Why Mark Jaws will vote for McCain-Palin

Mark Jaws writes:

No doubt some of us who otherwise agree on about 90 percent of cultural and demographic issues are locking horns over this Sarah Palin affair. I was initially astonished at some of the anti-Sarah sentiments expressed in this forum, but since we are reasonable people, we therefore can express honest differences of opinion. Here are my two cents in support of Sarah.

First and foremost, she is an attractive and accomplished woman who has given birth to five children, and can very well serve as a poster woman for fertility among white professional women. One of the major problems facing the West today can be summed up as “demographics is destiny.” Even Third Worlders understand that fact, while our ruling white political elites do not. I have stated before in this very forum, had white Baby Boomer women maintained the birthrates of their parents there would be an additional 25 million white American children today, and thus far less need to import the unassimilable to do the entry level work that I and my friends did in the 1960s and 1970s. Sarah Palin may encourage professional white woman to have more children, and that is good for everyone in America.

Second, she is indeed a “real person” and not to be counted among the clueless scions of the elite ruling class, who have no idea what real life is like under an ever intrusive federal government and demographically changing America. Do not discount this “she’s a real person” phenomenon. It registers—even with a cynical middle-aged cuss like me. I have had enough of the Al Gores and Jorge Booshes from the professional political class who live in the stratosphere and suffer eternally from white guilt, hypocrisy, and lack of common sense.

Third, she lives her values. She is a lifetime member of the NRA and she hunts. She is pro-life, and chose to bear a child suffering from Down’s Syndrome. She is patriotic and her son has enlisted in the Army. Contrast that glowing example with the pathetic explanation offered up by Mitt Romney in explaining why none of his five boys had volunteered to serve in the military. The Sarah Palin story stands in sharp contrast to the phony and cowardly “do as I say but not as I do” cultural and political elites who only talk the talk and are leading this country to moral and financial collapse . In other words, she is refreshing, she is vibrant, and she is pleasing to look at—factors not to be discounted. And because she is a fresh face, she is more likely to say the things which have to be said (e.g., the devastating impact black crime has on race relations), but which more seasoned politicians treat as a hot potato.

Prior to last week I had made up my mind to vote Third Party. But now I am now excited about her candidacy and will support McCain-Palin.

LA replies:

“And because she is a fresh face, she is more likely to say the things which have to be said (e.g., the devastating impact black crime has on race relations), but which more seasoned politicians treat as a hot potato.”

You have no basis for thinking that Palin has anything useful to say about race. Based on her actual qualities and positions that you like, you are projecting further qualities and positons onto her that you desire to see. It’s pure wishful thinking.

And that in a nutshell is the Palin phenomenon. Conservatives are personally liking her and identifying with her, and on that basis are projecting all kinds of hopes onto her that are not mecessarily supported by reality.

Mark Jaws replies:

Call McCain Palin pied pipers and people like me the rats of Hamlin, but all of the rank and file hard core conservative voters whom I know love her. This is a sentiment typical below voiced by my conservative Catholic church crowd. My friend, quoted below, is a former college football player, former cop, former FBI agent, who now works as a Hollywood consultant. He has been married for over 25 years and has eight kids. Next to me, he is my favorite action figure. He builds rappelling towers on his own property (30 acres) and obstacle courses for teenage kids to negotiate, and sets up firing ranges for the kids. Sarah Palin appeals very much to men such as my friend.

I know the qualities he and I have listed do not by themselves make a great VP, however, she looks so good in comparison to the pipsqueaks and phony do-nothings (BHO comes to mind) among the ruling class.

My friend wrote to me:

Sarah Palin is Pro-Life, and as such, there are no greater examples of being Pro-Life than giving birth to a baby you know in advance will be mongoloid, and having your teenage daughter keep her baby alive, rather than have her eliminate the “problem” and the resultant embarrassment to her political career from both of these “choices”.

Her daughter thought she was smarter than her parents when it comes to sex. That is not a unique revelation for a teenager, no matter who their parents are. I did stupid things that I pray my kids will never know about, or repeat. But we try our best to have our kids grow up as responsible young adults, which, I am happy to report they have done well and made us proud. That said, it doesn’t guarantee they won’t make mistakes and think they know better than us—obviously they have done so thousands of times already, but thankfully not with the grave lifelong consequences some have had to face.

She and her husband are obviously real people, with real problems, yet they are together and raising their family with love, and discipline. That’s all parents can do, and all of us who are know that all too well.

Besides, she kills and cleans her own mooses. How can it get better than that?

LA replies:

Your friend’s comment epitomizes the conservative idiocy I’ve been writing about for the last several days. These “conservatives” are the conservative equivalent of Oprah fans. Everything’s personal. Sarah Palin kills and cleans her own mooses. Oh la lah, it can’t get any better than this, and therefore she should be a heartbeat from the presidency! The Palin’s are “real” people, with “real,” messy lives (JUST LIKE US), and not only do we approve of “real” people like ourselves with “real” messy lives, but we think that they ought to be leading the country.

I’m telling you, when I see “conservatives” and Republicans talk this way, I want the whole party to go down in a crash.

“She and her husband … are together and raising their family with love, and discipline.”

Yes, Mr. and Mrs. Palin raised their children with so much love and discipline that their 17 year old daughter went and got herself knocked up. Maybe if the family had actually been spending time together, and if the parents had exercised real discipline, as Laura W. powerfully argues, this would not have happened.

Your friend perfectly confirms what I’ve been saying, that for these “conservatives,” rejecting abortion is in itself the summum bonum. Nothing else is needed to be a good person. If Palin pursues a demanding career and neglects her daughter and fails to provide her with sufficient discipline and structure in her life, and the daughter becomes pregnant, and then Palin rejects abortion for her daughter, THEN PALIN IS TO BE PRAISED, PERIOD. No criticism for neglectful parenting. No criticism of out of wedlock sex and the resulting illegitimacy, the single most destructive phenomenon in our society. A woman rejecting abortion for her daughter has become the highest moral act and the equivalent of divine salvation, wiping out all sins.

Mark Jaws writes:

Herr Auster said:

“You have no basis for thinking that Palin has anything useful to say about race. Based on her actual qualities and positions that you like, you are projecting further qualities and positions onto her that you desire to see. It’s pure wishful thinking. “

Of course this is wishful thinking, and it is quite normal. Is politics anything but wishful thinking? [LA replies: Yes, politics is supposed to involve the use of human reason in thinking about the good. But you and your fellow Catholic and evangelical conservatives have embraced a politics of emotionalism. Not just emotionalism, but vitalism. And as Fr. Seraphim Rose decisively demonstrated, vitalism is a form of nihilism.] And while the following may not all apply to Sarah Palin, it does indeed apply to real people, and being a real person, Sarah Palin is MORE LIKELY to understand and listen to the concerns of other real people. There is nothing earth shatteringly new that I am writing here, but it serves to reinforce my case.

A “real person” is more likely to have felt the pinch of demographic change, either in a deteriorating neighborhood or a student body at the local school which has suddenly turned hostile to his or children, and when in power he or she will more likely propose steps to end this heretofore unimpeded deluge from the 3rd World.

A “real person” is more likely to have felt the sting of black-on-white crime, and when in power he or she is more likely to confront this contemporary plague, at least by talking about it and not pretending it does not exist.

A “real person” is more likely to have experienced traffic delays and thereby felt the effects of this ridiculous Bushite “invade-the-world / invite-the-world / ignore the infrastructure” policy, and when in power he or she is more likely to curtail immigration and to enhance the infrastructure. [LA replies: Mark, Sarah Palin completely supports the Bush/McCain policy on Iraq.]

A “real person” is more likely to have felt the pinch at the gas pump, and when in power he or she will more likely allow oil companies to drill for oil.

Get the picture? Maybe I am not quite closing the deal with you anti-Palinistas, but I think this resonates with the majority of real people.

Terry Morris writes from Oklahoma:

This is truly a sad day in American politics. Conservatives are grasping at anything, any reason to vote Republican. I think I understand this impulse, I just don’t know why we follow it. I suppose it’s for a variety of reasons depending on the individual.

Scott H. writes from California:

I will not vote for McCain because of what he has done, for example: McCain-Feingold and “Comprehensive Immigration Reform.” What has changed about him? We’re voting for President not Vice President. When “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” comes up again in a McCain presidency, what will Palin do? Oppose her boss? Of course not. What will the Palin boosters do then? To whom will they turn? McCain says a lot of things on how he’s seen the light and all, but what he’s done in the past, for me, is the proof of what he’ll likely do in the future. Talk is cheap, as they say. Gov. Palin is window dressing, a distraction ( “ohhh, look at the shiney!”) from the real problems and challenges that are facing this country. I am voting third party for President.

Gerald M. writes from Dallas, Texas:

Apparently Mark Jaws will vote for McCain-Palin—knowing full well what kind of disastrous president he would be—largely because Palin will influence more white women to have babies. Leaving aside that this is the most far-fetched reason to support someone for public office that I’ve ever heard of, does anyone else on the planet believe that? No way. The aspect of Palin’s life which will be held up as a model for women is that her career comes first and children are secondary, even when one has Down’s Syndrome and another one gets pregnant out-of-wedlock. Childrens’ problems, no matter how serious, cannot be allowed to become obstacles to the modern, aggressive, professional woman.

I posted earlier that I liked Palin, was impressed by her, and would vote for her except for the inconvenient fact she is running as McCain’s vice-president. Well, after having my thinking on the subject put through the wringer by people like Laura W. and Carol Iannone, I amend that view. Palin is unsuitable, because of her own wrongheaded choices regarding her family and her career, to run for or hold the vice-presidency.

Laura W. writes:

Sarah Palin may make an ideal companion to men who hunt and fish, but vice president or president? In the above, I didn’t notice one quality that seemed to embody presidential leadership or experience.

How do Mark and his friend know that Gov. Palin and her husband are raising their children with discipline and love? Remember, Mrs. Palin spends two hours a day driving to and from work, and at least eight hours, one would suppose, at the job. This is a very abstract sort of discipline and love. It often doesn’t work and Bristol is proof of that.

Mark also mentioned that Mrs. Palin would, by the force of example, increase fertility rates among white women. But, white women will not be swayed at all by this extreme example. They won’t be swayed for one powerful reason: they ain’t got time to have five kids. It may work for those who don’t mind winging it with children, and never raising them, but it doesn’t work with the typical mother. Mrs. Palin’s example will only encourage the trend of low fertility among white professional women. Her life celebrates the do-it-all-even-though-you-can’t mentality. Many women see through that and go for the career, instead of the large family.

Mrs. Palin and her husband are “obviously real people with real problems.” But, how do you know? Are they more real than a hypothetical male white candidate with years of experience on the national scene, a longtime wife committed to supporting his career, and four or five well-behaved kids? What do you mean by real?

LA replies:

He means: with disorganized lives, with problems.

But of course, what we want in a president is someone whose personal and family life is in order, so he can devote himself to his responsibilities, not someone in the grip of unresolved personal and family issues.

LA to Gerald M.

Excellent comment, thanks.

I’m just blown away by the things these conservatives are saying.

What’s left of conservatism?

Gerald M. replies:

Yes sir. I’m blown away too. These terms have probably already been posted on one of the Palin threads, but fawning hysteria and mass emotional melt-down come to mind in trying to describe what is happening to (as your Vanity Fair guy put it) that “malleable lump of Jello known as the republican base.” Your prediction that McCain would damage conservatism in ways we couldn’t even predict has certainly come true. The language I’ve heard on “conservative” talk-radio the past three days is so wild, so topsy-turvy, so disconnected from from any traditional understanding of conservatism, its very intemperence is contagious, causing me to have wild thoughts about the complete collapse of conservatism before our eyes.

Perhaps we all need to sit down, pour ourselves a rather stiff adult beverage, and chill out for a while. :-)

Laura writes:

I could understand Mark Jaws saying, “Look I can’t tolerate Obama and so I will go with McCain,” but this celebration of Palin by a conservative man is inexplicable. It reminds me that, though feminism was started by women, men are some of its most enthusiastic torch-bearers. Many men, perhaps not Mark and his friend, simply want to honor tradition in superficial ways, and succumb to materialism on the most important issues. Check out many of the domestic blogs on the Internet and you will find women in virtual tears because their husbands won’t let them actually raise their children and insist they grab a briefcase instead. The so-called Mommy Wars are a hoax. It’s not a war at all, but a frontal assault on domesticity. Any assault on domesticity is an assault on the very mores and customs of our culture, an assault on our very soul. These mores and customs will not survive unless there is a vast battalion of voluntary domestic soldiers who possess the love to give of themselves without pay or status. And yet conservative men tout Palin as the ideal wife and mother simply by virtue of the number of children she has and the fact that she declined to abort a lovable child with congenital handicaps. By saying this, they denigrate those women who give society chiefly spiritual goods, not material ones. They also flagrantly disregard the demographic future of their people.

Gintas writes:

She’s a real person, with a real life?

“He means: with disorganized lives, with problems.”

I think you discussed how people didn’t like Romney because he was “too perfect”, but I think the connection to Vitalism, and how the Right is in its grip (as the Palin enthusiasm shows), makes it crystal clear why Romney was defeated.

Laura writes:

You said, “He means: with disorganized lives, with problems.”

I wasn’t sure what you meant before by the Oprah-ization of the White House, but now I get it. So here we have it. All roads lead to Oprah. Whether it’s Obama or McCain, we get Oprah. Maybe that’s as it should be. She’s the magnetic lodestone, the soothing priestess, the maternal guardian, the pulsing heart, the chiding chieftess of our nation. We might as well fall into her arms.

H. writes:

That’s pure poetry. I mean, it just reads very, very nicely.

LA replies:

Gintas was inspired by Laura’s poetry to post this.

Laura writes:

I don’t agree with Mark Jaws on this issue, but he certainly has charm. His statement, “Maybe I am not quite closing the deal with you anti-Palinistas, but I think this resonates with the majority of real people,” has really got me laughing. I can’t stop! I mean, I’ve had a few problems in life. How many does one have to have to be real? How big do they have to be? Anyway, I’ve truly enjoyed jousting with Mark.

Andrew E. writes:

Correct me if I’m wrong but hasn’t Mark Jaws been saying for months that he welcomes an Obama Administration since it would bring about a clarification in race relations that a traditionalist could only dream of? I assume that since he’s enthusiastically voting for McCain/Palin, he now wants the Republican ticket to win. In other words, all McCain had to do to head off this potential traditionalist resurgence was to dangle Sarah Palin. Has it come to this for our side?

LA replies:

Good question. What about that, Mr. Jaws?

John L. writes:

The left seems to be largely in Fr. Rose’s fourth stage of Nihilism, the Nihilism of Destruction (“a rage against creation and against civilization that will not be appeased until it has reduced them to absolute nothingness”). Has the mainstream right entered the third stage of Nihilism, Vitalism, with the Palin phenomenon? Is this another crank of the Hegelian rachet?

Charles T. writes:

LA wrote: “But of course, what we want in a president is someone whose personal and family life is in order, so he can devote himself to his responsibilities, not someone in the grip of unresolved personal and family issues. ”

Exactly. I made this point to some friends a couple of days ago. They gave no argument.

Bill O’Reilly made a similar point; if there are any more distractions from Palin on her personal or professional life, it will hurt McCain badly.

I literally cannot believe McCain made Palin his running mate. I have no doubt that Palin is a talented political player, and even one with whom I agree with on many issues; but she has too many “irons in the fire” to be an effective president. Her family or her job performance—or both—will suffer terribly. Indeed, one could argue this is already the case.

Mark Jaws writes:

Kudos for Andrew E for pointing out my previous defense of an Obama administration. However, in addition to surfing the net for bikini photos of Mrs. Palin, I have been conducting additional strategerizing sessions with my alter egos, and here is what we see.

First, the Mark Jaws view of an Obama presidency remains intact. This black supremacist will likely alienate—and help to revitalize—the racial right. After all, if Reverend Wright’s favorite disciple can be elected to the White House, then why can’t whites legitimately organize to protect and to advance their interests? Furthermore, if she proves an able and articulate candidate, Sarah Palin will be waiting in the wings for 2012.

On the other hand, if Obama loses then we can expect the usual suspects on the Urban Left to bring up charges of racism and to call for massive street protests involving blacks, Latinos, and white radicals. This too, will also serve to awaken the racial right, and maybe, just maybe give McCain the necessary impetus to nix amnesty. He is of course the wild card but it is my hope that this racially charged campaign will put to rest once and for all the GOP quixotic quest for black and Mestizo voters and cause them to govern with the interests of its loyal white supporters in mind. Palin is young and has children. She is not rich and more likely to come to this realization than an entrenched career politician.

Regardless of the election outcome, the racial situation will grow more tense after November 5th and Mark Jaws will be prepared to make lemonade no matter what lemons may fall from the skies of political misfortune. My Swiss Cheese defense rests.

LA replies:

Clever answer. You’ve snatched victory from the Jaws of defeat.

Mark Jaws writes:

I am glad you recognized my cagey escape. Besides, this is harmless bantering, and lots of fun. She makes voting for McCain less distasteful.

Carol Iannone writes:

I’m surprised at some of the comments in the Mark Jaws thread. Conservatives are now talking about Palin being “real,” how her daughter’s situation makes her seem real and more likely to understand our needs. Didn’t that used to be how liberals thought? Conservatives are now falling for the liberal line, that the more dysfunctional, the more desirable. People with better situations are “too perfect.” Someone who doesn’t have all these issues going on, or who has her family in better order, would not be as real. But we are seeing so many reversals thanks to the Palin nomination. Conservatives used to care about the primacy of motherhood, but now they cry sexism if someone questions whether it’s the wisest thing to run for veep with the issues in Palin’s family.

Conservatives used to oppose diversity, yet they are in ecstasy over the fact that she’s a woman. Conservatives used to decry illegitimacy and teenage pregnancy, and now they are reveling in it. Conservatives didn’t used to believe that there was a glass ceiling keeping women down, now they glory in Palin’s saying she’s cracking it. The worm is turning and it’s not going to turn back.

Gerald M. writes:

Mark Jaws makes articulate and amusing posts, but his reasoning often reminds me of someone who looks at a cloud and sees a Spanish galleon when everyone else sees…a cloud. Such is the case with what would happen if Obama loses. There might well be minority violence on a large scale, but unless it kills thousands of white people (a 9/11 type shock) I don’t see whites in general or (especially) President McCain in particular learning anything from it, except to “reach out” more to minorities already here, to “open up” the G.O.P. to people of color (i.e., affirmative action), and to reinforce McCain’s determination to open our borders as he has promised to do from day one.

I like and respect Mark’s determination to make lemonade, but, whoever wins in November, it will be a bitter brew for us.

Comments posted September 5

Mark Jaws writes:

Gerald M wrote:

Mark Jaws makes articulate and amusing posts, but his reasoning often reminds me of someone who looks at a cloud and sees a Spanish galleon when everyone else sees … a cloud. Such is the case with what would happen if Obama loses. There might well be minority violence on a large scale, but unless it kills thousands of white people (a 9/11 type shock) I don’t see whites in general learning anything from it.”

Very good, Gerald. I have a degree in meteorology and constantly gaze at the clouds. In fact, my junior high school year book says, “Mark must have been born in London. His head is always in the fog.” Later in life, as an Army intelligence officer, my job was to posit all possible enemy reactions to the friendly operation plan and to develop their various courses of action. Sometimes you had to envision that Spanish Galleon in the clouds because historically enemies have had the nasty habit of doing what had previously been thought “unlikely” or “impossible.”

But I also live in the real world and go by the phrase “hostem cogere”—know the enemy. I intentionally listen to urban radio stations and monitor left-wing blogs and read books by the likes of James Cone and Howard Zinn. I know the left—particularly the black urban left. I know what their game plan is and what they expect the field to look like after the game is over. While white America is currently passive, leaderless, and rudderless, the Urban Left is marching relentlessly into making America into Cuba-lite. While the left has the power and the determination, they do not have history, human nature and facts on their side. A combination of lofty ideological goals with impulsive and reckless welfare class ethnic activists makes the right combination for an overreach of power (if Obama wins) and a rash overreaction should he lose. No matter what happens, racial tensions will increase.

I may be wrong, but I don’t think conservative and moderate whites will tolerate much more racial animus. For example, yesterday while “slugging” (controlled hitchhiking quite popular in the DC area) home from my job, I was discussing Obama with two middle of the road, typical suburban white women swing voters. They were both pro-choice and thus leaning to Obama, but they openly expressed disgust with his church, Reverend Wright, and any mention of reparations, and black behavior, in general. In other words, they sounded just like me.

Just to remind the VFR family, back in the early 1980s we all thought Ronald Reagan was gazing at the Spanish Galleon up there in the sky when he talked of the demise of the Soviet Union. Given the impending demographic cataclysm taking place in front of our eyes, I believe America is moving into uncharted political waters. Anything is possible, including Mark Jaws advocated de facto partition and dissolution. In giving her address to the GOP convention, Sarah Palin struck me as the type of gal eager and capable of sticking it to the left. I did not hear single word about “kinder and gentler” or “compassionate conservatism.” She made no outreach to any particular Obama constituency. They say that the long journey begins with the first step. We may have seen it last night.

AL writes:

I couldn’t think of anyone in America less likely to have experienced black crime than a resident of Alaska. Maybe a resident of rural Idaho or Montana. It’s absurd to think Palin is likely to make some kind of bold statement about black crime. Palin has probably never interacted with ghetto type blacks in her life.

Racially conscious white Americans need to psychologically distance themselves from the conservative movement and build their own movement from the ground up as has been done in many Europeans countries. Unfortunately it seems to me that opposition to white dispossession is a mile wide and an inch deep. Anyone who really cared about America’s future in racial terms would not be willing to consider a vote for McCain even if they had a gun to their head.

What is the long term strategy of those who advocate voting for McCain? How in their plan does the demographic destruction of America get arrested and reversed? At what point will they no longer be willing to vote for a candidate who is rabidly enthusiastic about white dispossession? How can they stop this process if they intend to support it’s biggest advocates?

Why would violent protest by blacks and white leftists(which I doubt will happened on a large scale) make McCain change his mind about amnesty for illegal Mexicans? The widespread looting by illegal aliens in the 1992 Los Angeles riot sure didn’t change his mind. The amount of wishful thinking in Mark Jaw’s posts is staggering.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 03, 2008 02:11 PM | Send