SELDOM IS HEARD A DISCOURAGING WORD.
A lot of liberals are laughing because Cliven Bundy, the cowboy at war with the U.S. government and secessionist poster boy of the Right, made some of those insane comments about black people that have become a conservative specialty ("I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro... They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves...").
Don't laugh too soon. Insane comments about black people became a conservative specialty for a reason.
At Raw Story the headline on Arturo Garcia's story says "Conservatives begin backing away after Cliven Bundy’s remarks disparaging 'the Negro,'" but Garcia himself merely asserts that "Republican politicians began backtracking on their support" -- which is wise, because conservatives as such are mostly keeping quiet about it.
A couple have taken the opportunity to embarrass themselves; Dana Loesch, for example, is all over the place, softening Bundy's comments ("big government has negatively affected not just the black family, but all families regardless of ethnicity"), then implying Bundy was misquoted ("it’s justified to have a healthy suspicion of the New York Times"), then trying to change the subject ("what exactly does that have to do with the BLM?"). But mostly the brethren seem to hope we can get past this unfortunate business, and back to the war on the U.S. government, which they think is a winning position.
For conservatives -- and we're talking about the not-totally-insane contingent that acknowledges the existence of racism -- the subject is kind of an eat-your-vegetables thing. The ooga-booga stuff is so much more fun, and keeps the troops energized. Normally I don't like to drag rightblogger commenters into these things because of the high noise-to-signal ratio in their portrayal of conservative consensus, but it is depressingly expected that when National Review's Michael Potemra criticizes a racist rant (of the passive-aggressive, what's-wrong-with-racism, "humans like to be among their own kind" variety -- you know, Rod Dreher stuff), nearly all of his commenters defend the racist (e.g., "an article saying what is essentially common sense and well known to be true by pretty much everyone is somehow considered out of bounds in our Orwellian culture"). These are the bitter-enders to which most of the top-shelf conservative writers aim their pep talks, and most of them know better than to get on their wrong side.
UPDATE. In what I expect will become a model for the genre, National Review's Kevin D. Williamson points out that sometimes liberators such as Gandhi have foolish ideas -- which is common sense, except that he seems to think Bundy is such a liberator. He also compares the Bundy standoff to John Brown at Harpers Ferry, which under the current circumstances is especially funny. Why Williamson isn't at the Ranch with a musket if he really believes all this -- wait, I think I answered my own question.
UPDATE 2. I was wondering when the libertarians would come stumbling in. Jonathan Chait having noticed that Where Secessionists Go, Racist Trouble Follows, Reason's J.D. Tuccille first assures everyone he's no racist, then:
UPDATE 3. Bryan Preston, I think you have a little spittle in the corner of your mouth:
Don't laugh too soon. Insane comments about black people became a conservative specialty for a reason.
At Raw Story the headline on Arturo Garcia's story says "Conservatives begin backing away after Cliven Bundy’s remarks disparaging 'the Negro,'" but Garcia himself merely asserts that "Republican politicians began backtracking on their support" -- which is wise, because conservatives as such are mostly keeping quiet about it.
A couple have taken the opportunity to embarrass themselves; Dana Loesch, for example, is all over the place, softening Bundy's comments ("big government has negatively affected not just the black family, but all families regardless of ethnicity"), then implying Bundy was misquoted ("it’s justified to have a healthy suspicion of the New York Times"), then trying to change the subject ("what exactly does that have to do with the BLM?"). But mostly the brethren seem to hope we can get past this unfortunate business, and back to the war on the U.S. government, which they think is a winning position.
For conservatives -- and we're talking about the not-totally-insane contingent that acknowledges the existence of racism -- the subject is kind of an eat-your-vegetables thing. The ooga-booga stuff is so much more fun, and keeps the troops energized. Normally I don't like to drag rightblogger commenters into these things because of the high noise-to-signal ratio in their portrayal of conservative consensus, but it is depressingly expected that when National Review's Michael Potemra criticizes a racist rant (of the passive-aggressive, what's-wrong-with-racism, "humans like to be among their own kind" variety -- you know, Rod Dreher stuff), nearly all of his commenters defend the racist (e.g., "an article saying what is essentially common sense and well known to be true by pretty much everyone is somehow considered out of bounds in our Orwellian culture"). These are the bitter-enders to which most of the top-shelf conservative writers aim their pep talks, and most of them know better than to get on their wrong side.
UPDATE. In what I expect will become a model for the genre, National Review's Kevin D. Williamson points out that sometimes liberators such as Gandhi have foolish ideas -- which is common sense, except that he seems to think Bundy is such a liberator. He also compares the Bundy standoff to John Brown at Harpers Ferry, which under the current circumstances is especially funny. Why Williamson isn't at the Ranch with a musket if he really believes all this -- wait, I think I answered my own question.
UPDATE 2. I was wondering when the libertarians would come stumbling in. Jonathan Chait having noticed that Where Secessionists Go, Racist Trouble Follows, Reason's J.D. Tuccille first assures everyone he's no racist, then:
[Bundy's comments are] contemptible stuff. It was also contemptible when progressives merged pseudo-scientific racist notions with their ideology...Yes, Tuccille goes straight for "Woodrow Wilson was a liberal fascist, your argument is invalid." Also, Robert Byrd was a Klansman, just like all statists! After the history lecture, Tuccille goes for Routine 12, aka Blame the Media:
"Why do all these people with strong antipathy toward the federal government turn out to be racists?" asks Chait. Maybe it's because the cameras and journalists focus on one loudmouth on horseback, even as representatives of nine state governments meet in Salt Lake City at the Legislative Summit on the Transfer of Public Lands.Maybe it was because the summitteers didn't threaten federal agents with guns, which has long been a sure-fire way to get in the papers. Come to think of it, why didn't the rest of Bundy's live-free-or-kill squad announce "Screw it, Salt Lake City is where the action is" days ago? Could it be that the promise of separatist violence is a big part of the draw?
UPDATE 3. Bryan Preston, I think you have a little spittle in the corner of your mouth:
Wanting people to be free, independent and self-reliant, and hoping for a government that fosters those values, equals racism now? Today it does, tomorrow it won’t, as soon as some prog hero talks good about working their way up from nothing without even having to resort to fake claiming to be a minority to further their academic career, or falsifying a wartime military career.Libtards are all born rich and spend their days lying and draft-dodging. Say, maybe I've had George W. Bush wrong all this time!
Bundy’s remarks will have fewer real-world consequences than many uttered by Margaret Sanger, yet today she’s a progressive hero...Again with the liberal fascism history lectures. Someone invent a time machine so these guys can feel superior somewhere besides the holodeck.