The Collectivist News Network (CNN) has a new, fresh, smiley faced ‘conservative’ they’ve added to their stellar roster of David Gergen, Hillary’s hairdresser, and Ed Rollins who wrote in January that Barack Obama was just the sort of leader that we need. David Frum, as many of you know, is an intellectual. He loves being an intellectual and will make that point to any one who happens to cross his path. Frum believes Sarah Palin was a bad choice for the vice presidential slot, which is certainly a valid opinion. However, the reason he thought she was a poor choice was because she wasn’t ‘weighty’ enough for the position. You see, David Frum, the intellectual, believes the common Republican or conservative is barely smart enough to tie his or her own shoes, much less feed themselves. He seems convinced in an elite, select group of intellectuals should lead the party and tell the common folk what they should believe.
So, CNN decided to hire old David as a pet conservative to comment on the nation’s events as a political conservative. As a former speech writer for George W. Bush, they presume he must be a conservative, but an acceptable one since he is an intellectual and so understands their delicate sensibilities. He won’t startle them with a principled opposing viewpoint. He will gently suggest and oh so careful chide. As a conservative intellectual, he will make them look balanced and fair. Oh, how far from the truth that is.
Frum’s first post to CNN is a ‘laugh out loud’ examination and explanation of the viewpoints of the Tea Partiers and Townhallers. (I did literally laugh out loud at the prospect). Reading his description of the motivations and fears, not to mention the outrage, expressed was like reading the critique of a painting by a blind person. It was like a vegan describing the succulence and texture of a filet mignon. It was similar to a lecture given by Stalin on democracy. They were just some pixels on a screen. His writing was numb, devoid of passion, and utterly silly.
Now, no one can be sure just where Mr. Frum got his information on what the protestors are feeling, but it certainly wasn’t from a town hall participant. Granted, it was a sympathetic article, but so ill-informed as to be sad. It could be imagined that the estimable Frum had a clothespin on his nose as he furiously wrote his commentary. I’m sure the stench, as described by Harry Reid’s portrayl of ‘tourists,’ filled his nose. After all, we are the great unwashed of the nation. We are the supporters and friends of everyday people yearning to live free, independent lives in liberty. That must have caused the bile to rise in his collectivist, elitist throat.
But, never you mind. That is the drivel the Washington cocktail party will read and believe. They’d never condescend to read our impassioned words or heady pleas. They’d rather have the well composted horse apples an intellectual like David Frum has to serve. These people want to understand our ideas within their own, narrow context. That context is within the collectivist narrative that confines our attributes to the vile capitalist, the mean liberatarian, the socially conservative moron, or the frightened, barely coherent populist. Frum chose to paint us as the last category.
“Keep the government’s hands off my Medicare.’ Those words — quoted by so many TV talking heads — never seem actually to have been spoken by anyone.” Mr. Frum begins the tale. He is trying to calm the jittery cocktail set that are disturbed by images of Americans demanding answers to questions they don’t understand. He is saying the quote is apocryphal when it was actually President Obama who began the assault on the townhallers by characterizing them as uninformed idiots. Obama had smiled and chuckled after this supposed quote and then knowingly gave his adoring fans that look that said, ‘you know how stupid they are.’ But, let’s give it to Frum for questioning the source of the president’s smear.
“The town hallers were angry, but they were not crazy, and they were not stupid. They knew perfectly well that Medicare is provided by the government. They also knew that their government is proposing to change Medicare in ways they do not like.” This is Frum’s paean to the hoi polloi. He gives a gentle reminder to the delicate metrosexuals in Washington that the average American isn’t as lame-brained as they imagine. He states that they are unable to fully articulate it as intelligently as he is. Therefore, he will set it out for them. He, the great intellectual that he is, will parse their coarse, meandering thoughts and explain them to his fellow dilettantes.
“The changes the president has in mind won’t kill Grandma. But they will change medicine in ways Grandma may find uncomfortable. Ten years from now, Grandma probably won’t have a personal doctor. Her Medicare will cover less — and cost more.” Frum explains that his less sophisticated fellow conservatives must resort to simple, easy-to-digest relationships to exclaim their displeasure. The relationship of ‘Grandma’ is one that is elemental enough for us to express. In addition, we grubby tyros can sense there is something fundamentally wrong in the healthcare proposal. We may not be able to describe it fully, but Mr. Frum thinks he has the answer. The hayseeds in the political sticks intuit that less money for the elderly will lead to less care. They don’t really understand such complex issues, but they can roughly cipher the result in their straw-filled heads.
You see, the philosophic debate does run deeper, Frum posits. It is the fear that someone else, someone less deserving will get their care. He insists it’s because these hicks hate immigrants. “But the debate over illegal immigrants is a proxy for something larger and more unsettling to older Americans. The problem is not illegal immigration, it is all low-skilled immigration, legal and illegal.” Frum succinctly surmises the residents of Boondocks are really a-feared of their standard of living being overtaken by them ‘furriners.’ Yuck. Well, gosh darnit. I don’t think that was an argument ever made or insinuated by the town hall protestors. Rather, they were furious the government has continued to allow a huge number of people to break the law and enter this country illegally. They are protesting the slippery slope the ‘rule of law’ has taken. Frum has other ideas.
In their own, backward way, the Tea Parties and the town halls were about something so much more classic, according to Frum. “And it’s the emotion that explains the actual quote — not the bogus quote — we heard from so many town hall protesters this summer: ‘Fix old. No new.” Huh? What kind of hillbilly reaction is he feeding these elites? The anger expressed was over the socialization of our private sector. It was about the irresponsible spending and power grab by the government. It was an expression of rage over a bunch of sleazy, ignorant, power-hungry, contemptuous politicians who don’t believe that have to read the bills, listen to us, stop and take a breath, or protect our interests. Frum completely misses the mark. Small wonder since it’s obvious he hasn’t a clue as to what the protests were about. Thank God he’s explaining it to his hoity-toidy peers. If you wonder why the New York/Washington power lunchers are confused, it’s because of the kind of regurgitated gruel the traditional ‘conservative’ commentators are spoon feeding them. It isn’t the liberals we need to fear as much as the pointy head conservative lapdogs.
Frum comments on the future of the conservative movement and the Republican party as it stands. He is worried about the direction of the cause. He opines about influences such as Sarah Palin. “She’s a divisive force within the Republican Party…And many fear, as I do…that she represents a future that leads the party both to political defeat and then to ineffectiveness in government.” You mean like irresponsible earmark spending, political gamesmanship, elitism, snobbery, ignoring the voters, and marginalizing political dissent of the establishment. That’s what you’ve provided Mr. Frum. You, and your fellow sycophants gave us defeat, failure, and contempt. You are the ones that lost all political power because we believed your lavender-scented hype. Then you lose and blame Sarah Palin? That is truly contemptible and beneath my disgust. Small wonder you are so bitter. It was your political game that we played for the past four years and it was your strategy that led to a rabid socialist Congress and president. Don’t lecture us on Sarah Palin’s dangerous proclivities. It is the beam in your own eye you need to remove.
Remove it, and stop lying about us.