Tip of the Hat to Kathleen Parker; or, an Update on Harrogate's Father, a Nader Sympathizer and Ohio Voter

Harrogate has long resisted the urge to proffer a Tip of the Hat to Kathleen Parker, whose ideological leanings diverge so dramatically from Harrogate's own.

But really, you've got to hand it to her. She took an awful lot of flap for simply pointing out Palin's vacuousness. But she did not back down. Like George Will and Andrew Sullivan and "Christo" Buckley, Parker doesn't like it that the GOP as currently configured represents an almost total capitulation to the most vicious anti-intellectual impulses in this country. And so they are complaining about it. They want their Party back. And there is nothing wrong with this, indeed, this revolt might well lead to a more moderate, reasonable GOP in the future, should Obama win.

Parker's recent column, wonderfully entitled "Maverick's Tragic Flaw" and linked herein, is a doozy, a must-read for those following the GOP implosion.

Explaining McCain's choice of Palin, Parker actually writes this:

As Draper tells it, McCain took Palin to his favorite coffee-drinking spot down by a creek and a sycamore tree. They talked for more than an hour, and, as Napoleon whispered to Josephine, "Voila."

One does not have to be a psychoanalyst to reckon that McCain was smitten. By no means am I suggesting anything untoward between McCain and his running mate. Palin is a governor, after all. She does have an executive resume, if a thin one. And she's a natural politician who connects with people.

But there can be no denying that McCain's selection of her over others far more qualified -- and his mind-boggling lack of attention to details that matter -- suggests other factors at work. His judgment may have been clouded by ... what?

Science provides clues. A study in Canada, published in New Scientist in 2003, found that pretty women foil men's ability to assess the future. "Discounting the future," as the condition is called, means preferring immediate, lesser rewards to greater rewards in the future. (Harrogate's emphasis)

UPDATE: Parker's article is so awesome Harrogate now adds another snippet from it:

The Canadian psychologists showed pictures of attractive and not-so attractive men and women to students of the opposite sex. The students were offered a prize -- either a small check for the next day or a larger check at some later date.

The men made perfectly rational decisions, opting for the delayed larger amount after viewing the average-looking women. You know where this is going. (Women, by the way, were rational no matter what.)

That men are at a disadvantage when attractive women are present is a fact upon which women have banked for centuries. Ignoring it now profits only fools. McCain spokesmen have said that he was attracted to Palin's maverickness, that she reminded him of himself.

Recognizing oneself in a member of the opposite sex (or the same sex, as the case may be) is a powerful invitation to bonding. Narcissus fell in love with his own image reflected in the river, imagining it to be his deceased and beloved sister's. In McCain's case, it doesn't hurt that his reflection is spiked with feminine approval.

As my husband observed early on, McCain the mortal couldn't mind having an attractive woman all but singing arias to his greatness. Cameras frequently capture McCain beaming like a gold-starred schoolboy while Palin tells crowds that he is "exactly the kind of man I want as commander in chief." This, notes Draper, "seemed to confer not only valor but virility on a 72-year-old politician who only weeks ago barely registered with the party faithful." (Harrogate's emphasis)

Heh. But anyway. Last night Harrogate had a long talk with his father, who had called to announce his decision to vote for Barack Obama in the upcoming election.

"What finally swung it," asked Harrogate. "Was it the incontrovertible nature of my arguments, the beauty of my speech, the sheer magnetism of my political thought?"

"Pish! 'Twas none of that," stated old Dad from his residence in Ohio. "I just watched the McCain/Palin interveiw with Brian Williams. And it is important that Palin go back to the utter mediocrity from which she came, and to which she belongs. I just couldn't believe the words coming out of her mouth. No wonder even Colin Powell has endorsed Obama."

No wonder, indeed.

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.