Romney Derangement Syndrome lives on

The New Neo Posted on by

Now that the election is over, and Mitt Romney has retired to private life, I’ve noticed that many of the newest articles about him in the MSM and posts about him in the blogosphere seem to engender a host of incredibly vicious personal comments from the sore winners on the left.

It would seem odd, wouldn’t it? Romney lost, and almost certainly will not enter national politics again. He waged a rather polite campaign under daunting circumstances. He’s clearly a good man on the personal level, whatever anyone may think of his politics.

And yet the hatefest goes on. Much of it is just an example of the free-floating rage on the left, a relic of the extreme Bush Derangement Syndrome in which they macerated for eight long years. But there wasn’t a similar post-election rage at John McCain. Why?

I think it’s because Obama sets the tone and the rest follow. Obama’s campaign against McCain was neither especially vicious nor especially personal. But Obama’s fight against Romney was almost entirely that, and relentless too. The focus was class warfare (one of Obama’s favorites) and attacks on Romney as a person, and the minions picked up on the “rich white guy out to exploit the people” meme and ran with it. They are still running, hard and fast.

Here’s a comment I found at PJ that describes the phenomenon exactly:

In what kind of twisted mind is it necessary to continue to vilify the guy to the point of denying his own humanity? The election is over, he is not coming back. There is no need to continue to play the smear games. The most frightening thing to me is that many people seem to have internalized the hate. They cannot turn it off. It is not a thoughtful reaction, but instead a reflex. It demonstrates the power of the media in relentlessly teaching the Obama followers their talking points. Now that the talking points have been internalized, [they] are apparently not easy to exorcise.

I would add that it’s not just the power of the media, it’s the power of Obama himself. He acts as a smooth, subtle releaser for hatred of the right and all Republicans (not just Mitt Romney), by blaming the other party as bad actors to a degree I really haven’t seen in previous presidents.

I saw the results myself, to my shock, among quite a few of my friends right before the election. I didn’t expect them to support Romney or even like him. But there was gratuitous, vicious hatred, a kind of group festival of contempt for him. Remember, it was said that Obama had “contempt” for Romney? Stuff like this filters down even to people who are relatively politically uninvolved. When my friends parrot talking points like that, you know the message has been effective. And although I haven’t talked to these particular people about it since the election, I’d be very surprised if their hatred has dissipated—or ever will.

That seems to be the price of running for president on the Republican ticket these days. How many decent people would be willing to pay it? It’s the flip side of the unhealthy veneration of Obama, by the way. From the start, one of the “tells” that something was very very wrong with Obama was not just the near-worship of the man, but his not-so-subtle encouragement of what you might call a cult of personality.

An ominous sign, both psychologically and politically.

Slow news day today

The New Neo Posted on by

When there’s a slow news day these days I think “good.”

Republicans and conservatives (not always the same thing) have been feeling pretty low since the election. Elements of cynicism, anger, depression, resignation, and bleak humor swirl around the blogosphere. Some people have even stopped reading and withdrawn into their non-political shells.

I can’t say I blame them. Sometimes I’m tempted to join them, but I have no plans for that. First of all, I have too much to say! Second of all, blogging is a habit that’s hard to break. Third of all—you guys.

The Muslim Brotherhood struts its stuff

The New Neo Posted on by

Sad, sad, sad, sad.

Predictable, predictable, predictable, predictable.

As I wrote in February of 2011, not long after the whole Egyptian joyride began:

Amidst all the speculation, I think we discount the possibility of an Islamist state at our peril””and, to speak bluntly, those who discount it are fools, no matter how learned they may be.

The Muslim Brotherhood””the Islamist fundamentalist group based in Egypt””is such a fine name. Who could be against brotherhood (well, a few feminists; but you know what I mean)? The history of the group is a chilling one, however.

Etcetera, etcetera, and so forth—and on and on through tons of posts, including my very first one when the crisis began, in which I wrote:

I have been concerned from the start about the possible influence and popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood, a currently-banned Islamist fundamentalist group that has its roots in Egypt in the earlier part of the twentieth century…As a person who remembers the turmoil of the Iranian revolution of 1979””the different groups temporarily united for the Shah’s overthrow and then jockeying for position (vainly) against the fundamentalist Islamists who quickly established their dominance””I have to say the situation makes me nervous.

I must once again say that I claim no special expertise or prescience. This development was very obviously a serious risk from the start, and the Obama administration appeared not to understand that—or if they did understand it (and they gave absolutely no indication of it), to not care.

Fifty-three percent of Americans have made up their minds that Obama is innocent and Republicans guilty before the thing has even happened

The New Neo Posted on by

And that really explains an awful lot, doesn’t it?

The negotiations over the “fiscal cliff” (can somebody please suggest a good alternative way to refer to that topic?) are ongoing and really have just begun. Bob Woodward (no conservative he) wrote an entire book about the previous set of negotiations and made it clear that although neither side was entirely innocent, “particular blame” fell on the president.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that this has not played itself out yet, 53% of respondents in a Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll, say that Republicans would be to blame if we go over that fiscal cliff:

While 53 percent of those surveyed say the GOP would (and should) lose the fiscal cliff blame game, just 27 percent say President Obama would be deserving of more of the blame. Roughly one in 10 (12 percent) volunteer that both sides would be equally to blame.

Those numbers are largely unchanged from a Post-Pew survey conducted three weeks ago and suggest that for all of the back and forth in Washington on the fiscal cliff, there has been little movement in public perception.

Well, of course there hasn’t been. Republicans present and past are always to blame, even for things that haven’t happened yet. Everybody knows that.

And people seem to think it won’t affect them personally, as well, although it will affect the country as a whole:

Roughly two-thirds of all Americans say that not meeting the Dec. 31 deadline would have “major” consequences for the U.S. economy, but just 43 percent believe that it would have a “major effect” on their personal finances ”” despite the fact that taxes would go up on the vast majority of the population on Jan. 1 if no deal can be reached.

You may note also that, if you look at the poll itself, although 27% gave Obama the blame, the rest (20%) said “both equally,” “neither,” or “no opinion.” Also, if you look at the more detailed breakdown of the demography of respondents, more Democrats than Republicans have made up their minds already, and the most even-handed and/or open-minded (although the majority of them still blaming Republicans) were Independents.

What sexy was like in the 50s

The New Neo Posted on by

I found this video buried in an old comment, and I think it deserves a wider viewing. It’s of Gene Kelly and Tamara Toumanova dancing Kelly’s choreography in the movie “Invitation to the Dance,” which was made in 1952 but not released till four years later.

Toumanova was a ballet dancer and Kelly was–well, Gene Kelly. It’s all done without showing even a bit of lascivious skin from Toumanova (except her long, long, superlong legs). Not a single crotch is grabbed; no bumps are ground nor pelvises thrust, except just for a moment and in the most demure manner possible.

But both of the dancers are so hot they practically sizzle. Toumanova’s appeal lies not just in her dancing but in what she does with her face; watch her expression, especially during the cigarette lighting part.

Those cigarettes are one of the anomalies in this dance—you’d never see that today. But what you’d really never see is choreography that’s so sensual rather than overtly sexual.

And man, what great shoes she’s got on:

When you’re being audacious, it helps to have the Times on your side

The New Neo Posted on by

One of the many reasons Obama is able to be so bold—nay, audacious—in his negotiations with Republicans is that he is secure in the knowledge that he will get the help of articles such as this one in that reliable old Democratic shill, the NY Times. Dismiss the Times if you will, but it remains highly respected by a ton of people and influences the beliefs of a host of others.

The paper is shameless and yet oh-so-restrained and dignified in spinning its meme of a meek, kind, conciliatory president who wasn’t tough enough with Republicans in his first term and now is getting just a wee bit bolder (they do everything but say “taking the gloves off”: headline, “Criticized as Weak in Past Talks, Obama Takes Harder Line”)

I’m sure Obama’s base (who would prefer he put the Republicans in front of a firing squad and get it over with) “criticized” Obama as “weak” last term. And there’s no doubt his line now is “harder.” So you see, the Times is merely telling the truth, as usual.

Never mind that former fair-haired boy Bob Woodward has written a book that made it clear the truth was otherwise. Apparently Woodward is only useful to the Times when he advances stories that help The Cause, so this sort of thing can be ignored:

With the president taking charge, though, Obama found that he had little history with members of Congress to draw on. His administration’s early decision to forego bipartisanship for the sake of speed around the stimulus bill was encapsulated by his then-chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel: “We have the votes. F— ’em,” he’s quoted in the book as saying…

As debt negotiations progressed, Democrats [not just Republicans] complained of being out of the loop, not knowing where the White House stood on major points. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, is described as having a “growing feeling of incredulity” as negotiations meandered.

“The administration didn’t seem to have a strategy. It was unbelievable. There didn’t seem to be any core principles,” Woodward writes in describing Van Hollen’s thinking…

One important moment in the negotiations came when the president scheduled a major address on the nation’s long-term debt crisis. A White House staffer thought to invite House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., along with the other two House Republicans who had served on the Simpson-Bowles debt commission.

The president delivered a blistering address, taking apart the Ryan budget plan as “changing the basic social compact in America.” Ryan left the speech “genuinely ripped,” Woodward writes, feeling that Obama was engaged in “game-on demagoguery” rather than trying to work with the new Republican majority.

“I can’t believe you poisoned the well like that,” Ryan told Obama economic adviser Gene Sperling on his way out of the speech.

But those halcyon days are over. No more Mr. Nice Guy President.

[NOTE: I would like to add that the Republicans are a majority in the House. It’s easy to forget that. I’m not an expert on the negotiations between presidents and Congresses in previous administrations, but it seems to me that presidents had at least some perceived need to defer somewhat to the majority to get the votes to pass the legislation. Obama is able to dispense with that because he knows the press will never blame him for being unreasonable, and he plans to blame the Republicans for everything that goes wrong, with the press’s cooperation. And he knows the majority of the public will buy this story.

There’s another related reason for Obama’s stance, and that is that he doesn’t seem to much care whether he gets the legislation he says he wants. It would be nice, of course, to win in that respect. But blaming the Republicans for whatever fiscal mess happens to ensue in the absence of an agreement would be just as good a result—perhaps even better—in his eyes.]

[ADDENDUM: Meanwhile, the WaPo works hard on the “detached, in seclusion” Romney theme, as Ann Althouse points out.

How does the WaPo do that? By showing a photo of Romney on a roller coaster, and quoting him as writing to a buddy “who’s having a liver transplant soon: ‘I’ll change your bedpan, take you back and forth to treatment.'”

Detached. Secluded.]

There’s the fiscal cliff, and then there’s…

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a good summary of the lousy position the Republicans in Congress are in vis a vis the so-called fiscal cliff.

To make a long story short: between Scylla and Charybdis.

However, I’m partial to the suggestion that Republicans in the House should pass the Simpson-Bowles recommendations and send them on to the Senate:

Simpson-Bowles is far more responsible than what President Obama is currently offering and probably far better than a slapped together grand bargain made by Obama and Speaker Boehner behind closed doors as a deadline closes in…It is also a fully formed plan with on-the-record bipartisan support and near-universal acceptance as “reasonable” and “sober” by the media and Beltway types. A lot of that is lip service from folks who felt rather certain the plan would never be seriously considered, but it still makes it hard to frame Republicans as obstinate obstructionists when they offer up the plan of none other than Mssrs. Simpson and Bowles…Rejecting it out of hand to allow liberals to continue living in debt denial might be a move so irresponsible as to make even the press notice.

Would Congressional Republicans ever have the guts for a jujitsu move like that? Dunno, but a person can hope. Because they really have few other options.

Not that Simpson-Bowles would ever go into effect. The Senate wouldn’t pass it. But it least it has the possibility of embarrassing the Democrats.

But has anyone noticed this little element of Obama’s “offer”?

To add injury to insult, the President is also demanding carte blanche in the future to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally; wresting this power from Congress, from debate or oversight. This would give this most profligate of Presidents an unlimited credit card to continue running up the national debt at his whim.

Years ago I wrote (although I can’t seem to locate it now) that if Obama were elected to a second term he would be unrestrained by any need to appeal to moderates. It turns out I was wrong—because even before his re-election, during the 2012 campaign, Obama was unrestrained by the need to appeal to moderates (as the clear-eyed Stanley Kurtz pointed out in October, before Obama’s victory).

So at this point Obama really doesn’t have to pretend to be moderate, even for a moment. Thus he can begin cementing his long-held goal of consolidating even more power unto himself—witness the proposal that he take on Congress’s role vis a vis the debt ceiling. Is it even constitutional to do so? And if it were, who has the power to stop him? Just try it, suckers, he says.

Does Obama think the Republicans will cave on this particular point and cede that power? But even if they don’t, his own audaciousness in suggesting it must excite him no end.

The holidays are coming: order from Amazon through neo-neocon!

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: I’ll be bumping this up to the top every now and then through the holidays, just as a reminder.]

How’s that for shameless self-promotion?

In the process of writing this post I realized that once again it’s November. It’s almost Thanksgiving. And that means that Christmas, Chanukah, and whatever other holiday might suit your fancy are all coming up sooner than you think.

So I’m encouraging you to feel their hot breaths on your neck and solve all your gift-giving dilemmas by turning to that online colossus, Amazon.

And if you use those widgets on my right sidebar to click through for all your Amazon purchases (now and at any other time of year) you will also be giving a small but still not insignificant gift to neo-neocon (it adds up, folks), and all without spending any extra money. What could be more wonderful?

[NOTE: In case you have ad blocker or something of that sort, and the Amazon widgets don’t show up on your computer, go here.]

Updike: the trivial and the profound

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve long been a fan of John Updike’s short stories, although his novels—which are probably much more widely read—don’t do all that much for me. He was one of the most prolific writers of the last century, so there’s plenty of both genres from which to pick and choose.

Perhaps I like the short stories better because I prefer short stories to novels in general. I’m not sure why—some sort of reader ADD, perhaps But I think most novels allow the writer to be too self-indulgent, going on and on and often becoming a repetitious or meandering bore—whereas short stories require focus, focus, focus.

Well, I like tapas bars and tasting menus, too.

Right now I’m reading a collection of Updike stories entitled “The Maples Stories,” about a fictional couple called the Maples whom Updike followed for decades from early marriage through disillusionment and conflict to divorce. The Maples are surrogates for Updike and his first wife, who split in the 70s.

Updike’s world is not mine. I don’t live (and never have lived) among brittle, intelligent, hard-drinking suburban couples during the 50s, 60s, and 70s who compulsively engaged in multiple affairs with each other, both casual and non. Or at least, if I did, I was so out of the loop I never realized it.

But Updike’s Maples stories—of which I’d read two or three even before reading this book—have always grabbed me because they seem to express almost perfectly the sturm and drang, the bittersweet regret, and the strong centripetal force that even a failing and miserable marriage can exert on wretched and flawed spouses deciding whether to remain together or go their separate ways.

Updike is not only a master of poetically precise language and description (both of external and internal states), but he is a master of observation. Once an art student, he retained an eye for just about everything. He’s been criticized for focusing on the trivial, the slight, the non-heroic, but I think that misses the point—which is his love of almost everything on earth as a source of wonder.

To Updike, nothing is trivial. Or rather, the celestial is in the details. For, despite his emphasis on the physical minutiae of illicit sex (more often found in the novels than the stories), and the large and small failures and betrayals of the human race (including, quite prominently, those of Updike himself, through surrogates), Updike’s other great theme is religion, as well as the fleeting nature of a single human life.

It was a quiet story entitled “Plumbing” in the Maples book that prompted this essay of mine. The story is about moving from an old house to a new, but that doesn’t even begin to capture what Updike does with his description of the empty old house and the life the family had lived there, beginning with a plumber’s dissertation on the flaws in the pipes in the new home to which the family has moved. I suggest you read the whole thing, but this excerpt may serve to give you just a tiny idea of the splendors hidden there:

The old house, the house we left, a mile away, seems relieved to be rid of our furniture. The rooms where we lived, where we staged our meals and ceremonies and self-dramatizations and where some of us went from infancy to adolescence—rooms and stairways so imbued with our daily motions that their irregularities were bred into our bones and could be traversed in the dark—do not seem to mourn, as I’d imagined they would. The house exults in its sudden size, in the reach of its empty corners. Floorboards long muffled by carpets shine as if freshly varnished. Sun pours unobstructed through the curtainless windows. The house is young again. It, too, had a self, a life, which for a time was eclipsed by our lives; now, before its new owners come to burden it, it is free. Now long moonlight makes the floor creak. When, some mornings, I return, to retrieve a few final oddments—andirons, picture frames—the space of the house greets me with virginal impudence. Opening the front door is like opening the door to the cat who comes in with the morning milk, who mews in passing on his way to the beds still warm with our night’s sleep, his routine so tenuously attached to ours, by a single mew and a shared roof. Nature is tougher than ecologists admit. Our house forgot us in a day.

[NOTE: If you haven’t read Updike on Vietnam, please do.]

Nile Gardiner is wrong—“Benghazi bungling” is not a “disaster,” although it should be

The New Neo Posted on by

Or actually, it is a disaster, but not exactly in the way Gardiner meant.

Nile Gardiner is a Washington-based British conservative pundit with foreign policy advisor experience, and in an article in the Telegraph headlined “The White House’s Benghazi bungling is proving a disaster” he writes that the Obama “administration is already struggling with a huge credibility problem on the Benghazi front.” In line with this argument, he points out that White House press secretary Jay Carney said, in response to questioning by Major Garrett:

…that Obama “is not particularly concerned” whether Susan Rice misled the American people in a series of talk show interviews following the killing of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other US personnel in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11…Carney’s response, as the president’s official spokesman is extraordinarily dismissive of the concerns of the American people as well as the United States Congress, and is representative of the administration’s shambolic handling of the Benghazi attack…

The lack of clarity from the White House on Benghazi is proving a disaster for the Obama administration, giving every impression that it is lacking in transparency, competence and accountability. During the second presidential election debate, Barack Obama promised to take responsibility for what happened. It is time for him to do so…

These words from Gardiner, which would make perfect sense in an ordinary world (or for any Republican president, or even many Democratic presidents in the past), simply do not apply to Obamaworld. The American people do not seem to be “concerned,” either, not at all. Major Garrett can ask all the questions he wants (and this one was actually pretty good, as you’ll see when you watch the video), but few people except us blogophiles on the right are listening, and Carney and Obama have learned that simply thumbing their noses at the American people is an excellent way to get the people to shrug:

I discovered this myself a few days after the election, when I had dinner with an old friend who is an intelligent, moderate, non-leftist Democrat with some conservative tendencies. This friend just didn’t care about Benghazi or the administration’s handling of it, didn’t know the details and was cynically dismissive of the topic because “all politicians lie.”

Well, they surely do—but not this brazenly, because most politicians at least have the fear of being called to account by the media and then the American people. I thought Mitt Romney should have pressed this much more in the third debate, but I also understood why he did not: it probably would have been perceived as beating a dead horse.

Actually, though, I’m surprised that Garrett asked the query at all. But will most members of the press ever get tired of prostituting themselves in the service of Obama? Is there anything about Benghazi that will finally get to them, including the fact that Carney’s answer insulted their intelligence?

So far I think the answer is a resounding “no,” but I would be exceedingly happy to be proven wrong.