← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust
Thread ID: 14545 | Posts: 12 | Started: 2004-07-15
2004-07-15 21:29 | User Profile
Leftist attack on Laura Ingraham
The Conservative Mind in America
Or, Danger! Something Bad is Happening and the Liberals Are Guilty.
by Frank Wallis
Laura Ingraham, Shut Up and Sing: How Elites from Hollywood, Politics, and the UN Are Subverting America (Regnery, 2003), is a fair representation of conservative political thought. Ingraham, who is a radio talk show host and prolific op-ed writer, is a graduate of Dartmouth College (Ivy League), got a JD from Virginia Law, specialized in white collar criminal defense, worked in the Reagan administration, and claims to be a friend of Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas. Her book is an attempt to define liberals and expose their "elitism". The attempt fails, but in the process one can only marvel at the abundance of crude stereotypes Ingraham divulges to her audience.
Eventually I will get to some of her arguments but first it is necessary to cover the numerous attributes of the "elites" which so infuriate Ingraham, and one must assume, millions of her devoted fans. Elites (liberals) are never defined in her book, but they are called by many names. It is a contemporary syllabus of errors which any conservative will immediately recognize. Ingraham writes that Elites are defined by a "general outlook". They are cynical, arrogant, un-American, a minority, anti-democracy, hateful of Middle America, self-cultist, liberal, infallible-feeling, godless, Democrat, trial lawyers, god-haters, affirmative action loving, French loving, UN loving, Bill Moyers, PBS, spa-going, Manhattanite, NPR, diverse, left-wing, flag burning, subversive, anti-Israel, traitors, socialist, communist, fascist, aloof, pretentious, turgid, condescending, snobbish, vicious, sex-obsessed, atheist, anti-semitic, genocidal, world government loving, anti-religious, free immigrationist, globalist (seeking to undermine American values and sovereignty), disloyal, NGO loving (Human Rights Watch, Greenpeace, Amnesty International), and march with "fellow travelers". (1-27)
In addition, liberal Elites perpetuate the false myth of oppressed minorities. They hate individualism because individuals can think for themselves. They hate school vouchers. They threaten our world empire with transnational government under the UN. They live in big cities. They are anti-Bush. Their anti-Iraq War stance proves they are anti-American. Ingraham claims to not care what liberal Hollywood says, but then devotes thirty-six pages to a selection of their comments. (40, 60, 64, 70, 80-81, ch.4)
Most telling, the liberal Elite drive around in limousines with black windows, "live in palaces invisible from the road outside, and fly in private jets, while their managers and assistants tell them only what they want to hear."(17) Odd, I thought rich people did that, and most rich people are notoriously conservative. Ingraham's stereotype of the Limousine Liberal runs into a series of contradictions: how can these limousine elitists also be communist subversives? These people are also fascists, so they are not into communism very much, let alone socialism. If liberal, how can they also be communist or fascist, the opposite of liberal? No, the only people these days traveling in sinister looking cars are the Washington conservative lobbyists who actually run the country and write the laws that govern America.
I wondered how long it would take Ingraham to reveal her political base, the people she caters to, and upon whose fears she makes political hay. As early as page thirteen she writes that "True Americans" believe in God, own guns, and want limited government. True Americans want to place God in public schools and in public life. On pages thirty-two and sixty-three Ingraham can't help but let the cat out of the bag, informing her readers that True Americans are white, southern, Christian, and Republican. Some people who call themselves Republican are actually traitors, such as Sen. Olympia Snowe. The 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial was an insult to the South. (35)
Elites want to keep True Americans quiet and out of power. Elite judges fail to follow 18th century jurisprudence and spoil the fun of the majority. In fact, Ingraham maintains that "the majority's rights outweigh the minority's". (49) Not surprisingly, she also asserts that "the minority should grin and bear it". (50)
It is probably shocking for conservatives such as Ingraham that the ethnic diversity of America negates the conservative thesis that majority rights must always take precedence. The only place in America where white Christians can still get away with race-based rule is in the South, but even that is changing. The poor old conservatives in California can no longer play the race card, because everyone is a minority, even white people. It could be a trend for all America. What we have in this country is majority rule, not majority rights: the human and civil rights of the citizen do not depend on the whim of the majority. We choose the rule of law, under a constitution which has been expanding rights since day one. It is liberal progress as opposed to conservative retardation.
Ingraham applies her thesis of hatred to some other important topics: 1) religion and state, 2) the Iraq War, 3) the economy, 4) communism in our colleges, 5) the United Nations, 6) Europe.
Religion
Ingraham is proud to write that she has Roman Catholic grandparents from Poland. Why this is deemed important to the study of liberal Elites is not clear. She has not followed them in staying part of the lower middle-class. Ingraham is a well-connected and wealthy woman intimately familiar with the Washington conservative ruling class. Yet, she is not shy about quoting the Bible to the effect that rich people like herself will not go to Heaven, and that money is the root of all evil. (217) An amazing statement more notable for its contradiction than for its irony.
Ingraham intones the standard conservative litany that Americans are deeply religious: almost half of the population is born-again Christian. True Americans believe in sin, faith-based groups, pray, and read their Bibles. Ingraham tosses a bone of tolerance to the Muslims and also says True Americans read the Koran. This is ingenuous when compared with her later statement that Islamofascists in America threaten the nation. (117, 71) Ingraham writes that God really exists [case closed], must be loved, must be obeyed, and must be acknowledged as the Savior. (115)
There is nothing wrong or objectionable about Ingraham making a personal statement of faith, but she commits an error of generalization and bigotry when she implies that to be American one must be Christian. She states many times that the anti-religious Elite threaten freedom. The infidels are superstitious, such as Ted Turner, Jessie Ventura, Bill Maher, Sen. Charles Schumer, and Sen. Ted Kennedy. (120) At least she announces names, unlike her peer Ann Coulter.
Ingraham presents the standard conservative view of the Founders. The Declaration of Independence in 1776 proved that God granted life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Indeed, 1776 proved that God exists, God created humans, God gave us free will and liberty, and God ordered humans to obey his laws. Jefferson and Madison are quoted from selectively, if in an unsourced manner. Ingraham states that if human rights are not based on God's laws, then they are based on mere human invention. (128, 131)
I should point out that Ingraham's view of 1776 is much like Mel Gibson's view of Jesus: based on belief rather than on evidence. Jefferson the deist (not a born-again Christian) penned the Declaration of Independence, and it is preposterous that this man could have set forth language of a Christian theological nature in an instrument of protest against the British King. I should also point out that the US Constitution refers to not one passage in the Christian Bible, which seems odd if that document was intended to repeat and endorse Hebraic law. The vital point about American founding instruments is their secular character, formed on human consensus, based on reasoned human analysis of government. A human invention of the highest order.
The Iraq War
Like ancient Rome, America must not care if the foreigners hate us. (73) Elites would like to "murder" America and make the world safe for terrorism. (74) In Iraq the True Americans found a cause which inspired increased patriotism. The flag "was everywhere". But Hollywood liberals scandalously proved their anti-Americanism by questioning Bush's claims about WMD. (111) They are dupes of the communists. Indeed, liberal Elites owe Bush an apology for being wrong about Iraq. Saddam was a bad ruler and we had to destroy him. Ingraham touts the conservative slogan that democracy needs to be defended by illiberal means. (149, 166-67) The anti-war faction is thus disloyal and un-American, doing the Devil's work. For some reason Ingraham singles out New York City councilwoman Yvette Clarke (Democrat) and accuses her of stabbing America in the back for opposing the war. (169)
The comparison with Rome is revealing. Conservatives search for a good precedent and fall into the Roman trap. The empire of Augustus is not one in which many Americans would like to live, except for a few conservatives who imagine they would be among the privileged senatorial class. And why not? They already control the American senate. Roman had slaves, no political parties, no women's rights, crucifixion, and emperor worship. A Republican's dream.
So, was George Bush right about WMD, al-Queda in league with Saddam, etc.? If not then Hollywood owes Bush no apologies. In fact, Bush owes Hollywood and the world an apology, at the least. Nobody can bring back the dead servicemen. It must be horrible being trapped in an ideological nightmare.
Ingraham boasts that the US military is not political. The soldiers who fight and die in Iraq do it to defend freedom for America and the world. The US military is more diverse ethnically than the liberal Elites, who shirk military duty. (149-51)
No need to rehash in detail the blatant contradictions here. Other writers have documented the lack of military service on the part of the most virulent of war party conservatives: Vice President Dick Cheney, Rep. Tom Delay (TX), Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, et al. As for diversity, the military at the grunt level is quite diverse, contrasted with the all-white White House. One can only smile in derision at the idea that the US military is non-political. The soldiers who go to Iraq signed up for a job, because they needed paying work. A good soldier does his duty. If the Commander in Chief tells them to go on a mission they will go and get it done, and not let their fellows down, no matter if the casus belli is utterly false and without merit. The cynical manipulation of the soldiers on the ground is sadly typical for conservatives: once they commit the troops it is then easy to smear the anti-war camp with treason. Americans care about their soldiers and hate to see them exposed to war for a pack of lies, but still feel compelled to "support the troops" because they are now committed. Who committed them?
Economy
In the realm of business Ingraham stumbles quickly on a contradiction. First she writes that liberals favor unrestricted immigration and open borders to let in masses of illegal aliens. (189) Then she notes that liberal businessmen favor amnesty for illegal aliens. But it is the conservative businessmen who employ illegals by the tens of millions! Ingraham also accuses the business community of being liberal. Greed and liberalism go hand in hand apparently. Then this whopper: the corporate crime of the 1990s was due to lack of self-regulation. Ingraham proposes more voluntary corporate regulation. (225) Let the rich conservatives who own America keep the books and look out for the health and safety of the rest of us. This suits the friends of Bush, but ordinary Americans should not be fooled.
So, the greedy liberal corporate types must be given a free hand in regulating themselves. I am sorry but this does not add up. Ingraham is not thinking clearly. The chapter on the economy is slap-dash and ill-prepared.
Communists in Our Colleges
"It's well known that in the 1960s, leftists conquered the Academy." (237) This non sequiter begins Ingraham's exposure of communism on campus. How do you know it is "well known"? Well known to whom? Ingraham's proof: a study of campaign contributions among the faculty at twenty-two law schools, and a poll conducted by Republicans at Ithaca College. And of course a sprinkling of absurd leftist quotes from radical professors and the usual David Horowitz red-baiting screeds. (238, 251) Ingraham posits the reasons for this: the NEA opposed school vouchers, and the liberals censor school textbooks. (258-59)
This is another weak chapter with the standard conservative hatred of the NEA (they hate it when workers organize). The bit about censorship is absurd. Ingraham cites Diane Ravitch's excellent monograph, The Language Police, to show liberal tactics but ignores half the book's examples of conservative pressure tactics to get evolution and minorities out of textbooks.
The UN is Evil
Ingraham claims the United Nations wants to rule the United States and take away our guns. They do this through the 26,000 registered NGOs (private charities), because the UN is too weak to topple the US. "We need to take back the UN." (303) France opposed America out of anti-Americanism. They are elite and hate us. No country on earth needs the UN. (288)
I really don't know how to answer the paranoid conspiracy theory about NGOs undermining US sovereignty. How do you prove to someone that the saltine cracker he wears around his neck will not ward off lion attacks? Then, "We" need to take back the UN, as if it were ours to begin with. If it is so weak then why worry? Too powerful. Too weak. All bad.
On the role of the Elite UN and French, George Bush had to back down in the face of failure in Iraq. In a news conference at Ãâ°lysée Palace after lunch with French President Jacques Chirac, United Nations General Secretary Kofi Annan said the UN was sending a team to Baghdad, at the request of George W. Bush, in an effort to end the deadlock over how to transfer power to the Iraqi people (New York Times, 1-28-2004, p.A10). Ingraham's elite UN and elite Chirac make Bush look like a fool.
Evil Europeans
Mercifully, I came to the final chapter about those evil Europeans. Ingraham thinks all Europeans are Elite. A geopolitical unit with twenty-five nations and half a billion people reduced to a word of contempt, the "Elite". One might think Ingraham was trying to be funny when she wrote that the Euros don't understand our love of God, guns, and the death penalty. (314) She is dead serious. Trouble is, I don't understand these manias either.
Ingraham believes the Europeans are jealous of our success. This must explain their hatred of America. Then she supplies another contradiction: Bush does what Europeans used to do before they got wimpy - he uses gunboat diplomacy when certain rulers get out of line. The US has never been the aggressor. (319) The US is never the aggressor, and Bush just uses 19th century gunboat coercion because he feels like it. No contradiction there.
For Ingraham, Europeans are socialist supporters of Third World communists, but they are particularly vile because they believe in peace. (326) Imagine that, peace is immoral!
There is a special place in the heart of conservatives for France. Ever since the French government objected to the Bush War in Iraq, as was their right in international law, following the 90% of voters who opposed the Iraq escapade, the conservatives unleashed their formidable bullying hatred against one of our oldest allies. Ingraham denounced the French as anti-American, greedy, and corrupt. Not just the leadership, but all of "perfidious" France. An un-named Bush aide told her that John Kerry looked French, the lowest insult a conservative could fire at a liberal enemy. (332) Finally, the partisan nature of Ingraham comes out in the last few pages: Democrats are "European", while Republicans are American. (335)
For Ingraham, bigotry is OK when practiced by a conservative, when millions of French people are condemned at perfidious. The double standard meter for political rhetoric is redlined in this book. Conservatives such as Ingraham enjoy a good hate and then blame the liberals for their own malcontent.
Grab your barf bag and click Laura Ingraham for more information about her syndicated conservative radio show.
This article also appears on Bay Area Independent Media Center
Copyright 2004 by Frank Wallis
[url]www.powerskeptic.net/ingraham.htm[/url]
2004-07-16 06:04 | User Profile
I have to laugh out loud each time Ingrahm calls herself a Reagan republican. She's a Bush 43 Republican, barely a level up from what one might scrape off of a shoe or boot.
2004-07-16 07:00 | User Profile
The only differnce I see between Bush and Reagan is 20 years and they are both mainstream America but neither were/are visionaries. Shame for America this is the best we got!
2004-07-16 12:46 | User Profile
Laura Ingraham is vile shill, arrogant and despicable in every thing that comes out of her mouth. I sometimes tune into her radio show for just five minutes and that's enough to fuel my hate for these "conservatives" for the next six months. The delusions these "conservatives" suffer under is seriously alarming and shocking. They'll be the first to swing when the collapse hits.
2004-07-16 14:52 | User Profile
Laura is my kinda gal. Go Laura! [color=red]AND MAY YOU CONTINUE TO PISS OFF THE LEFTISTS FOR YEARS TO COME![/color]
2004-07-16 17:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OPERA96]Laura is my kinda gal. Go Laura! [color=red]AND MAY YOU CONTINUE TO PISS OFF THE LEFTISTS FOR YEARS TO COME![/color][/QUOTE] Looks like we may have a genuine Freeper here.
2004-07-16 19:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Laura Ingraham is vile shill, arrogant and despicable in every thing that comes out of her mouth. I sometimes tune into her radio show for just five minutes and that's enough to fuel my hate for these "conservatives" for the next six months. [QUOTE]
Have to agree. And she constantly keeps laughing at her own observations, apparently thinking if she thinks she's funny her audience will too.
BTW, Bob Dornan has left his radio show after 5 years, apparently just wanting to move on. He is badly flawed, but the nearest thing to an authentic conservtive with national exposure on radio.
2004-07-16 19:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster][QUOTE=xmetalhead]Laura Ingraham is vile shill, arrogant and despicable in every thing that comes out of her mouth. I sometimes tune into her radio show for just five minutes and that's enough to fuel my hate for these "conservatives" for the next six months. [/QUOTE]
Have to agree. And she constantly keeps laughing at her own observations, apparently thinking if she thinks she's funny her audience will too.
BTW, Bob Dornan has left his radio show after 5 years, apparently just wanting to move on. He is badly flawed, but the nearest thing to an authentic conservtive with national exposure on radio.[/QUOTE]
Buster, last week was when I tuned into Ingraham's show while sitting in some traffic jam. She was laughing at her own snide insults on John Edwards. She offered nothing more in her screeches about Edwards than schoolyard kiddie logic along with her own demented speculations. I'm not defending Edwards, but the "conservative" shills like the putrid Ingraham constantly condemn the "liberal" media for bashing W Bush with immature, disproportionate, and unsubstatiated attacks. Oy! These "conservative" whores live comfortably within the world of double-standards.
2004-08-02 09:18 | User Profile
Xmetal,
She's a real virago, isn't she? If she has a boy friend he has to be the most hen pecked person in the world. (with the possible exception of Limbaugh)
2004-08-02 20:41 | User Profile
Buster,
Bob Dornan! :yucky: Come on. That "wetback" loving moron! He still said immagration is good even after it caused him to lose his seat and destroyed the state he lived in. He is a fool!
2004-08-02 20:46 | User Profile
Sertorius,
I understand Rush's marriage to Marta is over. Well I sue she walked out lots of his money. No chidren from any of these marriages of his. Almost make you feel sorry for poor Limbaugh.
2004-08-03 05:27 | User Profile
Faust,
"Almost" is the operative word here. Maybe Limbaugh and Gingrich can get together and write a book on how to have a successful marriage. I think they can write from the perspective on what not to do.