An interesting column by Jonah Goldberg on Rick Perry, his critics and his defenders. Goldberg has tweeted that it has been widely misinterpreted. So perhaps I should stay clear at the risk of confirming that I can’t read. But I’ll take a stab at it anyway.
It is kind of an oddly structured column, as it takes a sharp turn at the three quarter mark. But what I take to be Goldberg’s point is that while East/West coast shots at candidates who don’t fit their stereotypes are absurd, the resulting automatic defense of these candidates by conservatives is a mistake. If liberal snobs dismiss someone as stupid because they are from Texas , conservatives shouldn’t rush to claim that the charge is false and due only to the person being from Texas . The argument should be on the merits which includes the possibility that a folksy Texan isn’t very bright.
The latter is no small point. 2012 will represent an excellent opportunity to make the case for conservative governance, but just making better policy choices only takes you so far. Far better is to be able to make those choices and explain convincingly why they are better. That is to make the case for conservatism intellectually at the same as you demonstrate its superiority. Or to put it slightly differently, just because liberals place too high a value on being articulate doesn't mean that conservatives should fall into the habit of argueing that it doesn't matter. An argument, as Michael Palin pointed out, isn't the automatic gainsaying of what the other person has said (yes it is).
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/275591/my-rick-perry-problem-and-ours-jonah-goldberg
Note: The Michael Palin reference is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
No comments:
Post a Comment