Thursday, November 06, 2008
Open letter to Governor Palin’s supporters
The election is over. It’s time to put our differences aside, come together as Americans, and reach out across the aisle in a spirit of bipartisanship. And so today I address myself to those of you who were so energized by Sarah Palin’s historic campaign.
My friends, do you know what your party is saying about you? Yes, they’re blaming you for McCain’s defeat—you’ve been hearing that for over a week now. They’re really starting to dish the dirt on Governor Palin, all because she’s a strong woman who challenges the liberal media. But it goes much, much further than that. They’re talking about abandoning you altogether.
Panicked by the polls, the fickle intellectual and political elites of your party are now arguing that conservatives need to engage in some fundamental rethinking—and that means they’re thinking about tossing you under the proverbial bus. Colin Powell, Kathleen Parker, Christopher Buckley, David Brooks, Charles Fried, Peggy Noonan—you know, the appeasers and apostates—are clearly more interested in keeping their places at those Georgetown cocktail parties than in standing up for the truth. And they’re not alone, by any means. Look at this “What Should the GOP Do Now?” forum at the liberal online magazine Slate, where they’re openly speaking about a “Conservative Crackup.” You’ve got Constitutional scholar and Obama-endorser Douglas Kmiec saying things like this:
It’s admittedly hard to untie the abortion knot, but here’s a thought: Republicans could have moved a constitutional amendment that would presume life to begin at conception, while further providing that no government, federal or state, is competent to legislate on the question absent a supermajority. The effect? Taking the Supreme Court’s “activist” thumb off the scale against life while at the same time avoiding the criminalization of a woman’s freedom. This is not the ideal Catholic position, but it’s closer, and the Catholic Church has less standing to complain about a grant of freedom that could then be fairly influenced by the moral instruction associated with a woman’s religious choice.
I don’t really understand what that means, but it certainly sounds appeasatory, doesn’t it? What is this liberal talk about “a woman’s freedom”? And then look at Ross Douthat’s followup:
Social conservatives, a group in which I count myself, might profitably meditate on how to disentangle our primary political goal—the protection of the unborn—from secondary issues like, say, abstinence-only education and the debate over evolution and intelligent design, which dovetail too easily with caricatures of religious fundamentalism (as Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin both discovered in the media coverage of their campaigns).
That’s right, Mr. Douthat wants to protect the unborn—but by getting rid of abstinence-only education and letting your children be taught that they’re descended from monkeys. Why? Because he’s concerned about media coverage of Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin. You know what comes next, don’t you? Sure you do—once the Republican party gives up on abstinence and proclaims that we’re “nothing but mammals,” your children will be experimenting sexually in ways you don’t even want to imagine. Soon they’ll be letting your sons marry boys and your daughters marry box turtles. And all so these “conservative” elites can keep those precious tax cuts on their capital gains.
Remember, many of these so-called “conservatives” are people who have been to other countries; some of them even speak other languages. Their vision for the party is correspondingly secular and rootless: they think they need to take back the cosmopolitan, metrosexual counties of places like Colorado and Montana, where they like to vacation. And they have no respect for you, no respect whatsoever.
Well, I wouldn’t put up with it if I were you. I’d tell these people to take their Sunday morning talk shows and their Slate forums and their summer homes and join a New Age encounter group if they want to “spend some time in self-examination,” as Douthat puts it. And I’d go ahead and form a new party, dedicated to the fundamental principles these Rockefeller Republicrats are abandoning. I would call it the American Party, and it would be a party for real Americans. No lumbering elephants for the American Party! Its logo will be a golden eagle clutching a fetus to its breast. And it will swoop across America, bringing the blessed light of wonder-working Providence to every dark corner of this land.
Let the double-crossing Powells and Parkers and Douthats go their errant ways. And let the American Party follow the One Way, by the straight and narrow path.
Update: As always, Erick Erickson has the right idea.