Hanging out in the sacrifice zone

I’ve been visiting FrumForum lately – partly because bob mentioned that he first visited this site after following my commenting name-link from there to here, partly because our occasional visitor and old friend strangelet (as “quell”) can be found there violating decorum, as well as punctuation, in her inimitable way.

Another reason I like to go Frumming is that I find Mr. Frum wrong in a right way – not an agreeable way, but in the manner of a kind of limiting political function defining the “inside” boundaries of “the Right” on our contemporary political spectrum.  For instance, Frum will take any opportunity to remind us that he opposes Obama – thus his rather trivial and brief little post today:  “The Next Time Obama Blames Bush….” Frum may be aware that many True Conservatives still think he despised Palin so much he endorsed Obama in ’08.  And Frum has found his own, less obviously xenophobic way to attack the Park51 project, though, as his commenters point out, his use of the phrase “Ground Zero Mosque” already firmly places him, or his aspirations, politically (and culturally).

Unlike, say, Andrew Sullivan, Frum still wants to be included somewhere in the current Republican coalition, and that goal seems to require him, among other things, to find ways to bash Obama and bash Muslims, just less crudely than a wanna-be Tea Party hero would.  In this vein, it’s interesting how much further to the left FF’s comment threads are compared to F himself, or at least to how F seems compelled to position himself. In its own way this tendency seems characteristic of  our peculiar political-cultural moment, as those of us not wholly committed to either of the two big teams struggle to colonize the sacrifice zone between (and around) Far Right and Repudiated Left.

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution.

14 comments on “Hanging out in the sacrifice zone

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. I haven’t been over at FF for quite a while. What I had found interesting after O’s election was FF as a representative theater of the war between the Far Right and the FarFar Right. Once the FFR prevailed in real life, if not FF, the whole thing seemed kinda repetitive.

    Frum is before everything else, a neo con. So there’s no real place for him anywhere other than the Repubs.

    I think the lefter than F character of the comments is because the FFR contingent disliked F for not kicking the RINOs and dems off the blog, so I’m guessing a lot of FFR just stoppped commenting or went somewhere more satisfying.

  2. Well he did grudgingly endorse McCain in the end, he is still embarassed
    that Palin agreed with him on the Afghan question, the comment section has been flooded by Nazgul’s and uruk hai, the Far Right have
    checked out of regular politics, Bob,

  3. bob wrote:

    Frum is before everything else, a neo con.

    Yes, that becomes more clear. He’s the peculiar intersection of NeoCon and Brooks-Salam-Friedersdorf centrist/progressive conservatism – pre-emptive war as another social program we can’t quite do without.

  4. @ miguel cervantes:

    the Far Right have
    checked out of regular politics, Bob,

    I’m guessing you mean the FarFar Right, but in any case I’m also guessing our respective definitions differ by a couple of degrees ie what you think of as the center I think of at least the Far Right, possibly the FFR.

    In any any case, “regular politics”?. Another defintional question. Clearly they are involved in elections, having just had considerable success.

  5. @ bob:

    Am I far right or far far right for believing that the Fedal guvmint shouldn’t be doing anything not plainly listed in black and white in the Constitution and its Amendments?

    Aside from printing and mailing my monthly SSN check of course.

  6. The Paulists had some success, with Rand Paul, the Dauphin, who shares some of the distaste of empire building, that Highlander has rediscovered, an odd interpretation of hegemony, of a ‘The Tail that
    wagged the Dog”

  7. @ fuster:

    That’s covered under article 1:28

    . . . fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

  8. @ bob:

    I’m feeling gracious and generous. Everybody else eligible should collect until it is impossible for whoever ends up with custody of my body to hide from the feds the fact that I am no longer eligible to collect.

  9. Sully wrote:

    Am I far right or far far right for believing that the Fedal guvmint shouldn’t be doing anything not plainly listed in black and white in the Constitution and its Amendments?

    You may be far right, but in a very conventional way, for believing that there is such a thing as “plainly listed in black and white” in the Constitution or any other document. It’s always a matter of interpretation, as any Framers who had any doubts about the question were soon apprised by the Supreme Court, when it explained, in one of its first decisions, that Congress could not be restrained by a wishful Natural Rights reading of their handiwork.

  10. A Valiant try to impart wisdom over there,Colin, but David has clearly lost control of the comment section.

    Herr Gosch, you were enough of an polliwog, back in the late 70s, to know that’s just a bunch of scargot

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins