If we all suddenly submitted to the incessant pleas for moderation, which dominate our political discourse, what would come next? What would replace the cacophony of the ear-piercing indictments of ideology, the bellowing condemnations of "extremism," and the self-serving pragmatic bluster? If we delivered Rush Limbaugh's "Golden EIB Microphone," as proof that we had extinguished the wicked witch of extremism, what would the wonderful wizard of political moderation grant us? Brains, heart, and courage, to make our party complete? Would the cacophony be replaced by harmonious pipe organs and gregorian chants, marking the commencement of our ascension to political divinity---toward the immaculate ideal of "electability?" Or, would we pullback the curtain to reveal a small-minded cynic; a con artist who's only goal was his own power---whose only talent was ensuring that you never actually saw him?
After all, what exactly can a political moderate offer? If the so-called extremists were all to accept the ideal of moderation, that ideal would no longer exist---moderation, as a concept, is only valid in reference to that which it is moderating; alone, it is nothing. The long-range vision offered by those who advocate moderation as a political ideal is like the illusion of an oasis in the desert, fading into thin-air as you approach; and the once-deafening pleas of those advocates are like the chirps of crickets, becoming more and more infrequent, then suddenly silent when you finally reach them. Joe Scarborough and Bernie Goldberg have been chirping quite loudly in defense of Chris Christie's moderation lately, and have taken to calling the Tea Party "RINO's" in an effort to paint Christie as the true conservative---which they, of course, define in accordance with his perceived "electability," and not his actual conservatism.
Bernie Goldberg made the absurd claim that: “The real RINO’s are the people in the Tea Party, and on the hard right, because they have made it clear...that their allegiance is, not to the Republican Party, but to their particular brand of conservatism. So they’re the RINO’s;” while Scarborough stated: “NBC News quoted a Tea Party leader who said Chris Christie is no different than Harry Reid...Those people can’t be reasoned with. They are RINOs. They don’t understand what it means to be a Republican, they don’t understand what it means to be a conservative. They don’t understand what it’s like to win elections. They don’t get it.” I must admit that this last charge is probably true; when Joe Scarborough is talking, I truly feel like I don't get it.
In those majestic, right-place/right-time, moments when I'm lucky enough to hear his enlightened opinions, I have difficulty grasping the notion that Joe Scarborough is human just like me---that he's not a god---that he puts on his socks one at a...then I see his sock-less loafers mired in the slimy residue of spilt mocha lattes covering the floor of the Morning Joe set, and I'm reminded that his feet touch the ground just like mine (I wouldn't wear socks either if I made a living in the mud)---I assume that his head is in fact in the clouds, though, because he's always squinting while wearing those awesome glasses, which you're only allowed to buy if you have a note from a doctor that says you're smarter than everyone else. As for Bernie Goldberg, his nasal voice sounds like it’s the result of his nose orchestrating a compromise between his contentious mouth and passive brain; like a natural defense mechanism designed to conceal and attenuate the antagonistic nature of his words by conveying the sense that they reverberate no further than his own nasal---like his nose is holding back his mouth as if it were the embarrassed friend of a belligerent drunk hoping that nobody will take him seriously.
Until Goldberg and Scarborough choose to define their terms, and to raise the level of their discourse beyond attaching naked assertions to randomly-chosen concretes (which Tea Party leader was Scarborough even referring too? And what is the significance of that individual's views in relation to the rest of the Tea Party?), and until they are ready to explicitly identify which ideology and which political principles they are rebelling against, this will be the only type of response they deserve---as it would be for a manipulative toddler throwing a temper tantrum in response to not getting what it wants, while having no idea what that actually is. Everything Scarborough rants against in the Republican Party, everything he throws his pacifier-lidded latte at, is a concrete---usually a Tea Party member doing their best to advocate conservative ideals---while everything he claims to want is abstract---either existing in the past, or in some future, which he is prevented from sharing with the rest of us due to his inability to coherently articulate his ideology (vs. that of the Tea Party) ---he is the quintessential toddler. The only question that I have for them is: If the Tea Party and the "hard-right" didn't exist, what would you call Chris Christie? In relation to what would he be a moderate? In contrast to what would he be a conservative? If they believe that Christie is the "true Republican," it would seem that Scarborough and Goldberg envision an entire party that is Republican-in-name-only.
After all, what exactly can a political moderate offer? If the so-called extremists were all to accept the ideal of moderation, that ideal would no longer exist---moderation, as a concept, is only valid in reference to that which it is moderating; alone, it is nothing. The long-range vision offered by those who advocate moderation as a political ideal is like the illusion of an oasis in the desert, fading into thin-air as you approach; and the once-deafening pleas of those advocates are like the chirps of crickets, becoming more and more infrequent, then suddenly silent when you finally reach them. Joe Scarborough and Bernie Goldberg have been chirping quite loudly in defense of Chris Christie's moderation lately, and have taken to calling the Tea Party "RINO's" in an effort to paint Christie as the true conservative---which they, of course, define in accordance with his perceived "electability," and not his actual conservatism.
Bernie Goldberg made the absurd claim that: “The real RINO’s are the people in the Tea Party, and on the hard right, because they have made it clear...that their allegiance is, not to the Republican Party, but to their particular brand of conservatism. So they’re the RINO’s;” while Scarborough stated: “NBC News quoted a Tea Party leader who said Chris Christie is no different than Harry Reid...Those people can’t be reasoned with. They are RINOs. They don’t understand what it means to be a Republican, they don’t understand what it means to be a conservative. They don’t understand what it’s like to win elections. They don’t get it.” I must admit that this last charge is probably true; when Joe Scarborough is talking, I truly feel like I don't get it.
In those majestic, right-place/right-time, moments when I'm lucky enough to hear his enlightened opinions, I have difficulty grasping the notion that Joe Scarborough is human just like me---that he's not a god---that he puts on his socks one at a...then I see his sock-less loafers mired in the slimy residue of spilt mocha lattes covering the floor of the Morning Joe set, and I'm reminded that his feet touch the ground just like mine (I wouldn't wear socks either if I made a living in the mud)---I assume that his head is in fact in the clouds, though, because he's always squinting while wearing those awesome glasses, which you're only allowed to buy if you have a note from a doctor that says you're smarter than everyone else. As for Bernie Goldberg, his nasal voice sounds like it’s the result of his nose orchestrating a compromise between his contentious mouth and passive brain; like a natural defense mechanism designed to conceal and attenuate the antagonistic nature of his words by conveying the sense that they reverberate no further than his own nasal---like his nose is holding back his mouth as if it were the embarrassed friend of a belligerent drunk hoping that nobody will take him seriously.
Until Goldberg and Scarborough choose to define their terms, and to raise the level of their discourse beyond attaching naked assertions to randomly-chosen concretes (which Tea Party leader was Scarborough even referring too? And what is the significance of that individual's views in relation to the rest of the Tea Party?), and until they are ready to explicitly identify which ideology and which political principles they are rebelling against, this will be the only type of response they deserve---as it would be for a manipulative toddler throwing a temper tantrum in response to not getting what it wants, while having no idea what that actually is. Everything Scarborough rants against in the Republican Party, everything he throws his pacifier-lidded latte at, is a concrete---usually a Tea Party member doing their best to advocate conservative ideals---while everything he claims to want is abstract---either existing in the past, or in some future, which he is prevented from sharing with the rest of us due to his inability to coherently articulate his ideology (vs. that of the Tea Party) ---he is the quintessential toddler. The only question that I have for them is: If the Tea Party and the "hard-right" didn't exist, what would you call Chris Christie? In relation to what would he be a moderate? In contrast to what would he be a conservative? If they believe that Christie is the "true Republican," it would seem that Scarborough and Goldberg envision an entire party that is Republican-in-name-only.
RSS Feed