection intended to convey annoyance. A time, which, incidentally, never existed, except in the milleaux hand-crafted for American conservatives; a world in which it is eternally the 1950's, Leave it to Beaver was entertainment of the highest order, and America was always right, no matter what.

Anyways, when it was pointed out to the misguided individual that the upcoming Presidential race will be less about conservative issues and more about mending Republican fences with the great American political middle, the gentleman (although he did call me a fascist, a marxist and several other, hysterical and totally unrelated-to-the-subject-at-hand names, all of which betrayed a total lack of knowledge of politics and political theory, in general) finally said that none of it mattered to him, because he had "God on his side" and that made him totally and completely correct in his assumptions and assertions. His world view was the only one that counted because it was the only one in which he believed God would agree.

There you go; the total stunting of political deabte, the complete divorce with reality, and the new weapon of the conservative ideologue; just say "God said so", and any debate which you are losing on reason and logic, is ended. No one can answer God, can they? Then again, it's not like God answers us, but that's another issue. The point was to direct the debate in such a way as to prevent adequate response, or, to squash the debate in it's entirety. In the meantime, no information of real value is exchanged, no point of view is expressed by either side which might serve to persuade.

God, apparently, is against Free Speech, too, now. Curious, since most "conservatives" will insist that God granted us our constitutional rights to begin with (you know, that time when Jefferson came down from Montecello with the stone tablets after he spoke to a burning bush (not Bush) for a couple of days). Just like the Catholic Church and it's convoluted and contradictory premise of "Free Will", the American conservative of a certain Jethro-and-Ellie-Mae bent has applied the same hypocrisy to the exercise of a constitutional right. It is both God-given and God-takeneth-away if it is not used in the "proper manner", i.e. in any way that does not reinforce or glorify God's role as Creator of the Universe, Arbiter and Judge of Mankind....Or in Support of Duncan Hunter.

I'm telling you; if you believed the left was off it's rocker (and it is), you should see some of the folks running around calling themselves "Conservatives" these days.

No comments: