Into the Forest

There is a great deal of discussion amongst the Online Conservative Intelligentsia, such as it is, about the Next Step Forward and Where Do They Go From Here after the stomping they will receive next Tuesday at the hands of a certain skinny mulatto. Most of this discourse suffers from the problem The Renegade discusses here (and here). The problem is glaring; the discussants seem to want to recruit more right-wing bloggers, but, well, who the hell  needs more right wing bloggers? The boar, I'm afraid, never really required the first tit. That was tragedy. The second tit was farce. I suppose the proposed third tit would be Flavor of Love.

The problem with "conservatism" is really, well... why? What is this beast, and why ought it not be shot as it licks its balls pathetically in the cage it built itself?

Beats me. But from the perspective of someone interested in the ridiculous subject of the history of the blogosphere, I was amused by this, from Insty:

I'm a loyal reader of your blog and glad to see you doing so well in terms visits and page views as you posted with law professor blog link today.

One thing I would ask you to consider, or at least explain, is why you don't provide more direction for fellow libertarians on what candidates to support financially. See this post.

My guess is that you could be a real force in promoting libertarian candidates--those that share your ideals--whether they be in the Republican party or elsewhere. After the Obama win on Tuesday, there will be an opportunity to dramatically shape the conversation about what the opposition role should be. For the good of the country, I am guessing that you want to direct that towards a principled libertarian opposition. With your presence in the blogsphere, you have the ability to shape that by asking support for those candidates, at whatever level of government, who fellow libertarians highlight to you, from your regular readers.

Well, I've never endorsed candidates, really, and certainly never tried to run any sort of organized fundraising program. There's a niche for that -- a sort of counter-Kos -- but I'm not sure I'm the guy to be picking winners and directing donations. As Clint Eastwood says, "A man's gotta know his limitations." What do you folks think?

I think Glenn Reynolds is a dink, is what I think.

I never understood the gloating wingnuts engaged in back in '04 about how Kos and Atrios etc. had gone "0-17." There was an astounding inability on the part of "conservatives" to see what was going on -- the laying of infrastructure, the setting of precedents -- they missed all that, though nobody pretended it was a secret.

So to be blunt, which is what I do:

Does anyone think Glenn Reynolds would ever have had the sheer balls to deliberately fight knowing an 0-17 record was likely, but the odds be damned?

Is there anything else to say?

Comments

[Nora]

Of course, you're assuming that Glenn Reynolds would in fact know that a 0-17 record was possible. You may be underestimating his sense of himself as special, as just inherently better (smarter, more savvy, etc.) than Kos and Atrios and the rest of those lefties.

Though I agree that he wouldn't have the balls to face that if he were sufficiently aware.

[actor212]

I agree with Nora: Reynolds would assume he'd be a winner right up until the counting was done, and then by the next election, have conveniently forgotten his lousy record.

[Jemand von Niemand]

A friend and I were watching a clip of McCain yesterday; Grumpy was going on about Obama's tax plan in his usual fashion. My friend shook her head, saying "I can't get over the fact -- they [conservatives] really do believe their own press."

The primal flaw in American 'conservatism' is also reflected in the Wingnut blogosphere: What they have to sell doesn't relate, in any way, to the real world. It's purveying and bottom-feeding on fantasy -- an endless cycle of simply making shit up, and it's a profoundly disturbed and disconnected.

The classic example is Rove's 2002 on-background, anonymous quip to Ron Suskind, " 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.' " (Hey, Fat Boy; how'd that work out?)

Malcom X, father of Obama? "I said 'no, thank you' to the 'Bridge To Nowhere'"? 'Liberal Fascism'? Drudge, Norman Podhoretz and Ron Owen? "I haven't been convicted of anything"? Michael J. Fox, 'faking' his Parkinson's?

Purveying lies for dissemination has nothing to do with awareness. Selling victimhood, and manufactured rage over an endless series of imaginary 'crimes', is willful self-delusion. As a marketing tool, it's addictive; that's why Reynolds can't stop selling a twisted, little vision of the future -- any more than Limbaugh, Kristol, Goldberg or the RNC can.

I'm amazingly biased, but Left Blogtopia*™ -- with all our own whack jobs and bloviators -- more closely reflects the Real, and more positive aspirations of the human spirit.

Reynolds, like the rest of Wingnuttia, isn't selling hope or solutions; They've Lost. They want a dialogue, not about a reality-based direction for American conservatism, but revenge. And while Reynolds may not articulate it, he's perfectly aware that's what 'his crowd' wants.

[Jemand von Niemand]

Left Blogtopia*™ (y!stbkctp!)

I too, know my InterTube traditions.

[Xecky Gilchrist]

The classic example is Rove's 2002 on-background, anonymous quip to Ron Suskind...

I didn't know that was Rove. I figured it probably was, but where was it reported?

[actor212]

I have a working theory that I operate under:

The Republican party is about thirty years behind the Democrats.

What this means is, if you want to predict what's next for the Republican party, look back just about thirty years. The Dems have already been there.

By this estimation, it's just about the Reagan "revolution" in terms of what the GOP will face, a massive repudiation of principles it had built its foundations on, but that unravelled in front of its very eyes.

So the prediction is quite simple: thirty years in the desert until they come to grips with their disconnect from the mainstream American viewpoint.

[Jemand von Niemand]

didn't know that was Rove. I figured it probably was, but where was it reported?
Xecky Gilchrist

It hasn't been conclusively proven Rove was the "senior white house advisor" who made the comment to Suskind in 2003-2004.

I've seen it tossed around a good deal on the blogs -- Mark Danner mentions the same possible connection; even bloggers on Psychology Today's website ("Palin, "The Secret," and our high-stakes referendum on two definitions of ‘real'"; Jeremy Sherman, Ph.D. October 03, 2008 [blogs.psychologytoday.com, in 'Ambigamy]) attribute the quote to Rove. You can do your own Googling for others.

Rove has, to the best of my knowledge, never denied making the statement to Suskind -- which is proof of nothing, of course.

This note sums up my own feelings, which is why, whenever referencing the quote, I make Tubby its author:

It was only later that undisclosed pundits decided it was Rove. There are some, who, as I did, make the unqualified claim that it was Rove. I can’t find anyone who will say how they know what they claim. Again, I’m sorry. That said, I’ll bet it was Rove.

[Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist]

Jemand von Niemand - thanks. I wonder if teh Turdblossom would own up to it these days.

Probably, since he's a pugnacious little fuckwalrus.