Tucker and the brothers
Tucker and the brothers
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
It's a testament to America's political diversity (refreshingly so) that venerable bastions of conservatism continue to flourish even within the Obama-friendly confines of eastern academia.
Such was my thinking last night, at the University of Pennsylvania, as I wandered into the august quarters of St. Anthony Hall - a fraternity seemingly populated (at least on this occasion) by comely young men dressed in blue blazers and beige chinos, with rep ties carefully knotted below square jaws. Of course, there were sartorial exceptions; one gentleman, clad in Madras sport jacket and pink pants, appeared to have time-traveled from the late 1950s, and indeed I felt the overall sensation of having stepped back to a bygone era, perhaps to the apogee of the American century, when the WASP elite swilled martinis and spent weekends on horseback, chasing foxes. Or perhaps I was simply fixated on the oil paintings, which depicted red-coated sportsmen on horseback, chasing foxes.
Anyway, all the frat brothers, joined by a fair number of alum, had eagerly gathered to hear their guest speaker: Tucker Carlson, the feisty conservative libertarian contrarian who is probably best known for his on-air jousts with liberals on CNN and MSNBC, and who quite resembles the comely young men of St. Anthony Hall despite being 20 years their senior. And by the time he bounded to the podium with a bottle of Perrier, he well knew that his listeners were friendly, having just heard a resonant sssssssssss at the mention of Barack Obama's name during the introductions.
Not all the brothers are conservative, of course, but apparently most feel somewhat out of sync with the current national zeitgeist (from the latest bipartisan NBC/Wall Street journal poll: most Americans by a 2-1 margin trust Obama, not the GOP, to lead us out of recession). And clearly they felt bonded to Carlson, who almost prides himself on being out of sync.
The brothers signaled their approval whenever he said things like "I'm not on the liberal side" and "I'm a radical small-government guy." And they signaled again when he described Washington D.C. as an Obama haven populated with "African Americans, young people, and rich white liberals - that's everyone in town but me." (Although I should note that the brothers did not signal approval by clapping their hands; rather, they hewed to the St. Anthony Hall tradition of snapping their fingers. Whenever Carlson got off a good line, suddenly we were in a forest of crickets.)
I got the impression that the brothers were eager to cut loose and indulge their frustrations, to gorge on some rhetorical red meat at the Democrats' expense. And Carlson did tantalize from time to time. He lampooned Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel for being so infamously profane, and that got people going. And he launched into a long digression about Hillary Clinton, who once gave the finger to a heckler who had given her the finger (true story, he insisted), and who gets up in the morning and addresses herself in the mirror by talking like a man (Carlson was joking about that one, and the joke went over well). His passing reference to Nancy Pelosi prompted dismissive laughter. His attacks on the "demented" big-government bailouts ("capitalism without failure is like religion without sin, it's stupid") prompted nods of approval.
But Carlson, ever the contrarian, didn't pander to his listeners. He said of the president, "I've always liked Obama. He's a decent, friendly, personable, intelligent guy. I think that now." He said of George W. Bush, "Watching him give a speech was like watching a drunk cross a street. You weren't sure whether he would make it across." Even when invited, by several questioners, to rail against the media, he instead gave several nuanced responses, lamenting "the enormous financial pressure (that) should be a concern to everybody," and insisting that all news consumers should seek out viewpoints with which they disagree (if you fail to do that, he warned, "then you become a jerk").
And even though Carlson shared his fear that Obama and the Democrats might be spending America into ruin, that Obama is intervening in the economy even though "this is a guy who has never run a Jiffy Lube" (prompting the alumni in the rear of the room to say, "right" and "truly"), he reserved his most scathing remarks for one target only:
The Republican party. And for long stretches of time, nary a finger clicked.
"There's no countervailing argument to what Obama is doing. The Republican party has basically disappeared...It's not good to have one dominant party, and one lame, completely pathetic party. But that's where the Republicans are now. Their problems aren't just momentary, it's deeper than that. The party doesn't know what it is...The Republicans have failed in truly every sense. They've been rejected at the ballot box and on the ground. They are officially losers."
The party, he noted, has generally been a loose coalition of interests tied together by "shared dislikes" such as communism, Bill Clinton, and Islamic extremists. "Can it come together over a shared dislike of Barack Obama? Problem is, he's popular and he's kinda hard to hate. That's not an organizing principle."
Ideally, of course, the party will rediscover its identity or craft a new one, but Carlson sees only one comeback scenario in the foreseeable future: "In order for the Republicans to be a winning party again, Obama has to blow it in a big, big way. Until that happens, they'll be out power." And the problem with that scenario is, "the Republicans have no control over it."
He did opine that defeat can be "a clarifying experience. All pretenses have been stripped away, and you're forced to confront basic questions. They're forced upon you. That's where the Republicans are."
Actually, Carlson never did get around to suggesting a new GOP message that might click with the electorate. Reviving the party's small-government credo is problematical, at a time when the American majority favors greater government intervention in, and regulation of, the markets. Indeed, Carlson did a thing or two to say about his fellow Americans.
"People like free stuff" from the government, he said, recounting his interviews with Iowa farmers who consider themselves conservatives - but who are really "socialists" who depend on government handouts. Indeed, he said, "without those subsidies, they wouldn't be there. You get elected when you give people stuff. It's depressing."
But he didn't seem to depress the brothers. They liked his iconoclasm. They liked it when he popped some Nicorete gum, his method for staving off cigarettes. They liked it when he confessed about being fired a few times (from CNN in 2005 and MSNBC in 2008). They liked his throwaway line about how, if the media gave people exactly what they wanted, torture and pornography would dominate. They liked his instinctive embrace of the status quo, his willingness to thumb his nose at the current mantra of change ("Things worth having are never created in an instant, ever"). They liked that, especially. It was enough to sustain them. At the end they clapped (rather than snapped) and spilled happily from the building, their gold blazer buttons glinting in the lamplight. It was Obamaworld out there on the cobblestones, but they seemed content.
-------
Steve Schmidt, the Republican strategist who helmed the '08 McCain campaign, today floated his own ideas on how the Republicans could redefine their identity. In a speech to the gay Log Cabin Republicans, he made the startling suggestion that the GOP should endorse gay marriage.
He said, "I would rather be in the Democrats' shoes than ours. Their coalition is expanding. Ours is shrinking. Their vote share is increasing among voter segments that are growing. Ours is not." Of particular concern, he said, is the GOP's deficit among younger voters - and the fact that these voters, who will increasingly dominate the electorate, are tolerate about gay rights, whereas the GOP agenda is not.
Schmidt thinks that the party needs to move with the times: "I believe Republicans should re-examine the extent to which we are being defined by positions on issues that...will become over time, if not a consensus view, then the view of a substantial majority of voters....While we shouldn't carelessly dismiss the importance of enduring traditions, we should understand that traditions do change over time in every society."
And he insists that, pragmatics aside, this policy shift would be the right thing to do: "It cannot be argued that marriage between people of the same sex is un-American or threatens the rights of others. On the contrary, it seems to me that denying two consenting adults of the same sex the right to form a lawful union that is protected and respected by the state denies them two of the most basic natural rights affirmed in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence - liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, I believe, gives the argument of same sex marriage proponents its moral force."
Schmidt didn't address how the GOP could embrace this issue will still retaining the loyalty of its Christian conservatives, but suffice it to say that at least somebody in that party is trying to think outside the shrinking box.
Comment removed.
Regarding the Polman column, I think a lot of liberals like Polman and me really don't like the way that government handouts have expanded to a lot of people who don't really need any help from the government. And how government programs that originated to meet a real need live on long after the need no longer exists. This is a weakness of our system that needs fixing. It can't be fixed by simply saying no handouts--because all government programs involve handouts to somebody. And the philosophies that try to identify the "essential functions of government" are unconvincing and easily refuted.— liberal- CD75 - I realize you demonstrate all the symptoms of being allergic to facts, but here are the FOX News citations I promised... "GRATHWOHL: Unfortunately, Bill, the — back in those days, in the late '70s and early '80s when Bill came, you know, out from the underground, the wiretaps had been ruled as illegal." ••• http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445684,00.html *** AND *** "He [Ayers] was a fugitive for years. After surrendering in 1980, charges against him were dropped because of prosecutorial misconduct." ••• http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,505905,00.html— Phrossty
- Obama's passing on prosecution of CIA members for torture is an example of what's called prosecutorial discretion. In the name of avoiding an endless political wrangle that would prevent the country from moving forward, and also because the justice department itself gave the green light to the individuals involved (so he would argue), his justice department will not prosecute these cases. This carries no implication about the rightfulness of the conduct or whether similar offenses will be prosecuted in the future.— liberal
- When will I learn? I'm trying to reason with an unreasonable internet troll. Work = Force * Distance. If I keep ramming my skull against a wall but it won't budge, then I won't have performed any work regardless of the amount of effort I've expended.... Have a great weekend everyone. I've got spring cleaning waiting for me.— Phrossty
- Liberal- They are several problems prosecting. First and foremost is that Obama still has the discretion to use these methods in the future. 2nd it isn't torture just because Keith Olberman says it is- such a case would be in a legal battle that would tear this country apart. And lastly the precendent such a prosecution would set would mean endless trials and prosecutions when the other party regains power- Also known as payback. I only wish our enemies would have reserved the same kind treatment for Danny Pearl and Nick Berg.
- Comment removed.
- Phrossty= Work is to exert one's self for a purpose; to put forth effort for the attainment of an object; to labor; to be engaged in the performance of a task, a duty, or the like. No distance expect we have less and less people willing to attain without labor, just taxes.— Fisher
- Why are you trolls discussing Ayers as if he were relevant? The country is moving towards civil war and our international friends and enemies are finding themselves in different roles. Meanwhile our economy is experiencing government intervention, and our leaders are competing over who can spend the most money. All you fellas can bloviate about is some 2 bit communist nobody? Quit hogging the comment boards.— Obama^Must^Fail
- Dick - Finger snapping is also very, very '50's. I'm glad to know that as a nation our vaunted diversity also includes time warps.— Dodge
Is there really a "gay Log Cabin Republicans" group?— potus- Polman sure spends a lot of time writing about how marginalized Republicans are. With Republicans leading by double digits against Corzine in New Jersey and Dodd in Conneticut it appears as though he's getting a bit nervous. I am starting to wonder if he's trying to convince himself. The left can laugh at, besmerch, and get indignant as they want over the hundreds of thousands protesting government spending and taxation at the tea partys but the grass roots movement is rather significant. Every time a political party gets in power they always over-reach and get all full of themselves. The subsequent electoral defeats are vast and humiliating. The most any party has held the presidency and Congress is 4 years. This pontificating on some long term majority is silly at best.
- Actually, swedesboro, Polman was noting how conservatives are spending a lot of time talking about how marginalized Republicans are. That was the point although I'm sure it's an uncomfortable one. Perhaps you should take up your complaint with Schmidt and Carlson since Polman's points were merely their own. *** And a hearty "well-played" for Phrossty and the dismantling of CD's ... ahem ... "logic."— sully64
- Sully64- You must have missed the 15 other articles Polman has written where he has delusional fantasies of some long term Democratic majority. I have no idea who Tucker Carlson is but if he's a useful idiot for your side so be it. Democratic pundit's gloating is getting silly.
- And, mike, what you must have missed is the point. Your claim of Polman harping about the marginalization of Republicans is specious when it is the Republicans themselves that are doing it. Polman could, of course, ignore these GOP commentators, but why should he? And if it seems he's gloating, I'd say he probably is. And again, why not? The turnabout from Rove's "permanent Republican majority" is laughable in its speed and totality. It is the GOP that is now the gang that can't shot straight, and the irony of this reversal is really very funny ... although I'm not surprised that some don't find it such. As for Carlson, I can't speak to your ignorance of the man's position. As the conservative co-host of Crossfire for a number of years, he is quite high profile. That you don't know him is a commentary on your knowledge of public discourse, not on his stature as a voice of conservatism.— sully64
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
