Topic: Conservatism
Andrew Sullivan Continues to persecute those who believe in Conservative principles Andrew Sullivan just cannot leave Michelle Malkin Alone.by Patrick Adkins
(libertarian)
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Yesterday I posted an entry on my Blog about a rant by David Duke, regarding Michelle Steele's election to the Republican Party Chair.
Well, it seems that a particular faux conservative has once again showed his incredibly liberal side. I am referring to faux conservative, illegal immigrant and Blogosphere resident fake conservative; Andrew Sullivan.
Mr. Sullivan gives Duke his so-called "Malkin" award. He is, of course, referring to syndicated columnist, Conservative Blogger and quite the serious MILF; Michelle Malkin. (Of course, I am kidding about the M.I.L.F. part! (Well, sorta... She is hot, and yes, I'd hit it, given the chance... )
First off, before I tear into Sullivan's hide. Let me make the following acknowledgments:
Yes, I know Malkin is a Neo-Conservative (well, at least she supported the war in Iraq and the Bush Doctrine)
Yes, I know she was a cheerleader for the war in Iraq. (I know redundancy..)
Yes, I know that there times when Malkin's writings sound like finger nails on a chalkboard. (That's her trademark or shtick )
Yes, she has done things in the distant past that has made me cringe and a few times outright ticked me off.
HOWEVER!
I will give Michelle a little credit, at least Michelle has some conservative principles. Which is a lot more than I can say for Andrew Sullivan. I mean, during the election all Andrew Sullivan could do, from the time President Obama shot forward in the lead, till the day he was sworn in; was drool all over himself. I give Michelle credit, at least she had the, um, well, balls to question the cult of personality around Obama. At least Malkin dared to stand up and say "Wait a minute!" about Obama. Which is a bit more than I can say for Sullivan.
I suppose Sullivan thinks that if someone, like me or Michelle Malkin stand up for Conservative principles or happen to question someone's motives or actions; we must be hatemongers. If we happen to want to see American actually WINthe war on terrorism in this country; we must be hatemongers. Speaking of which Andrew Sullivan is not even a American; he is from England, he happens to be here on a extended work visa. Quite frankly, I wish he would go back to England where he belongs. I mean, seriously, how the heck can this guy even remotely begin to understand the American culture and our way of politics here, if he is from England? I know, he most likely learned in a College or University ---- book learning. Sorry, Universities cannot teach you, what you must be born into to truly understand, Sullivan.
I defend Michelle Malkin, not because I want to oink the woman or anything, besides she is married. I defend her because I happen to believe that the War on terror is quite the serious issue. I will concede that Bush bungled the fight, very badly. But at least he tried! I am just very worried that President Hussein will not want to finish the job in Afghanistan and we will end up quitting before Al-Qaeda is totally defeated. I also worry about a great deal of other things as well; Free Speech, Gun Rights and Freedom of Religion.
In closing, let me say this. I might not agree with Michelle Malkin on everything. But I will defend her. Because in this time of Conservatism being on the downside, we Conservatives cannot afford to be so damn sharp divided over what is now trivial and matters of the past. We must look forward and unite together, as one coalition, and rebuild.
Too bad we cannot count on Sullivan, he is too busy kissing the behinds of the liberals. (Quite literally, knowing him.)
----
Patrick Adkins is a outspoken Libertarian Conservative Writer and Blogger. He is the owner of Political Byline, a hard-hitting Conservative Blog.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 2 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Patrick Adkins only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Patrick Adkins is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
It was really interesting to see Sullivan turn toward Obama the way he did. Same would be said about William F Buckley Jr who also turned to Obama during the election game. I was hoping at one point that both of these people would've came out for Barr during the election since at the very least both Sullivan and Buckley Jr. believed in decent economic principals but refused to be on the Religious' Right's moral crusade bandwagon. As we see now some of these people just wanted to be on the winning team than rather stick to their guns.
Wow....where can I start? How about here...>"First off, before I tear into Sullivan's hide. Let me make the following acknowledgments: ( here comes the justification)
Yes, I know Malkin is a Neo-Conservative (well, at least she supported the war in Iraq and the Bush Doctrine)
Yes, I know she was a cheerleader for the war in Iraq. (I know redundancy..)
Yes, I know that there times when Malkin's writings sound like finger nails on a chalkboard. (That's her trademark or shtick )
Yes, she has done things in the distant past that has made me cringe and a few times outright ticked me off.
HOWEVER! ( there's always a "but" . Given all those negatives we will now get an overriding virtue that will justify our faith in ..Michelle Malkin?? )
I will give Michelle a little credit, at least Michelle has some conservative principles. Which is a lot more than I can say for Andrew Sullivan."<
Conservative principles?? You've just presented principle #1. cemented into the ideology of conservatism. The principle of justificationism. The Justificationist Tradition is expressed in the 'Justified True Belief' definition of Knowledge. Valid knowledge consists of justified true beliefs and rationality consists of holding fast to them.
Implicit in Justificationism is the idea that a Rationally Held Justified True belief is TRUE. This leads the justificationist approach to sponsor attachment, entrenchment, and the rigid adherence to positions, exemplified by the people who would not look through Galileo's telescope and the toddler who insists "I hate cheese" without ever having tasted it. In the Western tradition however there is also a quest for growth, learning and progress which is inconsistent with entrenchment. Consequently the Western tradition of epistemology contains a deep-seated tension between the 'liberal' tendency to growth and progress, and the 'conservative' tendency to entrenchment and rigidity.
A conservative tends to justify mistakes in the name of the principle. The ends justify the means. A liberal tends to place a higher value on accountability. You don't break a law to serve an ideology which can't be demonstrated as being true.
>"I suppose Sullivan thinks that if someone, like me or Michelle Malkin stand up for Conservative principles or happen to question someone's motives or actions; we must be hatemongers"<
Not hate mongers necessarily, but rather ideologues that never question their own ideology. What good is standing up for a principle that you've never bothered to examine. Rather then using a positive methodology for determining if conservatism is correct because it agrees with your position on things, try examining your own "beliefs" and see if they can be demonstrated as being true. That is of course if Truth is the goal your aiming for. You can always find things that will justify your belief. However that doesn't make your belief true. In other words, you're simply looking for things that will justify your belief in an ideology which is of course fallible. It's a man made system. Like a religion is man made with it's own doctrine and dogma.
Russell Kirk laid out the 6 canon's of conservatism, and now Mark Levin has put out his "conservative manifesto". Conservatism has literally become a religion, and like all religions, it cannot prove itself as being true. It requires blind faith in it's "principles", or dogma. It's a closed system of thinking. It rejects anything outside it's doctrine which must be followed if one is to identify with the label that is attached to it.
A rational mind is demonstrated by one who never cuts off an argument by resorting to faith, or irrational commitment to justify some belief that has been under severe critical fire; one who is committed, attached, addicted, to no position.
You then go on to say this >"If we happen to want to see American actually WINthe war on terrorism in this country; we must be hatemongers. "<
You attempt to justify being a "hatemonger" by claiming that it's an important ingredient in "winning" a war on an improper noun. Terror = Fear in most peoples lexicon. Just exactly how do you propose to win a war on fear? Think about that for a moment. Do you actually think that you can wage a military campaign against "fear" as if it's something you can win? And then justify the holding and torturing of people until that so-called war is over? And on this basis you justify being a hatemonger? It's ok to hate...because we have to win that war on......a concept? I'd love to wage a war on stupidity but I doubt we'll be able to kill all the stupid people in the world.
Now this: >"I defend her because I happen to believe that the War on terror is quite the serious issue. I will concede that Bush bungled the fight, very badly. But at least he tried!
More justification. "At least he tried" by leading people like yourself who are so easy to lead into the concept of a war on something that can never be won. Brilliant. And those that hit us on 9/11 are still at large. Nice job. We can justify the disaster that was the Bush administration with a "at least he tried" dispensation? No. Sorry. I dont' think that's acceptable. Wrecking this country's economy and standing in the world to justify your ideology doesn't cut it.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
