Prager is deeply shocked that McCain is acting like McCain

Alan Roebuck writes:

Dennis Prager is chewing the scenery over McCain’s failure properly to attack Obama and leftism. Sensing a Teachable Moment, I sent him the following brief missive.

LA replies:

Meaning, Prager expected that McCain WOULD attack Obama?

Meaning, Prager is chewing the scenery because McCain did NOT behave in a way that would be totally at variance with his entire previous history?

And Prager of course is the same guy who while supporting mass Muslim immigration was shocked that a Muslim congressman wanted to take his oath of office on the Koran. He was shocked and outraged that a Muslim behaved exactly as any rational person would expect a Muslim to behave.

And now he is shocked and outraged that McCain has behaved exactly as any rational person would expect McCain to behave

Prager is hopeless. He simply lacks basic insights into reality. I don’t listen to his radio show, but the couple of times I’ve heard his voice for a few seconds, the feeling I had was, this is a man so full of himself that he can’t see what’s in front of him.

Here is Mr. Roebuck’s letter to Prager:

Dear Dennis:

You have said that McCain is naive about the left, i.e., the Democrats. In your view, McCain thinks that the Democrats/leftists think of themselves as fellow American with the Republicans/conservatives, but they just disagree with us on some specific issues. Of course, if that what he thinks, he’s wrong.

I would like to suggest another interpretation of McCain’s behavior. I submit that he’s a liberal. A right-leaning liberal to be sure, but a liberal nevertheless. On this hypothesis, McCain refrains from accurately describing and attacking Obama not because he’s naive, but because he actually agrees with most of Obama’s leftist premises. He just doesn’t like some of Obama’s conclusions. (That’s why he’s a liberal instead of a leftist.)

Think of it: McCain eagerly supports “comprehensive immigration reform” (i.e., the official ratification of mass immigration) and “campaign reform” (i.e. the suppression of non-liberal voices), and he enjoys attacking “the far right” and “religious fundamentalists.” Sure, he supports some conservative positions. But that just means he’s not completely crazy, as the leftists are. When it comes to his basic worldview, he’s a liberal.

And I think this describes many conservatives, including many mainstream and respected conservatives. Since most of America’s trusted intellectual and even spiritual authorities either go along with liberalism or preach it openly, it is only to be expected that most prominent Americans go along with liberalism. To be popular, one must not dissent too strongly from conventional thinking.

Sincerely,
Alan Roebuck

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 08, 2008 08:41 PM | Send