A spectre of neo-incoherence is haunting America

The conservative movement began as farce and is ending in tragedy. Its origins were an incompatible blur of fiscal fantasies, military muscularism, alienating atomism and religious populism, all of which were conservatively farcical and essentially radical. Now its high priests of the guiding commentariat class--those who have tried with escalating desperation to keep their temple of ideological incoherence somehow tacked together--have been reduced to a tragic futility.

In just the past three days this spectre of neo-incoherence has haunted America. David Brooks launched the ghastly thing, writing in the New York Times that "The president hasn't actually come up with a proposal to avert sequestration," although one "do[es] exist." Red-faced italics original, as was his explanation that personal rage justifies disinformation.

Then, in the Wall Street Journal, came the sentimentally diseased Peggy Noonan, who alchemically converted her ample supply of saccharine into disorienting venom by charging that it is President Obama--not the GOP's recidivist bombthrowers of universal renown--who adores "cliffs, ceilings and looming catastrophes," "government by freakout," "chaos," "unsettled circumstances" and "an air of calamity."

And now comes the Washington Post's George Will--weary as always from hustling sophomoric sophistication as adult contemplation--indicting Obama for the sinister "manufacture of synthetic hysteria," even if his "promiscuous production of crises has made them boring."

Yes, the estimated 700,000 Americans who are about to be gratuitously unmoored from their livelihoods, as well as their savings and quite possibly their homes, are such a tedious, boring bunch. I say, Jeeves, can't we close the windows? All that tiresome moaning is disturbing my reading of the financial pages.

Contemporary conservatism has transmogrified beyond farce and collapsed into a tragedy of abject, futile indifference--which it no longer even tries to conceal.

***

Postscript, note, update, clarification, my very own red-faced italics: This post's title was meant satirically.

Comments

[susan zoon]

"I know you are, but what am I?"

We are now in Bizzaro World territory.

Facts?... meh...sourcing?...meh.

[Peter G]

As if any of these musings by the right wing punditry are going to alter the course of history. Just so many Captain Schettinos trying to steer one giant ship of fools.

[Robert Lipscomb]

I know it is now fashionable for the sane-left to dismiss MSNBC as being cut from the same cloth as Fox News. And it is justified. To paraphrase LBJ, "Yeah, he is a son-of-a-bitch, but he is OUR son-of-a-bitch."

While watching Rachel Maddow's special, "Hubris", I was reminded of how lonely I felt ten years ago when speaking out against the Iraq War. I also remembered the frustration of no news organization of consequence taking on the Bush administration and how that enabled BushCo to get by with any lie and any smear.

What a contrat we have today. Yes, the GOP is trying the same old tactics in regards to the deficit and every other issue. But now, ten years later, there is a vocal (and biased) group of news people and organizations for immediate response to these lies and smears.

They are effective and therefore necessary.

They are OUR sons-of-bitches.

God bless that dear old loud egomaniac, Keith Olberman. :-)

[Peter G]

I wouldn't go so far myself Robert as to suggest as equivalent Fox and MSNBC. Certainly there is a lot more respect for facts at MSNBC than Fox on many of their shows. I still quite like Rachel Maddow despite her glacial approach to whatever facts she wants to bring to our attention. And I am a lot more sympathetic to their point of view. But I don't think they are generally helpful when it comes to advancing pragmatic policies.

[Robert Lipscomb]

@PeterG: I agree totally - especially regarding facts. My point is that MSNBC and the rest now comprise a counter-balance to the right. Ten years ago, no one would have questioned Brooks or Cruz or whomever.

[Turgidson]

^Peter G, that last line is what gets me about MSNBC. I think pm's gripes are often superficial (Sharpton talks too loud! Maddow has to say things three times! LOD is too sanctimonious! -sure, those things are true, and I agree it makes the product less appealing, but they all, particularly Maddow, have useful things to say from time to time).

My biggest beef is really with Ed Schultz. He was basically the firedoglake of cable TV during the health care debate. Obama was the enemy because PUBLIC OPTION! KILL THE BILL! Hey, I wanted a public option too. But in the end, I wanted a bill that moved the ball forward, which the PPACA unquestionably does. Killing that bill for insufficient liberal purity would have meant waiting another 15-20 years for another shot at this. Half a loaf, or even a shit sandwich, if you will, beats starving to death while demanding the whole loaf, every time.

aaaanyway, rant aside, I hope this lashing out at an Obama that has never existed while projecting the GOP's style of nihilistic governance onto him shows that the conservative house of cards is falling down. But somehow they always seem to stave it off by winning a midterm election or exploiting an opportunity to scare the piss out of the country into voting for them. So we'll see.

[JayJay]

Viva msnbc, I say. I will take the whole barrel even if some of it smells little sour. Thank God for a liberal voice anywhere including here.