« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

An Invitation to Lee Siegel….

As many of you are already aware, Lee Siegel of The Daily Beast recently wrote an interesting column about Redstate titled, “The New Republican War Room”—and that our own Josh Trevino wrote a diary in response to Mr. Siegel’s column. Josh felt the need to correct Mr. Siegel on the error in his column where he stated that Erick Erickson was the original founder or Redstate. (By the way, I thought this too during my first year at Redsate—probably because Erick is such a natural leader.) Josh calmly explained that, although Redstate has definitely expanded under Erick’s excellent leadership, it was he, Mike Krempasky and Ben Domenech who actually founded Redstate. Well, since Lee Siegel also mentioned me in his column, I would like to take the opportunity to respond to him as well, so here goes—

Dear Mr. Siegel,

First of all, I would like to sincerely thank you for giving Redstate so much publicity. You know what “they” say—“There’s no such thing as bad publicity”. Second of all, I would like to thank you for mentioning me at all. You mentioned how “likeable” Erick is (and I agree with you that he’s quite likeable) and how E Pluribus Unum was one of our resident firebrands (we love you EPU ;-) ). And, you also mentioned how Tabitha Hale discussed how “beautiful” the weather was at a DC anti-Obamacare rally, and how hogan has a penchant for Latin phrases. You then wrote the following about me in regard to this diary that I wrote about Karl Rove debating David Plouffe on ABC’s “This Week”—

“And over in Redstate’s culture section, “Susannah” posts a video in which Karl Rove debates David Plouffe, concluding that “Rove ate his lunch—and that’s putting it politely.” In fact, Rove rants and raves, waves a clipboard cluttered with statistics that is not visible to the camera, and barely lets Plouffe get a word in edgewise, but Susannah goes on to colorfully say that “Plouffe was basically reduced to a rubble of transparent Obamaisms” and “when all is said and done, pixie dust and unicorn farts are no match for real knowledge, fact, and cojones.” That’s a jarring note on Redstate’s mostly genteel Web site, but Susannah appends to her post a calm, temperate smiley face. “Have a happy Sunday!” she signs off, as if to say that in the Redstate world, guns, a single religious creed, and the marketplace might rule, but not out of anger or bitterness, gosh darn it, and certainly not when the weather is so “beautiful.””

Again, I would like to say a sincere thank you for mentioning me in the same column where you mentioned Erick Erickson, EPU, Tabitha Hale and hogan—those are awesome bloggers and I am extremely flattered to be mentioned in the same article with them.

Second of all, I take it as a compliment that you find my writing to be “colorful”—hey, it’s better than being boring. And, you are completely right that I have a tendency to over-do the smiley faces—I even put them on most of my comments responding to fellow posters (I plead guilty—take me to blogger jail). However, I, like Josh, feel the need to correct a couple of misconceptions that you seem to have (I know, I know, everyone’s a critic).

The following are a few of the paragraphs that I have pasted from your column—

“Politics is, to a great extent, the artful manipulation of the appearance of moral rectitude, and both liberals and conservatives have their styles of virtuous display. Among other things, each style is intended to contradict each ideology’s popular image. Liberals, for example, will prove their moral bona fides by railing against the certified villains of reactionary obstructionism with passionate intensity. The display of outrage and passion is meant to rebut the stereotype of the liberal as an elitist untouched by ordinary problems.

Conservatives have the opposite problem. They have to play down their outrage and passion lest they give the appearance of being driven by anger and bitterness. So the conservative style of virtuous display is at the other end of the spectrum from the liberal style of virtuous display. The conservative out of power can break windows, carry guns to rallies, scream “baby killer” and, in general, satisfy every liberal stereotype of the angry and bitter right-winger. But once in power, the conservative must look rational, even-tempered, and seem steeped in the conventions of an older, more graceful culture.

Despite the fact that Redstate is in the forefront of the newly formed repeal movement and fighting the good fight against every one of Obama’s legislative initiatives, big and small, the main posters’ tone is mostly polite and relaxed.

This vitriol with a human face might summon up unpleasant images from Sinclair Lewis’s Babbitt to Arthur Miller’s Joe Keller—dishonest businessmen who hide their venality behind a broad smile and a vigorous handshake. This is one version of Homo Americanus, who wreaks a havoc of self-interest on the world behind sunny platitudes and respectable appearance.

But the appearance of calm doesn’t have to be a coward’s camouflage. It can also mean a commitment to some kind of shared fate even with your adversaries. This is another version of Homo Americanus, who at his very worst, just wants to be liked. I’d rather confront someone trying to impress me with a Latin phrase than someone trying to intimidate me with an AK-47 any day.”

OK—Please allow me to begin by stating that if liberals are attempting to rebut the stereotype that they are ” elitists untouched by ordinary problems”, a good place to start might be refraining from calling concerned citizens “redneck, racist teabaggers”—it hardly makes one sound like a man or woman of the people (see embed below).

Now, I also noticed that in your column you keep referring to us Redstate bloggers as “calm” and “polite”, but imply that we might be “dishonest businessmen who hide their venality behind a broad smile and a vigorous handshake.” In other words, we are similar to the creatures in the miniseries “V” in that we are hiding behind a facade of “calm temperate smiley faces”, but at any moment, we might pull off our human masks revealing the bitter, AK-47 toting, reptilian alien species underneath (see embed below so it’s not some vague cultural reference).

Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but I don’t even own a gun. Even though I’m a former ballerina, I’m so clumsy that I think that would probably shoot my big toe off (but, I have no problems at all with the second amendment). Second of all, I’m not polite and friendly because I’m trying to pull one over on people in order to convert them to my way of thinking. I’m polite because I’m a southern girl whose Mama told her to always be polite and that, “You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.”

Boooooo! That was boring. Now I feel that my “mystique” is all gone. I think I liked it better when I was an AK-47 toting, mask wearing alien, but I digress.

And finally, you made a mistake in the first paragraph of your column where you referred to Chuck DeVore as one of Redstate’s contributors. Chuck DeVore is actually a Republican candidate for the US Senate seat in CA that is currently held by Barbara Boxer. However, to me, this is a minor mistake. I mean, I’m not familiar with all of The Daily Beast’s contributors (I was much more concerned with debunking the whole “Redstaters aren’t as calm as they seem” myth). I’m not mentioning it to be petty, but rather to point out that we have all kinds of people who post at Redstate (and The Minority Report). We have conservative bloggers, politicians, and even liberals who post here (some of the liberal posters at Redstate have been here longer than I have).

Anyway, since you seem to be interested in Redstate (you wrote a column about it after all), I thought that it would be a nice gesture to extend to you an invitation to come here and engage us. Believe it or not, we at Redstate are not like the liberal blogosphere—we welcome dissent. The only two things that we ask is that you don’t be a Moby (a special kind of troll that took his cue from the musician Moby who told liberals to go on conservative websites and pretend to be conservatives and say ridiculous things in order to make conservatives appear crazy), and don’t be boring (i.e., writing one sentence diaries declaring how you’re mad at the world/media or how you are happy that you just got a pedicure).

Well Sir, I recently went on your blog and I can say without a doubt that you are not at all boring. I especially liked your most recent column where you called out Frank Rich and the MSM for their race-baiting. I bet that your inbox is full of lovely emails from Kossacks (and by “lovely”, I mean really vile). Huevos Grandes Amigo for taking on the left (that’s “conservative” for “I appreciate what you did—it probably wasn’t easy”). Granted, I didn’t agree with everything that you wrote in your column. (Like when you called the Tea Party members “the political Keystone Cops”. That was, how would I phrase it, “a jarring note”.) However, I am so happy to have an intellectually honest liberal take on the left’s race-baiting that I’m not going to sweat the small stuff.

So, in conclusion, I look forward to seeing you around here if and when you decide to post on Redstate. I just have one question that I would like answered—out of nothing more than my own curiosity—if you do decide to take me up on my offer. I felt like, in the first column of yours that I linked to, you spent a lot of time trying to figure out why we at Redstate are so “calm”, “polite” and sunny. Well, my question to you is this—

Why in the world is the left so pissed off?

I mean you guys won the last two major elections. Not to mention, you have the presidency, the House and the Senate—and, yet, so many liberals are so darn angry. And I’m not imagining this either. Dana Milbank of The Washington Post wrote a hilarious column where he admits that he gets more hate mail from the left than the right, and that “even under Obama, the anger on the left is, if anything, more personal and vitriolic than on the right. ” (Someone even asked him if tortured cats. Milbank refers to all of this vitriol as “sore-winner phenomenon”.) Furthermore, all you have to do is just venture on to the Daily Kos, where every other word is the F-word, to see what I’m talking about. Anyway, no biggie—I was just wondering what your insights might be.

Again, thanks for showing such interest in Redstate and I hope to see you around.

Sincerely, Susannah

PS—Have a Happy Easter!! :-)

This diary was originally posted on The Minority Report.

COMMENTS

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    Susannah, great diary.

    I have an answer to the question, but I want to hear Mr. Siegel’s first.

    Happy Easter.

    ColdWarrior
    Conservatives of the U.S, UNITE! Become Republican precinct committeemen. NOW!

    • Susannah

      And have a Happy Easter as well. :-)

  • penguin2

    Couldn’t sleep, but it gave me a leisurely opportunity to peruse this excellent post, Susannah. So, Mr. Seigle excuses the left’s behavior, words and demeanor, because they have a type of morals clause that allows them be driven by perceived injustices, social and otherwise, and to debunk the “myth” of their elitist and detached treatment of the common folk. Whereas we, on the other hand, are supposed to keep covered up outrage and rebuttal of events, because we are basically driven by those boorish traits and it is a fault in our character.

    I may be off a bit, it is the middle of the night. The fact is, he remains puzzled. Well your invitation to him to come here and find out how we do engage in civil discourse is certainly nice. I am afraid it will still be difficult for him to come up with the answer though; he can’t see that his side is driven by hate and anger and ours is not. We have reasonable anger and dissent, but it doesn’t flow out as hate from our core beings. IMO, their side can never be happy, life is always a matter of discontent for them – that is what happens when you spend so much time trying to run and control everyone else’s life. And they can’t shake the elitism that they have which makes them believe they are entitled to do so.

    Have a Happy and Blessed Easter, Susannah. :-)

    • Susannah

      ….I hope that you were able to get some rest though, because I wouldn’t want you to be tired on Easter. Speaking of which–have a Happy and Blessed Easter as well, Penguin. :-)

      X0X0, Suzi

  • JadedByPolitics

    liberal ever came over here. The first thing a liberal should NEVER do is think they can write or speak on Conservatism because the reality is they HAVE NO CLUE! They are so caught up in being the world’s saviors at every Americans expense but their own (they will keep their large bank accounts) that they couldn’t begin to understand that Conservatives as a MAJORITY of Americans self identify are hard working, childrearing (WE don’t use the government to raise children) U.S.A. loving (there is NO Country that comes close) people.

    Liberals/leftists/marxists/statists will absolutely NEVER get that one does charity from home with their own hard earned dollars from an emotion that springs from their heart (the above mentioned neanderthals must prove they are intellectually superior by FORCING charity to whom they deem the downtrodden by STEALING it from all Americans pockets).

    Lee Siegel like all liberals is so devoid of an actual heart as to see that policies they deem necessary are family killing by their actions. Each and everytime liberals have had the whole shebang they immediately start destroying that which makes America and Americans GREAT! They are so intent on proving to the world that WE are just like them that they forget to remember that WE are that shining city on a hill, a beacon to the rest of humanity :) :) :) :) :)

    • Susannah

      ….People can sometimes surprise you. Have a Happy Easter!! :-)

      X0X0, Suzi

  • jdw4america

    If I were feeling naughty, I might be tempted to say that it’s hard work being on the wrong side of every issue. :)

    Since it is the great and glorious commemoration of the Resurrection of Our Lord, Jesus, I think it’s best to approach the issue with charity, however.

    I think it’s because they have created a culture of contempt. It’s there in all of their social interactions, and they have literally become incapable of what used to be considered common courtesy.

    Where did all of this contempt originate? Like everything else, with the boomers. (sorry guys, those of you in that generation, present company obviously excluded) Why? Was the world such an awful place when they came into it? Did they suffer so much hardship? Is that why they were driven by the need to instruct an ignorant world and right the wrongs of humanity?

    Notsomuch.

    Actually, it was their parents who had hardships, you know, The Great Depression, WWII? These people, most of whom lived simple, decent, Baseball-Hot dog-Apple pie lives, didn’t complain about injustice with a capital I, or corporate evil, or sexual self expression. They lived their lives without wrapping themselves in the mantle of world savers. Even though that is what they became.

    There can be no doubt, except for the ignorant (did someone mention Tom Hanks?) that the sacrifice of The Greatest Generation saved the world from the forces of evil threatening it. American men died in Europe, in Asia and in Africa because other people were being enslaved and murdered and it was wrong not to do something to stop it. They also died to prevent the disease of totalitarianism and imperialism that was engulfing the world from staining their – our – homeland.

    When they awoke from the nightmare of war, they began to let themselves dream. What did they dream of? The dreams of simple, decent people throughout all of history, they dreamed of a better life for their children.

    America had emerged from the war bustling and overflowing with new opportunities never before imagined by ordinary people. The children of the next generation had everything their parents could give them – homes, financial security, family vacations, college degrees. They, in turn, felt so blessed and so grateful that to this day, later generations marvel at how they honored and cherished all they had received from their parents! Wait – no, that’s not what happened.

    What did happen? The boomers, who were born into a world of prosperity and comfort never imagined by their any of their ancestors, took all that they were given and complained how it wasn’t enough. Not enough to have food and shelter. Not enough to have financial security. Not enough to have luxuries, televisions, cars, bank accounts. Not enough to be well educated. Not enough to live in a country still dedicated to liberty.

    Everything they had was their entitlement. They looked down from their “enlightened” superiority at their parents’ simplicity. Their parents were uneducated oafs all of them, with their parochial and quaint little lives. Parents as a group, and certainly individually, were almost pitiable in their ignorance…almost, but not quite. After all, their parents actually thought they had something to be grateful for! And their values! God, family, country! Is that stupid or what? Sex is a private thing, and Reserved for marriage! Ridiculous!

    We all know the rest of the story. The boomers sought out “new” ideas. They dabbled in every form of vice and decadence they could discover. They freed themselves from authority, morality and restraint, only to find themselves enslaved. They were idolaters, becoming both the idol and the worshiper. They became subservient to their passions, their excesses, their snobbery, ironically freeing themselves from freedom.

    This was what they handed down to their children, and now, their grandchildren. A legacy of restless dissatisfaction co-existing with an irrational belief that all they have done to dismantle the world their parents struggled and sacrificed to give them, is actually good and noble.

    There is an intrinsic unhappiness in the left. They can find no solace in the world, and they do not love anything. Rejecting family, country, liberty and self-mastery, they have nothing with which to anchor their lives. So, they go from one pathetic cause to another – sexual freedom, the environment, animal rights, statutory regulation, healthcare, etc…seeking the thing that will finally give some meaning to their lives. Seeking and never finding. They project all of this discontent onto the right so as not to face the truth which confronts them, that they are unhappy with themselves and have no idea what to do about it.

    They would be pitiable but for the harm they do.

    I pray for them on this glorious Easter morning. God bless you all!
    God bless America!

    • Susannah

      ….I really appreciate the thoughtfulness that went into this. You make some very insightful points. Have a Happy Easter!! :-)

      • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

        The anger goes all the way to Marx and beyond. The anger is built of the unfairness of any system that allows anyone they consider beneath them intellectually to succeed in all the visible ways…money, power, bigger cars, babes, whatever. And they despise any system that makes those markers of success more important than the markers they have for their own prowess.

        Narcissism turned bad. It was always there, as far back as the ancient Greeks, who got angry when the Romans took the beautiful theorems they devised and started building things with them.

        Happy Easter!

    • Achance

      The first election that ANY ‘Boomer could vote in was ’64, and only those born in ’46 and in a state that allowed 18 year olds to vote could vote in ’64, so that means that Boomers had little to do with LBJ and the Great Society. The “Greatest Generation,” the Boomers’ parents, are the ones who gave us FDR and the New Deal. The Greatest Generation are the ones that owned and ran the movie studios that employed the communist writers and actors. They owned the recording companies that popularized the music that the Boomers bought. The Greatest Generation owned the publishing companies that produced the books the Boomers read. The Greatest Generation owned and ran the radio and television networks that gave the ‘Boomers their entertainment and news. The Greatest Generation sat on the Boards of Regents and formed the administration and faculties of the colleges and universities that that gave the Marxist professors their sinecures.

      The first election that significant numbers of ‘Boomers could vote in was ’68 and you might recall that Nixon guy won that one and the next one by a landslide. Carter was considered a Southern conservative Democrat at the time he ran and was elected in ’76. The first election that all ‘Boomers could vote in (b. ’46 – ’64) was ’82. You might remember that Reagan guy that was President then and who was re-elected in a landslide in ’84. Then there was that first Bush guy. Now Clinton was himself a Boomer but he was only elected the first time because so many smarter and older people voted for Perot. ‘Course, Dole gave us the last gasp of the Greatest Generation politically by running among the all-time worst campaigns and sentencing the Country to four more years of Clinton. At the time when most Boomers were at the peak of their careers and earning and political power, that other Bush guy won two elections. And Comrade Obama, barely a Boomer, wasn’t elected by Boomers; you can thank the under 30 crowd, minorities, and divorced or never married women for him.

      The gallant efforts of WWII were but four years of an almost unbroken 50 years of America spiralling leftward while the dominant political, social, and economic force in America was the children of the Depression and their parents. Yeah, many of the ‘Boomers were and did the things you describe but we didn’t make the World we found ourselves in; our parents and grandparents did that.

      • Flagstaff

        it was the joooooooos! Whatever it is, it’s always their fault.

        Well, somebody has to be wacko so that Siegel will have a good quote.

    • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com Beaglescout

      Please!

  • Susannah

    Man, this is turning into a heavy, intense thread for an Easter Sunday (which is awesome, by the way). I love all of these deep thoughts. :-)

    You boys have a Happy Easter!! :-)

    X0X0, Suzi

  • mriggio

    Earlier, over in Vassar’s Easter post, I wished everyone a reflective Holiday. Little did I think I’d be taken seriously–wow, you guys are really working overtime today, and thank you for that!

    As to the question of the day, ‘why are they so PO-ed?’, I endorse, enjoy, recommend and believe the way my buddy Thomas Sowell frames the issue. (Penguin2, considering my earlier reading list, you knew this was coming, didn’t you?)

    “They” are believers in what Sowell calls the unconstrained vision, a worldview. Being unconstrained, they fervently believe that man is perfectible, and Heaven can be instituted on Earth, if their process is correct.

    “We” believe mankind is unchanging in nature, and basically self-interested or selfish, and structure our process by that worldview (as did the Founders). As an opposite philosophy, Sowell dubs it the constrained vision.

    Since They can’t succeed in perfecting their process, or creating Heaven on Earth, things never work out to their satisfaction, and they stay angry about it, and with ‘us’. We refuse to cooperate in their shaping us to perfection. No perfection, no Heaven, no happiness. Lots of anger.

    We know our efforts at perfection are doomed to fail, do the best with what we have to work with, follow Nature and God’s rules as we see them, and await His Perfection in the end. We’re content with the continual failure of perfection and press on cheerfully and optimistically; they remain frustrated, upset and angry with their Progressive lack of progress.

    See Thomas Sowell: The Vision of the Annointed; A Conflict of Visions; and most recently revisited in Intellectuals and Society. Thank you Dr. Sowell, and a most Happy Easter to you all! He is Risen!

    • Susannah

      ….And for your excellent comment. I’m so enjoying reading everybody’s different viewpoints.

      Have a Happy Easter!! :-)

      X0X0, Suzi

  • spainishirish

    I would go so far as to say “hateful” but that has been projected into cliche by them. Perhaps when people are so smug that they cannot even question their stereotypes let alone their basic assumptions, they just get pissed out of the frustration that people cannot see their wisdom and agree with them without hesitation. Siegel is a big deal at The Daily Beast, which tends to have the intellectual depth of a petting zoo and focuses heavily on celebrities when it isn’t demonizing those who don’t follow the herd. I find Siegel to be somewhat the apostate there, and his email box probably filled when he dared report he didn’t witness hate speech here. I cannot imagine how difficult it must be to agree with people whose comments basically spit venom below his columns.

    Sharp as usual, Susannah.

    • Susannah

      ….”Intellectual depth of a petting zoo”–HA! That’s funny (don’t hold back now, tell us how you really feel).

      By the way, I hope that you had a Happy Easter. As always, it’s nice to hear from you. :-)

      X0X0, Suzi

      • spainishirish

        I hope yours was as well.

        • Susannah

          My husband and I went to mass in a 250 year old church in Charleston and then went out to dinner in a restaurant that specializes in old style southern Charleston cuisine (I had fried catfish with collard greens and biscuits and peanut butter pie for dessert). Not exactly healthy–but tasted awesome,

          Anyway, I’m glad that you had a nice Easter, and it was good to hear from you. Take care. :-)

          X0X0, Suzi

          • spainishirish

            My Easter brunch was among the best meals I’ve had, but it would take Tolstoy to describe it. I probably shouldn’t eat again until Christmas.