The fervent, clueless Michelle Malkin

Michelle Malkin usefully lists the good things that happened for conservatism on election day in state races, and there are many. But, as is typical of Malkin, she has zero interest in or understanding of any larger picture, in this case, what Obama’s victory means for the country. She’s a reporter who ferrets out lots of facts but lacks the ability or desire to put them into a meaningful pattern. She wouldn’t recognize a concept if it hit her in the head.

Here, as a demonstration of her incomprehension, is what she wrote on election night:

Once again, we have our work cut out for us. We lost this election, but we still live in the greatest country on the planet and we still have many ways to fight for and defend it….

We still have boundless blessings to count—and to secure.

I remain a proud, unrepentant believer in the American Dream. And I know you do, too. Freedom will endure because we will keep fighting for it. We can’t afford not to, friends.

In other words, nothing important has changed. America hasn’t changed. We’re just as free as before. Conservative politics continues as before. And what conservative politics consists of is to attack, attack, attack liberals while crying, “Rah Rah America” and “Support the troops.” It’s beyond Malkin’s ability to grasp that the America she is cheering is a leftist, statist society, and that the troops she keeps backing with patriotic fervor are, under the orders of that leftist regime, building up and empowering our jihadist enemies.

- end of initial entry -

Doug H. writes:

I don’t mean for this to sound rude, but I am not sure i understand what you are trying to convey. Should we give up all hope? Are there no blessings we can count? I realize the situation in our country is forever changed. I realize it will never come back. I still believe we have many blessings to count living here. You have spoken before that we shouldn’t despair. I may be far off base, but it sounds like you are experiencing despair.

LA replies:

First, there was nothing even implicitly rude about your question.

Second, in answer to your remark that I seem to be experiencing despair, absolutely not. People keep thinking that if you recognize the reality that something is gone and is not coming back, you are “despairing,” “pessimistic,” etc. It’s not a matter of “despair” versus “hope.” It’s a matter of recognizing reality or not recognizing it.

Furthermore, if a person doesn’t see the reality that the left has taken over and has permanently transformed America and turned it into a leftist, lawless, unconstitutional state, if a person thinks America is still the same country it was historically, then he won’t be able to oppose the left effectively, He keeps thinking the left is somewhere “out there,” threatening the real, conservative America, and that all that’s needed is a couple of election victories by the Republicans and a couple of cultural adjustments to make things right, when in fact the left is “in here,” controlling America. The real America is now a leftist state.

Suppose Solzhenitsyn had believed that Russia was still a traditional, Christian country, and that the Communist Party was just a political party that was vying for power, rather than the actual ruling power of the country. Would he have been able to recognize what Communism was and oppose it? No. He’d be living in a fantasy world. So it is with the conservatives—and they are legion—who think like Malkin.

Which is not to say that conservatives must not continue to oppose the left. Of course they must. But on the basis of reality, not fantasy.

Todd S. writes:

I had to laugh at this entry.

When I first began my “teething” stage with conservatism I was a young soldier in the Army. My publication of choice at that time was William Buckley’s National Review.

In the early ’90s while reading an issue from cover to cover I first came across Michelle Malkin. She was using her forum to castigate “black turtle-neck liberals” concerning one issue or another. What I found comical was that she was writing this diatribe while wearing a black turtle-neck in her corner picture accompanying the opinion piece.

I wrote National Review to point this irony out. They published it, and, as I recall, the next issue had a different picture with different attire for Malkin.

LA replies:

Good job. :-)

Ed H. writes:

Last night O’Reilly was assuring his TV audience that traditional America is still there. If that is so, why can’t it exercise enough power in this country to control its own destiny? Before I walked away O’Reilly was offering some statistics on how many Romney supporters attend church as proof of how little has changed. Would that be the Catholic Church run by the liberal pro-amnesty Anti-Catholic Council of U.S. Catholic Bishops? Or the Lutheran Church that promotes Christianity by mass importing Muslim refugees for money? Or Romney’s own Mormon Church that is for open borders, and in fact sponsored the demographic change that defeated Mitt Romney? Right now any form of mindless optimism keeps us from making the vital imaginative step of realizing what kind of drastic action is needed to save ourselves. All optimism does is set up the time slot for the concession speech of the next generic vague Republican candidate, which is already being penciled in for the second Tuesday in November 2016.

LA replies:

“All optimism does is set up the time slot for the concession speech of the next generic vague Republican candidate.”

Perfect.

Karl D. writes:

Very funny you should bring that Malkin post up. I read that post the day after the election and had the same reaction as you. Especially the “We still live in the greatest country in the world” line that so many others continue to parrot. I would be curious to know when in the minds of Malkin and others, America ceases to be the greatest country on the planet? What exactly is the tipping point for them? Or is she just speaking in relative terms?

November 15

Doug H. replies to LA:

What you say is true. I see and hear conservatives expressing the idea that we can come back. Some of my friends still talk about compromise. I am honestly more curious about this attitude than mad. I simply can’t understand why people can’t see that the liberal idea of compromise is for us to do it their way. Didn’t people see this when Obama was willing to withhold active duty military pay checks unless the Republicans went along with his budget plans a couple of years ago? When I ask people, this they can’t answer. Why is that, I ask myself. Are they simply ignorant of the truth, or do they refuse to accept the truth because it hurts too much?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 14, 2012 02:18 PM | Send