Pat Buchanan, Professional Lunatic: In Praise of Putin
"Is Putin One Of Us?" (i.e.: a (paleo(conservative)))
Wow. Conservatives do love them a strongman, as we've long known... Back in the day, when they were frolicking with the likes of Pinochet, they always claimed that they didn't like it, but had to side with the lesser evil against the Soviets...but it was always seemed clear to me that they actually really did like those guys. Their support of dictators was always rather to quick and enthusiastic for it to be something that they'd been driven to as a last resort...
Well, here we have Pat Buchanan's paean to Vladimir Putin, his newest crush object. Over to you, Pat:
Wow. Conservatives do love them a strongman, as we've long known... Back in the day, when they were frolicking with the likes of Pinochet, they always claimed that they didn't like it, but had to side with the lesser evil against the Soviets...but it was always seemed clear to me that they actually really did like those guys. Their support of dictators was always rather to quick and enthusiastic for it to be something that they'd been driven to as a last resort...
Well, here we have Pat Buchanan's paean to Vladimir Putin, his newest crush object. Over to you, Pat:
With America clearly in mind, Putin declared, “In many countries today, moral and ethical norms are being reconsidered.
“They’re now requiring not only the proper acknowledgment of freedom of conscience, political views and private life, but also the mandatory acknowledgment of the equality of good and evil.”
Translation: While privacy and freedom of thought, religion and speech are cherished rights, to equate traditional marriage and same-sex marriage is to equate good with evil.
No moral confusion here, this is moral clarity, agree or disagree.ETHICAL NORMS BEING RECONSIDERED???? ZOMFG! And "equating" same-sex marriage with different-sex marriage is evil? Evil? Seriously? And: why do morons like this think that moral clarity per se is a good thing? Moral clarity per se is neither good nor bad. Stalin had moral clarity. Hitler did. Moral clarity, when conjoined with correct moral beliefs, is good. When conjoined with bad ones, it's bad. Jesus, the mind, it reels...
Peoples all over the world, claims Putin, are supporting Russia’s “defense of traditional values” against a “so-called tolerance” that is “genderless and infertile.”WTF does this even mean? Tolerance has a fucking gender? Tolerance, you see, is simply not the kind of thing that is either fertile or infertile, you lackwits. And here's the part where Buchanan calls for worldwide conservative revolution:
As the decisive struggle in the second half of the 20th century was vertical, East vs. West, the 21st century struggle may be horizontal, with conservatives and traditionalists in every country arrayed against the militant secularism of a multicultural and transnational elite.Jesus, is crazy Pat channeling the spirit of Marx or something? Isn't he a nationalist nutbag? I would have thought that it would take more than same-sex marriage to get guys like him to jump ship... But, OTOH, I'm sure he's been eyeing the hunky, murderous authoritarian for awhile now, with visions of Pinochet dancing in his head...
posted by Winston Smith at
3:20 PM
2 Comments:
Winston, at your best, you're always intellectually charitable with your opponents. On first read this doesn't meet that standard.
'ETHICAL NORMS BEING RECONSIDERED???? ZOMFG!' Sincerely not sure what you objection is here.
'And "equating" same-sex marriage with different-sex marriage is evil? Evil? Seriously?' I think that's a fair reading of what Putin is implying, whether it's morally correct or not.
'Stalin did. Hitler did'. Godwin.
'WTF does this even mean? Tolerance has a fucking gender? Tolerance, you see, is simply not the kind of thing that is either fertile or infertile, you lackwits.' Poorly stated by Buchanan I agree, but again, I think it's clear what he means by that…part of traditional morality is acknowledging gender and it's importance.
'But, OTOH, I'm sure he's been eyeing the hunky, murderous authoritarian for awhile now, with visions of Pinochet dancing in his head…'. AFAICT, there's nothing in Buchanan's analysis that supports Putin because of his authoritarianism. It's his defense of traditional values and especially his criticism of recent Western changes in attitudes toward gays.
Maybe you have a point that someone with Putin's record should never be praised or seen as an ally. But I guess I'm not seeing why you're getting so animated…'strongman, Pinochet, Hitler, Stalin, lackwits, Crazy Pat, nut bag….'. Unless gay rights is so critical and morally certain that serious opposition is indefensible.
Anyways, just my opinion….hope you had a happy new year.
Bah, quit trying to enforce your bourgeois enlightenment standards of intellectual honest and rigor on...egad, I can't even finish that as a joke...
Well, I guess this pissed me off so much because I really do think that the right wing, in my lifetime, has had a boner for strongmen. And that really, really pisses me off. Too much? You be the judge, I'm partial here...
As for Godwin's law, I think it's bad. Or, rather, it's used in confused ways. Hitler is a great example--or a great half-of-a-reductio--in cases like this. I mean, Hitler *was* possessed of moral clarity... It's bad if, three moves into the ordinary conversation, someone is shrieking "you are as bad a Hitler!!!111"...but not bad to use Hitler to make a point like the one I made...or so I assert.
Yeah, you're totally right about that stupid gender point. I was just pissed off.
Happy New Year to you, too, A, and thanks for trying to keep me on the straight (as it were) and narrow.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home