At the end of his presentation, [Buckley] allowed questions. The first supplicant approached the microphone and hopefully inquired, "Mr. Buckley, what do you think about Rush Limbaugh?" This was during the time when Rush was still something of a rising star. His rhetoric was bombastic, hard-edged, and wickedly funny. Members of the audience shifted forward in their seats expectantly as Buckley answered by telling the following story.
There were two Spaniards sitting in a bar. One asked the other, "What do you think about General Franco?" Instead of answering, the man gestured for his friend to follow him outside. Once on the sidewalk, he motioned for the friend to follow him to his car. They got in the car and drove to a forest. Deep in the woods, he parked the car and beckoned the friend to hike with him down to a lake. At the edge of the lake, he pointed to a boat which they boarded. He grabbed the oars and rowed to the
center of the lake. Finally, he sat still, looked his friend in the eyes and paused for a moment. "I like him." Buckley told the story so brilliantly and created so much suspense, the denouement brought the house down amid gales of laughter and happy applause.
As a veteran conservative, Buckley captured himself very well. When Buckley retreats deep in the forest for privacy and then rows to the middle of a lake to make doubly sure nobody overhears, he doesn't need all the cover stories that the right tells to make themselves palatable in a democracy like the United States. Buckley doesn't talk about freedom being God's gift to humanity, the beauties of a color-blind society, the need to go back to JFK liberalism, the suspending of habeas corpus under Abraham Lincoln, or the Christianity of the "classic feminists."
Instead, he traced his own lineage back to Franco and the fascist regime in Spain and expressed his affection for Limbaugh in terms of an analogy with affection for Franco.
Of course, Franco's not the only reference point for authentic feeling on the right. There's British colonialism, Israeli rule over the Palestinians on the West Bank, Confederate figures like Jefferson Davis, military dictatorship, absolute monarchy, or the segregation South. If the Nazis weren't so awfully taboo, there'd probably be a few nostalgic references for them as well.
These are the things the right-wing longs for when they think the rest of the world isn't listening.
Posts
8 comments:
The Right-wing had their chance and used it to overwhelm the American people with monstrous debt so the rich can have more riches. They had their chance and used it to divert America away from the real problems of this country. Like Franco, they have imploded. Unlike Franco, they are still around to blame everyone but themselves.
I just want to say, before I even bother reading the post (which, to adopt the model of all too many leftist commenters, is optional anyway), that the title has got me right up on the edge of my seat in anticipation of the deep insight Prof Caric is about to lay down.
Actually, Buckley provided all the insight himself.
First off, since there isn't even a rhetorical attempt to show how these things relate to conservatives, except that they are all EVIL !!1!one!, there's so little meat on this bone I think the dogs would turn up there noses. I however am not so finicky.
A funny story about Buckley and Limbaugh is supposed to illustrate that all conservatives are Franconian dictators? Is it possible that Buckley used the story to illustrate that he was concerned about what the higher ups might think if he threw a small nod of approval his way, and get a laugh at the same time? Limbaugh was an unknown quantity at the time. Seems more likely to me, but I'm not an expert at interpetive interpreting.
British colonialism Conservatism? It's the rugged individualist, Jeffersonian, NRA types that told the Brits to sod off. If conservatives can be accused of anything historically, it would be expansionism, not colonialism. The difference is in giving those regions peripherally under the US a chance at voting. Colonialism does no such thing as the territories are sujugated to the homeland. I'm not so sure that's a valid argument either, but give the tired old colonialism thing a rest already.
Israeli rule over the Palestinians on the West Bank
Begun by that wonderful organization which is the champion of all things right in this world, the UN. Conservatives support Israel, not because they "rule" the palestinians, but because it is a democracy in a region that has a distinct lack of it.
Confederate figures like Jefferson Davis and the segregation South
Which party has a serving Senator that is a former member of the KKK? Sure confederate figures are popular in the south, among democrats and republicans. It's that whole southern pride schtick and not a direct reflection of party loyalty. Besides you're the one that insists pointing out everyone's pigmentation.
military dictatorship, absolute monarchy
If we were to take a quick tour of the world, noting as we went all the dictatorships, do you think we'd find them in Bastions of conservative values or socialism? Venezuela, China, N Korea, Russia... The people living under the worst oppression and economic condiditon are not living in places that value conservative individualism, they like that good old collectivism of the left.
If the Nazis weren't so awfully taboo, there'd probably be a few nostalgic references for them as well.
Like that one you just made? Nazi = socialism(left) not conservatism(right) it is the National Socialist party.
ef - As long as they are allowed to re-write history, they can make those types of comparisons, and their fellow travelers will just nod their heads in approval and move along.
And U.S. Conservatives are not remotely interested in individualism. They want uniformity. Compliance. No question of authority. And where do people get the idea that Venezuela is governed by an oppressive regime under President Hugo Chavez.
He is a great good man. I even disagree with the leaders of my own party regarding Chavez.
Consider, Before Chavez, most of the poor had never seen a doctor or dentist. Their children never went to school. The neoliberal market “adjustments” of the 1980s and 1990s only made things worse, cutting social spending and eliminating subsidies in consumer goods. Successive Administrations nothing about the growing gap between rich and poor. Here are some of the good things the Chavez government has accomplished:
Chavez instituted a land reform program designed to assist small farmers and the landless poor has been instituted. It has worked. Education is now free (right through to university level). The Chavez government has set up a marine conservation program and is taking steps to protect the land and fishing rights of indigenous peoples. Under Chavez, special development banks assist small businesses and farmers. He has put a stop to attempts at privatizing the state run oil industry. 80 percent of the Venezuelan oil industry is still publicly owned.
The government hires unemployed men, on a temporary basis, to repair streets and neglected drainage and water systems in poor neighborhoods.
A leftist is someone who advocates a more equitable distribution of resources and services and who supports the kinds of programs that the Chavez government is putting in place. (Likewise a rightist is someone who opposes such programs and seeks to advance the insatiable privileges of private capital and the wealthy few.)
Millions of his compatriots correctly perceive him as being the only president who has ever paid attention to the nation’s poorest areas. I don't see the problem.
Finally, comparing the National Socialist, (NAZI party) in Hiltler's Germany reflects a complete misunderstanding and misreading of history. There was no social democracy there. Ridiculous argument.
Incoming rant.
Can I borrow those rose colored official chavenista glasses you're wearing. Chavez shut down opposition media as soon as he got the power to do so. Nope, no demand for uniformity there.
Give it a few years. Socialism doesn't destroy an economy overnight, and the oil revenue (has anyone told algore about this?) will likely keep things solvent for longer than would otherwise be the case. Socialism achieves equity among the masses by making everyone poor (except those in power, they get fancy vacation houses and fine foods). At least under capatilism you have a shot (sometimes small, sometimes large) at living a decent life.
Chavez is interested in his own power, not the welfare of his people. And by his, I mean the states' people, since socialism relegates individuals to the status of a resource to be used like grain or oil. Conformity to the party ideal is also required under punishment of whatever the state feels like doing to you, since you don't truly have any rights.
I know, that conformity thing is supposed to be our domain, but it just isn't. It's libs that engage in threats, smears, banishment, legal abuse or anything else the can think of to enforce their view of what is right and proper in the world. It is tyranny. The brand of conformity that consevatives practice is the old-man-grumbling-about-those-noisy-mannerless-kids variety. Annoying? yep. Unnecessary? Sure. But when you cross a righty's sensibilities you don't get packed off to the gulag.
Yes, we miss Bill Buckley.
His wit and wisdom (particularly the wisdom) are missed.
But he's done his job. He's done more for the conservative movement than most. Now its a lot of yelling. Not that the left doesn't deserve it, its just harder to watch these days.
Post a Comment