Mac Donald vs. Ingraham on the election;
and more thoughts on Obama vs. McCain

(Note: As I read over this entry which I just posted, the issue of Sarah Palin’s effect on conservatism that has so exercised Heather Mac Donald, me, and a handful of other conservatives seems so … September. And my reiteration of “Bring It On” also seems dated. Given McCain’s pitiful incompetence tonight, and Obama’s faux JFK-like smoothness, Obama is overwhelmingly likely to be the next president. So it’s going to be brought on, whether we want it to be or not. And that’s what we need to prepare ourselves for.)

The other day at City Journal Heather Mac Donald focused critically (though I felt a bit too critically) on Sara Palin’s linguistic gaffes, and, secondarily, on the damage Palin’s nomination has had on conservatives’ adherence to family values, given the conservatives’ extravagantly expressed view that her infant baby and her out-of-wedlock pregnant daughter are completely compatible with her being vice president.

Today, appearing as a guest on Laura Ingraham’s radio program (audio clip), Mac Donald expanded on her case that conservatives in their support for the less-than-qualified Palin and in their embrace of her family situation have thrown away their conservative beliefs—the belief in standards and excellence, the belief in marriage and legitimacy, and the belief that mothers have a primary obligation to care for their small children. What that last belief really means, of course (though American conservatives never put such things in conceptual form), is that there are natural differences between the sexes that are necessarily reflected in the respective roles the sexes play in society. All conservatives used to believe this. Now, as a result of the Palin nomination, many conservatives are acting as if it’s the most outrageous idea they ever heard, crying in fury: “How dare anyone say that a woman with an infant child should not run for national office? Would they say that about a man?” The “conservatives” have thus turned into egalitarian feminists, denying any social differences between the sexes as related to work and career.

The exchange between Ingraham and Mac Donald, while exciting, was unsatisfactory, as the two women mostly talked past each other. Ingraham for her part was uncomprehending of Mac Donald’s point that conservatives in their excessive enthusiasm for Palin have embraced sexual egalitarianism, identity politics, and other non-conservative positions; indeed, Ingraham seemed to have no idea what Mac Donald was talking about. MacDonald for her part failed to reply to Ingraham’s challenges to her on the consequences of an Obama election. Ingraham kept saying, how can MacDonald, by declining to support the Republicans, allow Obama to win the presidency? How can she let Obama select Supreme Court justices? Of course, this is the same knee jerk Republican reasoning by which any Democratic victory is seen as the end of the world, and therefore there is no option but to support whatever candidate the Republicans throw up at us, no matter how liberal and indeed virulently anti-conservative he may be. Yet Ingraham’s questions were legitimate and deserved an answer, and MacDonald had no answer. She was focused solely on the effect of the Palin nomination on conservatism, which of course is a valid point (I’ve written about it a great deal myself), but she failed to deal with Ingraham’s argument about the effect of an Obama presidency on America. Her only reply was: “I think it’s better to take the long view and say that conservatives can do better than this.”

This is a matter of some interest to me, because, despite my total opposition to Obama, I, like Heather Mac Donald, have no intention of voting for McCain, though I will do so if I become convinced that Obama will cause grave and permanent damage to America, something I am not yet convinced he will be able to do. My position is: Bring It On. There are grounds to expect that the horror of a leftist presidency will result in a resurgence of true conservative resistance to leftism and thus will strengthen America, while a McCain presidency would be the final nail in the coffin of conservatism. MacDonald did not make that argument—or, indeed, any argument that would justify allowing Obama to become president. It’s not enough to say that the Republicans deserve to lose. One must take responsibility for saying why it’s ok to let a radical leftist win.

- end of initial entry -

October 16

Kevin S. writes:

You wrote, “What that last belief really means, of course (though American conservatives never put such things in conceptual form), is that there are natural differences between the sexes that are necessarily reflected in the respective roles the sexes play in society.”

Actually, there are traditional conservatives willing to do even more than put this idea merely into conceptual form. In fact they put it in simple to understand black and white terms.

The family (man, woman, children western traditional family) comes from God.

Marriage is strictly between a man and a woman and it is an essential part of our reason for existence.

Fathers are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families.

Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.

Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

Romney is a member of that group, which is part of the reason he was not nominated.

LA replies:

Touché.

But then why are so many Mormons liberals?

Kevin S. replies:

Damn your eyes! So many of “us” are actually liberal for the same reasons so many Americans are liberals; they just do not ever critically think about it. On more than one occasion during Sunday service I have pointed out an actual traditional conservative ideal which the mainstream media has successfully ruled off limits. The awkward silence which follows is deafening. How did we, Americans in general and Mormons in particular in this case, get here? There have been countless events, actions, failures to act, and the like for many decades now which have brought us down this far. I do not pretend to understand even a small part of it all, but one oft-misunderstood principle of the Founding Fathers (who absolutely were inspired by God) we have abandoned is to trust the people. Clearly they did not intend the anarchy that is pure democracy which is why they set up the representative structure we originally had. They largely meant that in a healthy society virtuous men must step forward to provide local leadership and so long as that is the case the people can then be trusted to make correct more-or-less self governing decisions for themselves. Volumes can and have been written on how we got from there to here. Suffice it to state such local leaders are a rare breed indeed these days and are easily overwhelmed with the bile continuously spewed forth from the media and entertainment industries. Thus we come full circle. Mormons (and Americans in general) are predominantly at least liberal leaning these days due mostly to the highly effective programming to which we are all almost constantly subjected. The lies are omnipresent and delivered with the subtlety of the snake who first tempted Eve. Yes, lest there be any confusion, I am indeed stating there is an intelligence at work behind the wave of evil which threatens to engulf our society. Just this morning my manager (also an occasional contributor to your site), who is a died-in-the-wool agnostic, commented that you have to wonder sometimes given all that is going on if there is not actually some malicious intelligence behind it all. Mind you, I am NOT saying there are various nefarious super-secret groups meeting to worship Lucifer who are pulling strings behind the scenes. Besides, why bother with such frippery when so many sheeple are willing to commit themselves openly to the cause for free?

LA replies:

I think you have actually confirmed my earlier point that you challenged. Yes, there are conservative individuals, conservative groups, religious denominations such as the Mormons, that believe that there are socially significant differences between the sexes. But even such conservatives do not state and stand by this view explicitly and in the public square. So, in a political sense, it’s as though this view doesn’t exist at all, because politics consists in what people will state and stand by in the public square, not in what they believe inchoately or privately. Romney, for example, never said, “I believe that there are natural differences between the sexes, especially concerning women’s responsibility for the care of children, that affect the roles the sexes play in society,” let alone did he oppose the nomination of Palin on those grounds! He enthusiastically supported it. So what good are his conservative Mormon beliefs (assuming he has them), insofar as their actual effect on American society is concerned?

James P. writes:

You’ve said things like this before:

“There are grounds to expect that the horror of a leftist presidency will result in a resurgence of true conservative resistance to leftism and thus will strengthen America,”

OK, that’s kind of the “silver lining” view—1992 will give us 1994. Yet it is difficult for me to believe that Obama is not aware of this possibility. I think he intends to take steps to ensure that there will be no conservative revival, at least from an electoral standpoint. This is what explains the widespread efforts at vote fraud in an election that Obama could clearly win without cheating. He intends to put the conservatives away this year, and to make sure they can’t come back in 2010, if ever. Having established his network of fraudulent voters this year, he will use them again and again in future elections, and meanwhile will bring in millions of additional foreigners who will vote for him. In short, I think if the Republicans lose this year, it will be a long, long time before they come back, and a conservative revival may even be impossible.

Stephen T. writes:

To me, Obama’s somewhat rote and politically cynical support of illegal immigration is actually preferable to that of Bush/Rove/McCain: the misty-eyed, romantic devotion to mestizo Mexicans (solely and exclusively) which is almost entirely the weird psychological province of wealthy, white, middle-aged Anglo males. I don’t think Obama’s got the gene. Though he may be equally undesirable in other respects on this issue, at least I don’t think we’ll have to sit through him choking up and brushing away tears while rhapsodizing about the glories of menial, manual labor performed at Third World wages by illegal Mexicans with family values superior to ours. Thus far, I’ve also not heard a single reference to any “jobs Americans won’t do” from him, either. We’ll see.

Kevin S. replies:

To answer your final question; sadly those supposed beliefs are of no good whatsoever. (Such is the case with Orrin Hatch as well.) James P. even wrote that after an Obama presidency a conservative revival may even be impossible. I disagree that it will be impossible. However, as Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” I am daily more convinced that if it is ever possible to restore our nation and culture there will be butcher’s bill to pay to do it. Certainly that restoration will not come from either of our depraved two parties.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 15, 2008 10:47 PM | Send