Malignant Liberal Idiocy

Kathleen Parker’s Advice: Suppress Your Values

by Sam Pierce on Dec.07, 2008, under Libiot Rebublicans, PC libiots

Since Townhall’s Kathleen Parker climbed aboard the “I hate Sarah Palin, so please view me as an intellectual” bandwagon, I have decided to refrain from reading her work. As I scanned the headlines in today’s Townhall.com Daily e-mail I caught Mrs. Parker’s and was moved to click on it. You see, I have something of a sadomasochistic desire to read columns that insult people like me.

Mrs. Parker’s column, “Them Oogedy-Boogedy Blues” serves as further indication that the Republican Party is at a crossroads. Her column also serves as an indicator of what is wrong with the Republican Party, and I am not referring to the “problem” she laments. I am referring to that which is exhibited by her lament, the PC, wishy washy, “moderate” crap that is the suggestion that people of values, principles, and faith are welcome in the Republican Party as long as they don’t express themselves.

I don’t know if Kathleen Parker is hoping to be quoted in Barack Obama’s inaugural address or if she is just doing her part to ensure that our party becomes a minority as a cheap knock-off of the real Democrat Party. From her column:

The list of commentators who ain’t got oogedy-boogedy is long, though Ponnuru is the most recent to out himself. While dismissing assertions — mine and others’ — that the Republican Party has a religion problem, Ponnuru acknowledges that social conservatives “could present themselves more attractively,” and “pick their spokesmen more wisely.”

That’s a start, but let’s take it another step. How about social conservatives make their arguments without bringing God into it? By all means, let faith inform one’s values, but let reason inform one’s public arguments.

That was and remains my point. It isn’t so much God causing the GOP problems; it’s his fan club.

In the mind of an “intellectual” (or anti-Sarah) faith has no place in public expressions. If one is to represent the Republican Party in an inclusive fashion, he or she should refrain from offering honest opinion. Someone other than God (is that better?) forbid that an opinion can be traced to any sense of morality! Imagine the despair of someone who might otherwise vote for a Republican candidate, when he or she finds out that some Republicans are guided by morality and values other than inclusion, diversity, and moderation. There can be no doubt that this would be Republican voter will be so despondent that he or she will never again be able to darken an oval next to a letter “R.”

So what should be the rules for appropriate Republican discourse? Apparently the portion of the party that seeks to model all future campaigns on the success of the presidential runs of Ford, Dole, and McCain would have the following rules serve as a guide.

  • Do not go to church… unless the particular church preaches Black Liberation Theology or has some other politically correct redeeming characteristic such as a lesbian pastor.
  • If you go to church, don’t mention it in public.
  • Avoid expressing opinions on any subject which may be construed as being a moral issue.
  • Carry tweezers in your pocket and use them to pinch your leg if you utter any of the following heretofore banned words: traditional, values, abortion (you are allowed to mention “choice” as long as the mention is accompanied by a positive tone), God, marriage, right, or wrong.

Generally speaking, it will be considered best practice to look to role models if one is curious as to the sort of presentation that will be accepted in the new party. Mrs. Parker graciously provides a clue as to where a curious candidate might find an approved model:

As long as the religious right is seen as controlling the Republican Party, the GOP will continue to lose some percentage of voters, and that percentage likely will increase over time as younger voters shift away from traditional to more progressive values.

Hooray for “progressive values!” Where have I heard that term, “progressive?” Oh that’s right, progressive is the word liberals prefer as a self description! I can still fondly recall the time when Hillary Clinton referred to herself as “progressive.” We have found the best source for approved role models for future Republican candidates, the Obama Administration.

I did a “Goodsearch” for “progressive values” and I found an interesting organization. This organization might provide guidance for Republicans that just can’t bear to completely separate themselves from faith. This particular organization combines the best of both realms: progressive values and the only religion approved by the PC/Diversity Police. To learn more, feel free to visit Muslims for Progressive Values (MPV).

I might not be able to stomach a candidate that contorts himself into a human pretzel in his efforts to not offend certain groups or to avoid any appearance of moral convictions. I might continue to disregard the anti-Sarah’s such as Kathleen Parker, who I believe are more snob than intellectual. Give me a candidate that speaks what is on his or her mind and doesn’t give a damn if people that believe that they have a constitutional right to kill babies are offended.

:, , , , , ,

6 comments for this entry:

  • nichall
    December 7th, 2008 on 4:57 pm

    I have to agree with this Parker statement: “As long as the religious right is seen as controlling the Republican Party, the GOP will continue to lose some percentage of voters, and that percentage likely will increase over time as younger voters shift away from traditional to more progressive values.”

    Why do I agree? Simply b/c young people, on a large scale, don’t pay taxes and don’t understand economics. Fiscal conservatism isn’t on their radar. It is the social issues that concern them (if they are concerned at all); and, generally speaking, they are receptive to the concepts of inclusion and tolerance. Until the GOP, in some way, frames the debate as such (without losing abandoning their principles), I don’t see young people hopping on.

  • fred gill
    December 8th, 2008 on 7:04 pm

    When I was a Democrat I was continually frustrated with the Party’s enshacklement to the crackpot left wing of the party. The Dems spent the better part of the proverbial 40 years in the wilderness before the public finally decided their crazies were less of a risk than the GOP’s crazies. If “true” conservatives want to suffer the same fate, that’s up to them. But while reverence for religion has generally been a hallmark of the best conservatism, pandering to religious fanatics has not been. If you don’t set some limits on them they will run the party into the ground and then still abandon it for not living up to their impossible expectations.

  • sepierce
    December 9th, 2008 on 8:15 am

    I have a hard time viewing someone as a “fanatic” based solely on his or her opposition to the killing of babies.

Trackbacks / Pingbacks

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post and let me know!

Visit our friends!

A few highly recommended reads...

Archives

All entries, chronologically...