Iowahawk:
When my late father T. Coddington Van Voorhees VI founded the iconoclastic conservative journal National Topsider in 1948, he famously declared that “Now is the time for all good conservative helmsmen to hoist the mizzen, pour the cocktails, and steer this damned schooner hard starboard.” In the 60 years since he first uttered it after one-too-many Cosmopolitans at one of Pamela Harriman’s notorious foreign policy black tie balls, father’s pithy bon mot has served as a rallying cry for conservatives from Greenwich to Chevy Chase. Today, I say it’s time for we conservatives to once again grab the rigging and set sail with the flotilla of the true conservative in this race: Barack Obama.
Trust me, I haven’t taken this tack lightly. No Van Voorhees has supported an avowed socialist since great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandpapa Cragmont Van Voorhees lent Peter Minuet $24 and a sack of wampum to swing a subprime mortgage on Manhattan Island. Old dad himself often recounted how, as a lad, he would command the family chauffeur Carleton to drive the Duesenberg down to the Times Square Trans-Lux so he could hiss Roosevelt. But I’ve taken a good measure of this Obama fellow, and I must say I like the cut of the man’s jib.
How can I say this, you ask? One look at this Obama chap is all the answer you need. Suave, tanned, unflappable, Harvard connections; it’s obvious that here is a man to the conservative manor born. One imagines him at the helm of the Ship of State, basked in the sunlight diffusing through the seaspray over the bow, like some beautiful rugged Othello from a rapturous Ralph Lauren catalog, calmly issuing instructions to the deck crew in that magnificent mellifluous baritone of his. It’s that easy-going, almost effortless grace that has all the A-list conservatives like David Frum and Kathleen Parker whispering Reaganesque in hushed tones. Even Peggy Noonan — the Grand Dame of Gipperism — has succumbed to Obama’s undeniable conservative charms.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
It’s an amusing article, but it’s got some underlying premises that are disturbing for the direction of the party.
Is there something wrong with having the last name ‘van Voorhees’?
Is there something wrong wrong with having attended Harvard? I mean, it’s no Idaho State University, but a lot of parents out there would quite like for their children to one day attend a school like Harvard.
Kathleen Parker, David Frum, and Peggy Noonan have not endorsed Obama. They are all McCain supporters, but have criticized Sarah Palin. Is criticizing Sarah Palin now tantamount to endorsing Obama? Is Sarah Palin immune from criticism? We as thoughtful conservatives should believe that our ticket is better than the Democratic one — it doesn’t mean that we have to pretend it’s perfect.
Is the article suggesting that anyone that dares to criticize Sarah Palin should be excommunicated from the conservative movement, or that there are no legitimate critiques to be made over the Palin pick?
October 30th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Thinking Person,
Of course there are legitimate critiques to be made of Palin; when this race ends, I’ll make a few myself no doubt. But Parker and Brooks, at the very least, haven’t offered any. Parker was a no name, third rate columnist, who suddenly became a “prominent conservative pundit” after her article critical of Palin. Suspecting that this whole bash Palin business could take her where lack of talent couldn’t, Parker preceded to trash her on late night comedy shows, and pen another quite insightful piece suggesting that McCain picked Palin because…well…she’s hot. Truly profound. Brooks called her a cancer on the Republican party, on the strictly reasonable ground that she hadn’t given him a 20 minute summary of Reinhold Niebuhr.
October 30th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Don’t blame Parker for her lack of status. She was free to say as she felt. She did, and the liberal media distorted her standing among conservatives.
Brooks has been inflammatory, but surely you can’t say that David Frum, Peggy Noonan, and George Will have been looking for treats from the liberal elite?
Listen, I fully support the Republican ticket, but I can say that Palin was probably not the best choice, from an electoral (just look at the polls) or a governing standpoint (she was only the Governor for 1 1/2 years when she was chosen).
October 30th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Quite funny, but I disagree with its implications.
Only in a universe where folks desire to relive the past does a nice Jewish boy like David Frum, a middle-aged Irish-Catholic woman like Peggy Noonan, or a culturally conservative southerner like Kathleen Parker become blue-blooded Northeasterners with left-of-center views whose genetic pool was the result of the Anglos meeting the Saxons.
As I said the other day, I don’t think that “Rockefeller Republicans” exist anymore. I do think that a certain segment of the Right really, really wants them to exist again, and really, really wants all of the folks who have criticized McCain or Palin or both in recent weeks to be Rockefeller Republicans.
I suspect that many of these folks are too young to remember 1976-1980, as am I. I read about the Reagan Revolution at Borders, or perhaps Barnes and Noble. Because smart people like to be part of monumental historical events, it shouldn’t be surprising that lots of young, eager grassroots conservatives are trying their hardest to re-create that environment, so that they can live the history they’ve always dreamed about by kicking those nasty blue-blood Rockefeller types out of the party, even if those supposed Rockefellerites are actually ethnic Jews or Catholics whose ancestry was erased at Ellis Island and who subscribe to center-right political views.
October 30th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Thinking Person,
I think David Frum is sincere in his criticism and probably has no ulterior motive. It’s pretty clear he wants a different kind of GOP, based on his new book, but it’s not clear that GOP would be much less conservative. But, at any rate, I think his criticism is fair enough, and I haven’t had much to say about it. I think Peggy Noonan is partially sincere, though I’ve heard that she’s been angling pretty hard for a permanent editorial position at the NYT, ala Brooks, for awhile now. Make of that what you will. But, I also think it’s clear that Noonan, whatever she once was, is very much of the “cocktail swilling” subset of the GOP elite and this, more then any bad faith, has colored her commentary. George Will strikes me as that type too, though admittedly I’m not as familiar with his background.
October 30th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
See, this sort of conspiratorial thinking is what drives me nuts: Peggy Noonan might be lying about her criticism of Palin; only saying it because she wants a slot at the New York Times?
It’s the equivalent of saying that anyone that criticizes Sarah Palin cannot possibly be a real conservative; that it’s blasphemy or deserving of excommunication to say that Sarah Palin has fundamental flaws as a vice-presidential candidate.
Is there something wrong with drinking cocktails, attending Ivy League schools, using erudite language, and believing in meritocracy over populism? What happened to the party of Enlightenment values?
October 30th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Thinking Person,
I’m a cocktail man myself. I got into 1 of the 2 Ivy League schools I applied to (alas, Harvard rejected me). I use all sorts of erudite language and believe in a meritocracy. So I’d say, no and no and no and no. I object to the sort of person those things turn you into (well, not meritocracy which strikes me as quite separate), not the things themselves. And the sort of attitude they foster. We have a class of elites who simply will not accept someone who is not a member of that class. It’s no longer hereditary of course, and perhaps better for it. And there’s even some flexibility on the margins- non-Ivy’s will do, if everything else checks out. But, there’s still a general requirement that at some point, you abandon the attitudes, speech patterns, low-brow associates of the hoi polloi and adopt the mannerisms, ideas, and reading habits of the elites. And I think that’s bad for democracy, especially in an era where the elites are truly mediocre.
October 31st, 2008 at 12:08 am
Judging by the comments, I must’ve missed the point of the Iowahawk article. I just thought it was funny.
October 31st, 2008 at 12:20 am
yo Kris,
you thinking what i’m thinking? National review endorsed romney. kathleen parker wrote for national review and said bad things about palin. mitt is a traitor!
October 31st, 2008 at 1:16 am
We have a class of elites who simply will not accept someone who is not a member of that class. It’s no longer hereditary of course, and perhaps better for it. And there’s even some flexibility on the margins- non-Ivy’s will do, if everything else checks out.
Why is it any better for Joe Six Pack to exclude Joseph Cocktail? Sarah Palin implied that they weren’t real Americans; no outrage is heard from you over that.
I have a problem with insulting either. I just want to judge people by their merits. And to suggest that criticizing Sarah Palin is tantamount to “excluding her” because she’s not “one of their privileged” is preposterous. They criticized her for legitimate reasons. You can disagree respectfully without accusing them of selling out or something of the like.
October 31st, 2008 at 1:24 am
i think the point is that you shouldn’t be criticizing someone on “your” team when the election is in like 2 days. and i get that. there is four years to complain after nov. 5th. but nobody better have a problem with attacking sarah on Nov. 6th. she is not the future of a GOP i want to be involved in. but she will try. she will not be elected to any future post in alaska, and i’ll put dollars to donuts on intrade for that. her only choice is the national scene. there’s not room for her, mitt, newt, huckleberry, and the rest. it will be interesting.
October 31st, 2008 at 2:09 am
i think the point is that you shouldn’t be criticizing someone on “your” team when the election is in like 2 days.
Who has? Everyone did it a month ago.
and i get that.
I do too.
there is four years to complain after nov. 5th. but nobody better have a problem with attacking sarah on Nov. 6th.
Believe me, some will.
she is not the future of a GOP i want to be involved in. but she will try. she will not be elected to any future post in alaska, and i’ll put dollars to donuts on intrade for that. her only choice is the national scene. there’s not room for her, mitt, newt, huckleberry, and the rest. it will be interesting.
Gingrich-Jindal ’12.
October 31st, 2008 at 5:10 am
11. . . For the record, Palin’s still the most popular politician in Alaska, with approval ratings at around 65%. She can and will win reelection here as Governor in 2010, assuming, of course, she’s still around here come January ’09.
October 31st, 2008 at 6:30 am
obamacon,
obamarxistsocialism
#14
Palin will never get chance to run as Alaska governor
because she has to assist Mc Cain in White House, next year.
October 31st, 2008 at 6:51 am
On “Good Morning America” McCain was asked about the auto industry asking for more money. His first impulse was “they just got a $25 billion loan,” but just as quickly he added, “I will support a bailout if it saves our auto industry.”
Therein lies the problem and contradiction, both liberal and conservative, both capitalist and socialist. Its Oct 31 and McCain still doesn’t know what he wants to be. How can someone be the leader of a conservative party and not know the conservative response?
Obama would not have wavered and its his confidence and steadiness that is attractive in a market that convulses in 500 point swings. Plus, he has Warren Buffet, Robert Rubin and Paul Volcker whispering in his ear.
October 31st, 2008 at 6:57 am
BTW, Larry Eagleburger said that Palin is not ready for the job, but she can grow into it. But, he added, he wouldn’t expect her to be any kind of genius.
October 31st, 2008 at 7:07 am
#9 you are probably. Correct, Parker is a romney supporter. Great point!!!
October 31st, 2008 at 7:10 am
The undeniable fact is that if McCain gets within 2% points on Tues he will know that he probably would have won with a different VP pick.
In some ways he will sleep better at night if he loses by 6!
October 31st, 2008 at 7:10 am
#17 #18
Palin has already be an executive, running a big state of Alaska
did baby obama jr. ever running a state pal?
tks
October 31st, 2008 at 7:15 am
Heath, if you believe VP picks are that important, you have zero cedibility.
October 31st, 2008 at 8:45 am
Palin has been gov of Alaska for all of a year and a half and half of that time she spent at home collecting per diems.
Normally VP’s don’t matter. But when you are a 72 year old cancer patient and your VP thinks being close to a foreign country is foreign policy experience, well that VP matters a lot.
October 31st, 2008 at 8:57 am
Matthew Miller and Thinking Person,
quote “But, there’s still a general requirement that at some point, you abandon the attitudes, speech patterns, low-brow associates of the hoi polloi and adopt the mannerisms, ideas, and reading habits of the elites. And I think that’s bad for democracy, especially in an era where the elites are truly mediocre.”
quote “Is there something wrong with drinking cocktails, attending Ivy League schools, using erudite language, and believing in meritocracy over populism? What happened to the party of Enlightenment values?”
for decades now the party of enlightenment values has been the Stevenson-Kennedy-and now Obama party.
And – i hate to say – the GOP is now the party “where the elites are truly mediocre.”
Which says it all about the present ticket (erratic, maverick, six packs – you name it. Fortunately, after Nov 5. the GOP will get the opportunity to go back to the roots and reinvent itself.
Maybe the Six-packs Mom’s and Plumbers will set up a populist party of their own.
October 31st, 2008 at 9:09 am
for decades now the party of enlightenment values has been the Stevenson-Kennedy-and now Obama party.
Well, they’ve got the religious tolerance (somewhat) right, but hell if they’re a rational, capitalist, meritocratic party!
October 31st, 2008 at 9:09 am
Heath, if you believe VP picks are that important, you have zero cedibility.
VP picks aren’t important…until they are.
October 31st, 2008 at 9:23 am
Thinking person and Heath,
quote: “Heath, if you believe VP picks are that important, you have zero cedibility.
VP picks aren’t important…until they are.”
So there is a 72 year old the #1 on the ticket. he is a slow thinker and the #2 is even worse.
October 31st, 2008 at 9:45 am
I’m a cocktail man myself. I got into 1 of the 2 Ivy League schools I applied to (alas, Harvard rejected me). I use all sorts of erudite language and believe in a meritocracy. So I’d say, no and no and no and no. I object to the sort of person those things turn you into (well, not meritocracy which strikes me as quite separate), not the things themselves. And the sort of attitude they foster. We have a class of elites who simply will not accept someone who is not a member of that class. It’s no longer hereditary of course, and perhaps better for it. And there’s even some flexibility on the margins- non-Ivy’s will do, if everything else checks out. But, there’s still a general requirement that at some point, you abandon the attitudes, speech patterns, low-brow associates of the hoi polloi and adopt the mannerisms, ideas, and reading habits of the elites. And I think that’s bad for democracy, especially in an era where the elites are truly mediocre.
Thank you, Matthew. That’s what I’ve been saying for months. And I don’t believe that Palin (or any of the others, for that matter) want to exclude the “elites”. They want them to do what’s best for the people. If they can do that in between games of cricket, fine.
October 31st, 2008 at 9:48 am
“Maybe the Six-packs Mom’s and Plumbers will set up a populist party of their own.”
Wouldn’t that be nice? You “intellectuals” wouldn’t have to watch us eat grits and we could wipe the floor with your candidates at every election. Oooo, there I go again with the class warfare. Sorry about that.
October 31st, 2008 at 9:57 am
So there is a 72 year old the #1 on the ticket. he is a slow thinker and the #2 is even worse.
I’m quite confident that McCain will be fine. Better to risk an unprepared Palin than to know for certain that we’ll have Barry O.
Wouldn’t that be nice? You “intellectuals” wouldn’t have to watch us eat grits and we could wipe the floor with your candidates at every election. Oooo, there I go again with the class warfare. Sorry about that.
It is class warfare. It’s no better than when Democrats rail on about “tax cuts for the rich.” It’s bullshit identity politics.
October 31st, 2008 at 11:28 am
It’s also a complete non-argument until some pollster or demographer can identify any so-called intellectual vote and certify that it has numbers of influence enough to matter in the least, which it doesn’t, which it never has, and which it never will. Intellectuals—the intelligensia as our brothers and sisters on the continent used to call the educated classes—have always served as opinion drivers yet have always railed at their own impotence as influencers. Or have you never read Turgenev? Part of what it means to be an intellectual is to experience profound frustration at everyone else’s reluctance to bask in the warm glow of your wisdom and submit to the nobility of your ideas, or have you never read about Plato’s experience in Sicily? This is why Marx railed in his extensive polemics more at intellectuals—e.g. Proudhon, “the misery of philosophy”—than at anyone else, or have you ever read, you know, a book?
Social change begins with the felt difficulties of those who live not in their heads but on the ground. It is the role of intellectuals to help us understand our experience, to explain or predict the world. It is not now, nor was it ever, their role to lead us in anyway. What the conservative movement needs now more than ever is to re-connect with the lived experience of US voters and learn to articualte its principles in ways that are meaningful and relevant to them.
October 31st, 2008 at 11:44 am
Don’t worry. We’ll get rid of Romney soon enough.
October 31st, 2008 at 1:30 pm
For God’s sake, there are no such things as Rockefeller Republicans, have not been any since all congressional Republicans (other than a few oddballs such as Jeffords) supported Kemp-Roth in 1978-1981, and, even if there were still any such things as Rockefeller Republicans, Christopher Buckley would not be one of them.
In the post-Jimmy Carter world, what there are are some Republicans who are moderate or even libertarian on social issues, but basically still pretty anti-statist on the economic issues. THAT IS NOT A DESCRIPTION OF N. ROCKEFELLER.
There are also some Republicans who do not exactly mesh culturally with much of what Sarah Palin seems to exemplify.
But there is no necessary or even logical connection between the two.
All of this has led me to reflect on the fact that the key turning point for the Republican Party — the beginning of the end of what really had been Rockefeller Republicanism, and also of Rockefeller, himself — began with a ready philosophical alliance, despite obvious cultural differences, between the Eastern Ivy-educated intellectuals at National Review, and the relatively bumptious high-school educated Barry Goldwater of Arizona.
There were some tensions, to be sure, but except for a few cases of temporary insanity such as infected Garry Wills, no one from the National Review crowd ever came close to eschewing Goldwater for the more “urbane” Kennedys or the Yeats-quoting Eugene McCarthy. [As for Gore Vidal...my God, am I the only person on this site old enough to have been watching TV in August of 1968?]
To the extent that what we have today is the moose-hunters and plumbers on the Right trying to read the intellectuals out of the Party, then, yes, DaveG and Thinking Person are very right to be concerned. I know that I shared precisely that concern after November 2, 2004, when I detected a certain post-reelection triumphalism among those applauding the supposed ascendancy of “values voters” in the GOP. (I noticed that the liberal MSM were eager to aid and abet that story line!)
But, with that caveat, let us remember that there are few if any conservative graduates of Idaho State or the like who said they just could not vote for the GOP because it had the likes of Christopher Buckley in it.
Rather, it was Christopher Buckley who, unlike his father, and for no very clear reason, decided he could not support a ticket with the likes of Sarah Palin on it.
But WHY could he not?
That is where Iowa Hawk really nails it, and nails it hard! (I especially loved the line about the shared man-servant in the Swiss boarding school.)
Of course, DaveG is right that those of us who are uneasy with the Huckabee wing of the party are NOT all graduates of Yale or Harvard.
But Iowa Hawk wasn’t trying to figure out ALL of us. He was just trying to figure out Christopher Buckley and like-minded persons in THAT circle. And THAT is where he hit the bulls-eye.
As they say, it is funny because it is true. Let them eat cake on the Cayman Islands, indeed!
Veblen also hit this particular bulls-eye.
Everytime you see an Obama sign in Scarsdale, or hear a person with a listing in the social register say that he or she supports Obama’s tax proposals, remember these two words:
Conspicuous consumption.