Political Junkie Gossip

Christopher Buckley, son of the Conservative Icon and recently departed William F. Buckley, has been fired (officially, he "resigned") by the National Review, an Iconic Conservative Magazine which his father founded. The reason for all the hullabaloo? He endorsed Barack Obama for President on his blog.

See Buckley's explanation for what happened here, where he compares his experience to that of his colleague, "the lovely Kathleen Parker," who as Readers well know, has been rendered a pariah by the Right for pointing out Palin's ridiculousness. Entitled "Sorry Dad I Was Fired," the online article is a must read for those interested in the currently caustic state of the GOP.

Opines Buckley:

So, I have been effectively fatwahed (is that how you spell it?) by the conservative movement, and the magazine that my father founded must now distance itself from me. But then, conservatives have always had a bit of trouble with the concept of diversity. The GOP likes to say it’s a big-tent. Looks more like a yurt to me.

While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of “conservative” government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case.

So, to paraphrase a real conservative, Ronald Reagan: I haven’t left the Republican Party. It left me.

Meanwhile, on his Townhall blog, Matt Lewis quips:

Buckley's farewell column also (intentionally, in my estimation) confuses George W. Bush Republicanism with conservatism.

His father was a truly great man, so this one stings. All I can say is this is unfortunate, but I think NR is justified in their decision.

Now they should oust Parker, as well ...

Fighting over the meaning of Reagan's Legacy, fighting over the meaning of Conservatism. Struggles of Epic proportions, over the concepts of dissent and even independent thinking.

Heh. Folowing the GOP dynamic at this moment is like watching a Cockroach War, folks.

*****BREAKING NEWS UPDATE (HEH)*****

Matt Lewis just posted a follow-up to Buckley's resignation.

Read this line, Chums, and read it well:

Christopher Buckley's departure from National Review serves to highlight the emerging chasm between traditional mainstream conservatives (my definition would include men like Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh as well-known examples of this) -- and the conservative intelligentsia.

Yay. It is nice to see the phrase "men like Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh."

And then there's this gem:

If Buckley believes John McCain isn't conservative enough, that is a legitimate and honorable position to take. However, there are many options available to him, short of endorsing a socialist.

Oh. But you've got to read the whole thing because really the possibilites are endless. You wouldn't, for example, want to go on with your day without this rattling around in your brain:

I would prefer a dumb conservative to a smart liberal (in fact, I would prefer a stupid liberal to a smart liberal).

Welcome to Crazytown. The problems with the Bush Admin are that it was too liberal. Obama is a socialist. "Intelligentsia" is the most horrid pejorative of them all.

Announcer: "Man, they look like they're having a great time"

Of course they are. The dude's getting a handy, for crying out loud.

I don't even watch football like this at home.

WALL-E Wars 4; or, the Jury is Now in, and WALL-E is an Ode to Classical Capitalism

Isn't this a really great picture of WALL-E????? What a cute robot.

But anywho. Harrogate's Pulitzer-Caliber coverage of the WALL-E Wars continues with Michael Gerson's latest write-up, which has confirmed Harrogate's growing sense that the WALL-E Wars are pretty much over. Conservative American pundits, social and economic, have claimed this movie for their own as a triumph of Can-Do American Sensibility. You know, sort of like the Horatio Alger novels, except with robots instead of thinly-veiled homosexual New York b'hoys at the center of the action.

For Gerson, WALL-E validates the brilliance of one whose Godlike Status is Secondary only to the Founding Fathers and Ronald Reagan. We speak, of course, of the great economic thinker Adam Smith, he of the Invisible Hand. He who foresaw all possible Contingencies and would have absolutely objected to anything but laissez-faire capitalism as we moveth deeper into the new century.

Smith, Gerson reminds us, had a heart. And WALL-E's purpose isn't any more complex than to remind us of exactly that:

Some conservatives have dismissed "WALL-E" as a crude critique of business and capitalism. This is only true if capitalism is identical to boundless consumerism -- a conviction that Adam Smith did not seem to share. Smith argued that human flourishing requires "good temper and moderation." Self-command and the prudent use of freedom are central to his moral theory. And these are precisely the virtues celebrated in "WALL-E." The end credits -- worth staying to see -- are a beautiful tribute to art and work, craft and cultivation.

"WALL-E" is partly an environmental parable, but its primary point is moral. The movie argues that human beings, aided by technology, can become imprisoned by their consumption. The pursuit of the latest style leads to conformity. The pursuit of pleasure displaces the deeper enjoyments of affection and friendship. The pursuit of our rhinestone desires manages to obscure our view of the stars.

Oh, yeah, Gerson is also pleased that WALL-E celebrates "Hello, Dolly," since apparently Show Tunes represent one of the great (lo! if not the greatest!) American Art forms.