Friday, April 10, 2009

Yeah, we're crazy!

E.D. Kain asserts that "many neocons and movement conservative types are suffering from a total break with reality." This gets him linked by Andrew Sullivan, naturally, since the Trig Truther loves nothing better than this armchair Adorno trick of treating conservative dissent as a symptom of psychopathology. Kain's implicit syllogism is this:
  • All reasonable men of good will are liberal;
  • This person criticizes liberalism;
  • Ergo, this person is either unreasonable or has malevolent motives.

The syllogism is valid, but the primary premise is flawed. It is a species of ad hominem, with a bit of bandwagon psychology and argumentum ad verecundiam thrown in for good measure. Please notice how cleverly Kain, a liberal Democrat, plays the game of pretending that there is some other conservatism he might be willing to respect:

I can only hope that the conservative movement stays the course, and continues to run this thing into the ground. Total self-destruction is necessary for it to be replaced by any viable, honorable, or intellectual conservatism.
Right. Kain hereby asserts that conservatism, as developed as an American political movement since the 1940s, is neither viable, nor honorable, nor intellectual. Having wielded the stick of abuse (You're nuts!), Kain next dangles the carrot: If you will adopt a "conservatism" that does not fundamentally contradict the liberal agenda, you will be credited with being bien pensants -- just like them!

And such is Kain's arrogance as to imagine that conservatives are too stupid to see the game he's playing.

UPDATE: Notice that Sullivan makes a grand gesture of "researching" the Tea Party movement, proclaiming himself mystified, and denouncing the whole thing as a "tantrum." And this is the man who habitually accuses conservatives of mala fides.

UPDATE II: Linked at Memeorandum along with William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection and Pat of So It Goes In Shreveport., while Donald Douglas of American Power has further thoughts on the April 15 nationwide Tax Day Tea Party.

UPDATE III: Dan Riehl weighs in with a more in-depth fisking. Please note that Dan is sympathetic to Sully's gay-marriage obsession, but still doesn't let Sully off the hook for his sloppiness. And, in point of fact, Dan doesn't ever let me off the hook for sloppiness, either. He's very consistent that way.


  1. I posted on this last night!

    And you're linked at my Tea Party post this morning!

  2. I am disgusted with almost every aspect of movement conservatism (and I think neocons should be deported to Israel), but the last thing right-leaning dissenters should do is curry favor with the left. Besides, there is something wholly undignified about disliking certain aspects of your side and then trying to suck up to the other.

  3. My issues with the parties are listed here; I'll add to that as new issues come up.

    As for Sully's contention that the "parties" are against illegal immigration, tell me another one: some major backers of the "parties" have done everything but oppose that. I hesitate to say that they were paid to do that, but then again Armey was seeking funds to help Bush promote amnesty. Now, he's pushing the "parties".

    And, while 0.2% of the GOP voters "party", the Dems are pushing an amnesty. The "parties" will never stop that. The best way to stop that is described here but, let's face it, the "partiers" aren't smart enough to do that.

    The useful idiotism on these "parties" is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

  4. Ah Cody, the Hamas lover, why does the Salafi cause appeal to you so,
    I still quite haven't figures out.
    What are the salvagable parts of conservatism, to you, it's a slow night.

    I think you'll find that the base, some for economical and other cultural reasons, are opposed to illegal immigration. But the elites specially in the media are not.

  5. Oh, Narciso, you dual-loyalist (some Israel-Firsters would sell out their own families for Israel. Would you?). Why should I explain myself to you?