Thursday, September 02, 2004
 
Man Of The People. Person. Anybody?
Quickly first: More thanks and credit to me as I'm going to forego recounting my fecally-themed near-disaster of a morning. This one involved a different child altogether than the last one I mentioned and flirted dangerously with complete social humiliation for said child (the oldest) but luckily Pops was there to rescue him. I'm seriously rethinking this school thing... he's taking it fine but it's already got me half way to an ulcer on his behalf. Just the potential for your kids to get embarrassed at school is 1000 times worse than any actual embarrassment I myself suffered. Christ.

OK, more happily and completely unrelated...

I've stated it here and elsewhere, but it's worth saying again: when it comes to politics, I loves me some crazy. Can't get enough crazy.

This is why yesterday I lamented the absence of Alan Keyes at the Republican National Convention. I was hoping for a good ol' fashioned Indignant Sanctimony-Fest Ă  la Pat Buchanan in Houston in 1992. But no, it turns out Keyes is actually in the vicinity and probably feeling very out of place so far from his native Illinois, it's just that he isn't allowed to do anything specifically convention related. I was curious about this, but then I realized Ah! They probably have bouncers. And a modicum of common sense.

See, I could have made the cheap joke about no black people being allowed inside the convention hall, but I didn't. I bit a hole straight through my tongue, but I avoided it. I think I'm growing as a person.

But because Alan Keyes is Alan Keyes, he has managed to make some of the news this week about Alan Keyes. And guess what? It's all Culture War stuff! There are atomic clocks who could learn a thing or two about consistency and predictability from Mr. Keyes.

The beauty of it is this: Alan Keyes needs all the help he can get right now from everyone who might be able to give it. So what does he do? He personally insults the daughter of the Vice President of the United States.

Oh yes. The same daughter for whom Dick Cheney openly broke with the president a few days ago. So you know Dick takes this seriously and when Dick takes things seriously, people die.

We all know by now that Mary Cheney is a big ol' homosexual, yes? She likes the ladies, it can be said. So Keyes called her (and all lesbians by extension) a "selfish hedonist" and more than implied that homosexuality is simply willful Satan-inspired wickedness. But in Alan's defense and to be perfectly fair, he assures us he would similarly condemn his own daughter if she broke out and went all Sapphic all of a sudden. The hate is easier to take if you spread it out evenly.

Some good news: word is that among People Who Have Had Somewhat Negative Direct Personal Contact With Mary Cheney And Are Illinois Voters, his support is only down 33%. Way to stop the bleeding, Alan.

But I think there's someting deeper to his exclusion from the RNC here beyond his apparent inability to moderate himself in any sense of the word. Except that whole principled stand he took against running in a state you don't live in, that he seems to have skated over just fine. But everything else is all life-or-death, quite literally with Alan.

No, the real reason he's being kept at arm's length is in the last paragraph of the Sun-Times story linked above:

"Keyes continued his tense relations with Illinois’ GOP leaders, finally making a statement to Republican delegates this morning, even though DuPage County Chairman Robert Schillerstrom, who was chairing the meeting, had not invited him up to the podium to give a speech."

Just think of him inside Madison Square Garden, on the dais with that many people listening, that many microphones, those giant video screens behind him... the poor bastard would probably stroke out from sheer bliss. Either that or he'd do Al Sharpton one better and talk and talk and talk until he swallowed the microphone or the Secret Service were forced to put him down. This is Compassionate Conservatism at work, people. They've saved Alan Keyes from himself.

No, you know what, never mind. It probably is because he's a black guy.


This post on the Narcissus Scale: 5.3


Pops

- posted by Pops @ 9:47 AM
Comments:
Pshaw, such old news, Pops! Blogging is supposed to be about commenting on what's happening right now. Newspapers can give you the lo down on yesterday.

Anyway, on the subject of Keyes (a subject close to my heart since certain members of my family have been supporting his presidency for 12 years now), I'd venture to suggest that all his comments on social issues don't matter all that much to his electorate. The FMA is not going through and neither is abortion going to be made illegal. Income taxes--not going anywhere fast, so there goes the slave reparations plan. For central and southern Illinois, where the state's Republican constituency mainly resides, what matters is someone pro-defense, pro-farms (Keyes has a whole vague plank dedicated to farming, Obama noticeably lacks a stance on agriculture issues), pro-religion, etc. Keyes is essentially that populist conservative. He's like a Jefferson-quoting William Jennings Bryan, minus the oratorical tact.

That said, he's obviously going to get his ass kicked in the election, but I think it was a good choice on the state GOP's part to nominate him (even if they're cringing now). The Illinois GOP has yet to recover from the huge embarassment of former Governor Ryan's scandals, and they try to maintain a delicately centrist stance in order to keep themselves alive in this state. With this one race, where they've lost from the outset, it may be worth it to throw Keyes in to test the waters and find the extent of the real conservative following in Illinois. In electoral politics, anyway, it's always interesting to watch someone who doesn't pander to the center. It's probably the closest our system comes to being as ideological as Europe's parliamentary systems are.

Also, Keyes cites Allan Bloom as his mentor, and you can't hate on a guy who's studied with Bloom. And, he's pro-Israel. Props for that.
# posted by Blogger Miss Self-Important : 9/02/2004 12:02 PM
 
Holy crap I just finished this long-ass reply, hit "preview" to make sure it all looked OK and then closed the window without publishing the goddamn thing. Me smart.

Here's the News at 11 highlights version:

1. I made a very funny joke about blogging things that will happen TOMORROW. Also referenced Crispin Glover, which was good.

2. Alan Keyes, though I make fun, is tragic since he should be more than he is. All the credentials, plus great oratorical gifts and bags of charisma. And nothing to show for it.

3. It's not so much that he refuses to pander to the center, I think he is genuinely mystified by the fact that not everyone agrees with every single thing he says.

4. People don't want Catholic priest judgment and shepherding from someone who is not himself a Catholic priest and especially when most of the people he's talking to are not Catholic (though some points of dogma may overlap).

5. I have not read The Closing of the American Mind yet, though the reviews and notes on it I have seen lead me to believe I will be less than completely swayed. But I'm a big fan of stuff written by smart people, even if it's totally useless to me in the end.

And now we bow our heads and lament the loss of my original reply, with all its grammatical and stylistic polish, lost now to the ages.

One last thing: is anyone up for state or national office really anti-Israel? You don't hear alot of "Push 'em back into the Mediterranean" rhetoric in American politics. I haven't studied this closely so I'm genuinely curious.
# posted by Blogger Pops : 9/02/2004 1:32 PM
 
The Closing of the American Mind--good book. Actually, I hadn't read anyone he cites when I read it (Tocqueville, Plato, Rousseau, Nietzsche, Heidegger, etc.), so I was taking his word for it, but it did really make me want to go to college and read these people, so I'd say it was a success. And, it convinced me to take a class on Greek lit., which led me to become obsessed with the Greeks, which led me to sign up for a course in ancient Greek, which led me to my current state of insanity. It would be nice maybe if his view of the state of American education wasn't so doomsday-is-approaching, but he does have some excellent points about the failings of multicultural education. And we all know how much I love that.
# posted by Blogger Miss Self-Important : 9/02/2004 2:05 PM
 
I can honestly say I've been assigned to read all of those writers at one point or another in my academic career, which is not the same as saying I've read them. Plus the ones I did read were assigned and I've found out there's a HUGE difference between assigned reading and self-motivated reading.

Just to warn you: never, ever read Heidegger. It's not that I don't think you're up for the concepts, its just the way the man writes will turn your brain into oatmeal for about three days. It's crazy smart and very Greek-friendly, but some Germans simply don't take translation into American English in mind when they write, which is totally insensitive of them if you ask me.

And if I do read Bloom, we may bring about the Apocalypse here "discussing" it, so I'm a little afraid.
# posted by Blogger Pops : 9/02/2004 2:29 PM
 
Oh, yeah, and about the pro-Israel issue. No, obviously no one comes out and says that his platform is for destroying Israel. No one on the Left is officially for destroying anything because destruction isn't nice. Most people say things about being an "honest broker," which is all peachy and no one would disagree with that. Clinton was pro-Israel in that sense. But, in action, pressuring Israel into pursuing various "peace processes" (which Israel is no less to blame for pursuing) which are more destructive than beneficial to Israel is not exactly pro-Israel. Endorsing the entirely impracticable Right of Return is not pro-Israel. Condemning every act of self-defense Israel undertakes is not pro-Israel.

Historically, it's been the Left that has always been more genuinely pro-Israel than the Right in almost every country, but, even then, it's always contingent on current relations with the Arabs. As things stand now, I think the American Left cannot be said to have any ulterior motives beneath their views towards Israel. I don't think they're secretly waiting for it to be pushed into the sea. I think they genuinely believe that Israel is sinning more than it is being sinned against. And I disagree. So, I would say they are not anti-Israel in the sense that Hamas is anti-Israel, but not pro-Israel like the Bush administration has been. It's one of the few things I actually support Bush on.
# posted by Blogger Miss Self-Important : 9/02/2004 2:37 PM
 
Rita: I followed all that and agreed with most of it. Except for that part about Bush. What exactly is the Bush administration's position on Israel? We're nearly four years in now and I'm still not sure. I heard him say "road map" once, but that was it.

MPH: Finally! All this work to get you to lose respect for me has at last paid off. Challenge #2: Say something that will make you vomit on your keyboard. This will require some planning.
# posted by Blogger Pops : 9/02/2004 10:22 PM
 
I don't know about that... tomorrow I have planned some strong sexual imagery involving fleshy white people in advanced middle age. I'm not saying who yet, but keep a bucket nearby while reading tomorrow's Bucket.
# posted by Blogger Pops : 9/02/2004 11:34 PM
 
Well, from my meager experience, I can vouch for Tocqueville and Plato. Especially Tocqueville. Tocqueville is like all good things about France rolled into one foppish aristocrat.

Bush's policy on Israel started with the Road Map, which provides for an eventual two-state solution, but as the Second Intifida picked up, he essentially endorsed the view that Arafat was not a credible negotiating partner and that no further progress could be made without a Palestinian clampdown on terror, which, obviously, was not forthcoming. In the last year, Bush has shifted decidedly towards Israel by endorsing Sharon's unilateral pullout from Gaza, repudiating the "Right of Return," supporting construction of the security fence, and endorsing the implication of UN Res. 242 that Israel can retain some of the territory captured in 1967 (and does not have to hand over any of it until there is a guarantee of peace), which both acknowledges the legitimacy of some of the settlements and puts to rest this idea that the Green Line is the official eastern border of Israel. That's where Bush's policy stands as of now, anyway. Incredibly, even Kerry has endorsed it (gotta pander to the Jewish votes, ya know).
# posted by Blogger Miss Self-Important : 9/03/2004 12:19 PM
 
I actually have a copy of Tocqueville's The Old Regime and the French Revolution that was assigned, bought and never read. I may actually have to read it now. But of course as a provincial American I'm supposed to only be interested in his Democracy in America, but that would require effort to locate and subsequently purchase.

It seems to me in looking at your synopsis of Bush's stance toward Israel that the central theme of the last four years has been "Whatever you want to do, Israel, is cool by us." That can be taken two ways: 1) Bush and Sharon have similar geopolitical and ideological goals that neatly dovetail and are naturally aligned. 2) The Bush administration has retreated so completely from any kind of active engagement in the Middle East outside of Iraq that Sharon is free to do as he pleases without fear of US condemnation or even the slightest contravention. So what looks like agreement might just be good old fashioned benign neglect.

I actually don't know the answer to that, I just liked posing it.
# posted by Blogger Pops : 9/03/2004 12:41 PM
 
Well, save yourself some money and buy just the second half of Democracy in America. The first half is mostly the description of the American system of government that you learned in fourth grade. Also, in my capacity as your official guide to all things cool on the Internet, you should know that you can purchase all common books and many uncommon ones for under $5 at amazon.com's used books site (and they all come in very readable condition except one book I got which was kind of moldy, but it was a crappy book anyway, so it deserved to mold).

You can look at Washington's actions in two lights:
1) As you say, Washington is letting Israel get away with anything.
2) Washington is letting Israel act as a sovereign nation, which it incidentally is.
I prefer to be optimistic on this, especially since I agree with all the actions Bush has so far endorsed.

Also, I think it's worth noting that Kerry's endorsement of Bush's policies adds an awkward addendum to the argument that Bush is Sharon's puppet. Kerry is campaigning on the idea that Bush's foreign policy is not only fundamentally flawed, but also has alienated the world, and Kerry will fix our strained relationships. Bush's posture towards Israel should be one of his main targets, since support for Israel is manifestly unpopular in the rest of the world. It obviously isn't hard to spin last year's foreign policy decisions to make Bush appear spineless in the face of Israeli pressure. But Kerry hasn't done so, and it can't all be for the Jewish vote either, considering that many American Jews are unsympathetic to Sharon and Likud.

I honestly don't know how to account for this bipartisan turn in favor of Israel's interests instead of paying the usual lip service to both sides and pushing unrealistic peace plans into action as fast as possible. The only things I can suggest is either that the current breakdown of the PA leaves the US with little alternative but to endorse Israel, or that the Arab governments have been sufficiently cowed (excepting Iran, I suppose) that their pressure on behalf of the Palestinians can be ignored without suffering any kind of economic reprisals from Arab countries. Both are pretty weak explanations though.
# posted by Blogger Miss Self-Important : 9/03/2004 9:53 PM
 
While you're right, of course, about Israel being sovereign, we all know that historically the United States has--right from the outset--been intimately involved with Israel's ever-changing fortunes. It will always be more complex than simply the relationship between two sovereign nations.

And really, for once I wasn't trying to suggest that the Bush administration has been "spineless" vis-a-vis Israel, merely that they appear wholly uninterested. There are a thousand possible explanations for that (including that they are simply operating at a less press-friendly level than the Clinton administration in this regard so we're just not getting the news), so it probably wouldn't be helpful to speculate.

And as for Kerry, what can I say, the man's a goddamn Sphinx on almost every issue, including Israel. He's put all his eggs one basket, counting on the debates to make his full and complete case (partially hamstrung by the 5-week gap between conventions and spending limits, but still) and we all know how that worked out for Gore. I'm discouraged at the moment.
# posted by Blogger Pops : 9/03/2004 10:56 PM
 
Well, this article might be relevant to the Bush/Kerry-Position-On-Israel discussion:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1094111905285&p=1006953079897
# posted by Blogger Miss Self-Important : 9/05/2004 1:08 PM
 
Post a Comment

<< Home
|

Powered by Blogger