Sorting Out the Montana Election

 | 

I ran across the following online commentary on Montana’s election for its sole member of the House of Representatives (May 25). It’s from a site called “Legal Insurrection”:

Rock’em Sock’em Republican candidate Greg Gianforte, best known for “body-slamming” and ego-shaming a reporter for The Guardian, defeated Democratic Candidate Rob Quist, best known as a nudist resort socialist Cowboy poet and singer. . . .

This is another *win* for Democrats because they showed up and did better than they expected, even though they lost.

I don’t know about this characterization of the two leading candidates. The day before the election, Gianforte had a minor physical confrontation with a reporter, which resulted in a suspiciously instantaneous summons from the local gendarmes; but that doesn’t make him a mythic figure who is “best known” for anything. Quist is neither a nudist nor a nudist resort but has performed at a nudist resort.

The picture that emerges is that of a state and a country becoming more and more acutely the way they are.

I do know that Gianforte got 50% of the vote, and Quist got 44%. You can make the comparison with Ryan Zinke, who left the Montana congressional seat to become Donald Trump’s secretary of the interior, and who received 56% in his two elections, while his Democratic opponents got 40% (2014) and 41% (2016). If you’re curious about the Libertarian candidates, their percentages were 4 (2014), 3 (2016) and 6 (2017).

Oh, and there’s one other series of numbers to consider. Voter turnout was 368,000 (2014), 508,000 (2016), and 377,000 (2017).

So what do you make of this?

Here’s what I make of it. Turnout is usually low in off-year elections (e.g., 2014, 2017). The Democrats may have picked up a couple of percentage points by turning out a few more of their people than in 2014. The Republicans may have lost a couple of percentage points to the Libertarian. That’s about enough to account for the mighty improvement in the Democrats’ percentage.

But wait! There’s more. While it’s entirely possible that the quoted description of the Republican candidate does not fairly represent his public image in Montana, where physical warfare is viewed more leniently than it is in Palo Alto, it’s pretty clear that the Democratic candidate was laughable by almost anybody’s standards. It didn’t take much party loyalty for Montana Republicans to vote for their guy. In fact, most of their votes had already been cast by mail, before the “slamming” took place. But it took a good deal of party loyalty for the Democrat to make his 44%. Party loyalty, or party outrage, gets voters to the polls. The Democrats are now the party of outrage, so I suppose they were a lot more motivated than the Republicans.

Quist is neither a nudist nor a nudist resort but has performed at a nudist resort.

Montana is a basically Republican state with a long progressive and populist history. Lately it has been infiltrated by a significant number of New Class people with money, and these are Hollywood Democrats. Bernie Sanders’ wealthy followers gave millions of dollars to the Montana Democrat, and presumably those dollars paid for massive get-out-the-vote endeavors. But even I confidently predicted that the Republican would win, “slamming” or no “slamming.” In Montana, as in many places in the country, populists and conservatives now vote the same, in opposition to progressives. In one sense of the word, a Montana “progressive” would be the real conservative, someone trying to maintain the Washington power structure.

The picture that emerges, at least the picture seen through my eyes, is that of a state and a country becoming more and more acutely the way they are. This is especially true of Democrats. They will vote for anything so long as it’s Democratic — which means that they will always be around, “resisting.” They are emphatically not resisters to government; they are resisters to Republican ideas of government, which they often falsely claim are anti-government. And they will be successful in maintaining the national status quo — if the Republicans, who are plainly in the cultural majority, don’t learn how to use the elections that they keep winning.




Share This


Pretty Good Cause, Pretty Bad Argument

 | 

Rightwing commentators have a ridiculous thing going on right now. It appears to emanate from the otherwise intelligent and upright Dinesh D’Souza, who is puffing a new propaganda movie — Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party.

This ridiculous thing is the idea, now constantly confided as formerly hidden knowledge, that the Democratic Party has always been bad, and the Republican Party has always been good. After all, the Democratic Party supported slavery, and the Republican Party opposed it.

I submit that this notion is just as silly as Michelle Obama’s maunderings (much criticized by the Right) about the significance of the White House having been built by slaves. She might have added that the Louvre was built by a tyrannical monarchy. Or that the pyramids were built by a tyrannical monarchy, in the service of a false religion. We’ve come a long way from then. And so . . . ?

If you don’t know anything about history, don’t insist on informing other people about it.

Now to the rightwing’s use of historical facts, or non-facts, about American political parties. This is the truth: the Democratic Party is almost 200 years old, the Republican Party more than 150. During the long, strange history of those parties, each of them has been colored by almost every conceivable political, social, and religious tendency. In terms of attitudes, ethnicities, gender roles, social classes, political beliefs, religious or anti-religious preoccupations — in short, in terms of everything — their present membership bears no similarity whatever to their original membership, except that almost all of their adherents have two eyes, a large mouth, and a peculiar nose (useful for detecting food, useless for detecting falsehood). Even in 1860, many Democrats opposed slavery, and many — perhaps most — Republicans were disgusting racists. And if you’re toting up ideological goods and evils, the Democratic Party was, for many long years, the party of hard money and low taxes, and the Republicans were the party of high taxes, crony capitalism, and big government projects.

I very much dislike the current Democratic Party of the United States. I consider it the source of much more than half of the political evil of this country. But something that antagonizes me even more than the DP of the USA is the willingness of good people, intelligent people, people whom I feel are on my side, to engage in false arguments and misrepresentations of history. They ought to know better, for God’s sake. Can’t they read?

If you don’t know anything about history, don’t insist on informing other people about it. And if your idea of “history” is nothing more than your idea of good and evil, and therefore of what should and should not have occurred, whether it occurred or not, you shouldn’t even use the word. You’re no better, intellectually, than any of your conceivable opponents. Drunk with your moral fervor, you’re denying yourself, and whatever slack-minded followers take you seriously, the real history by which moral judgments ought to be informed.




Share This


The Kinda-Coolness of Liberty

 | 

There’s a lot of confusion, these days, about who is, and who is not, a libertarian. It has actually become fashionable to apply the term to oneself, sometimes on the most tenuous of bases.

Many conservatives (and some liberals) think that liberty is kinda cool. Because they believe in the kinda-coolness of liberty, and recognize that, especially these days, they don’t have enough of it, they consider themselves libertarians. They don’t realize there’s more to the definition than that.

Most of those who use the libertarian label, based on its hip cachet and kinda-coolness, are conservatives. Liberals who worship at the shrine of statism love to point at them and cry, “See? All libertarians are really big old rightwingers!” Albeit, perhaps, rightwingers who smoke pot or like gays.

When my liberal friends identify libertarian-leaning conservatives as “typical libertarians,” it brings out the English major in me. I diagram the term for them. “Conservative” is a noun, and “libertarian-leaning” its modifying adjective. Therefore libertarian-leaning conservatives are still conservatives. I always hope this helps, though it usually doesn’t.

I understand why, to liberals who find libertarianism threatening, the temptation to confuse us with conservatives is so compelling. It’s a lump in which they may tidily dispose of us. They’ve got an argument they deem satisfactory against every conservative idea, and they don’t want to have to scrounge up a whole set of new ones to contend with us.

Liberals are scared of us. Conservatives don’t necessarily like us much, but they’ll cozy up to us when it suits them.

Some of the things “libertarian” conservatives say, I must admit, can be rather troubling. I recently invited a friend of mine — a gay conservative blogger — to a meeting of our local chapter of Outright Libertarians. We’re a gay and lesbian group, striving to promote libertarian ideals in what is euphemistically termed “the community.” She got into a flame-war, on our website, with some Outright members, and emailed me in an awful funk. Why, they actually committed the heresy of opposing America’s glorious War on Terror!

Her argument against our point of view boiled down to this: “My brother is over in Afghanistan, fighting for your freedom of speech. So shut the hell up!”

What was I to do? As gently as I knew how, I told her she probably wouldn’t be a good fit for our group. That she is not, so far as I can see, in any way, shape, or form a libertarian, I suppose I need to let her figure out for herself. Modern-liberal statists determined to toss all dissenters into the same, convenient dumpster have no incentive to figure it out.

On a blog where I regularly comment, I was told — by a “progressive” who dislikes libertarians — that he was wise to the despicableness of my convictions. His proof? Some college kids, who identified as libertarians, told him they didn’t care if the poor starved. Or something like that.

Why is it that “progressives” can’t believe anything said by those on the right of the political center, on any subject — from global climate change to whether it’s going to rain next Thursday — yet find so credible the name they choose to bear? At least, as long as it’s this particular “L” word. They can be taken at face value about absolutely nothing else, but when they call themselves libertarians, their word is gold.

I think we know the answer to that question. Liberals are scared of us. Conservatives don’t necessarily like us much, but they’ll cozy up to us when it suits them. And if they want to survive the next generation, they’d better do it a lot.

I have learned something rather interesting, however, about liberals. Once I’m able to speak to them, one by one, they’re less hostile to libertarian ideas than I was told they’d be. Rightwingers warn that liberals will never listen to us when they cozy up to our kinda-coolness. But once they find out that many of our beliefs are actually quite similar to theirs, my leftist friends and relatives begin to open their minds.

One special surprise has been that even deep in the woods of Obama’s rule, far more liberals express concern about government overreach and the erosion of our freedoms than I remember conservatives displaying when Bush II was in power. We can, perhaps, tell more about people’s affinity for liberty when their “side” holds the upper hand than we can when they are out in the cold. Outright Libertarians, I know, are attracting far more interest from those to the left of us than we are from conservatives such as my snarling friend with the brother in Afghanistan.

Maybe that’s why dedicated leftwing statists are so afraid of libertarians. The field may be riper for poaching than we realized. That is a very interesting discovery. And for this former progressive Democrat, it is a heartening one.




Share This


The Steel Curtain: The Pauls’ Attack on the Libertarian Party

 | 

The rise of Ron Paul and Rand Paul has brought great attention to such libertarian ideas as auditing the Fed and the need for an antiwar foreign policy. But because Ron Paul’s 2008 and 2012 presidential bids were GOP primary attempts, their net effect was to bring libertarianism into the GOP fold. The phenomenon was confirmed by Rand Paul's Senate victory as a GOP candidate, and by the fact that many Americans now associate libertarian ideals with the Tea Party, with which the Pauls themselves are associated, and think of the Tea Party as a Republican group.

Things were simpler when the GOP was for conservatives and the Libertarian Party was for libertarians. If, now, the GOP steals a large number of libertarians away from the LP, the LP will be doomed. Worse, Ron Paul's efforts have made mainstream America think of libertarianism as a right-wing political philosophy, more extremely to the right than conservatism. This is a tendency that Murray Rothbard, for one, would certainly have deplored. Rothbard fiercely criticized Ayn Rand's idea that "the businessman is America's most persecuted minority," asserting instead that many businessmen were statist hacks who benefited from corporate welfare. Yes, Rothbard might have felt differently during his paleolibertarian phase, but liberty has always been an ideal that paralleled leftist positions on certain social issues: drugs, immigration, gay rights, limits on police authority, and others. The danger now is that this parallel will be forgotten. The GOP will simply consume the LP, and true libertarians will have no political home.

Conservatives will always control the American Right because they vastly outnumber libertarians. If, then, libertarianism is considered a rightwing movement, it will eventually dissolve into nothingness. I fear that a steel curtain is going to be built, cutting libertarians off from our socially liberal positions, and fencing libertarianism in on the side of the conservatives. The Libertarian Party's national leadership has never been particularly clever or smart. It has often been obsessed with ideological purity at the expense of practicality and the possibility of winning elections. I doubt the leadership will have what it takes to save the LP from the Pauls’ implicit attack. To paraphrase Caesar, "Et tu, Paule?"

Things were simpler when the GOP was for conservatives and the Libertarian Party was for libertarians. If, now, the GOP steals a large number of libertarians away from the LP, the LP will be doomed. Worse, Ron Paul




Share This


Seventh Grade Revisited

 | 

Junior high was fun. I was not one of the beautiful people — I was a nerd. But I enjoyed being a nerd, liked my geeky friends, and relished the self-discovery of figuring out where I fitted in. And the relief of accepting where I didn’t.

Perhaps that’s a stage we mustn’t miss, however painful it can be. If we don’t go all the way through it, maybe we sort of get stuck there. And if we aren’t willing to accept what we learn about ourselves as teenagers, we may spend the rest of our lives snubbing the icky kids and angling for a seat with the cool kids in the cafeteria.

It’s also possible that nobody makes it entirely through that phase in adolescence. I must admit there were certain aspects of it I had to revisit when I was mature enough to process them as an adult. Coming out as a lesbian was something I couldn’t bring myself to do in the Anita Bryant years, while I was still in school. Coming out of yet another closet — as a libertarian — happened even later.

Libertarian philosophy is enjoying an upsurge these days. Government has become so oppressive, so menacing to nearly every aspect of our lives, that everybody not totally under the spell of statist witchery is giving it a look. That also means it is under attack from those who are under the statist spell. Now that I’m an out-and-proud libertarian, I find myself under attack from many more quarters than I ever was for being gay — especially because I refuse to stay obediently on the gay-leftist reservation.

“Eeeewww,”I often hear, “how can you associate with those libertarians? They don't care about the poor. And they don’t care about morality, either." The latter charge, of course, comes not so much from the Left as from the social Right. Both sides agree that I’ve got cooties; they merely disagree about the sort of cooties I have.

Am I a grumpy Scrooge who doesn’t care if the poor suffer? Or am I a get-naked-and-go-crazy libertine, who thinks people should copulate like bunnies under every bush? I’m not sure how I could possibly be both, as the two don’t necessarily go together according to any logical scheme. But then again, those who desperately lob every bomb they can throw at libertarians don’t seem to need no stinkin’ logic.

There are some libertarians with whom I disagree. I may think they are callous toward those less fortunate, or that they don’t care as much as they should about morality. The hostility some seem to have toward religion grates on this particular devout Episcopalian. But I don’t regard political affiliation as a social clique.

Where did so many people get the notion that they can’t associate — ever — with those with whom they sometimes disagree? That’s the way kids think, but I was under the impression that grownups eventually learned to rise above it. Who said life had to be pleasant every minute of every day, or that we’d never need to work with those we wouldn’t care to play with? I wouldn’t want to sit in the cafeteria with everybody I know. But if I share their convictions on matters of importance to us all, I am willing to work with them to make the world a better place.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, as the saying goes. Or, as the Founder of my faith said, “Those who are not against us are for us."

Those of us who have truly graduated from junior high school understand that we can’t simply go with the flow, that however we were made, and however we got here, we do not exist merely to conform. We have voices so they can be heard. I appreciate that as a libertarian, my voice is being heard. And I appreciate all who will listen — even when they disagree.

Perhaps that’s when it matters most.




Share This


Well, at Least That's Over

 | 

Happy New Year! It gives me pleasure to report that we survived 2010 with fewer devastating hits to the language than we’ve seen in recent years.

If you’re inclined to whine about 2010, please remember “the audacity of hope” and its sad but well-merited fate in the year just past. Of course, there is usually an easy passage from pomposity to farce, but the passage of “audacity of hope” was particularly easy, and particularly gratifying to observe. Every friend of the English language shuddered on election day 2008, expecting that Obama’s stilted, painfully self-conscious phrase would be enshrined forever in America’s pantheon of quotations, alongside “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” “Fourscore and seven years ago,” and “Th-th-th-th-th! That’s all, folks!” But now it’s merely a subject for sardonic humor.

So much of interest might have been said in 2010, but wasn’t.

I’m sorry, however, that I can’t welcome the new year as ecstatically as Addison DeWitt once greeted the debut of Eve Harrington. I am not available for shouting from the housetops or dancing in the streets. It isn’t simply that a lot of muddy snow remains to be shoveled off America’s pavements; it’s that so much of interest might have been said in 2010, but wasn’t.

In 2010 we experienced comparatively little linguistic terror or catastrophe, but we didn’t experience many linguistic delights, either. Washington — Mordor on the Potomac — was more vulnerable to solemn sneers and glorious jests than it had been for many years, and that’s saying something, but its opponents were seldom equal to the occasion. The most eloquent and resonant sound of opposition was “Don’t touch my junk.” That saying will last, and deserves to last. Its four modest monosyllables combine a trenchant protest against authority with a wry parody of enforced sensitivity: if you nice people won’t let me say “penis” or “testicles,” I’ll just call them “junk”; now how do you like that?

But try to think of some equally generous gift to the language, received from 2010. Tell me if you do. I’ll be interested.

The year did afford its share of linguistic monstrosities. It promoted, for example, the further growth of the Great Blob “We.” You know what I mean. Your nurse says, “How are we doing today, Mr. Johnson?” Your boss says, “I think that we [meaning you] had better get that report out right away.” Yesterday a waitperson asked me (I was dining alone), “And how did we like our salad?” I was tempted to reply, “I don’t know; I haven’t had time to poll the rest of us”; but friends have told me that waiters do sometimes spit in your food, so I took refuge in a haughty silence.

All politicians now use “we” to describe themselves. Newt Gingrich was just obeying this professional ethic when, in December, he was interviewed by Fox News about whether he intended to run for president. He replied that “we” were considering it. This makes me wonder how many people may actually be lurking on my ballot, underneath the name of any single candidate that “we” might vote for. It also reminds me irresistibly of those cartoons in which a three-headed monster keeps talking to itself.

But it was Oprah Winfrey who, in 2010, broke all records for “we.” It happened in an interview with Barbara Walters. Barbara asked Oprah about rumors that she was gay, and Oprah responded, “We have said, ‘We are not gay,’ a number of times.” Well, I have never said that, not even once. Have you? But then we weren’t being given the third degree by Barbara Walters.

Nevertheless, “moving forward,” as politicians often said in 2010: the past year not only failed to come up with any colorful new phrases; it was churlish about using old ones that might still have some value. I was astonished by the neglect of a number of venerable expressions that should have seemed perfectly natural, indeed unavoidable, in the context of the year’s political events. These locutions may never have been star players, but their absence from the team made the game a lot less fun to watch.

Who are the war-speakers now? Who claims to be besieged, subverted, held hostage by today’s forces of evil? Why, it’s our pacifist president and his friends, that’s who.

While following the controversy over the tax bill, I was shocked to hear not one satirical reference to the fact that Democrats like to “soak the rich.” And amid the outpouring of sympathy for people who have missed their mortgage payments, I heard not one mention of “giving a hand” to “the deserving poor.” “The poor” no longer exist in our national vocabulary. In this respect, the president is fully representative of leaders left, right, and center: he never talks about “the poor”; he talks exclusively about “the middle class,” or at most about “working families.” (I thought that child labor had been outlawed — except on farms, because farm states have two senators each — but I must have been wrong.) No one ever thinks of po’ folks now.

This is disappointing to me, because I grew up around po’ folks, and a lotta folks I know are still po’. I can’t see why they should be omitted from the glossary, but in 2010 even the professional friends of the working man did exactly that. Obama used the word “folks” with fanatical phoniness, but he didn’t call the poor folks “poor.” I suppose that’s because he and his friends had discovered that really poor people don’t vote, and therefore shouldn’t be noticed, and that relatively poor people always insist that they are middle class.

Relatively rich people do that too. Have you ever met an American who referred to himself as “rich”? There’s no point in debating the question of whether to “soak” the rich. They’re linguistically extinct — except when the Democrats want to increase their taxes. Then, as we discovered in 2010, they become the “super-rich” (i.e., people who make more than $250,000 a year).

That is what the Republicans call “class warfare,” a phrase I am heartily sick of, despite its fair degree of accuracy. The reason I regard it as fairly accurate is that Obama’s leading supporters and administrative fixtures are virtually all super-rich themselves — and I’m not talking about people who make only $250K. I doubt that Obama knows anyone who makes as little as that, or has known anyone who makes as little as that during his own past years of political “service.” But some kind of warfare is going on. The most famous remark that Obama made in 2010 was his crack about Republican congressmen holding “hostages” (i.e., refusing, out of principle, to vote for his legislation). That’s war talk, that is.

If Obama came back, where did he come back from? From his dismally low popularity? From the 9.6% unemployment fostered and protected by his economic policies?

And it’s interesting: starting in the 1960s, “right wing” people were violently attacked by college professors and other kindly, mild-mannered folk for “militarizing” the language — you know, insisting on prosecuting a “cold war” against an “evil empire,” and calling communists “traitors” when they were merely plotting to set up a Stalinist dictatorship. The attack revived after 9/11, when a concerted attempt was made to ban the word “evil” as an aggressive, contemptuous piece of hate speech, reminiscent of . . . er . . . uh . . . Nazis or something. (Gosh, I almost said “radical Islamicists.”) But who are the war-speakers now? Who claims to be besieged, subverted, held hostage by today’s forces of evil? Why, it’s our pacifist president and his friends, that’s who.

The truth is less ideological and more rhetorical. Obama was desperate when he made that statement. He would have said anything if he’d thought it would help. To rescue his political career, he needed to make a deal with the Republicans, but he also needed to conciliate the many members of his party who hate Republicans. He decided that the best way to do it was to show that he, too, hated Republicans. That wasn’t hard, because it was true. He does hate them. So he charged that the Republicans had, in effect, manned up (another ridiculous 2010 expression) and were negotiating with him at the point of a legislative gun. Oh, the humanity! But he had to go along with them, for the sake of the republic.

If you can’t see through this stuff, you’re even more naïve than the New York Times.

But speaking of naïve journalism, this is the time for Word Watch to make its fearless forecast for 2011. Here goes.

During 2011, I envision a more complex linguistic situation than prevailed on 2010. I predict that the nation will be annoyed and harassed, not just by the usual guff, but by three rival political dialects.

1. Conservaspeak

This is a language in which I am well educated, a language that has come pretty naturally to me since I stopped being a leftist several generations ago; but I have to concede that it’s lacking in charm. The Republican leadership, which is not very charming to begin with, will speak continually of “balancing the budget,” “ensuring fiscal responsibility,” “setting the nation’s house in order,” “getting America back to work,” and so on and so on. Sound words, if sincerely spoken — which ordinarily they won’t be. But don’t go to John Boehner or Mitch McConnell for inspiring words. They’re too busy running across the fields, with the Tea Party chasing after them.

2. Progressish

Until 2010, “progressives” were old fogies who believed in everything that appeared in the Socialist Party platform of 1912. They went down to the community center on Friday night and listened to speakers (whom no one but other speakers had ever heard of) explain how Big Oil runs the government and will stop at nothing until it poisons the earth and destroys all its people. Outside of that, they had no life. They all voted enthusiastically for Obama but were then horrified to discover that he wasn’t prepared to outlaw capitalism the very next day. One or two of these advanced thinkers happened to be billionaires and thus managed to get themselves taken semi-seriously, so long as they doled out cash; but that was it.

Then came 2010, and by the time it was over, the most leftward people in the Democratic Party had all declared themselves “progressives” out of frustration with Obama. For one thing, he was a total loser. For another thing, they wouldn’t admit to themselves that the specific reason he had lost the November election was that he had followed their advice and “doubled down” on his least popular policy initiatives. To differentiate their wing of the party from the die-hard Obamaites, they needed their own special word for themselves — and lo! “progressive” was found and seized upon. Suddenly, like some animal species that was thought to be extinct until it blundered into a neighborhood where the garbage wasn’t always picked up on time, “progressives” propagated themselves everywhere. Congress and the old-fashioned media filled up with them, overnight.

The current “progressive” ideology isn’t much worth talking about; it consists largely of the idea that government should always expand exponentially, which it would be doing if the president would only ignore the wishes of nine-tenths of the American populace. The progressish dialect isn’t much fun, either; but it will be very prominent in 2011. Expect to hear much more about “empowerment,” “workers’ rights,” “corporate control,” “masters of war,” “the military-industrial complex,” and other standard shibboleths of the distant Left, as leftists try to hold Obama’s renomination hostage in the temple of their idolatries.

3. Obamablab

This is the worst one.

Obama’s popularity ratings have been in the swamp since mid-2009. His amateurish performance as president resulted in his opponents’ overwhelming victory in the election of 2010. Since that election, his biggest accomplishment has been rounding up enough Democrats to vote for the continuation of the Republican tax cuts he had campaigned against.

Strangely, in response to his questionable achievements a chorus of cheers is now being heard from the loftiest heights of the established media — cheers rendered in a barbaric, virtually untranslatable tongue, full of terms that have no plausible equivalent in normal English. Thus, Obama is complimented for his “thoughtful,” even “deeply intellectual and reflective” leadership, for his “moderation,” his “conciliatory approach,” and his “reaching-across-the-aisle method of government.” He is said to have “emerged victorious” and to have “surprised the pundits” as he “turned the corner” on his “struggle to lead America out of its financial doldrums.” Obama is, in short, “the comeback kid.”

Only an expert on mental illness could comprehend what all this means, but its chief characteristic is clearly its gross dishonesty. If Obama came back, where did he come back from? From his dismally low popularity? From the 9.6% unemployment fostered and protected by his economic policies? From the total disarray of his own party? From any other conditions that were just as evident on November 2 as they are today?

The president is not a kid, and the only way in which he has come back is by means of this hideously contrived and shopworn language. We’ve had a comeback kid before: his name was Bill Clinton. And there has never been a moment when modern liberals were not relabeled, when necessary, as conciliatory “moderates” of a “bipartisan spirit,” “pragmatists” who “govern from the center,” etc. Some years ago, the New York Times declared, in a lead editorial, that Walter Mondale was “a man of principle, who has always had the courage to compromise.”

To conclude. These three dialects are the linguistic survivors of 2010. We’ll have to put up with them. But I can think of a good thing about last year: it appears to have jettisoned one considerable wad of smarm: “transparency.” We used to hear a lot about the cellophane-like “transparency” of the Obama administration. Now it appears, what with the healthcare deals and the taxation deals and the stimulus deals and the immigration deals and the security deals and all the other kinds of deals, that “the era of transparency” was over before it started, banished by the era of obvious lies. And that’s the real come-back kid.




Share This
Syndicate content

© Copyright 2017 Liberty Foundation. All rights reserved.



Opinions expressed in Liberty are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Liberty Foundation.

All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.