Discussing a clueless mayor

I'm pleased to report that my recent rant against the reaction to (admittedly clueless) Los Alamitos Mayor Dean Grose's "watermelon" email inspired a pretty decent discussion. Check it out: Big Money (scroll down to comments).

Los Alamitos residents weigh in

Conservatives on the Titanic: blaming right-wing “carny barkers”

Yesterday, the Reg’s Orange Punch blog noted a provocative essay by conservative writer John Derbyshire (of National Review) that appeared in The American Conservative. Derbyshire's point: Rush Limbaugh, and the other right-wing radio rabble-rousers have hurt the cause of conservatism. Surely he's right. (Stop calling me "Shirley.") Some excerpts: How Radio Wrecks the Right

...With reasons for gratitude duly noted, are there some downsides to conservative talk radio? Taking the conservative project as a whole—limited government, fiscal prudence, equality under law, personal liberty, patriotism, realism abroad—has talk radio helped or hurt? All those good things are plainly off the table for the next four years at least, a prospect that conservatives can only view with anguish. Did the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Savages, and Ingrahams lead us to this sorry state of affairs? They surely did. At the very least, by yoking themselves to the clueless George W. Bush and his free-spending administration, they helped create the great debt bubble that has now burst so spectacularly. The big names, too, were all uncritical of the decade-long (at least) efforts to “build democracy” in no-account nations with politically primitive populations. Sean Hannity called the Iraq War a “massive success,” and in January 2008 deemed the U.S. economy “phenomenal.” Much as their blind loyalty discredited the Right, perhaps the worst effect of Limbaugh et al. has been their draining away of political energy from what might have been a much more worthwhile project: the fostering of a middlebrow conservatism. There is nothing wrong with lowbrow conservatism. It’s energizing and fun. What’s wrong is the impression fixed in the minds of too many Americans that conservatism is always lowbrow, an impression our enemies gleefully reinforce when the opportunity arises. Thus a liberal like E.J. Dionne can write, “The cause of Edmund Burke, Leo Strauss, Robert Nisbet and William F. Buckley Jr. is now in the hands of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity. … Reason has been overwhelmed by propaganda, ideas by slogans.” Talk radio has contributed mightily to this development. It does so by routinely descending into the ad hominem—Feminazis instead of feminism—and catering to reflex rather than thought. Where once conservatism had been about individualism, talk radio now rallies the mob. “Revolt against the masses?” asked Jeffrey Hart. “Limbaugh is the masses.” In place of the permanent things, we get Happy Meal conservatism: cheap, childish, familiar. Gone are the internal tensions, the thought-provoking paradoxes, the ideological uneasiness that marked the early Right. But however much this dumbing down has damaged the conservative brand, it appeals to millions of Americans.... 

… 

… The unholy marriage of social engineering and high finance that ended with our present ruin was left largely unanalyzed from reluctance to slight a Republican administration. Plenty of people saw what was coming. There was Ron Paul, for example: “Our present course ... is not sustainable. ... Our spendthrift ways are going to come to an end one way or another. Politicians won’t even mention the issue, much less face up to it.” Neither will the GOP pep squad of conservative talk radio. …Why engage an opponent when an epithet is in easy reach? Some are crude: rather than debating Jimmy Carter’s views on Mideast peace, Michael Savage dismisses him as a “war criminal.” Others are juvenile: Mark Levin blasts the Washington Compost and New York Slimes. … I enjoy these radio bloviators (and their TV equivalents) and hope they can survive the coming assault from Left triumphalists. If conservatism is to have a future, though, it will need to listen to more than the looped tape of lowbrow talk radio. We could even tackle the matter of tone, bringing a sportsman’s respect for his opponents to the debate. I repeat: There is nothing wrong with lowbrow conservatism. Ideas must be marketed, and right-wing talk radio captures a big and useful market segment. However, if there is no thoughtful, rigorous presentation of conservative ideas, then conservatism by default becomes the raucous parochialism of Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, and company. That loses us a market segment at least as useful, if perhaps not as big. Conservatives have never had, and never should have, a problem with elitism. Why have we allowed carny barkers to run away with the Right? [My emphases.]

• SADDLEBACK COLLEGE CELEBRATES AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORY. Also yesterday, the OC Reg reported on the celebration of African American history going on at Saddleback College: Saddleback College students celebrate African American history. The event was entitled "A Celebration of Black History: Legacy, Liberation, and New Beginnings.” It featured a presentation by Dr. Richard Rose, Professor of Philosophy and Religion at the University of La Verne and a keynote speech by Reverend Mark Whitlock of the Christ Our Redeemer AME Church.