It's doublethink, as Orwell described it. They aren't insincere, they've just compartmentalized the things they know about patronage and malfeasance away from their more fundamental knowledge that Bush is a good and competent man. When those two areas of knowledge become glaringly incompatible, like now, they have problems.
My guess is that it's about your estimation of his critics. If you see him attacked again and again for things you agree with him about, you become impervious to all criticism of him, whether or not they are points of difference you have with him yourself. So you may hear that he's corrupt and a liar a million times, but you don't hear it, because you thought he was right about Iraq or Jesus or whatever.
It's a deep game. This, the expressed shock, is the shuck, part of the dance you do to prove you're not a tool.
Like Insty making to call the Civil Rights Division (he's got 'em on speed-dial, for sure) a day after his insightful sociology of the poor.
Either that or, perhaps, the world is fuller of dim bulbs than is dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio.
I mean, someone should tell Rod Dreher that they have games of chance in the back room at Rick's.
I am shocked, shocked! to find that gambling is going on in this establishment.
Most of the conservatives I know believe very strongly that the media only report the bad things; only the bad news out of Iraq, only things that make the President look bad, &c. There is a tendency to take every media report with a grain of salt that neatly fills in all the little cracks in the story. The thread ogged linked to earlier where most of the commenters kept fixating on tiny incongruous details and attacking the paramedic as 'socialist'. It can't be true, because the media lie about how good the President is.
But it's really hard to write this off as anything but a cockup.
They are glib morons, and sometimes not even that. Their prime virtue is smug certitude; it's what they offer and it's what they need. The world has been described to them in way X, they believe the description, and any apparent evidence to the contrary can be explained away in any number of ways.
They lack doubt, and they lack it because they eschew it. Don't worry, Dreher will get turned around.
And if that bit about Insty's dad is correct, then, taken with the knowledge of his opposition (if muted) to Padilla, I'm willing to give him a lot more leeway than I previously would have.
Well, the blinders are on both sides of the aisle, sometimes; there were a whole lot of liberals who were genuinely surprised that the last presidential election was close, that there were people that disagreed with them and that there were a lot of them.
While I think (uncharitably) that the conservative blinders are bigger, it's not just a conservative problem. Political dialogue has been replaced by monologuing and fierce sycophancy.
I think ogged or someone linked to a claim that he was a serious civil rights guy back in the day when it mattered. In the South. Credit where credit is due - I'd like to think I'd have that kind of sack, but who the hell knows.
I remember reading that a few days ago. Title of the post, whoever it was, was 'The Apple Fell Far From the Tree' or something like that.
there were a whole lot of liberals who were genuinely surprised that the last presidential election was close, that there were people that disagreed with them and that there were a lot of them.
Yeah, the "how could Nixon have won? No one I know voted for him" syndrome.
It's depressing as hell. Not nearly as depressing as prepping lesson plans on a school night, but there you have it.
on a non-school night, even.
It's Friday! Where hath my youth fled!
Title of the post, whoever it was, was 'The Apple Fell Far From the Tree' or something like that.
I need a link, people.
Sigh. I knew this guy back when I used to live in Baton Rouge. He wasn't a yutz then.
Or at least I didn't think he was. Maybe I was a yutz. Who knows.
Weiner did the link, the hyperlinked words were "dad was like assholic," which I initially read as "dad was less alcoholic" and wondered if Weiner was spreading some inside academia gossip.
I knew this guy back when I used to live in Baton Rouge.
Which guy? Dreher?
Weiner did the link, I'd find it, but I'm lazy and trying to talk about the Pre-Socratics after having had a glass of wine.
Yeah. He was writing for the BR Advocate then (or was it the State Times? Doesn't matter; they were owned by the same company), mostly movie & music reviews and other soft core feature type stuff. He once wrangled me into a massive scotch tasting for a feature article, when I was supposed to be on my way to class. A picture of me in front of about 30 glasses of scotch appeared on the front page of the Lifestyle section. My mother was only slightly amused.
Huh. Well, I'm sure a lot of wingers are perfectly nice, personally. Some probably even have good taste in Scotch.
Cala, that was my second time tonight I could have jinxed you.
Circle-circle, dot-dot, now I've got my cootie shot!
No gimmes!
@ washerdreyer
"...can someone explain this to me? Seriously."
People should have tattoed on their inner eyelids: "Never ascribe to malice what might be attributed to stupidity."
That's not a political excuse for anyone or anything. It's an accurate observation about human nature. It will fail just as Occam's Razor does, because it's a subset.
"What about Insty's dad?"
He was a semi-radical minister leftist who led protests against the Vietnam War in Knoxville. The long article about Knoxville's protests was quite interesting.
so, once upon a time there were principled conservatives. Then their party won. The people they disagreed with attacked the people who won. They didn't want to side with the people they disagreed with. And so, many were and are blind, and no longer principled.
But if they wake up, I wouldn't attack them for it. It's hard to admit you've been lied to by your friends.
And, lots of dumb people in the world.
I'll be clerking in Nashville next year.
I'll be clerking in Nashville next year.
Is this news, or have I missed it before? In any case, congratulations!
Well, specifically when it comes to media professionals, conservative journalists tend to self-conceptualize themselves as part of the journalistic arm of the conservative movement, while liberal journalists think of themselves as part of the liberal arm of journalism. This is why your most effective liberal partisans in the media tend to come from unorthodox backgrounds (e.g., Paul Krugman [economics], Al Franken and John Stewart [comedy]) while pundits with journalism backgrounds, even when clearly liberal in their personal beliefs (i.e., Friedman and Kristof) aren't effective advocates.
The flipside of this is that the right's pundits are much more inclined to keep their worries to themselves and avoid making trouble. If they have some dissident view, their inclination is to keep it to themselves for the sake of a movement they believe in, while liberals will seek out minor quibbles with the liberal movement and trumpet them in the interests of being interesting writers (see, e.g., Slate and TNR especially; and especially, especially M. Kaus but TAP and The Nation do it, too, though in an ideologically different way).
Congratulations text. I've been in Nashville for about 36 hours in my life, and I wasn't sober for many of them, but it seemed like a pretty nice place. I'll probably be applying for clerkships slightly less than a year from now.
The dichotomy above is really interesting, but it doesn't seem to go all the way in explaining the Dreher post. The interesting part isn't that he's only now getting to saying bad things about the Bush administraion (having overcome the posited conservative journalists distaste for airing dirty laundry in public), it's that he's expressing it via surprise at having it first come to his attention now. I guess the connection could be that because of this anti dirty laundry tendency conservatives reallhy don't hear about the failings of other aspects of their movement, but that seems a little tendentious.
thanks everyone. I have spent only eight or so hours in the city myself, but it looks like a fun place. And more time for extracurricular pursuits.
Now you are not only Lord of the Elements of Style, but also Clerk of the Judges of Nashville? Yay, text!
thanks, SB. I'm glad somebody caught that.
And welcome back, Laureate Standpipicus. You have been missed.
Thanks, text. I missed you (singular and plural), too.
Two or more things:
8: Why does that mean you're willing to give Insty more leeway? It inclines me to give Insty less leeway--if his dad had been Orval T. Faubus (wrong state, I know), he would be an improvement, but as it is he should know better.
9: Well, my blinders aren't quite like you describe. I know full well that there are a lot of people who take the conservative side, I just can't figure out what they're thinking. I want to say, "What is it that you like? The massive deficits? The losing war for no good reason? The failure to catch Osama? The pervasive hackery? The destruction of every tenet of good government? The torture? What?" (Some of these items, I realize, are a wee bit tendentious.)
Now, 2/6/34 are probably right that a lot of this is about taking sides, which is a useful heuristic for ordinary citizens (though journalists should do better). And I take sides myself. But I think My taking My side is perfectly reasonable, and I can't see any reason for the other people to be taking their sides. Which means, given that everyone else isn't stupid, that I should try to see what their reasons are. But I've tried and tried, and I don't see it.
(and, of course, congrats to text and welcome back/we missed you to SB.)
This seems like the least off-topic place to note:
Fontana, which I recently discovered is in California
Revealed!
(Read the rest scale: 0 out of 5. I hope his sitcoms are funnier than that.)
I suppose there's the explanation that Dreher is neither evil nor stupid, but simply hasn't been paying attention for the past 4 1/2 years.
[[Thinks about that.]]
Nah.