I used to visit the website of The American Conservative fairly regularly, 'cause Patrick Buchanan is always worth a read, and 'cause they used to publish Steve Sailer (than whom none greater) from time to time, and 'cause they used to be...well...recognizably conservative - albeit a bit quirky.
But my interest waned, over time, as they drifted in the same general direction as our erstwhile co-blogger Daniel Larison - whose personal blog, Eunomia, they continue to host.
Which is to say that their version of "conservatism" increasingly seemed to consist of very little besides a deep-seated hatred of "Neo-cons" and Israel - often expressed in rather unrestrained language.
I should add, here, that I'm no knee-jerk defender of the Jewish State, or of America's support for it. As a good libertarian, I oppose our ongoing subsidization of Israel, just as much, and for the same reasons, as I oppose our subsidization of Egypt and the Palestinians. Were it up to me, none of them would get a dime from Washington.
But the constant ragging on every defensive measure ever taken by Israel and the equally constant white-washing of Palestinian agression by the crew at TAC really, seriously wears me out. I mean, c'mon: it's perfectly possible to argue that the interests of America and Israel diverge, and that we ought to go our separate ways, without either the afore-said ragging or the afore-said white-washing.
I should know, 'cause that's exactly what I argue.
Anyway. In an idle moment, today, I cruised over to TAC...and what did I find?
Well, Larison hating, at his customary great length, on Neo-cons, kinda' sorta' sticking up for Putin, kinda' sorta' defending Obama's ludicrous "Peace Prize," etc.
Yawn. I knew that was coming. One rolls one's eyes and passes on.
But what really took me by surprise was this li'l nugget by a certain "Clark Stooksbury," which I quote in full:
"It looks like Rush Limbaugh won’t be part owner of the Saint Louis Rams. His failure reminds me of his short-lived career as a spokesperson for Florida Orange Juice in 1994. I remember seeing footage of dittoheads wading through angry feminist protesters to purchase orange juice by the case. Not surprisingly, the orange juice mandarins didn’t like the controversy and eventually dropped Limbaugh as a spokesman.
"The lesson for Limbaugh from the orange juice flap, his brief career as ESPN commentator and his apparently failed bid to become a part owner in the NFL; is that he should stay inside the bubble. In the rightwing bubble, nobody is bigger than Limbaugh, but on the outside he is a mere mortal. Media Matters has an extensive list of Limbaugh comments that they find objectionable. I wouldn’t want Media Matters to define the parameters of acceptable debate, but the worst of Limbaugh’s statements are offensive. I agree with Rod Dreher that Limbaugh was 'deliberately trying to whip up racial fear and loathing of the president' with his comment about 'Obama’s America.' But I assume he was indulging in innocuous sarcasm when he said that Like Obama, 'God does not have a birth certificate either.'
"I scarcely blame the NFL for not wanting to devote all of their public relations to defending and contextualizing the ravings of one of its part-owners on an almost daily basis. And that is what they would have to do if Limbaugh was involved.
"Glenn Reynolds absurdly claimed that 'this whole NFL thing is a Limbaugh-set trap for the press and Democratic pols, and it’s working . . . .' No, this 'NFL thing' was an attempt by a very wealthy man who loves pro football to become an owner and perhaps, one day, to slip a super bowl ring on one of his pudgy fingers. And its not working ."
* * * * *
I mean, wow!
No mention, at any point, of the fact that Rush Limbaugh was, quite obviously, libeled by several MSM outlets, which attributed to him various offensive statements that he never made. And no mention of the fact that they refuse to admit, let alone apologize, for their libel.
So this "Clark Stooksbury" apparently believes that it's no big deal to libel Rush Limbaugh - 'cause, after all, he's said other things that the likes of Rod Dreher find offensive.
From which we may conclude that this "Clark Stooksbury" has no better grasp of elementary ethics than he has of the subjunctive case.
* * * * *
All of which leaves me reflecting that we need a corollary, or a codicil, or whatever, to Robert Conquest's Second Law of Politics:
"Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing."
I suggest the following:
"Nothing in the above should be taken to imply that explicitly right-wing organizations cannot also, sooner or later, become left-wing."