shotbanner.jpeg

June 10, 2004

Parrying the Deft Rapier

On Tuesday, I lampooned Mark "Revolutionary Gonad" Gisleson's surreal take on becoming a "conservative". Gisleson is, of course, a conservative in the same sense that I am Etruscan, but I digress.

He left a comment the other day.

Hmm, thanks for catching the typo on "memoriam." I'll get that fixed right away.

I hope your open-minded readers (if you have any) take the time to click on the link and read the actual article. As usual, your selective quotes did tremendous damage to the underlying theme of the essay.

Re my readers: They're as open-minded as I tell them to be.

In regard to the underlying theme: Well, we'll be digging into that below. Bear with me.

My point, which I didn't work hard enough to get across, was not so much that I've grown more conservative with age, but that the Republican party is no longer conservative by any reasonable definition of that word.
No, Mark, that particular point came through loud and clear. I merely found it preposterous; hence, my guffaws at your conflating your entrenched statist ideals and selective history with "Conservatism".

Again, more later.

In my later youth I fought with my parents because I was an anti-war protester and liberal. In my middle years I'm still fighting with them, but now it's because they've turned into bomb-throwing radicals a la Gingrich and Bush the lesser.
Radical...what? Radical dissent from Mark Gisleson?
It must take quite a bit of denial to go from conservative to Bush apologist,
That's right. It couldn't have possibly been the rational decision of an adult with a lifetime of experience. Nosiree - it's "Denial". Gotcha.
... but obviously it was worth the effort if you've reached the point where you think that it was the liberals who redefined the term "liberal", and not the think tank propagandists. Or as Orwell also said, "Political language . . . is designed . . . to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
Yep. Orwell was sure right.

Case in point - your piece. No, Mr. Gisleson, I caught the deft way you tried to tie the ickypoopy aspects of the Bush Adminstration to "liberalism", while trying to appropriate "conservative" to label your brand of nannystatism. Conflating "conservatism" with "balanced budgets" (from a liberal, that means "tax increases" - from a real conservative, spending cuts) or defense (coalition? Pfftt. Only when they've proven their worth and competence) or poverty (we abhor it - but know it goes a lot deeper than the presence of people who have money) or...whatever. It may have felt satisfying to write, but it would be better labelled "Cherry-picking administration policy to find places where you'd be more of a know-nothing and do-nothing than they, and calling it a better thing". It was like me saying "I am a liberal! A pro-life, pro-preemption, pro-Second Amendment, pro-tax cut, pro-merit, anti-whizzing-on-achievement Liberal, like all the real liberals", meaning like no liberals that either of us know.

Well - if you're interested in accuracy, anyway.

But thanks again for the link. I appreciate the opportunity to expose some of your readers to some relatively rational thinking.
Rational thinking? You have a link to Paul Demko?

No, that was cruel, Mark. You've written some supremely rational stuff. I liked this bit here:

In my heart, I still believe in revolution. In my heart, I still think I have the 'nads to put my life on the line for a cause. In my gut I think this is the only way we'll ever achieve our goals of economic and social justice. But in my head, I want to win the next election so we don't have to have a revolution
Whoah! Revolution! Checked those 'nads, lately, Mark? All stocked up on ammo and Molotov Cocktails? (Hint: They're not the kind you get at Chino).

More rational writing - and the rationality drips from this piece like sweat from revolutionary 'nads:

Wingers get to write Bret Ellis intensity stuff about corpse-fucking Bill Clinton, but throw hissy fits anytime someone suggests that we might have to resort to a roots style Declaration of Independence mandated action agenda to rid ourselves of this pustulently corrupt administration.
Don't take to criticism very well, do we?

And my favorite of all, one that cemented you at the head of my list of "rational writers":

As usual, maestro Karl's timing is impeccable: today's Des Moines Register story on Kerry is about taxes and energy policy. Tomorrow's Sunday headlines will be less kind. It's rank punditry on my part to say this kills Kerry, but I do fear that Rove has just dispatched one of his two most feared opponents [disingeuous paeon to Kerry's war record, written by someone who'd ordinarily spit on veterans, omitted] Can Karl Rove again steal what he cannot win honestly?
You were so rational, your editor, Steve Perry, had to correct you:
Perry: Yeah, Drudge has certainly been entertaining the last few days. Only one problem: Without any major exceptions that I'm aware of, this is not Rove and the Republicans doing the "opposition research," as it's called. It's the Democrats themselves, most especially the Clark camp. Didn't you look at that NYT piece about Chris Lehane I mentioned yesterday? (There's a link in yesterday's post.)
I'm still agog at the blazing irony of Steve Perry - an uberliberal if there ever was one, but, and here's the key bit, a very capable journalist - visibly, frantically backing away from your posting in print. He's just not rational enough, is he?

So yeah, I'm happy to allow my readers to bask in your reflected rational glory refer my readers to you. They can thank me later. (Bonus: if all the world's links to Atrios, Kos and Josh "ua Micah" Marshall go down, we'll have you site as a fallback).

And the Zellarmeister sends his love as well.
Excellent! I was a huge Gear Daddies fan back in the day!

Posted by Mitch at June 10, 2004 07:31 AM
Comments

bwa ha ha your Right Wing Mind Control Rays will no longer work on me, I have a foil helmet!!! You'll never tell me how open-minded I should be again!!!

Posted by: Ebeth at June 10, 2004 12:21 PM

"But in my head, I want to win the next election so we don't have to have a revolution."

Whoa. So ... John Freaking Kerry is so exuberant and clear-minded about Liberal policies as to be able to singlehandedly forestall the need for The Revolution?

That doesn't strike me as a particularly rational thought. Hopeful, yes. Rational, no.

Posted by: Steve in Houston at June 10, 2004 01:00 PM

Mitch, I can't fault you for quoting me when you include the links, although I find it odd that you would undercut your arguments by providing the context.

And I don't fault you for going after me since I pretty much went public while with CityPages. Unlike your Fraters Libertas companions whom I linked to from City Pages, then got into a snit with because they ripped a private individual for her comments in an alumni vanity magazine. Fisking folks in the public is one thing, going after non-public individuals is just chickenshit.

One thing I can guarantee you, however, is that I won't pore over your blog looking for stray out of context remarks to reprint over and over and over again. I spent ten months at City Pages and posted about 600,000 words as "TCB", The Mississippifarian, and guesting-posting at Bush Wars (not to mention the transplanted, ill-fated Career News).

Since you insist on writing about me, why don't you debate me? Steve Perry and I used to "diablog" with each other, a very simple way of doing a quality exchange of information. Pick a topic and fire off a round. I reply and we go back and forth until we're done. I'll post the complete exchange on my blog, and you're welcome to do the same on yours.

I'm sure it will provide lots of laffs for your readers as you pick apart this fat old hippy with chronic tax problems and a drug-addled mindset.

What say you?

Posted by: Mark Gisleson at June 11, 2004 02:33 PM

"..we go back and forth until we're done."
Good idea Mark. Whaddya' say Mitch? For the record, I'm to the right of Mitch most of the time and I love a real debate. Putting thoughts into print means the ideas behind those thoughts will have to stand or fall on their own (instead of emotions/senses coming into play ie: Kennedy -Nixon debate).
I'm from Cincinnati so I've never read unadulterated Giselson; my hope is that during this type of debate he/you won't be able to filibuster/change subject like so many commentators I hear and see.
Looking forward to it!

Posted by: Eric W. at June 13, 2004 10:19 AM
hi