Neil Gabler Fails at American Political History 101

by Sean Hackbarth

Neal Gabler is in the mood to whip up his own version of the history of the modern conservative movement. It’s typical of Leftists who don’t get conservatives or really want to.

Gabler forgets how William F. Buckley kicked out the McCarthy’s heirs, The John Birch Society, from the conservative movement. Doing so doesn’t fit the theme of a paranoid political party

He recalls the Reagan optimism yet declares that unique to the 40th President. However he fails to acknowledge Republicans from all wings of the party seek it. But again that wouldn’t fit Gabler’s theme of a party winning the White House again and again by scaring the crap out of voters.

The biggest flaw in Gabler’s thesis is how parochial he claims it is. Peer behind President-elect Obama’s “Hope” and “Change” facade and you’ll see similar scare tactics Gabler accuses Republicans of mastering. Obama was running against a “third Bush term.” Many of Obama’s online supporters declared Sen. McCain “John McSame.” Democrats preyed upon economic anxiety to say America couldn’t afford another four years of Bush-McCain policies (not that such an animal ever existed).

What Gabler is describing are contrast politics that have been with the nation since her beginning. Parties have been trying to look better with voters by tearing the other side down since the vicious battle between John Adams’ Federalists and Thomas Jefferson’s Republicans. With Gabler he tries to turn the phenomenon into something uniquely evil by attaching a nefarious character, Sen. Joseph McCarthy, onto it.

Gabler should stick to subjects he knows something about: Walt Disney and bashing Rush Limbaugh. He’s one of those typical Leftists who sees conservatives through a National Geographic prism. They’re strange creatures with unique customs. When was the last time he paged through an issue of National Review? When was the last time he wandered through wide stretches of the conservative blogosphere? Has Gabler recently been into a conservative Christian megachurch? Judging from this essay the answers are “no.” He’d do well to learn some history in George Nash’s The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America.

There’s more from JammieWearingFool.

“The GOP’s McCarthy Gene” [via memeorandum]

Save and Share: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • NewsVine
  • Furl
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Fark

5 Responses to “Neil Gabler Fails at American Political History 101”

1

[…] Wingnuts are in denial, of course. One says, Gabler forgets how William F. Buckley kicked out the McCarthy’s heirs, The John Birch Society, from the conservative movement. Doing so doesn’t fit the theme of a paranoid political party. […]

2

[…] You get wingers like this claiming Buckley “kicked out the McCarthy’s [sic] heirs, The John Birch Society, from the conservative movement,” leaving us with the question of whether this winger is truly unaware of the fact that Buckley was a lifelong McCarthy apologist who co-authored the fawning McCarthy and His Enemies and, late in life, a fictionalized biography called The Redhunter. or has simply chosen to follow Sarah Palin’s example and lie about what everybody knows. […]

3

Nice post, except I think Gabler is right to an extent. He’s correct in pointing to GOP electoral strategies built on antagonism. Kevin Phillips clearly outlined this in his late 60s book (can’t remember title right now). Essentially, Phillips and Nixon (Pat Buchanan was also involved) followed the lead of Wallace and realized they could turn the South and emerging Rustbelt areas through campaining on a “law and order” campaign. It spoke to the unrest of the day and clearly was designed to peel off white working class voters, Catholics, etc. from the democrats. It worked. Perhaps this strategy can be tied to McCarthy, hard to say in a short op-ed piece.

Gabler’s polemic aside, I think the challenge for the GOP is to figure out how to be more inclusive, rather than exclusive. To allow for difference, essentially to move away from the culture wars of Bush, Palin and all the way back. Goldwater didn’t give a crap about this stuff, maybe that’s a tradition to hitch the wagon to.

Who knows, thoughts?

4

Just stumbled on to this parody site. You have the knee-jerk wingnut reaction of false-equivalency down pat. Calling the Obama campaign’s use of McCain being a “third Bush term” the same as McCarthyite character assassination is pure comedy gold.

5

Peer behind President-elect Obama’s “Hope” and “Change” facade and you’ll see similar scare tactics Gabler accuses Republicans of mastering. Obama was running against a “third Bush term.”

Heh…does it count as a “scare tactic” if you think a third Bush term would include more scare tactics from the Republicans?

Fighting scare tactics with scare tactics…how meta!

Of course, if you claim that people voted for Obama out of fear, you’re equally guilty of not really understanding the liberal perspective. Not that i’m saying you’re simplifying things that much.

Leave a Reply




You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>