« February 19, 2007 - February 25, 2007 | Main | March 5, 2007 - March 11, 2007 »
Former Missouri Senator Thomas Eagleton passes away at 77. In 1972, Eagleton made national headlines by being selected as George McGovern's Vice Presidential nominee--then being dumped after it was learned that he had once been treated for depression.
Bruce Gordon resigns as head of the NAACP. He had been President for just under two years. More from the New York Times, Clarence Page and Washington Post.
The recent controversy over Ann Coulter's use of street language to describe John Edwards speaks volumes about the problems conservatives face in 2007. It's hard to imagine Coulter's remarks sparking such a controversy ten years ago (though her remarks would have been just as objectionable back then), but because of the Right's recent difficulties, her remarks have generated tremendous outrage from fellow conservatives such as Michelle Malkin.
Why are Coulter's ideological allies giving her such grief? Because her remarks pose harm to the image of conservatism. For the past quarter-century, conservatives have portrayed themselves as intelligent, civil, broad-minded individuals as a means of counteracting mainstream-media stereotypes of conservatives as ignorant, knuckle-dragging hicks. Most conservatives are in fact civil and intelligent--and thus very hyper-sensitive to suggestions that they're really Neanderthals. Thus, when someone on the right does or says something that the left can use to smear all conservatives as bigoted fools, others on the right will be the first ones to condemn such behavior.
Coulter is experiencing the same scorn that Trent Lott received from the right in the wake of his remarks about Strom Thurmond in 2002. Just as conservatives washed their hands of Lott because of their reluctance to be associated with perceived racism, so too are many members of the conservative pundit class condemning Coulter because they do not wish to be associated with either rhetorical crudity, perceived homophobia, or both. Coulter's biggest transgression (besides the use of street language to begin with) is her failure to comprehend that anything she says will be used by the mainstream press and the left to attack the conservative movement as a whole.
The right is not wrong to be concerned about image. Image is the reason why the GOP no longer controls the House and Senate. Image is the reason why an intelligent conservative leader like Newt Gingrich cannot make a viable run for the White House in 2008.
For years, conservatives have been stereotyped as real-life Archie Bunkers. It's a hateful smear, and conservatives cannot be blamed for wanting to avoid anything that seemingly gives legitimacy to this charge. Coulter's remark plays into all the old stereotypes. No wonder her ideological friends have decided to become her enemies.
One of Coulter's critics, conservative blogger Ed Morrissey, has suggested that her remarks reflect the right's unease with homosexuality in general. I don't think this is necessarily the case--but there's no question that Coulter's remarks will be seized upon by the left to make the case that the right as a whole is homophobic. This is just one reason why what she said was so objectionable--she gave her ideological opponents a weapon to attack her, her political allies, and her philosophy.
The issue is not political correctness, but good taste--something that existed before political correctness, and will survive long afterward. Does Coulter really need to use gutter language to make fun of a guy who's not even going to get the Democrat nomination anyway? Couldn't Coulter come up with a more effective way of making the same satirical point?
Coulter and the right will both survive this current controversy. Hopefully, prominent conservatives will learn from this incident--and finally realize that when your political enemies are looking for ammunition, you don't give it to them for free.
UPDATE: More from Captain's Quarters.
We all know the story by now: the Republican base is dissatisfied with the current roster of GOP Presidential contenders. They don't see the spirit of Ronald Reagan in any one of these would-be standard-bearers, and they're concerned that without a strong conservative candidate, a Clinton will return to the White House in 2008.
Why is the base so pessimistic at this point? Could it be that the base is unclear about what it really desires?
If one is looking for another Reagan, then naturally one will be disappointed. The factory that produced leaders of Reagan's caliber has long since gone out of business. However, just because we cannot ever have another Reagan doesn't mean that we can't have a strong leader who can improve upon America's greatness.
Some conservatives are disappointed because they feel President Bush never did enough to advance critical conservative goals, and fear that whoever becomes the 2008 nominee will also prove themselves unsuitable to lead the country in the Right's direction.
I disagree with those who feel that Bush has been a poor steward of conservatism. Bush has done as much as one reasonably can to advance the Right's objectives. He's successfully protected the country from a second terrorist attack, fought hard to stimulate the economy through tax reduction, and appointed two solidly conservative jurists to the US Supreme Court. Yes, Bush dropped the ball when it came to confronting the problem of illegal immigration, but his failure on that issue shouldn't obscure his overall success as a conservative leader.
Is it too controversial to suggest that instead of looking for another Reagan, conservatives would be wiser to look for a leader in the Bush vein?
Other than his failure to precisely and articulately explain our continued involvement in Iraq, it's difficult to figure out why certain conservatives are dissatisfied with Bush. He's proven to be an effective, center-right political leader who has brought about as much conservative change as he possibly could in a fiercely hostile Washington environment. Why shouldn't his example be emulated?
Making Bush the template for next year's GOP candidate would accomplish several goals, some psychological, some practical. It would free the Republican base from the doomed desire to find another contender in the Reagan mold (because after they made Reagan, they broke the mold). It would force the base to make a realistic consideration of America's increasingly liberal political culture, and the strategies the GOP must use to win in the face of such hostility. It would prompt the base to become more future-minded, to analyze how the party can continue to survive and thrive despite demographic changes and relentless anti-GOP propaganda.
Think about it: in a social environment noted for its off-the-charts hostility to conservative values, philosophy and leaders, George W. Bush managed to score two significant victories. As the culture increasingly moves to the left, the Bush model, not the Reagan model, will be the template that the GOP must follow (not that there wasn't a lot of hostility to the Right in Reagan's day, but it was nothing compared to what Bush had to deal with in the late-1990s/early-to-mid-2000s.)
Perhaps if the base decides to look for another Bush instead of another Reagan, they'll be less disappointed in the current crop of contenders. In the search for another Bush, all one has to do is find a man committed to a center-right vision, willing to confront the challenges of the War on Terror and unafraid to do battle with the Democrat Party and the mainstream press. Surely, we can find a man like that in the current roster of candidates. If we can't, we might as well concede defeat right now.
Now that Martin Scorsese has finally received an Oscar, look for members of the print, broadcast and online entertainment media to launch their next major crusade: an all-out effort to secure a Best Director award for Spike Lee.
With Scorsese's victory, Lee now becomes the new Man Who Hasn't Received His Just Due. Just as it was once considered a moral outrage for the director of Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and Goodfellas not to be recognized with an Oscar, so it will now be viewed as a miscarriage of justice that the filmmaker who gave us Do the Right Thing and Malcolm X lacks a gold trophy.
It will be difficult to dismiss the upcoming give-Spike-an-Oscar push as mere political correctness. His influence on Hollywood is impossible to ignore: he helped Denzel Washington, Wesley Snipes and Samuel L. Jackson rise to the A-list, gave critical breaks to Halle Berry, Adrien Brody, Laurence Fishburne, Mekhi Phifer and John Turturro, and, perhaps most significantly, convinced major studios to back "risky" projects during an age of absolute adherence to formula.
Like Scorsese's work, Lee's films have become cultural touchstones; who can forget the controversy over Do the Right Thing in 1989 (remember the movie critics who thought the film would inspire real-life rioting?) or Lee encouraging kids to skip school in November 1992 to see Malcolm X, on the grounds that they would learn more from his movie than they would in class?
I'm sure the Spike-for-Oscar movement will ultimately be successful--and as obnoxious as Spike can be at times, I wouldn't be chagrined by a Best Director win. Credit him this: he has always aimed for quality, and when he connects, few are finer. (Over four years after its release, I'm still surprised that 25th Hour failed to find an audience: it is arguably the best Martin Scorsese movie Scorsese himself never directed.)
There's plenty one can attack Lee for: the self-righteous political posturing, the lack of strong female roles in his films, the overuse of the "float-towards-the-camera" shot, etc. However, if the push to have him receive a Best Director Oscar is successful, it'll be an example of something increasingly rare in Hollywood: the right thing being done.
I have to disagree with Jeff Jacoby. If you're a former President, and people are willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to hear you run off at the mouth, why would you not take the money? Ex-Commanders-in-Chief have to eat, you know!
Recent Comments